In my latest post I mentioned that the economy was not as rosy as Obama claimed. I heard in the news last night renewed confirmation of what I was stating.
Apparently it is even worse then what I reported... ah but what do I know?
I am not the President right?
Well let's see a little bit of why we are here.
Everyone claims it was the mistakes of George Bush that led us to it... but was it really?
the point has been made that it was not the mortgage issues so much as it was the fact that Banks were rampantly speculating in areas that did not involve banking at all to begin with.
In other words the financial institutions were playing fast and loose in the stock market and took a greater hit than they ought to have.
But how did this happen now? why not in the 80's in the last recession we faced?
It appears that in 1933 the Government passed a law saying the banks could NOT invest in non banking concerns like this. that bill was drafted and made into law precisely because that is what triggered the great depression.
BUT then it turns out that Bill Clinton, when he was president, countered that law allowing the banks to go back into this risky behavior all over again. and now we are paying the price.
therefore, we need to learn from our past! we need to make sure that this cannot happen again.
Please contact your senator or representative and let him or her know that we cannot continue to make the same mistakes over and over.
We NEED to learn from our past.
After all, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"... guess what.. here is our lesson learned (maybe) again.
June 25, 2009
June 24, 2009
Illegal and premature but not for the "media" to say
two points have recently arisen which I feel the need to address.
First, and most important is the issue of Obama breaking the very law that he co-sponsored one year ago in the firing of an Inspector General, with only one hours notice and no "reason" given before the fact, for (allegedly) Blowing the whistle on one of the Obama's apparent friends.
The issue I would like to point out here is not whether the inspector general found something and reported it causing his disfavor.
Neither was it how close the Obama family might have been to the issue.
The point is that ONE year ago, as a senator, Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation which was subsequently passed into LAW, that the President could NOT fire an I.G. without thirty days notice AND a written account of the reason for the removal of the I.G. submitted before hand.
This bill was passed into law in order that people who had the power to make things happen (the rich or powerful) could not abuse that power to thwart accountability.
And yet here he is doing the very thing he made illegal!
He has also thrown another I.G. to the wolves with as little pretext as the first and with less warning then required by law. (again the law HE promoted one year ago!!!!!)
And a third I.G. is apparently being similarly pressured. this really does make me wonder though about the possibility of the truth behind the allegations. (P.S. the F.B.I. has gotten involved in investigating the individual who was caught by the first I.G. so I guess that firing him came too late for the Obama's or their friends if that is really the situation.)
Now for the second point and this is more of an observation.
A while ago I heard people ridiculing George Bush for the photo op where he had his photo taken on board a carrier with a banner in the background saying "mission accomplished". The point to the ridicule was that he was premature in declaring success when , in hindsight, There was still and indeed IS still a ways to go.
But just about a week and a half ago I heard from Barack Obama's own mouth the words that we are moving out of the recession!
Obama declared that he had pulled us out of the mire, the recession was over and all was going to go up, up, up from here.
I commented at the time "I bet this will be like all those other premature declarations."
I specifically thought of the George Bush "gaff" and wondered how the press would respond if I were right in my assesment.
Sure enough just a couple of days ago I noted that the market took another dive, all the "recovery" Obama was pointing at was a false start, and economists were saying that we still are in a recession and if we do not do something and SOON we will be in real trouble. (Like all those thousands of Americans who are now jobless/homeless or whatever are living the good life now?).
The odd thing to me is that the press is not pushing the issue like they did with George Bush.
I am glad that I do not rely on the "normal"? "regular"? how about just "mainstream" media to report things.
I like to think, I like to get all the facts and base my thoughts and ideas on reality and ALL the facts.
They seem to report only the stuff they want to so they can control what the American people think, depriving their adherents of the complete and total truth. (kinda like the issues of gun violence etc...)
I think it is time that we all stood up and said "we want FAIR, TOTAL and HONEST reporting! not your biased opinion, not numbers skewed so that we only see what you want us to see. And not just the sensational."
First, and most important is the issue of Obama breaking the very law that he co-sponsored one year ago in the firing of an Inspector General, with only one hours notice and no "reason" given before the fact, for (allegedly) Blowing the whistle on one of the Obama's apparent friends.
The issue I would like to point out here is not whether the inspector general found something and reported it causing his disfavor.
Neither was it how close the Obama family might have been to the issue.
The point is that ONE year ago, as a senator, Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation which was subsequently passed into LAW, that the President could NOT fire an I.G. without thirty days notice AND a written account of the reason for the removal of the I.G. submitted before hand.
This bill was passed into law in order that people who had the power to make things happen (the rich or powerful) could not abuse that power to thwart accountability.
And yet here he is doing the very thing he made illegal!
He has also thrown another I.G. to the wolves with as little pretext as the first and with less warning then required by law. (again the law HE promoted one year ago!!!!!)
And a third I.G. is apparently being similarly pressured. this really does make me wonder though about the possibility of the truth behind the allegations. (P.S. the F.B.I. has gotten involved in investigating the individual who was caught by the first I.G. so I guess that firing him came too late for the Obama's or their friends if that is really the situation.)
Now for the second point and this is more of an observation.
A while ago I heard people ridiculing George Bush for the photo op where he had his photo taken on board a carrier with a banner in the background saying "mission accomplished". The point to the ridicule was that he was premature in declaring success when , in hindsight, There was still and indeed IS still a ways to go.
But just about a week and a half ago I heard from Barack Obama's own mouth the words that we are moving out of the recession!
Obama declared that he had pulled us out of the mire, the recession was over and all was going to go up, up, up from here.
I commented at the time "I bet this will be like all those other premature declarations."
I specifically thought of the George Bush "gaff" and wondered how the press would respond if I were right in my assesment.
Sure enough just a couple of days ago I noted that the market took another dive, all the "recovery" Obama was pointing at was a false start, and economists were saying that we still are in a recession and if we do not do something and SOON we will be in real trouble. (Like all those thousands of Americans who are now jobless/homeless or whatever are living the good life now?).
The odd thing to me is that the press is not pushing the issue like they did with George Bush.
I am glad that I do not rely on the "normal"? "regular"? how about just "mainstream" media to report things.
I like to think, I like to get all the facts and base my thoughts and ideas on reality and ALL the facts.
They seem to report only the stuff they want to so they can control what the American people think, depriving their adherents of the complete and total truth. (kinda like the issues of gun violence etc...)
I think it is time that we all stood up and said "we want FAIR, TOTAL and HONEST reporting! not your biased opinion, not numbers skewed so that we only see what you want us to see. And not just the sensational."
June 15, 2009
Bumper sticker politics. part deux
on the way home from work I often pass a pontiac cruiser that has a lot of bumper stickers on the back of it. the person who owns this vehicle is very obviously pro Obama.
But I have to take issue with one of the bumper stickers and so here we are.
The Bumper sticker is trying to be "witty" but falls short, stating "January 20, 2009 the end of an error."
The point it is trying to make was that George Bush was an "error" the "witty" part was the play on words... replacing Era with Error.
Anyway...
I decided today that I suppose I can concede the point in that message. George Bush did err while in office. Most presidents do! Some points I disagree with him on are...
1. The no child left behind act. this act was not thought through and led to students losing the chance to learn because there was no funding attached to the law and resources had to be redirected that might have benefited more.
2. T.A.R.P. funds. I think the Government should NOT be trying to subsidize businesses even if they are "too big to fail" I think of it more as "the bigger they are the harder they fall"... and the longer you stand under them trying to prop them up the more likely it is that WHEN they fall (because they still will) the more likely they are to take you out with them. (proven now by GM and Chrysler BTW)
3. not reinforcing the border security that we so desperately need. no further comment necessary here.
4. Spreading the military too thin. We do not need to have our military scattered everywhere around the world all the time. when we went into the current wars we ought to have first increased troop strength and second made certain that we had solid exit strategies and realistic timetables for withdrawal.
Here is the thing, If George Bush was an error, then The current administration is a disaster. an error is forgetting to pack a spoon in your lunch so you cannot eat your yogurt or pudding or whatever. We now have an admin in place that not only forgot the spoon but didn't even bother to pack a lunch!
They then want to inflict their poor choice making on the rest of us demanding that we all have to STARVE because they have a problem due to their own shortsightedness. Not only has President Obama failed to FIX the problems George Bush left us, he has compounded the problems and then LIED TO OUR FACES about it.
Not only do we have to face a poorly funded No child left behind act, Now Obama wants to add a poorly funded health care plan that has even LESS thought placed in it then the No child left behind act.
He increased the amount of money handed over to companies that were failing, drawing out the painful process of watching the giant companies flounder creating extra stress and uncertainty on wall street.
Not only are our borders STILL unprotected but he is trying to push for amnesty for all the illegal aliens and stretch our resources even further even though they already are insufficient.
And now we are facing further possible troop deployments because everyone sees the U.S. as being weak because of HIS prevarication. (oh yeah Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough... let's also face Korea, Iran, Pakistan,...)
So to the person who thinks Obama getting into office was the end of an error? how about this. I think this is more a case of "from the frying pan into the fire!" and frankly I think all I can hope for is that we don't ALL get burned.
But I have to take issue with one of the bumper stickers and so here we are.
The Bumper sticker is trying to be "witty" but falls short, stating "January 20, 2009 the end of an error."
The point it is trying to make was that George Bush was an "error" the "witty" part was the play on words... replacing Era with Error.
Anyway...
I decided today that I suppose I can concede the point in that message. George Bush did err while in office. Most presidents do! Some points I disagree with him on are...
1. The no child left behind act. this act was not thought through and led to students losing the chance to learn because there was no funding attached to the law and resources had to be redirected that might have benefited more.
2. T.A.R.P. funds. I think the Government should NOT be trying to subsidize businesses even if they are "too big to fail" I think of it more as "the bigger they are the harder they fall"... and the longer you stand under them trying to prop them up the more likely it is that WHEN they fall (because they still will) the more likely they are to take you out with them. (proven now by GM and Chrysler BTW)
3. not reinforcing the border security that we so desperately need. no further comment necessary here.
4. Spreading the military too thin. We do not need to have our military scattered everywhere around the world all the time. when we went into the current wars we ought to have first increased troop strength and second made certain that we had solid exit strategies and realistic timetables for withdrawal.
Here is the thing, If George Bush was an error, then The current administration is a disaster. an error is forgetting to pack a spoon in your lunch so you cannot eat your yogurt or pudding or whatever. We now have an admin in place that not only forgot the spoon but didn't even bother to pack a lunch!
They then want to inflict their poor choice making on the rest of us demanding that we all have to STARVE because they have a problem due to their own shortsightedness. Not only has President Obama failed to FIX the problems George Bush left us, he has compounded the problems and then LIED TO OUR FACES about it.
Not only do we have to face a poorly funded No child left behind act, Now Obama wants to add a poorly funded health care plan that has even LESS thought placed in it then the No child left behind act.
He increased the amount of money handed over to companies that were failing, drawing out the painful process of watching the giant companies flounder creating extra stress and uncertainty on wall street.
Not only are our borders STILL unprotected but he is trying to push for amnesty for all the illegal aliens and stretch our resources even further even though they already are insufficient.
And now we are facing further possible troop deployments because everyone sees the U.S. as being weak because of HIS prevarication. (oh yeah Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough... let's also face Korea, Iran, Pakistan,...)
So to the person who thinks Obama getting into office was the end of an error? how about this. I think this is more a case of "from the frying pan into the fire!" and frankly I think all I can hope for is that we don't ALL get burned.
June 05, 2009
Our, ahem, education crisis
I was thinking recently about someone with whom I tried to have a conversation.
I realized the other day why I could not get through to her... she was brainwashed. that's right she was programmed, not only was she programmed but it was done by a public school.
I have long lamented that the schools I had to deal with were uninterested in teaching the kids how to think and were more interested in making the kids memorize. I think this is becoming more and more epidemic of all our learning institutions and in this case I am afraid it might prove fatal to our country.
She had no grasp of reality, history or how to think for herself. all she could do was spout the "facts" she memorized (BTW this is at the college level I am talking about).
when I presented her with the facts, and when I showed her incontrovertible evidence, all she could do was fall back on the old evade and redirect tactics employed by liberals everywhere.
I was discussing Equality and the lack thereof in our society, she had to make it about Racism.
"no, no," I would say, "I want equality, true equality!" and her response was "that is a racist attitude." now I ask you since when is wanting equality racist?
She denied that inequality exists. I pointed out to her that there is so MUCH inequality that it has even leaked into the major media networks despite their trying to do all they can to cover it up. So she switched tactics well the inequality you are talking about is nothing compared to the inequality faced by others.
So I try pointing out that while the inequality she is referring to was horrendous, I do not deny it's existence and I am as quick to condemn it as anyone, This still isn't addressing the issue I brought up, That is in the past I am talking about right now.
"My point is," I rephrase, "Any inequality or discrimination is bad. and we need to fix the discrimination/inequalities that exist right NOW."
"Well there are lots of things that you get to have still." she states then she proceeds to list a lot of Things that "I have that others don't" unfortunately she is wrong historically and realistically.
I point this out to her and give her the real facts even showing her where she can verify them.
She ignores what I say and repeats herself, Oh but wait did I detect a note of self doubt? so I repeat my points again...
It then hit me. this whole byplay reminded me of the movie "Hunt for Red October." there is a scene where the U.S. Submarine is following a new Soviet Sub. the Soviets have developed a new super quiet drive system. when the new drive is switched on the computer decides that what it is hearing is "Magma Displacement" see the computer cannot think so it falls back on it old programming which happens to be seismic studies. The Sonar man however has a mind and can think. so he is able to figure out what it really is.
That was what I was trying to struggle against. this person was "programmed" and cannot think.
I was trying to overcome memorization with logic and thought. and these things don't compute. all because the teache... wait no the Programmer had a bone to pick with a certain race and so foisted this off an the poor girl.
The worst part is that it is not only permitted, it is encouraged today. because this is what the "politically correct" want.
I realized the other day why I could not get through to her... she was brainwashed. that's right she was programmed, not only was she programmed but it was done by a public school.
I have long lamented that the schools I had to deal with were uninterested in teaching the kids how to think and were more interested in making the kids memorize. I think this is becoming more and more epidemic of all our learning institutions and in this case I am afraid it might prove fatal to our country.
She had no grasp of reality, history or how to think for herself. all she could do was spout the "facts" she memorized (BTW this is at the college level I am talking about).
when I presented her with the facts, and when I showed her incontrovertible evidence, all she could do was fall back on the old evade and redirect tactics employed by liberals everywhere.
I was discussing Equality and the lack thereof in our society, she had to make it about Racism.
"no, no," I would say, "I want equality, true equality!" and her response was "that is a racist attitude." now I ask you since when is wanting equality racist?
She denied that inequality exists. I pointed out to her that there is so MUCH inequality that it has even leaked into the major media networks despite their trying to do all they can to cover it up. So she switched tactics well the inequality you are talking about is nothing compared to the inequality faced by others.
So I try pointing out that while the inequality she is referring to was horrendous, I do not deny it's existence and I am as quick to condemn it as anyone, This still isn't addressing the issue I brought up, That is in the past I am talking about right now.
"My point is," I rephrase, "Any inequality or discrimination is bad. and we need to fix the discrimination/inequalities that exist right NOW."
"Well there are lots of things that you get to have still." she states then she proceeds to list a lot of Things that "I have that others don't" unfortunately she is wrong historically and realistically.
I point this out to her and give her the real facts even showing her where she can verify them.
She ignores what I say and repeats herself, Oh but wait did I detect a note of self doubt? so I repeat my points again...
It then hit me. this whole byplay reminded me of the movie "Hunt for Red October." there is a scene where the U.S. Submarine is following a new Soviet Sub. the Soviets have developed a new super quiet drive system. when the new drive is switched on the computer decides that what it is hearing is "Magma Displacement" see the computer cannot think so it falls back on it old programming which happens to be seismic studies. The Sonar man however has a mind and can think. so he is able to figure out what it really is.
That was what I was trying to struggle against. this person was "programmed" and cannot think.
I was trying to overcome memorization with logic and thought. and these things don't compute. all because the teache... wait no the Programmer had a bone to pick with a certain race and so foisted this off an the poor girl.
The worst part is that it is not only permitted, it is encouraged today. because this is what the "politically correct" want.
June 04, 2009
I ought to have started here...
One thing I ought to have started this with was a major point that I now make.
I want to make sure I let you all know, I have no problem with authority or authority figures.
My problem is with abuse of authority.
That is what I am seeing and therefore fighting in our society.
what with people trying so Hard to be politically Correct, or touting Diversity as the only way to get things done. Forcing people into comprimising their values, threatening the wellbeing and health of Americans who disagree... well those are things that the Founding fathers went to great lengths to stop.
An example I would like to use; now that they have the Government tied up the democrats are doing everything in their power (Which is considerable right now)to promote their agenda.
This agenda has nothing to do with the well being of America! it serves ONLY the democrats; it includes making sure Democrats have the edge in ALL future elections, it includes paying off the people they like (especially if that gets them future favors), and it includes doing whatever they can to make sure that, if ever someone tries to reinforce the Constitution they will still get there piece of the pie. ( in other words it includes decimating the Constitution and all it stands for.)
Case in point it recently came to my attention that when GM went into bankruptcy the Government took it over (which they even admit too, why is our GOVERNMENT not doing the job of government and is instead micro managing a car company?).
Then the Dems refuse to abide by the laws of bankruptcy in order to make sure that their favored group/s, namely the UAW, got preferred treatment over the stock holders who got hit with enormous loss.
They shoved BILLIONS of dollars into failing companies in order to " keep them from going bankrupt", which they did/are doing anyway, and now that they are going bankrupt they are forcing GM and Chrysler to give up all the lines of vehicles the democrats don't like in favor of more dangerous cars, "oh but they are better for the environment" ( yeah right... A Republican senator from Colorado recently pointed out that they are on the verge of figuring out how to build the Hummer so that it will get "100 miles to the gallon". but that technology has been stopped because the Dems want Hummer to go to China.)
And they are also closing dealers... oh but wait, not just any dealers. apparently as I understand it, it turns out that most of ( if not ALL of) the dealers on the list to be closed contributed significantly to the Republican party (or at least They donated to Obama's opponents). Meanwhile if a dealer gave money to the Obama? nope it is business better than usual for them.
Look here for details...Dealergate
Or HERE
and HERE I have a link to a letter written by one of those dealers who is losing his livelihood. Although I do want to point out one thing in particular to think on.
And there you have it. THIS ladies and Gentlemen is the "change" that Obama wants to bring to the United States.
The Change of making the Democrats the ruling party in a sort of democratic dictatorship if you will.
I want to make sure I let you all know, I have no problem with authority or authority figures.
My problem is with abuse of authority.
That is what I am seeing and therefore fighting in our society.
what with people trying so Hard to be politically Correct, or touting Diversity as the only way to get things done. Forcing people into comprimising their values, threatening the wellbeing and health of Americans who disagree... well those are things that the Founding fathers went to great lengths to stop.
An example I would like to use; now that they have the Government tied up the democrats are doing everything in their power (Which is considerable right now)to promote their agenda.
This agenda has nothing to do with the well being of America! it serves ONLY the democrats; it includes making sure Democrats have the edge in ALL future elections, it includes paying off the people they like (especially if that gets them future favors), and it includes doing whatever they can to make sure that, if ever someone tries to reinforce the Constitution they will still get there piece of the pie. ( in other words it includes decimating the Constitution and all it stands for.)
Case in point it recently came to my attention that when GM went into bankruptcy the Government took it over (which they even admit too, why is our GOVERNMENT not doing the job of government and is instead micro managing a car company?).
Then the Dems refuse to abide by the laws of bankruptcy in order to make sure that their favored group/s, namely the UAW, got preferred treatment over the stock holders who got hit with enormous loss.
They shoved BILLIONS of dollars into failing companies in order to " keep them from going bankrupt", which they did/are doing anyway, and now that they are going bankrupt they are forcing GM and Chrysler to give up all the lines of vehicles the democrats don't like in favor of more dangerous cars, "oh but they are better for the environment" ( yeah right... A Republican senator from Colorado recently pointed out that they are on the verge of figuring out how to build the Hummer so that it will get "100 miles to the gallon". but that technology has been stopped because the Dems want Hummer to go to China.)
And they are also closing dealers... oh but wait, not just any dealers. apparently as I understand it, it turns out that most of ( if not ALL of) the dealers on the list to be closed contributed significantly to the Republican party (or at least They donated to Obama's opponents). Meanwhile if a dealer gave money to the Obama? nope it is business better than usual for them.
Look here for details...Dealergate
Or HERE
and HERE I have a link to a letter written by one of those dealers who is losing his livelihood. Although I do want to point out one thing in particular to think on.
"On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.
And there you have it. THIS ladies and Gentlemen is the "change" that Obama wants to bring to the United States.
The Change of making the Democrats the ruling party in a sort of democratic dictatorship if you will.
June 03, 2009
Discrimination.
I recently posted a bit of the tiff I was having with my Cousin. BTW, she still maintains I am wrong but...
So I sent her an E-mail today, honestly I am a little upset with myself that I did. I called her closed minded. I hate devolving to the lower levels, leaves me feeling icky.
in fact here is what I said to her.
The someone else I "sent" her; was Mr. Thomas Sowell. an African American and altogether down to earth kind of guy.
He was talking about the impending appointment of Mrs. Sotomayor to the supreme court. In that article... well why don't you Check it out yourself? (<--- click on the white.)
I highlighted certain parts, so I would like to give you those points...
...
...
...
...
And so on.
See that was exactly my point. there is a new breed of discrimination out there, and it is aimed at whites.
And whatever the past may have. I am trying to focus on NOW.
It could be argued that all races in this world have faced atrocities beyond belief in the past.
But as much as I like History, I do not live there. I choose to live here and now; and living here and now means confronting the injustices of here and now.
The real benefit we can get from looking at the past is to see what mistakes were made so they are not made now, but the argument of my cousin is that we need to live in the past now so we can "make up" for the things done to minorities in America then, and that attitude is what is driving us to the brink of the same problems all over again.
There is nothing we can do now, about then.
So let's start focusing on making it right for ALL people today.
So I sent her an E-mail today, honestly I am a little upset with myself that I did. I called her closed minded. I hate devolving to the lower levels, leaves me feeling icky.
in fact here is what I said to her.
I am so sorry that you have been exhausted by our Debate.
I really wish you would LISTEN to me instead of flying off the handle trying to intimate that I am a racist jerk (yes my words you did not say them but you DID imply them.)!
I have tried to explain to you that you totally misinterpreted the original e-mail, I tried to interpret it for you, and you wouldn't "listen" now I finally give up.
I will take a brief moment to point out that approximately 70% of everything you tried to state regarding WHY you were arguing with me was at best misinformation at worst a complete and utter lie.
For example there is not a single "Whites only" holiday out there. there never was. You cite Christmas and Easter.
AGAIN Christmas and Easter are CHRISTIAN Holidays and the very first Christians were ALL "MINORITIES". if there was EVER an all white religion it is either druidism or the Norse gods of Asgard. (and neither of those have holidays that we celebrate in the U.S.)
You cite St Patrick's day (again this could be considered Christian) but in the history of America, Irishmen, which is whom the holiday would be aimed at, at one time were reviled as much as, if not even MORE than, African or Asian Americans. This is Historical fact. Look it up.
But if you really want to keep insisting that Christianity is all white, then I do win because in that case, African's have faced slavery and persecution for about 300 years as far as that goes, But Christians are still persecuted today, they have been fed to Lions for people's amusement, they have been beaten, Stoned, Crucified, Burned to death, Drawn and Quartered (particularly nasty that.) shall I go on?
Therefore if you really want to claim that the RELIGIOUS holidays of Christmas and Easter are ALL whites only then you have to accept that logically that means white men have suffered more and longer than any other race.
Otherwise we come back to my original point. there is no special treatment for White's BUT there is for Everyone else who will avail themselves of it.
I think, however, that you are too closed minded to hear me. so I will try to let you hear from someone else.
The someone else I "sent" her; was Mr. Thomas Sowell. an African American and altogether down to earth kind of guy.
He was talking about the impending appointment of Mrs. Sotomayor to the supreme court. In that article... well why don't you Check it out yourself? (<--- click on the white.)
I highlighted certain parts, so I would like to give you those points...
In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."
...
What could such statements possibly mean -- in any context -- other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.
...
Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.
...
Apparently the famous "empathy" that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor's court.
...
And so on.
See that was exactly my point. there is a new breed of discrimination out there, and it is aimed at whites.
And whatever the past may have. I am trying to focus on NOW.
It could be argued that all races in this world have faced atrocities beyond belief in the past.
But as much as I like History, I do not live there. I choose to live here and now; and living here and now means confronting the injustices of here and now.
The real benefit we can get from looking at the past is to see what mistakes were made so they are not made now, but the argument of my cousin is that we need to live in the past now so we can "make up" for the things done to minorities in America then, and that attitude is what is driving us to the brink of the same problems all over again.
There is nothing we can do now, about then.
So let's start focusing on making it right for ALL people today.
June 02, 2009
Oh PUHHLLEEEAAASSSEEE!
Allright listen up people's...
Please let's all drop the ridiculous conspiracy theories!
I mean why? why do you insist that everyone is out to get you?
You know psychiatry has a word for that! it is "PARANOIA".
And don't give me the old line of "just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me."
Look in order for a good conspiracy to really work, all the conspirators would have to be able to keep their mouths shut!
Most of the "conspiracies" I hear about would require a LOT of conspirators. And worse all of those conspirators would have to be 100% without a doubt died in the wool Devils. that's right the levels of depravity you are talking about would require supernatural levels in order for the sheer evilness to happen.
So Either their is a HUMONGOUS number of Demons walking the earth ( in which case we might as well just drop to our knees right now and start praying cause there ain't nothin WE are going to be able to do.) or the whole idea of these conspiracies are totally Bogus!
So get over it people. use your brains PLEASE! before I lose my mind.
Please let's all drop the ridiculous conspiracy theories!
I mean why? why do you insist that everyone is out to get you?
You know psychiatry has a word for that! it is "PARANOIA".
And don't give me the old line of "just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me."
Look in order for a good conspiracy to really work, all the conspirators would have to be able to keep their mouths shut!
Most of the "conspiracies" I hear about would require a LOT of conspirators. And worse all of those conspirators would have to be 100% without a doubt died in the wool Devils. that's right the levels of depravity you are talking about would require supernatural levels in order for the sheer evilness to happen.
So Either their is a HUMONGOUS number of Demons walking the earth ( in which case we might as well just drop to our knees right now and start praying cause there ain't nothin WE are going to be able to do.) or the whole idea of these conspiracies are totally Bogus!
So get over it people. use your brains PLEASE! before I lose my mind.
Stop with the scapegoat thing
Okay about done now. this post showed up on, Thursday, October 2, 2008
I want to start by asking why?
Why do I keep hearing people Whining and complaining about President Bush, trying to blame him for everything...
In fact for that matter People seem to like to complain about the president in general; no matter who is in office.
I listen to talk radio at work and sometimes there is a parade of people who simply want to whine about the president, presidents past tense and potential future presidents.
My question is why are these people complaining?
Winston Churchill once said "if you are not part of the solution, then you ARE a part of the problem!"
Our Government is a government "OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people." so if there is a problem in our government then the problem everyone is with YOU, THE PEOPLE.
You say George W Bush is responsible for the War in Iraq. I say no, not really! let me explain...
In order for our country to go to war Congress has to declare it... NOT THE PRESIDENT.
Some would say, "Well he misled congress into thinking we had to go there."
Well that is just a cop out!
Congress has the responsibility to make sure there is just cause to go to war. therefore, assuming the war in Iraq WASN'T necessary, either Congress dropped the ball by not doing the necessary research first OR they did the research and erroneously came to the same conclusion as the president.
So we would Blame George Bush and excuse Congress for the same mistake? Why do we blame the president?
If you really want to complain or blame someone then blame congress or better yet Blame yourself/yourselves! After all you ARE the ones who put those members of Congress in office (and also the president... TWICE). so you are as responsible for this situation as anyone else.
And if you say you didn't vote then you are NOT contributing to the solution and therefore, according to Churchill, you ARE part of the problem.
Thank you
I want to start by asking why?
Why do I keep hearing people Whining and complaining about President Bush, trying to blame him for everything...
In fact for that matter People seem to like to complain about the president in general; no matter who is in office.
I listen to talk radio at work and sometimes there is a parade of people who simply want to whine about the president, presidents past tense and potential future presidents.
My question is why are these people complaining?
Winston Churchill once said "if you are not part of the solution, then you ARE a part of the problem!"
Our Government is a government "OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people." so if there is a problem in our government then the problem everyone is with YOU, THE PEOPLE.
You say George W Bush is responsible for the War in Iraq. I say no, not really! let me explain...
In order for our country to go to war Congress has to declare it... NOT THE PRESIDENT.
Some would say, "Well he misled congress into thinking we had to go there."
Well that is just a cop out!
Congress has the responsibility to make sure there is just cause to go to war. therefore, assuming the war in Iraq WASN'T necessary, either Congress dropped the ball by not doing the necessary research first OR they did the research and erroneously came to the same conclusion as the president.
So we would Blame George Bush and excuse Congress for the same mistake? Why do we blame the president?
If you really want to complain or blame someone then blame congress or better yet Blame yourself/yourselves! After all you ARE the ones who put those members of Congress in office (and also the president... TWICE). so you are as responsible for this situation as anyone else.
And if you say you didn't vote then you are NOT contributing to the solution and therefore, according to Churchill, you ARE part of the problem.
Thank you
Bangity bang.
Editor's note... I was surprised to find that I had posted this. I guess I ought to look at prior postings before re-posting the same idea... then again this is an important issue.. Originally this post was made on,Sunday, February 8, 2009
Today I want to talk about gun control.
I occasionally wonder about the lack of common sense I see around me. One area where I find common sense to really be lacking is in the area of Gun control!
Proponents for gun control insist that by controlling guns crime will be reduced. My response is " what world are you living in??? !!! I mean come on here! really if you take away honest citizens guns then crime will go down???" I think not!
If you make a law to control guns then who will give up their guns? law abiding people.
The term Law abiding means "people who follow the law!"
Do criminals follow the law? NO! the word criminal refers to someone who breaks the law!
I guess I have to spell this one out for people though... Crime is committed BY
C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S.
what do you expect the criminal to say... "oh I was going to use a gun to rob that convenience store but oops apparently NOW it is "illegal to have a gun... oh well."???
I recently found out that statistics point out that somewhere around 450,000 crimes a year are committed with a gun. that is a figure that makes people go "see see told you." But wait there is more to the story!
On average over 2,000,000 VIOLENT crimes a year are STOPPED BY SOMEONE WITH A GUN!
So there are two MILLION crimes that are stopped PER YEAR by the possession of handguns.
There are four hundred and fifty THOUSAND Crimes committed with handguns.
And let's be honest... Even if you could enforce gun laws, criminals who don't have the possibility of owning a handgun would still NOT be deterred from committing crimes. They would simply prey on whoever was weaker than they are or they would group together to take out easier targets.
Now for a few little known facts...
Hitler implemented gun control laws prior to subjecting people to concentration camps.
(They could not defend themselves because they had no guns.)
Areas that have a high gun ownership rate amongst their populace have lower crime levels.
Hawai'i implemented gun bans and saw their crime rate skyrocket. (so did Washington D.C., Chicago, Britain, Ireland, Australia...)
So please people let's start thinking again. let's make "common sense" Common again.
Posted by Colt at Sunday, February 08, 2009
Today I want to talk about gun control.
I occasionally wonder about the lack of common sense I see around me. One area where I find common sense to really be lacking is in the area of Gun control!
Proponents for gun control insist that by controlling guns crime will be reduced. My response is " what world are you living in??? !!! I mean come on here! really if you take away honest citizens guns then crime will go down???" I think not!
If you make a law to control guns then who will give up their guns? law abiding people.
The term Law abiding means "people who follow the law!"
Do criminals follow the law? NO! the word criminal refers to someone who breaks the law!
I guess I have to spell this one out for people though... Crime is committed BY
C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S.
what do you expect the criminal to say... "oh I was going to use a gun to rob that convenience store but oops apparently NOW it is "illegal to have a gun... oh well."???
I recently found out that statistics point out that somewhere around 450,000 crimes a year are committed with a gun. that is a figure that makes people go "see see told you." But wait there is more to the story!
On average over 2,000,000 VIOLENT crimes a year are STOPPED BY SOMEONE WITH A GUN!
So there are two MILLION crimes that are stopped PER YEAR by the possession of handguns.
There are four hundred and fifty THOUSAND Crimes committed with handguns.
And let's be honest... Even if you could enforce gun laws, criminals who don't have the possibility of owning a handgun would still NOT be deterred from committing crimes. They would simply prey on whoever was weaker than they are or they would group together to take out easier targets.
Now for a few little known facts...
Hitler implemented gun control laws prior to subjecting people to concentration camps.
(They could not defend themselves because they had no guns.)
Areas that have a high gun ownership rate amongst their populace have lower crime levels.
Hawai'i implemented gun bans and saw their crime rate skyrocket. (so did Washington D.C., Chicago, Britain, Ireland, Australia...)
So please people let's start thinking again. let's make "common sense" Common again.
Posted by Colt at Sunday, February 08, 2009
Can liberals count?
Original post, Thursday, February 5, 2009
I heard a great one last night!
I remember during a campaign speech Barack Obama said... he had visited "57 states" in the United States. Not sure where he gets 57... last I checked there were only 50.
Now apparently Nancy Pelosi believes that 500,000,000 Americans are losing their jobs every month! This is an amazing feat! Last I saw there were only about 305,000,000 people living in America! Oh but don't take MY word for it.
For Barack Obama's math skills...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
And for Pelosi's gaff...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E
One more point about Obama's screw up, He says he has visited 57 states he still has one to go and he didn't have the chance to go to Alaska or Hawai'i so in reality he thinks there are 60, that's right SIXTY states in the union.
I heard a great one last night!
I remember during a campaign speech Barack Obama said... he had visited "57 states" in the United States. Not sure where he gets 57... last I checked there were only 50.
Now apparently Nancy Pelosi believes that 500,000,000 Americans are losing their jobs every month! This is an amazing feat! Last I saw there were only about 305,000,000 people living in America! Oh but don't take MY word for it.
For Barack Obama's math skills...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
And for Pelosi's gaff...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E
One more point about Obama's screw up, He says he has visited 57 states he still has one to go and he didn't have the chance to go to Alaska or Hawai'i so in reality he thinks there are 60, that's right SIXTY states in the union.
Hatemongers?
Original post date, Thursday, February 5, 2009
I find it interesting to note that there are people out there who are constantly demanding that EVERYONE has to accept them, but they cannot accept others.
Usually these people are referred to as Liberal Extremists.
A great example are the ones who insist people ought to be allowed to get married even though they practice an "alternative" lifestyle.
In California they recently passed Proposition 8. This Proposition declared that marriage is a covenant between ONE man And ONE woman.
Well since then I have seen or heard about groups of people who were against prop 8 who have been threatening, harassing, even causing harm to property of people or the people themselves who voted for or pushed for Prop 8.
They are trying to get it overturned in courts, they are protesting in the streets. they refuse to accept the will of the people. They refuse to accept that others might possibly think differently then they do. BUT we have to accept them.
Likewise some of the people who first got upset with Obama got mad at him for doing something that he said he would do if elected.
He tried bringing the conservatives together, erasing the divisions that were driving our country apart, to include them in his inauguration and his cabinet and these same people I mentioned before Started screaming bloody murder! they didn't want to have ANY conservative input whatsoever.
Nevermind that a large percentage of our country is conservative.
These are people who INSIST that everyone has to give them everything!
(they claim it is just to be fair but let's look at it for what it really is.)
When you give them what they first ask for it isn't enough. Kinda like in the children's book if you give a mouse a cookie.
I really question the maturity and/or mentality of these people.
To me they seem like a little child who was slighted by receiving one less chocolate chip than their sibling.
Instantly the child demands that they get at least as many as their brother or sister! but these spoiled brats take it further! Getting the same amount won't do! It isn't enough!!!
to satisfy this child now what you must do is immediately take away ALL the chocolate chips that the sibling got , give them to the one who was slighted in the first place and then (for good measure) Make sure that the sibling Never Ever EVER gets another chocolate chip EVER again or else!
Therefore I ask you When will we FINALLY reach the point of fairness? I am all for (true, real, honest) Equality!
I am not for giving someone preferential treatment just because he or she is (or was) a minority.
I find it interesting to note that there are people out there who are constantly demanding that EVERYONE has to accept them, but they cannot accept others.
Usually these people are referred to as Liberal Extremists.
A great example are the ones who insist people ought to be allowed to get married even though they practice an "alternative" lifestyle.
In California they recently passed Proposition 8. This Proposition declared that marriage is a covenant between ONE man And ONE woman.
Well since then I have seen or heard about groups of people who were against prop 8 who have been threatening, harassing, even causing harm to property of people or the people themselves who voted for or pushed for Prop 8.
They are trying to get it overturned in courts, they are protesting in the streets. they refuse to accept the will of the people. They refuse to accept that others might possibly think differently then they do. BUT we have to accept them.
Likewise some of the people who first got upset with Obama got mad at him for doing something that he said he would do if elected.
He tried bringing the conservatives together, erasing the divisions that were driving our country apart, to include them in his inauguration and his cabinet and these same people I mentioned before Started screaming bloody murder! they didn't want to have ANY conservative input whatsoever.
Nevermind that a large percentage of our country is conservative.
These are people who INSIST that everyone has to give them everything!
(they claim it is just to be fair but let's look at it for what it really is.)
When you give them what they first ask for it isn't enough. Kinda like in the children's book if you give a mouse a cookie.
I really question the maturity and/or mentality of these people.
To me they seem like a little child who was slighted by receiving one less chocolate chip than their sibling.
Instantly the child demands that they get at least as many as their brother or sister! but these spoiled brats take it further! Getting the same amount won't do! It isn't enough!!!
to satisfy this child now what you must do is immediately take away ALL the chocolate chips that the sibling got , give them to the one who was slighted in the first place and then (for good measure) Make sure that the sibling Never Ever EVER gets another chocolate chip EVER again or else!
Therefore I ask you When will we FINALLY reach the point of fairness? I am all for (true, real, honest) Equality!
I am not for giving someone preferential treatment just because he or she is (or was) a minority.
Bumper sticker politics.
Original post date, Wednesday, February 4, 2009
I saw a Bumper sticker once, which read "The last time religion and politics mixed, people were burned at the stake."
I actually took offense at this trivialization.
This statement really is problematic in several ways! first of all, the last time "Religion" or a strong belief in morality and the hereafter, became involved in Politics a new country was born.
Namely the United states of America.
The Founding fathers were all devout in their beliefs and the statements that they made, the papers they wrote and the lives they lived strongly support this.
One of the founding fathers even wrote that " For a democracy, such as the one we are attempting, to succeed Faith in God MUST be a part of it."
And according to MY studies of History, the last time people were burned at the stake "politics" didn't enter into consideration, it wasn't about politics it was about Hate and fear.
The funny thing is this Bumper sticker is encouraging the same fear and hate that caused people to be burned at the stake to begin with.
I think we need to think before we say things that are so wrong. Let’s Get it right people.
I saw a Bumper sticker once, which read "The last time religion and politics mixed, people were burned at the stake."
I actually took offense at this trivialization.
This statement really is problematic in several ways! first of all, the last time "Religion" or a strong belief in morality and the hereafter, became involved in Politics a new country was born.
Namely the United states of America.
The Founding fathers were all devout in their beliefs and the statements that they made, the papers they wrote and the lives they lived strongly support this.
One of the founding fathers even wrote that " For a democracy, such as the one we are attempting, to succeed Faith in God MUST be a part of it."
And according to MY studies of History, the last time people were burned at the stake "politics" didn't enter into consideration, it wasn't about politics it was about Hate and fear.
The funny thing is this Bumper sticker is encouraging the same fear and hate that caused people to be burned at the stake to begin with.
I think we need to think before we say things that are so wrong. Let’s Get it right people.
Headed For Bondage Sir, Ma'am
Originally posted, Monday, January 19, 2009
As I look toward the future I find myself a bit worried. It has been said...
"
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith,
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to complacency,
6. From complacency to apathy,
7. From apathy to dependence,
8. From dependence back again to bondage.
too long have we lived our lives here expecting the government to take care of us. The problem with letting the government take care of us is,
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
(the two quotes above have been attributed to a Doctor Tyler, or Tytler. However there is apparently debate as to that issue.)
You see we all have lived our lives ignoring what is going on around us. Too many people are trying to take our freedoms away from us. And I worry that we are facing imminent danger of collapse.
The recent vote is a sign, I believe, of such an occurrence. I was very concerned when I saw people who were being polled after the election. many of them indicated that their vote was considered solely on the basis of who would give them more.
for a long time some have been trying to erode the constitution. And we have let them!
We let people reinterpret what the founding fathers wrote to the point where the founding fathers themselves would be hard pressed to recognize their ideals in the laws governing us today.
I believe that what the founders of our country wrote is actually pretty straight forward.
for example...
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Both of these were written into our laws in December of 1791. Unfortunately the first one is either misquoted, abused or both. Note it says Congress (ie: government) will make NO LAW respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;! yet that is exactly what is happening every time they say we cannot pray if we are in government employ (free exercise of religion) or every time they say a pastor cannot preach on a subject because it is "hateful" (this also buts into the freedom of speech part.)
People want us to believe this means "separation of church and state" but I ask you were are those words here? that phrase is found NO WHERE in the first amendment.
As for the second amendment people want me to believe that the guys who wrote this "didn't know that Automatic weapons were going to exist, this must have been established for hunting and no one needs an automatic weapon for hunting." but you know what? I do not see it saying anything about hunting. It states that this amendment is there for us to be secure! To defend ourselves against those who would take from us our freedoms! So if the "enemy" will be armed with automatic weapons doesn't it stand to reason that we too ought to be armed similarly?
I want to end with a few more quotes... note the dates and/or people making these statements!
"One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose, without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms".
- Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. 1811-1845
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme court (1939-75)
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
- Thomas Jefferson
As I look toward the future I find myself a bit worried. It has been said...
"
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith,
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to complacency,
6. From complacency to apathy,
7. From apathy to dependence,
8. From dependence back again to bondage.
too long have we lived our lives here expecting the government to take care of us. The problem with letting the government take care of us is,
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
(the two quotes above have been attributed to a Doctor Tyler, or Tytler. However there is apparently debate as to that issue.)
You see we all have lived our lives ignoring what is going on around us. Too many people are trying to take our freedoms away from us. And I worry that we are facing imminent danger of collapse.
The recent vote is a sign, I believe, of such an occurrence. I was very concerned when I saw people who were being polled after the election. many of them indicated that their vote was considered solely on the basis of who would give them more.
for a long time some have been trying to erode the constitution. And we have let them!
We let people reinterpret what the founding fathers wrote to the point where the founding fathers themselves would be hard pressed to recognize their ideals in the laws governing us today.
I believe that what the founders of our country wrote is actually pretty straight forward.
for example...
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Both of these were written into our laws in December of 1791. Unfortunately the first one is either misquoted, abused or both. Note it says Congress (ie: government) will make NO LAW respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;! yet that is exactly what is happening every time they say we cannot pray if we are in government employ (free exercise of religion) or every time they say a pastor cannot preach on a subject because it is "hateful" (this also buts into the freedom of speech part.)
People want us to believe this means "separation of church and state" but I ask you were are those words here? that phrase is found NO WHERE in the first amendment.
As for the second amendment people want me to believe that the guys who wrote this "didn't know that Automatic weapons were going to exist, this must have been established for hunting and no one needs an automatic weapon for hunting." but you know what? I do not see it saying anything about hunting. It states that this amendment is there for us to be secure! To defend ourselves against those who would take from us our freedoms! So if the "enemy" will be armed with automatic weapons doesn't it stand to reason that we too ought to be armed similarly?
I want to end with a few more quotes... note the dates and/or people making these statements!
"One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose, without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms".
- Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. 1811-1845
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme court (1939-75)
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
- Thomas Jefferson
Well where is the change?
This Blog comes to us from, Wednesday, February 4, 2009 (bonus at the end there is an update to the situation it talks about!)
I am a little frustrated today.
I remember that during the elections a lot of people wanted to vote for Obama because he was going to "make [their] lives better." Or they stated (as one of my own family members said) that Obama's getting elected brought them a sense of "hope".
some of these people Cried whined and complained right and left about George Bush!
"His staff was corrupt."
"He didn't help enough with Katrina."
"He drove the Economy into the ground."
"He started a war in Iraq where we didn't need to be."
So let's look at recent "presidential" events!
Yesterday two of Obama's appointments had to back out of consideration because they were found to have cheated on their taxes.
There is a major disaster (freezing and power loss in Kentucky) almost as high in death toll now (50+) as Katrina ever was And Barack Obama hasn't even gone to look at the problem let alone TRY to help.
At least George Bush was on site as soon as he could be! Where is Obama?
Obama's plan to "rescue the economy" is literally nothing more than "let's spend more money we don't have and maybe that will fix it!"
EVERY REPUBLICAN and several Democrats have already rejected the plan at least till it can be pared down some.
Even the liberal New York press has proclaimed this bill to be a disaster.
As for Iraq? we are still there. of course one could point out that (gasp) they recently had honest to goodness elections! and they were even FAIR oh my.
Something they haven't had in FOUR THOUSAND YEARS. all because the American Soldiers went over there and gave them that chance.
So where are all the whiners now?
Interestingly enough I note that many of the promises Obama made while on the campaign trail have fizzled.
He promised a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (still there.)
He promised to close Guantanamo bay in his first week, nay in his first day. (nope not yet)
He promised to eliminate the don't ask don't tell policy of Clinton's. (still there)
And so the very people who he was trying to cater to from the start are becoming quite upset with him.
He is trying now to reach the part of the population who didn't vote for him and he is failing there too.
He is failing BECAUSE one, he is pro abortion and Two, he is opening our system (health care, benefits, schooling) to ILLEGAL immigrants.
On a side note (since the bit about Immigrants came up) I find it interesting to note that in the last year there have been 2.5 million American jobs lost. That's 2,500,000 Americans on unemployment who have no work.
They are trying to make ends meet on welfare!
At the same time there were 1.5 million (Yes that's right 1,500,000) NEW visa's /green cards issued for Immigrants to work here in America.
This might not seem "P.C." but, why couldn't we have denied those visa's and put 1.5 million Americans back to work? then we might not have all these big problems.
So back to my point...
I am still waiting to hear, why it is that all these people had so much hope about Obama's getting elected. where is the change... or wait I guess he didn't promise GOOD change just change.
Still it seems like business as usual in our Capitol city.
One advantage to this BLOG move, Now we are in June, while All this I reported was only a month after he took office the problem is the same factors are still in force that I blogged back then. Actually some of them are worse. Obama recently held a little get together to tell us all how wonderful things are. He did this in Nevada which state has lost something approaching 3 MILLION dollars in revenue so far this year, DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF HIS POLICIES! To say the citizenry was less than thrilled would be an understatement.
I am a little frustrated today.
I remember that during the elections a lot of people wanted to vote for Obama because he was going to "make [their] lives better." Or they stated (as one of my own family members said) that Obama's getting elected brought them a sense of "hope".
some of these people Cried whined and complained right and left about George Bush!
"His staff was corrupt."
"He didn't help enough with Katrina."
"He drove the Economy into the ground."
"He started a war in Iraq where we didn't need to be."
So let's look at recent "presidential" events!
Yesterday two of Obama's appointments had to back out of consideration because they were found to have cheated on their taxes.
There is a major disaster (freezing and power loss in Kentucky) almost as high in death toll now (50+) as Katrina ever was And Barack Obama hasn't even gone to look at the problem let alone TRY to help.
At least George Bush was on site as soon as he could be! Where is Obama?
Obama's plan to "rescue the economy" is literally nothing more than "let's spend more money we don't have and maybe that will fix it!"
EVERY REPUBLICAN and several Democrats have already rejected the plan at least till it can be pared down some.
Even the liberal New York press has proclaimed this bill to be a disaster.
As for Iraq? we are still there. of course one could point out that (gasp) they recently had honest to goodness elections! and they were even FAIR oh my.
Something they haven't had in FOUR THOUSAND YEARS. all because the American Soldiers went over there and gave them that chance.
So where are all the whiners now?
Interestingly enough I note that many of the promises Obama made while on the campaign trail have fizzled.
He promised a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (still there.)
He promised to close Guantanamo bay in his first week, nay in his first day. (nope not yet)
He promised to eliminate the don't ask don't tell policy of Clinton's. (still there)
And so the very people who he was trying to cater to from the start are becoming quite upset with him.
He is trying now to reach the part of the population who didn't vote for him and he is failing there too.
He is failing BECAUSE one, he is pro abortion and Two, he is opening our system (health care, benefits, schooling) to ILLEGAL immigrants.
On a side note (since the bit about Immigrants came up) I find it interesting to note that in the last year there have been 2.5 million American jobs lost. That's 2,500,000 Americans on unemployment who have no work.
They are trying to make ends meet on welfare!
At the same time there were 1.5 million (Yes that's right 1,500,000) NEW visa's /green cards issued for Immigrants to work here in America.
This might not seem "P.C." but, why couldn't we have denied those visa's and put 1.5 million Americans back to work? then we might not have all these big problems.
So back to my point...
I am still waiting to hear, why it is that all these people had so much hope about Obama's getting elected. where is the change... or wait I guess he didn't promise GOOD change just change.
Still it seems like business as usual in our Capitol city.
One advantage to this BLOG move, Now we are in June, while All this I reported was only a month after he took office the problem is the same factors are still in force that I blogged back then. Actually some of them are worse. Obama recently held a little get together to tell us all how wonderful things are. He did this in Nevada which state has lost something approaching 3 MILLION dollars in revenue so far this year, DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF HIS POLICIES! To say the citizenry was less than thrilled would be an understatement.
Oh dear, This might get people upset.
This is one of my earliest posts on topic. Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
O.K. once more unto the breach, dear friends, go I.
That’s right, it is the season of politics and so back to politics this blog must go.
My first point is this, back when this race for the president got started, I stated that I was concerned about the reason/s people would use for voting the way they chose. More than that I was worried that people would point fingers and accuse others for voting a particular way because of a bias towards race or gender.
I remember a time when, in Arizona, there was a vote about what holiday/s we ought to “celebrate” the choice was (a) Martin Luther King Jr. day, (b) Christopher Columbus day or (c) both.
The way the vote came out was essentially, “we do not want TWO holidays added, and if we have to pick between Christopher Columbus or Martin Luther King. Then we guess it will be Columbus.
The rest of the country (it seemed) came down on the state of Arizona declaring that all the citizens of that state must be “RACIST” because we were “against Martin Luther King. But that wasn’t the case we were not “against” King. We were just for Columbus. But EVERYONE did everything they could to intimidate all of Arizona until finally Arizona gave in and switched from the idea of Columbus Day and instead made Martin Luther King Day the holiday of choice.
Now I want to make one thing very clear here… For most Arizonans it was not about race. We couldn’t have cared less one way or the other. There might have been a few who were motivated by racism but I am quite certain that race was NOT the main point for the majority of the voters.
The really disturbing thing there for me was the fact that even though the people of the state made a choice in the polls they were forced to change their minds FOR NO GOOD REASON. Just because someone else CHOSE to be offended.
Like wise I wonder how many people will be offended at all the people who vote “against” Senator Obama. See when I think about going to the polls and voting in this election season I see myself voting for the candidate of my choice based on little things like… Issues! Moral Fiber! Leadership Ability! Those are the concerns as I see them.
Recently I watched an episode of Frasier. In that episode Martin (the dad) sides with one candidate and his sons side with the other. During the taping of a commercial for the candidate the sons want in office they discover, what is to them, A serious flaw. Their candidate believes in extraterrestrial beings. Now to these brothers, who are both psychiatrists, this is madness and they believe that their choice of candidate is totally unhinged and incompetent. But because they don’t like the other guy they still do everything they can to get their guy elected.
See they sold out completely. When they threw their support behind their guy, they decided that it did not matter that he was a total loony tune, it didn’t matter that he might lead the country into total danger because of his views or beliefs. All that mattered was getting their candidate elected. They threw away EVERYTHING they believed they compromised all their morals they corrupted all their values. All for the wrong reasons.
I wonder so much if that is what is going to happen this year. I think it might. We need to be Aware of the facts people. We need to follow the candidates and see what is really going on; and most of all we need to open our eyes and start realizing that the person we elect should be elected because he/she stands up for what is right, (not just sounds good) has the strength and fortitude to take office (doesn’t get wishy washy) and will serve the needs of the people rather than his own needs.
No bones here I am for John McCain. He has been a straight shooter while Barak Obama has continuously covered up and lied. John McCain has served the country, sometimes making hard choices to do so, Barak Obama has shown at every step that he is only interested in serving himself.
So why is it that people are willing to shoot themselves In the foot, voting for someone unprepared to take the highest office in the land? People we are all on the verge of selling out! Please when you vote; LOOK AT THE ISSUES. Look at the voting record, look at who has shown himself most willing to be up front. Don’t look at the smooth patter, or the idea of political correctness. Those are not issues and if those are the criteria you choose to base your vote on it could cost us more than we can Imagine.
O.K. once more unto the breach, dear friends, go I.
That’s right, it is the season of politics and so back to politics this blog must go.
My first point is this, back when this race for the president got started, I stated that I was concerned about the reason/s people would use for voting the way they chose. More than that I was worried that people would point fingers and accuse others for voting a particular way because of a bias towards race or gender.
I remember a time when, in Arizona, there was a vote about what holiday/s we ought to “celebrate” the choice was (a) Martin Luther King Jr. day, (b) Christopher Columbus day or (c) both.
The way the vote came out was essentially, “we do not want TWO holidays added, and if we have to pick between Christopher Columbus or Martin Luther King. Then we guess it will be Columbus.
The rest of the country (it seemed) came down on the state of Arizona declaring that all the citizens of that state must be “RACIST” because we were “against Martin Luther King. But that wasn’t the case we were not “against” King. We were just for Columbus. But EVERYONE did everything they could to intimidate all of Arizona until finally Arizona gave in and switched from the idea of Columbus Day and instead made Martin Luther King Day the holiday of choice.
Now I want to make one thing very clear here… For most Arizonans it was not about race. We couldn’t have cared less one way or the other. There might have been a few who were motivated by racism but I am quite certain that race was NOT the main point for the majority of the voters.
The really disturbing thing there for me was the fact that even though the people of the state made a choice in the polls they were forced to change their minds FOR NO GOOD REASON. Just because someone else CHOSE to be offended.
Like wise I wonder how many people will be offended at all the people who vote “against” Senator Obama. See when I think about going to the polls and voting in this election season I see myself voting for the candidate of my choice based on little things like… Issues! Moral Fiber! Leadership Ability! Those are the concerns as I see them.
Recently I watched an episode of Frasier. In that episode Martin (the dad) sides with one candidate and his sons side with the other. During the taping of a commercial for the candidate the sons want in office they discover, what is to them, A serious flaw. Their candidate believes in extraterrestrial beings. Now to these brothers, who are both psychiatrists, this is madness and they believe that their choice of candidate is totally unhinged and incompetent. But because they don’t like the other guy they still do everything they can to get their guy elected.
See they sold out completely. When they threw their support behind their guy, they decided that it did not matter that he was a total loony tune, it didn’t matter that he might lead the country into total danger because of his views or beliefs. All that mattered was getting their candidate elected. They threw away EVERYTHING they believed they compromised all their morals they corrupted all their values. All for the wrong reasons.
I wonder so much if that is what is going to happen this year. I think it might. We need to be Aware of the facts people. We need to follow the candidates and see what is really going on; and most of all we need to open our eyes and start realizing that the person we elect should be elected because he/she stands up for what is right, (not just sounds good) has the strength and fortitude to take office (doesn’t get wishy washy) and will serve the needs of the people rather than his own needs.
No bones here I am for John McCain. He has been a straight shooter while Barak Obama has continuously covered up and lied. John McCain has served the country, sometimes making hard choices to do so, Barak Obama has shown at every step that he is only interested in serving himself.
So why is it that people are willing to shoot themselves In the foot, voting for someone unprepared to take the highest office in the land? People we are all on the verge of selling out! Please when you vote; LOOK AT THE ISSUES. Look at the voting record, look at who has shown himself most willing to be up front. Don’t look at the smooth patter, or the idea of political correctness. Those are not issues and if those are the criteria you choose to base your vote on it could cost us more than we can Imagine.
A new Civil War?
Yet another transfer... from, Tuesday, February 17, 2009...
Last night I was listening to late night radio as I am wont to do while at work, and I got a rather interesting look at where our government seems to be headed.
The "show" I listened to was called "Coast to Coast AM with George Noory". usually I find I have to take all they have to say with a grain of salt (they are very much into U.F.O.'s, Ghosts, and the supernatural.) but last night's show had state senators on from four different states; these senators spoke out about their states policies vis a vis the issue at hand
One of the primary guests was, Jerome Corsi his article on the subject can be found click here.
Or you can go to...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
The other main guest was Alex Jones whose website is here.
The subject of the show was about state sovereignty. It seems that several states have become extremely upset with the trend of the Federal government and they are declaring themselves to be Sovereign.
In other words there are states (last I heard about 20-30 of them) which are saying to the federal government that they are not going to be Tyrannized by anyone even if that anyone is the federal government.
I find this to be a very interesting (or scary) issue!
I am a little bit of a civil war buff and one point that I keep running up against is, no matter what we think of it today, at the start the south did not go to war 150 years ago primarily about slavery, that was a secondary issue to the matter.
The Civil war (or as some southerners still call it, the war of northern aggression) started when several states felt that the federal government was limiting and/or removing the rights of the states to be self governing.
This viewpoint is somewhat supported in part by the fact that it took over a year (Sept 1862) after the start of the civil war (Apr 1861) for Abraham Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.
Now the History books would tell us that the civil war occurred PURELY because of the issue of slavery. but there were many who fought for the confederacy who "didn't care one way or the other about [slavery]"
Here I am reminded of the adage "the victor writes the history books."
The thing here is, I see this issue (state Sovereignty) as being the same issue all over again.
When you look at the wording of some of the bills being passed by states today you get a good idea of how serious this is.
For an example I give you HCR-6. this is a declaration by the state legislation in New Hampshire about State Sovereignty. HCR 0006
If you can't get there that way try...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
I will include the last few (and most pertinent) paragraphs of HCR-6 at the end of this writing.
It turns out that this is a problem that appears to have been brewing for quite a while and now it is coming to a head.
Already there are nine states which have declared state sovereignty; Arizona, California, Hawai'i, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington
And now there are apparently 13 or more states considering doing the same. (for more on this please look here.)
they include...
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania and Texas.
One of the reasons for these actions is reportedly a presidential directive marked as PDD 51 which would theoretically cause the country to revert to Martial law.*
One of the State legislators who was a guest on the show said "the states created the federal government and the constitution gives states the right to dissolve the federal government."
And they are right! In plain speak, basically under the 9th and 10th amendments provision is made that should the federal government start to become unwieldy and self serving then the states (or the people) have the right and even the obligation to change the government.
What is frightening is that any one who has advocated such actions in the past have been labeled as seditious, terrorists or worse. But now we are talking about STATE GOVERNMENTS who are saying these things; how can a duly elected constitutionally supported government be seditious?
And we seem to have the federal government responding in kind. Declaring that they will enact said martial law and bring the state governments who oppose the federal government to "justice".
I suppose we would have to look at the constitution. But the states declaring their sovereignty HAVE done that. And apparently they are finding that it is the Federal government who is, or is about to be, at fault for disobedience to the constitution.
And it all hinges on the 9th and tenth amendments. In other words, as I understand it, recognizing that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. so even though they are not specifically mentioned federal government still may not take away those rights.
AMENDMENT IX
(1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, as I understand it, the drafters of this amendment recognized that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. So this was a catch all saying any rights enjoyed by the people, even though not specifically referred to, could not be taken away by the government.
AMENDMENT X
(1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This one is saying that Federal Government cannot remove or overrule State rights, or powers which are held by the States.
ie: The States are free to govern themselves without interference from the federal level; as long as they do not become unconstitutional by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.
I am worried for many reasons, because we ought to not have to fight for our freedoms AGAIN!, because we ought not to have another civil war, and because I swore an oath as a member of the National guard... the oath goes
"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Some of the issues
BUT having signed with the national guard (and both states in which I served as a guardsman are on the lists as declaring their sovereignty) I have a further dilemma. What side do I serve if reactivated?
You see under the statutes for serving in the national guard...
"The National Guard is uniquely organized under the constitution and federal statutes. The Guard and Reserves are equally accessible under federal mobilization and can be called-up for operations, national emergencies, or war...but only the National Guard can be called-up by the individual states. Unless called to active federal service, the Guard is under the command of the Governor, through the direction of the Adjutant General. When called to federal service the President of the United States is commander in chief."
If the state does not recognize the federal government as the proper authority and my first obligation is to my state unless called to federal service by the president. This assumes that the president is recognized as the proper authority.
If the president or congress is an illegal government under the constitution then my obligation lies with the states AND defending the constitution against the president (or congress) who is then declared a domestic enemy of the constitution.
BUT
If the president is the legal authority it is the state/s who are the enemies of the constitution.
I am not a lawyer but I think even a lawyer would be able to argue either side in this as I am trying to do.
I do believe however that I know where I will be if it comes to it.
I feel much the same as an illustrious member of civil war fame that I could not fight against my home.
The end of HCR-6 states,
"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature."
*Martial Law. n:
1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.
Last night I was listening to late night radio as I am wont to do while at work, and I got a rather interesting look at where our government seems to be headed.
The "show" I listened to was called "Coast to Coast AM with George Noory". usually I find I have to take all they have to say with a grain of salt (they are very much into U.F.O.'s, Ghosts, and the supernatural.) but last night's show had state senators on from four different states; these senators spoke out about their states policies vis a vis the issue at hand
One of the primary guests was, Jerome Corsi his article on the subject can be found click here.
Or you can go to...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
The other main guest was Alex Jones whose website is here.
The subject of the show was about state sovereignty. It seems that several states have become extremely upset with the trend of the Federal government and they are declaring themselves to be Sovereign.
In other words there are states (last I heard about 20-30 of them) which are saying to the federal government that they are not going to be Tyrannized by anyone even if that anyone is the federal government.
I find this to be a very interesting (or scary) issue!
I am a little bit of a civil war buff and one point that I keep running up against is, no matter what we think of it today, at the start the south did not go to war 150 years ago primarily about slavery, that was a secondary issue to the matter.
The Civil war (or as some southerners still call it, the war of northern aggression) started when several states felt that the federal government was limiting and/or removing the rights of the states to be self governing.
This viewpoint is somewhat supported in part by the fact that it took over a year (Sept 1862) after the start of the civil war (Apr 1861) for Abraham Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.
Now the History books would tell us that the civil war occurred PURELY because of the issue of slavery. but there were many who fought for the confederacy who "didn't care one way or the other about [slavery]"
Here I am reminded of the adage "the victor writes the history books."
The thing here is, I see this issue (state Sovereignty) as being the same issue all over again.
When you look at the wording of some of the bills being passed by states today you get a good idea of how serious this is.
For an example I give you HCR-6. this is a declaration by the state legislation in New Hampshire about State Sovereignty. HCR 0006
If you can't get there that way try...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
I will include the last few (and most pertinent) paragraphs of HCR-6 at the end of this writing.
It turns out that this is a problem that appears to have been brewing for quite a while and now it is coming to a head.
Already there are nine states which have declared state sovereignty; Arizona, California, Hawai'i, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington
And now there are apparently 13 or more states considering doing the same. (for more on this please look here.)
they include...
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania and Texas.
One of the reasons for these actions is reportedly a presidential directive marked as PDD 51 which would theoretically cause the country to revert to Martial law.*
One of the State legislators who was a guest on the show said "the states created the federal government and the constitution gives states the right to dissolve the federal government."
And they are right! In plain speak, basically under the 9th and 10th amendments provision is made that should the federal government start to become unwieldy and self serving then the states (or the people) have the right and even the obligation to change the government.
What is frightening is that any one who has advocated such actions in the past have been labeled as seditious, terrorists or worse. But now we are talking about STATE GOVERNMENTS who are saying these things; how can a duly elected constitutionally supported government be seditious?
And we seem to have the federal government responding in kind. Declaring that they will enact said martial law and bring the state governments who oppose the federal government to "justice".
I suppose we would have to look at the constitution. But the states declaring their sovereignty HAVE done that. And apparently they are finding that it is the Federal government who is, or is about to be, at fault for disobedience to the constitution.
And it all hinges on the 9th and tenth amendments. In other words, as I understand it, recognizing that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. so even though they are not specifically mentioned federal government still may not take away those rights.
AMENDMENT IX
(1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, as I understand it, the drafters of this amendment recognized that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. So this was a catch all saying any rights enjoyed by the people, even though not specifically referred to, could not be taken away by the government.
AMENDMENT X
(1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This one is saying that Federal Government cannot remove or overrule State rights, or powers which are held by the States.
ie: The States are free to govern themselves without interference from the federal level; as long as they do not become unconstitutional by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.
I am worried for many reasons, because we ought to not have to fight for our freedoms AGAIN!, because we ought not to have another civil war, and because I swore an oath as a member of the National guard... the oath goes
"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Some of the issues
BUT having signed with the national guard (and both states in which I served as a guardsman are on the lists as declaring their sovereignty) I have a further dilemma. What side do I serve if reactivated?
You see under the statutes for serving in the national guard...
"The National Guard is uniquely organized under the constitution and federal statutes. The Guard and Reserves are equally accessible under federal mobilization and can be called-up for operations, national emergencies, or war...but only the National Guard can be called-up by the individual states. Unless called to active federal service, the Guard is under the command of the Governor, through the direction of the Adjutant General. When called to federal service the President of the United States is commander in chief."
If the state does not recognize the federal government as the proper authority and my first obligation is to my state unless called to federal service by the president. This assumes that the president is recognized as the proper authority.
If the president or congress is an illegal government under the constitution then my obligation lies with the states AND defending the constitution against the president (or congress) who is then declared a domestic enemy of the constitution.
BUT
If the president is the legal authority it is the state/s who are the enemies of the constitution.
I am not a lawyer but I think even a lawyer would be able to argue either side in this as I am trying to do.
I do believe however that I know where I will be if it comes to it.
I feel much the same as an illustrious member of civil war fame that I could not fight against my home.
The end of HCR-6 states,
"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature."
*Martial Law. n:
1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.
Homosexuality... what to make of it?
This one is a bit touchy of a subject... oh but wait that is kind of the point huh?
Originally published, Saturday, February 7, 2009.
I recently read an interesting article in One news now.
I found the information in said article interesting because I heard a debate on the radio the night before on a similar subject.
First the radio broadcast was a debate about whether Homosexuals should be allowed in the military.
As a former member of the armed forces myself I believe that they should NOT be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces; for two reasons. One because of their safety.
Two because of the needs of the other members of the service.
One of the arguments I heard in the debate was that certain members of the military are very uncomfortable with homosexuality and this unease might grow to resentment which could result in a friendly fire incident.
The opposition to this view said "don't you believe that the military commanders can control the behavior of their troops?".
I would like to point out that whether the commanders can control their troops or not may not enter into it. Many cases have been found of friendly fire incidents in the past and more will be found in the future! Why add to the number by bringing in this issue?
Also we are fighting most of our battles today in the middle east and places where sharia law is practiced.
Our opponents are committed to killing everyone who doesn't follow their beliefs anyway.
If we have openly gay soldiers serving; not only will they fight against us more vehemently, they will also find it MUCH easier to recruit more people to their ideology...
("see, see what did we tell you these Americans are perverted and twisted and they practice all forms of evil immorality!")
These people will also increase their cruelty towards our soldiers in the field.
Personally I am not too worried about getting shot, it has happened before and I survived it, it hurt but I got over it, but I really don't want to get tortured just because someone in my unit is gay.
As for the other issue... I have known several openly gay men. Out of all those I have known only 30 percent ever left me alone. 40 percent of them tried to force themselves on me one way or another and the other 30 percent harassed me all the time. For that reason I would not, I repeat NOT want to be in a foxhole alone with one of them.
I would always be wondering when they would try to take advantage of me.
Having said that, The following section is the news/opinion report of another and I have faithfully copied the whole thing verbatim for your reading pleasure. This article came to me in my email from www.onenewsnow.com.
to read it in it's original format...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=408758
Homosexuality & the laws of moral physics
It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like "Big Oil" or "Big Tobacco." Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.
Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House website updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., "Big Homo"). By announcing to the world his pro-"gay" agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.
But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled "gay rights" and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called "same-sex marriage," something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality -- period.
I know -- pretty black and white, right? Evangelical Christians are habitually accused by the left of being too "black or white" on most of the highly polarizing moral issues which affect public policy and shape our larger culture. And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called "religious right" and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped "fundamentalist" by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray.
But despite the best efforts of "gay" activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth -- like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope -- has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It's a matter of moral physics.
Of course, "fundamental" simply means "basic" or "important." Hardly negative features from where I stand. In fact, it really is fundamental, isn't it? I mean, either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, as maintained throughout both the Old and New Testaments, or it's just a nifty old text full of creative tales and loose philosophies no more relevant to our daily lives than a Tony Robbins self-help book.
If it's the latter, then today's liberal elites have it right. The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt, enjoyed simply for its literary and historical value, or ignored altogether. However, if it's the former -- if the Bible really is the inerrant, inspired Word of God as it purports to be -- then wouldn't it be in the best interest of every man, woman and child to pay close attention to what it has to say? Shouldn't we make every effort to live life according to its express principles for our own sake and for the sake of others?
So, what does the Bible have to say about human sexuality? Specifically, what does Scripture say about homosexuality?
Again, it's fundamental. Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal. In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior -- or at least remains neutral on the subject -- are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold-medal mental gymnastics.
So, for the sake of national unity, let's clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who've been badmouthing us "fundamentalists" to apologize, 'kay?
First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, it's pro-homosexual extremists who wish to radically redefine it. In fact, Christ, in His own words, reaffirmed the true definition of marriage, saying, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV).
Evidently, Christ failed to clear His marriage definition with Barack Obama and Big Homo. Notice that -- rather conspicuously -- He did not say: "At the beginning the Creator made them gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie's father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife -- and/or husband -- and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described "gay" activists to equate behaviorally driven "gayness" to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being "gay" has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does.
It's all about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive.
Just a few examples: Leviticus 18:22 commands us, rather unambiguously, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Romans 1:26-27 warns, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Christ's Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Fortunately, as untold thousands of ex-"gays" can attest, God's Word also offers hope and freedom from the homosexual lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 6:11, says, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
To the delight of truth seekers -- and to the consternation of "gay" activists everywhere -- the mere existence of ex-"gays" brings the biologically incongruous and politically motivated "born that way" house of cards crashing down. It further undermines Big Homo's already frail justification for demanding special rights based on aberrant sexual behaviors. That's why ex-"gays" are so hated by the left and so viciously maligned by homosexual activists.
So, again, President Obama, as a self-professed Christian, needs to be reminded that either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality. If the homosexual lifestyle is just another "sexual orientation," then what possible justification can there be for opposing other biblically condemned "sexual orientations" like fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality? If one is moral, all are moral. Then again, if one is immoral, all are immoral.
This means that "gay affirming" churches, which engage in what I call "a la carte Christianity" (take what you like, leave what you don't) are really just "sin affirming" churches. And "gay friendly" politicians, like Barack Obama, who push an anti-Christian homosexual agenda, are really just "immorality friendly" politicians.
It really is that black and white -- that fundamental. We're either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can't have it both ways.
Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. This column is printed with permission.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
Originally published, Saturday, February 7, 2009.
I recently read an interesting article in One news now.
I found the information in said article interesting because I heard a debate on the radio the night before on a similar subject.
First the radio broadcast was a debate about whether Homosexuals should be allowed in the military.
As a former member of the armed forces myself I believe that they should NOT be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces; for two reasons. One because of their safety.
Two because of the needs of the other members of the service.
One of the arguments I heard in the debate was that certain members of the military are very uncomfortable with homosexuality and this unease might grow to resentment which could result in a friendly fire incident.
The opposition to this view said "don't you believe that the military commanders can control the behavior of their troops?".
I would like to point out that whether the commanders can control their troops or not may not enter into it. Many cases have been found of friendly fire incidents in the past and more will be found in the future! Why add to the number by bringing in this issue?
Also we are fighting most of our battles today in the middle east and places where sharia law is practiced.
Our opponents are committed to killing everyone who doesn't follow their beliefs anyway.
If we have openly gay soldiers serving; not only will they fight against us more vehemently, they will also find it MUCH easier to recruit more people to their ideology...
("see, see what did we tell you these Americans are perverted and twisted and they practice all forms of evil immorality!")
These people will also increase their cruelty towards our soldiers in the field.
Personally I am not too worried about getting shot, it has happened before and I survived it, it hurt but I got over it, but I really don't want to get tortured just because someone in my unit is gay.
As for the other issue... I have known several openly gay men. Out of all those I have known only 30 percent ever left me alone. 40 percent of them tried to force themselves on me one way or another and the other 30 percent harassed me all the time. For that reason I would not, I repeat NOT want to be in a foxhole alone with one of them.
I would always be wondering when they would try to take advantage of me.
Having said that, The following section is the news/opinion report of another and I have faithfully copied the whole thing verbatim for your reading pleasure. This article came to me in my email from www.onenewsnow.com.
to read it in it's original format...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=408758
Homosexuality & the laws of moral physics
It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like "Big Oil" or "Big Tobacco." Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.
Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House website updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., "Big Homo"). By announcing to the world his pro-"gay" agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.
But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled "gay rights" and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called "same-sex marriage," something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality -- period.
I know -- pretty black and white, right? Evangelical Christians are habitually accused by the left of being too "black or white" on most of the highly polarizing moral issues which affect public policy and shape our larger culture. And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called "religious right" and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped "fundamentalist" by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray.
But despite the best efforts of "gay" activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth -- like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope -- has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It's a matter of moral physics.
Of course, "fundamental" simply means "basic" or "important." Hardly negative features from where I stand. In fact, it really is fundamental, isn't it? I mean, either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, as maintained throughout both the Old and New Testaments, or it's just a nifty old text full of creative tales and loose philosophies no more relevant to our daily lives than a Tony Robbins self-help book.
If it's the latter, then today's liberal elites have it right. The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt, enjoyed simply for its literary and historical value, or ignored altogether. However, if it's the former -- if the Bible really is the inerrant, inspired Word of God as it purports to be -- then wouldn't it be in the best interest of every man, woman and child to pay close attention to what it has to say? Shouldn't we make every effort to live life according to its express principles for our own sake and for the sake of others?
So, what does the Bible have to say about human sexuality? Specifically, what does Scripture say about homosexuality?
Again, it's fundamental. Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal. In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior -- or at least remains neutral on the subject -- are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold-medal mental gymnastics.
So, for the sake of national unity, let's clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who've been badmouthing us "fundamentalists" to apologize, 'kay?
First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, it's pro-homosexual extremists who wish to radically redefine it. In fact, Christ, in His own words, reaffirmed the true definition of marriage, saying, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV).
Evidently, Christ failed to clear His marriage definition with Barack Obama and Big Homo. Notice that -- rather conspicuously -- He did not say: "At the beginning the Creator made them gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie's father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife -- and/or husband -- and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described "gay" activists to equate behaviorally driven "gayness" to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being "gay" has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does.
It's all about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive.
Just a few examples: Leviticus 18:22 commands us, rather unambiguously, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Romans 1:26-27 warns, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Christ's Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Fortunately, as untold thousands of ex-"gays" can attest, God's Word also offers hope and freedom from the homosexual lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 6:11, says, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
To the delight of truth seekers -- and to the consternation of "gay" activists everywhere -- the mere existence of ex-"gays" brings the biologically incongruous and politically motivated "born that way" house of cards crashing down. It further undermines Big Homo's already frail justification for demanding special rights based on aberrant sexual behaviors. That's why ex-"gays" are so hated by the left and so viciously maligned by homosexual activists.
So, again, President Obama, as a self-professed Christian, needs to be reminded that either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality. If the homosexual lifestyle is just another "sexual orientation," then what possible justification can there be for opposing other biblically condemned "sexual orientations" like fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality? If one is moral, all are moral. Then again, if one is immoral, all are immoral.
This means that "gay affirming" churches, which engage in what I call "a la carte Christianity" (take what you like, leave what you don't) are really just "sin affirming" churches. And "gay friendly" politicians, like Barack Obama, who push an anti-Christian homosexual agenda, are really just "immorality friendly" politicians.
It really is that black and white -- that fundamental. We're either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can't have it both ways.
Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. This column is printed with permission.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
The National Debt
Originally Posted; Monday, February 23, 2009,
Oh boy here we go!!!
In today's news I heard that the president (Barack Obama) wants to pay down our national debt! He wants to reduce the debt from it's current level of 2 trillion dollars (not counting the trillion he just spent for "stimulus"!) to 500 billion by 2013.
Now this, I believe, is a noble goal and one which truly ought to be applauded.
But wait before we break out the band, we must ask how?
I mean honestly! How does the President plan to draw down the national debt, when he is spending like there is no tomorrow?
Apparently he plans to do this two ways, first by raising taxes on the "rich". As I understand it, anyone worth more than $500,000.00 (that's five hundred Thousand... half a Mill) is going to get a tax increase,
I think this is for business and individuals. But really I am a little fuzzy because I was just too incredulous of what I was hearing for it to really register.
And the second way to pay off debt? (ominous music plays here) He will reduce the troop strength of our armed forces even while he is increasing the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.
Memo:
To : The commander in chief,
RE: troop size.
We already have seen what happens when we do not have a large enough army to meet the needs we face as it is.
I bring your attention to the point that there were insufficient troops to meet our commitments from the beginning. (troops were spread too thin especially with the demands being placed on us by the U.N.)
Then we ended up in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for which we had too few troops.
This resulted in a need for us to "stop loss" troops, and it engendered bad feelings towards the government and the military, it increased battlefield casualties and an increased a need for long term commitment in a field of battle where, apparently, we didn't want to be in the first place.
(If we had had the troops we needed to go into Iraq and/or Afghanistan to begin with we might have been out of those countries by now.)
And in our economy what will this translate to?
Since taking office a month ago Wall Street has fallen an additional 11 percent,
The Fed is printing money with nothing to back it,
the business outlook is dismal,
consumers are refusing to spend because their dollars won't go far enough anymore,
banks still are not lending and now to sign the Death Nell of corporate America,
We will now charge you MORE taxes,
so you cannot afford your employees,
so you will have to close your doors,
so more Americans will be out of work,
so more people have to live off their meager savings,
so more people will be poor and needing welfare,
so More money will have to be spent by the government to fund the welfare programs,
so...
In my humble opinion I believe this will only serve to make the situation worse.
I will grant that I am no economist.
I will also admit that I was not in favor of this man as the president.
But I really did have some hope that he would try to do the right thing.
When he was elected into office and all the fervor for him erupted I hoped that all these people would find true relief. As an American, one who has served and will again of need arises, I wanted to be able to support this guy.
But I am a realist!
And Even I can see the truth!
I do not know what dream world he lives in but why can't he see these ideas really won't work?
They have no validity in reality.
So please let's get this right now!
Speak up people! Tell Mr. Obama that we need to get back on track! We need to think about our actions, we need to take care of our children, and we need to let history show us what we really need.
In the 1920's there was a recession, we never hear about it in history because it was a small blip. Why? Because the government decided to let the free market system do it's thing and it self corrected in a matter of months.
In the 30's we had the big depression. When Hoover and then FDR tried to meddle to fix it, by manipulating taxes, creating a bunch of work programs and increasing government and spending, The depression lasted until World War Two.
in the 80's there was a recession. Ronald Reagan CUT TAXES across the board, Lessened the amount of government and again the recession proved to be self correcting. (we even went into our largest boom EVER)
Now here is a new recession. Your predecessor increased spending, increased government, and passed stimulus bill/s. and so far it hasn't worked! ( in point of fact it made the situation worse.)
Please let's learn something here, because I for one do not want to see us having to go into World War Three in order to get out of this.
Oh boy here we go!!!
In today's news I heard that the president (Barack Obama) wants to pay down our national debt! He wants to reduce the debt from it's current level of 2 trillion dollars (not counting the trillion he just spent for "stimulus"!) to 500 billion by 2013.
Now this, I believe, is a noble goal and one which truly ought to be applauded.
But wait before we break out the band, we must ask how?
I mean honestly! How does the President plan to draw down the national debt, when he is spending like there is no tomorrow?
Apparently he plans to do this two ways, first by raising taxes on the "rich". As I understand it, anyone worth more than $500,000.00 (that's five hundred Thousand... half a Mill) is going to get a tax increase,
I think this is for business and individuals. But really I am a little fuzzy because I was just too incredulous of what I was hearing for it to really register.
And the second way to pay off debt? (ominous music plays here) He will reduce the troop strength of our armed forces even while he is increasing the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.
Memo:
To : The commander in chief,
RE: troop size.
We already have seen what happens when we do not have a large enough army to meet the needs we face as it is.
I bring your attention to the point that there were insufficient troops to meet our commitments from the beginning. (troops were spread too thin especially with the demands being placed on us by the U.N.)
Then we ended up in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for which we had too few troops.
This resulted in a need for us to "stop loss" troops, and it engendered bad feelings towards the government and the military, it increased battlefield casualties and an increased a need for long term commitment in a field of battle where, apparently, we didn't want to be in the first place.
(If we had had the troops we needed to go into Iraq and/or Afghanistan to begin with we might have been out of those countries by now.)
And in our economy what will this translate to?
Since taking office a month ago Wall Street has fallen an additional 11 percent,
The Fed is printing money with nothing to back it,
the business outlook is dismal,
consumers are refusing to spend because their dollars won't go far enough anymore,
banks still are not lending and now to sign the Death Nell of corporate America,
We will now charge you MORE taxes,
so you cannot afford your employees,
so you will have to close your doors,
so more Americans will be out of work,
so more people have to live off their meager savings,
so more people will be poor and needing welfare,
so More money will have to be spent by the government to fund the welfare programs,
so...
In my humble opinion I believe this will only serve to make the situation worse.
I will grant that I am no economist.
I will also admit that I was not in favor of this man as the president.
But I really did have some hope that he would try to do the right thing.
When he was elected into office and all the fervor for him erupted I hoped that all these people would find true relief. As an American, one who has served and will again of need arises, I wanted to be able to support this guy.
But I am a realist!
And Even I can see the truth!
I do not know what dream world he lives in but why can't he see these ideas really won't work?
They have no validity in reality.
So please let's get this right now!
Speak up people! Tell Mr. Obama that we need to get back on track! We need to think about our actions, we need to take care of our children, and we need to let history show us what we really need.
In the 1920's there was a recession, we never hear about it in history because it was a small blip. Why? Because the government decided to let the free market system do it's thing and it self corrected in a matter of months.
In the 30's we had the big depression. When Hoover and then FDR tried to meddle to fix it, by manipulating taxes, creating a bunch of work programs and increasing government and spending, The depression lasted until World War Two.
in the 80's there was a recession. Ronald Reagan CUT TAXES across the board, Lessened the amount of government and again the recession proved to be self correcting. (we even went into our largest boom EVER)
Now here is a new recession. Your predecessor increased spending, increased government, and passed stimulus bill/s. and so far it hasn't worked! ( in point of fact it made the situation worse.)
Please let's learn something here, because I for one do not want to see us having to go into World War Three in order to get out of this.
Ah hah caught you
This post is from... Thursday, February 26, 2009. I am trying to move all pertinent posts to this site. Please be patient if you have read it before.
Last night at work I was listening to one of my regular talk shows on the radio.
The host had one caller who summed up what I believe all the members of the liberal party are guilty of.
The caller, at one point made it clear that he was an African American.
His complaint was that he feels HE is discriminated against.
When pressed for an example he said Airline "stewardesses" (His words) are "condescending towards the Black man."
Jim still wanted an example and so the caller describes how one time he was on a flight and he was seated next to a very attractive white woman. and he was in conversation with her and they were "getting close".
All of a sudden a "stewardess" came up to him and reprimanded him. so there you go he was being discriminated against because of his race. That is where he wanted to leave the story. But Jim pressed for details.
" Well she came over to [reprimand him] because another (white) passenger complained that [he] was getting too 'close' to the white woman sitting next to [him]."
Jim asked "well what do you mean by close? you were too friendly? Sitting too near? what?"
Finally the man grudgingly admitted that he had his hand "in her pants" in the middle of a plane with people all around.
But see this is what I am talking about! too many people try to do this. they will make a claim of being abused or discriminated against or something when the reality is THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
But it isn't their fault that they were doing something wrong they should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want and if you do not let them do whatever they cry out that they are being brought down.
Where is our morality? what is going on in our society?
We have Border patrol agents, afraid to do their job because two of them were put in jail for hurting a convicted felon in the line of duty. (they shot a drug dealer as he was trying to get away)
We have a rancher in Arizona who was sued for infringing on the rights of illegal aliens who were crossing into the country on his property. How did he infringe their rights???
He stopped them and held them at gunpoint for doing something illegal until authorities could arrive on the scene to take charge.
We have people demanding that we need to take away all the gun rights and, subsequently all the guns from people who are law abiding citizens, in order to stop crime. Uh how exactly will that work? the criminals by their very nature are not law abiding so taking away guns isn't going to mean anything to them. Well it does mean that they will have easier targets when all the law abiding folk are disarmed.
And we seem to have the mentality that whoever you are if you can come up with some reason, no matter how flimsy, to claim victim status. Then that person should get to ignore all the rules that make civilization civilized and do whatever they want. (which is really interesting because then others will be "abused" by the actions of the law breaker and they themselves will be able to claim victim status. and so on. A self perpetuating model if ever I saw one.
Last night at work I was listening to one of my regular talk shows on the radio.
The host had one caller who summed up what I believe all the members of the liberal party are guilty of.
The caller, at one point made it clear that he was an African American.
His complaint was that he feels HE is discriminated against.
When pressed for an example he said Airline "stewardesses" (His words) are "condescending towards the Black man."
Jim still wanted an example and so the caller describes how one time he was on a flight and he was seated next to a very attractive white woman. and he was in conversation with her and they were "getting close".
All of a sudden a "stewardess" came up to him and reprimanded him. so there you go he was being discriminated against because of his race. That is where he wanted to leave the story. But Jim pressed for details.
" Well she came over to [reprimand him] because another (white) passenger complained that [he] was getting too 'close' to the white woman sitting next to [him]."
Jim asked "well what do you mean by close? you were too friendly? Sitting too near? what?"
Finally the man grudgingly admitted that he had his hand "in her pants" in the middle of a plane with people all around.
But see this is what I am talking about! too many people try to do this. they will make a claim of being abused or discriminated against or something when the reality is THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
But it isn't their fault that they were doing something wrong they should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want and if you do not let them do whatever they cry out that they are being brought down.
Where is our morality? what is going on in our society?
We have Border patrol agents, afraid to do their job because two of them were put in jail for hurting a convicted felon in the line of duty. (they shot a drug dealer as he was trying to get away)
We have a rancher in Arizona who was sued for infringing on the rights of illegal aliens who were crossing into the country on his property. How did he infringe their rights???
He stopped them and held them at gunpoint for doing something illegal until authorities could arrive on the scene to take charge.
We have people demanding that we need to take away all the gun rights and, subsequently all the guns from people who are law abiding citizens, in order to stop crime. Uh how exactly will that work? the criminals by their very nature are not law abiding so taking away guns isn't going to mean anything to them. Well it does mean that they will have easier targets when all the law abiding folk are disarmed.
And we seem to have the mentality that whoever you are if you can come up with some reason, no matter how flimsy, to claim victim status. Then that person should get to ignore all the rules that make civilization civilized and do whatever they want. (which is really interesting because then others will be "abused" by the actions of the law breaker and they themselves will be able to claim victim status. and so on. A self perpetuating model if ever I saw one.
Why can't he understand?
This is another of my old posts this one was originally posted, Wednesday, March 4, 2009.
I am really quite frustrated today.
Now I will make no bones about it, Yes I think George Bush was a decent President. Yes I would have preferred a republican to Mr. Obama.
But I think I am giving Mr. Obama as much credit as I can.
My issue this time is that I heard Mr. Obama blame ALL our current economic woes on the Bush Administration.
And I have to pause to admit that it is very possible, that when it came to policies like the economy, Mr. Bush could have done much better.
I will NOT deny President Obama that point.
The problem here is that at the same time that Obama is CRITICIZING the Bush administration for it's fiscal mismanagement, the economical plan President Obama is pushing is THE SAME PLAN AS THE BUSH PLAN ONLY BIGGER!!!!!
If you are claiming that the economy was "destroyed" by President Bush then wouldn't you think that continuing or increasing the same policies is foolishness in the extreme?
Let us compare shall we...
Bush advocated bailouts. Obama is pushing bailouts. Bush wanted to increase government control of the banks. Obama is trying to increase control of the banks. Bush issued stimulus packages. Obama is issuing stimulus packages.
In short Bush Meddled with the economy. he departed the republican plan for our economy and we are paying the penalty.
And now Obama is continuing down the exact same road only bigger! Bush's bailouts after all only ran to the tune of 300 Billion dollars. Obama's plan is 2 TRILLION dollars.
More than twice the spending of his predecessor.
The only real difference is that Obama can pointhis finger at Bush and say "See, see it's all his fault."
I thought we were promised change.
On that note, one more issue.
We were also promised transparency.
So far what has the Obama administration been transparent about? they have released files showing all the "bad things" the prior administration did. his own cabinet? nada.
Although, since yet another Obama appointee has proven to have tax problems, I figure everyone in our capital is thinking twice now.
It almost has to be like they are thinking "oh no if he picks me then I will get into trouble."
Seriously there has been no change. the people he keeps appointing, keep dissappointing!
He has given positions in his admin to lobbyists even though he declared his dislike for people like that. And he still refuses to see the reality that is looking him in the face.
Mr. Obama. PLEASE start making some real changes. The things you are doing so far are not change. (Certainly not change for the better.)
I think A great change would be for all the politicians to stop thinking about themselves and START thinking about the reason they were put in office in the first place.
To Serve the American people!
I am really quite frustrated today.
Now I will make no bones about it, Yes I think George Bush was a decent President. Yes I would have preferred a republican to Mr. Obama.
But I think I am giving Mr. Obama as much credit as I can.
My issue this time is that I heard Mr. Obama blame ALL our current economic woes on the Bush Administration.
And I have to pause to admit that it is very possible, that when it came to policies like the economy, Mr. Bush could have done much better.
I will NOT deny President Obama that point.
The problem here is that at the same time that Obama is CRITICIZING the Bush administration for it's fiscal mismanagement, the economical plan President Obama is pushing is THE SAME PLAN AS THE BUSH PLAN ONLY BIGGER!!!!!
If you are claiming that the economy was "destroyed" by President Bush then wouldn't you think that continuing or increasing the same policies is foolishness in the extreme?
Let us compare shall we...
Bush advocated bailouts. Obama is pushing bailouts. Bush wanted to increase government control of the banks. Obama is trying to increase control of the banks. Bush issued stimulus packages. Obama is issuing stimulus packages.
In short Bush Meddled with the economy. he departed the republican plan for our economy and we are paying the penalty.
And now Obama is continuing down the exact same road only bigger! Bush's bailouts after all only ran to the tune of 300 Billion dollars. Obama's plan is 2 TRILLION dollars.
More than twice the spending of his predecessor.
The only real difference is that Obama can pointhis finger at Bush and say "See, see it's all his fault."
I thought we were promised change.
On that note, one more issue.
We were also promised transparency.
So far what has the Obama administration been transparent about? they have released files showing all the "bad things" the prior administration did. his own cabinet? nada.
Although, since yet another Obama appointee has proven to have tax problems, I figure everyone in our capital is thinking twice now.
It almost has to be like they are thinking "oh no if he picks me then I will get into trouble."
Seriously there has been no change. the people he keeps appointing, keep dissappointing!
He has given positions in his admin to lobbyists even though he declared his dislike for people like that. And he still refuses to see the reality that is looking him in the face.
Mr. Obama. PLEASE start making some real changes. The things you are doing so far are not change. (Certainly not change for the better.)
I think A great change would be for all the politicians to stop thinking about themselves and START thinking about the reason they were put in office in the first place.
To Serve the American people!
TEA parties, the great debate.
This is an old post transferred here from another site.
I do have to say that recent matters have become very… Interesting!
On The 15'th of April there were some “Tea Parties” happening around the country.
At work I have a lot of opportunities to listen to talk radio. I like to listen to a certain Conservative on occasion, but After his show I have the opportunity to listen to um... A Liberal.
Now On the conservative's program they were talking with people involved in the tea parties about what the tea parties were all about and who set them up etc.
Some of the people I have heard from, both on these kinds of programs and in “real life” are all over the spectrum. They are liberals; they are conservatives, all ethnicities, and genders, even people of all sexual identities.
They all gathered for one purpose. They gathered to protest big Government.
To protest the over spending and over taxing being pushed on us by BOTH parties. They said so themselves.
But on the Liberal's show THE Host and HE alone! Declared that this was not a grass roots organization, THEN after that declaration he went on to state that this was organized by and I quote… “Community organizers”. He also wanted us to believe that these “community organizers are regular people in their communities who go out and get these events together. Statements made on his show included… “They lead by motivating people.” “It is so hard to be a community organizer.” “The right wing idiots made fun of Obama for being a community organizer but here they are using those very people to operate this Astroturf movement.
His implication being that using the “community organizers” to do this was to be hypocritical. This proves to me that he has lost the whole point.
Not only has it escaped him about the true nature of this event; but it is quite apparent that he missed the point behind why the conservatives were concerned about his being a community organizer.
So I wish to clarify this.
Of all the people I have heard from NONE of them were politicians. Many were motivated simply, in their own words, by the “extravagances of the federal government.”
And the point behind concerns about Obama were, that when Obama needed to present to us, the American people, all the experience he had that made him worthy to be the president of the United States of America; the best he had to offer was that he had been a Community Organizer.
Just about everyone in the country has, at one time or another done something like that. By his statement I might as well be president. I have organized things the same as he did.
I also have been an AYSO soccer coach, a Scout leader, and in the Army National Guard… based on my track record, I have 1,000 times more experience than Obama presented.
Thus the problem conservatives had with Obama’s Community organizing was that, that was the ONLY criteria he ever gave, to indicate his capabilities as a presidential candidate.
This is NOT hypocrisy. The people organizing the TEA parties have not said.. “oh by the way I am going to run for president because I got 500 people to show up for a TEA party.”
As for the event itself, regular people brought up this whole issue. There are no ties to ANY party or government agency. And when you look at the rhetoric that was brought out at most of the event’s held, you see that the issue is not entirely focused on the current administration.
The reason why it comes up on this watch is because Obama was voted into office, SPECIFICALLY, on the promise that he would change the way things work, he was going to stop the wild spending sprees in government and he was going to make the government more responsible to the people.
What he has done in reality is INCREASE spending, Increase big government, INCREASE the federal deficit and all against what he declared he was going to do.
And the American people have said “that’s enough. We are tired of having our rights trampled, and we are tired of the lies, AND we are tired of the idiocy we see in policies coming from our elected officials.”
One of the big “gotcha points” of the Liberal’s was “the Boston tea party, which this is supposed to be [emulating], was against taxation without representation.” But he points out, “ the people ARE represented. They were the ones who went to the voting places and they voted. That is their representation.” Well the problem here is these people who have gathered feel they are NOT being represented. The government under Obama has NOT LISTENED to the will of the people and thus is NOT representing that will. And therefore the people do not have representation.
Please listen people. We are not the enemy! We need to start cleaning it up.
I do have to say that recent matters have become very… Interesting!
On The 15'th of April there were some “Tea Parties” happening around the country.
At work I have a lot of opportunities to listen to talk radio. I like to listen to a certain Conservative on occasion, but After his show I have the opportunity to listen to um... A Liberal.
Now On the conservative's program they were talking with people involved in the tea parties about what the tea parties were all about and who set them up etc.
Some of the people I have heard from, both on these kinds of programs and in “real life” are all over the spectrum. They are liberals; they are conservatives, all ethnicities, and genders, even people of all sexual identities.
They all gathered for one purpose. They gathered to protest big Government.
To protest the over spending and over taxing being pushed on us by BOTH parties. They said so themselves.
But on the Liberal's show THE Host and HE alone! Declared that this was not a grass roots organization, THEN after that declaration he went on to state that this was organized by and I quote… “Community organizers”. He also wanted us to believe that these “community organizers are regular people in their communities who go out and get these events together. Statements made on his show included… “They lead by motivating people.” “It is so hard to be a community organizer.” “The right wing idiots made fun of Obama for being a community organizer but here they are using those very people to operate this Astroturf movement.
His implication being that using the “community organizers” to do this was to be hypocritical. This proves to me that he has lost the whole point.
Not only has it escaped him about the true nature of this event; but it is quite apparent that he missed the point behind why the conservatives were concerned about his being a community organizer.
So I wish to clarify this.
Of all the people I have heard from NONE of them were politicians. Many were motivated simply, in their own words, by the “extravagances of the federal government.”
And the point behind concerns about Obama were, that when Obama needed to present to us, the American people, all the experience he had that made him worthy to be the president of the United States of America; the best he had to offer was that he had been a Community Organizer.
Just about everyone in the country has, at one time or another done something like that. By his statement I might as well be president. I have organized things the same as he did.
I also have been an AYSO soccer coach, a Scout leader, and in the Army National Guard… based on my track record, I have 1,000 times more experience than Obama presented.
Thus the problem conservatives had with Obama’s Community organizing was that, that was the ONLY criteria he ever gave, to indicate his capabilities as a presidential candidate.
This is NOT hypocrisy. The people organizing the TEA parties have not said.. “oh by the way I am going to run for president because I got 500 people to show up for a TEA party.”
As for the event itself, regular people brought up this whole issue. There are no ties to ANY party or government agency. And when you look at the rhetoric that was brought out at most of the event’s held, you see that the issue is not entirely focused on the current administration.
The reason why it comes up on this watch is because Obama was voted into office, SPECIFICALLY, on the promise that he would change the way things work, he was going to stop the wild spending sprees in government and he was going to make the government more responsible to the people.
What he has done in reality is INCREASE spending, Increase big government, INCREASE the federal deficit and all against what he declared he was going to do.
And the American people have said “that’s enough. We are tired of having our rights trampled, and we are tired of the lies, AND we are tired of the idiocy we see in policies coming from our elected officials.”
One of the big “gotcha points” of the Liberal’s was “the Boston tea party, which this is supposed to be [emulating], was against taxation without representation.” But he points out, “ the people ARE represented. They were the ones who went to the voting places and they voted. That is their representation.” Well the problem here is these people who have gathered feel they are NOT being represented. The government under Obama has NOT LISTENED to the will of the people and thus is NOT representing that will. And therefore the people do not have representation.
Please listen people. We are not the enemy! We need to start cleaning it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)