Archive for April, 2010

A VOTE FOR ME, A SCREW FOR YOU

April 27, 2010

Obama is appealing to what he obviously considers the naïve, undereducated and generally dependent self described sub-groups of Americans as well as the dead and illegal aliens to help him and the Democrat party continue destroying the country by voting in the 2010 elections.  In a DNC produced rally ad, he called for “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 to stand together once again.”

These are the groups that have probably suffered most while hoping for the next handout.  Young people have little hope of getting a job and being self sufficient.  “The American Dream” of owning a home – vanished.  African-Americans are being taught over and over again to cry “RACIST” every time someone disagrees with them or they don’t get their way.  Latinos, well, they can see daily that this administration has as much respect for our borders and laws as does every illegal immigrant, drug smuggler, gang member or slave trader.  And without disrespect, women generally tend to be more emotive and less analytic than are men; protective of the perceived underdog.  More and more intelligent women are now paying attention and will be less easily swayed.

Obama is appealing to what he personally considers the lowest common denominator or easiest target group.  If you fit into any of those groups, you should be tremendously offended.  It’s as if he’s saying “You’re incapable and only I can help”.

If we’ve learned anything thus far with Obama, it should be that what is coming is exactly the opposite of what he oratorically reads off the teleprompter.  … “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” = Hang on; life is about to cost just a little more for those of you who can least afford it.  “There will be no place for lobbyists in my administration”, turned into an administration riddled with lobbyists.  “We’re not going to do business the old way” has become more of the same to the tenth degree.  “I will make my administration open and transparent so that anyone can insure that our business is the people’s business” has the equivalency of “shut up and go away CSPAN, that door is locked for a reason”!  “No more secrecy” rapidly became “National security and need to know”.   And, of course, “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look on line and find out what’s in it before I sign it” was scoffed with Pelosi’s words “but we have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it”.

Of all his statements, the one about no more secrecy is probably the most prominent … and truthful.  He has made it open and clear that what you get is what you get, no matter what was said in the beginning.  You just don’t know for sure what it is that you get until after it’s got you.

Can this country take another 3 years like this?  I don’t think so and thus it is necessary to vote for America.  Vote every member possible out of congress in November and replace him or her with Constitutional Conservatives.  Forget the (R) or (D) or (I) after the name, that doesn’t matter any more.  It is the only way to render the president impotent and keep the red, white and blue from being replaced with only red.

Advertisements

SEDITION

April 21, 2010

Joe Klein of Time magazine stated that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Tea Party participants and FOX News Corp. of being “right up close to being seditious”.  Klein also provided the legal definition of sedition as “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.”  John Heilemann of New York magazine added Rush Limbaugh to the list.

Klein conveniently left out the last and ultimately more important final phrase of that legal definition:  “usually in the form of treason or defamation against government”.  Even at that, using Klein’s own distorted and limited definition he, and Heilemann are looking on the wrong side of the fence when seeking sedition.

From the dictionary:  sedition

  1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
  2. conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.

You want sedition?  Hey guys, I’ve got your sedition right here!

Inciting discontent?  Conduct or language inciting rebellion?  Inciting a revolt against an established authority?  Try this!

√ Denying public disclosure of any and all documents delineating his history from birth through the Illinois State Senate, Obama has incited discontent against the federal government.

√ How about forcing businesses to pay more and higher taxes causing some of them to lay off employees and shutter the doors.  That can cause rebellion against the authority of government.

√ How about taking more and more of the paychecks from working class families for policies they don’t want, congress has not read and about which no one has any understanding.  Wouldn’t that qualify for “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority”?

√ Could demeaning language, like calling anybody a racist who doesn’t agree with the president’s policies or those of Congress, incite discontent with the government?

√ Calling American patriots who have served their country on the battle field “Right-Wing Extremists with terrorist tendencies”.  You think that might just irritate a few people and cause them to rally against the tyranny?

√ Giving taxpayer money to your friends and political donors under the guise of a financial bailout might also irk a few people and cause them to question the righteousness of the act.

√ Forcing people to buy a product (health care) by threatening fines and/or jail time for non-compliance also incites discontent in a population.

√ Attacking a news agency and all of its personalities including calling for advertiser boycotts just because they present a different side of issues might be considered conduct or language that might incite rebellion against that authority.

√ Hiring a tax evader to head the Department of Treasury might be considered seditious.

Sedition does not have to be from the outside against the government, it can also be from within!

Former President Bill Clinton even joined in the rhetoric fight comparing peaceful, organized and lawfully assembled Tea Party participants to the mentally unstable and violent Timothy McVeigh.

None of this, individually, is enough to instigate violent overthrow of a government that seems to be taking the country off the course of peace and prosperity.  Collectively however, and especially if they continue, it will definitely do exactly that.  This administration seems to be purposefully dividing the country and causing upheaval and unrest.  Hmmm, I believe I’ve heard that is the goal of the progressive movement; that is their way to bring about change.  Is it right for you?

ONLY THE INFORMATION WE WANT YOU TO HAVE

April 14, 2010

We all tend to follow our personal choices of news and events.  Most people have one or two sources upon which they rely for all the information they feel they need to make informed decisions.  Those sources generally tend to corroborate the “inherent knowledge” of the individual.  Few, very few, people choose to gather information from various sources and make decisions after allowing themselves information from both sides and perhaps multiple angles of an issue.

As if the progressives and liberals don’t have enough media reinforcement for their feelings regarding right/wrong, good for a few/better for the majority, soon they will have the news selected for them.  Most news sources now feed us biased morsels.  Read or listen to what makes you feel best about your views and it becomes fact.  Nevertheless, according to Google, any news contrary to or not coincidental with a web surfer’s innate viewpoints is slated for eradication from their daily dose of left.

We already know that Google searches can be limited or steered from conservative sites. However, Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, and Obama activist told the American Society of News Editors recently that his servers will begin (re-)editing the news to deliver only what the reader wants to read.  (At least what Google thinks you should be reading.)

Obama, Google, the alphabet TV news crews and almost all others of leftist bent complain that FOX news is right-wing.  They say this because FOX offers a different look at the same news presented by the others.  In many cases, unlike the other news broadcasters, FOX does present both sides.  Often times one can hear about events on FOX that the others choose not to present because it interferes with their bias.  Perhaps it’s not presented evenly and equally, but there will be Republican, Democrat, progressive and conservative commentators through out the daily broadcasts.  MSNBC, not so much.  But you will often get profanity laden bile and hatred spewed about FOX.

Defending FOX?  Somewhat.  But only because it is an eclectic news source.  Most liberals don’t allow themselves the exposure to a second opinion.  Many conservatives like the exposure to, and debate about, the pros and cons of current events.

One of my favorite Sci-Fi novels is “1984”.  In the book, the government disseminates propaganda through the Ministry of Truth.  ***We’re there, folks*** with virtually every media outlet pulling for this administration (Chris Mathews with his legs tingling), they can and will do anything to make the undereducated and ignorant masses believe that any dissenting opinion is unpatriotic and that TEA Parties are led by bigots and racists.  It’s virtually impossible to prove otherwise once an individual or group is so branded. We are not allowed to have an opinion other than set forth by our near-dictatorial president.  Yet, freely and peacefully voicing opposition to the wrongs of an overpowering and abusive government is the reason for our Declaration of Independence and exactly the reason for the first amendment to the Constitution.

On a side note:

The FBI is providing the Kennedy family an opportunity to correct or remove investigative information in Senator Ted Kennedy’s file before public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.  The ten thousand plus page file, accumulated over his lifetime in politics (47 years in the Senate alone), will show only “happy thoughts” to historians writing text books for our grand children.  The 1969 drunken car crash and drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick and the cover-up and payoff(s) will no longer plague the Kennedy family name.

“ONLY THE INFORMATION WE WANT YOU TO HAVE”, direct from the Ministry of Truth.

HOMELAND SECURITY?

April 7, 2010

Why the hell are we allowing troops to be killed in Afghanistan?  The U.S. government is restricting their ability to fight and win any skirmish or battle.  This “whites of their eyes and only return fire when there’s a projectile headed toward your position” crap is doing little other than producing targets for the Taliban.  Afghans are generally unwilling to protect their own families, property or government.  The Afghan President, Karzai, claims we are interfering with his government and has threatened to change sides.  There isn’t any oil and there seems to be little willingness to either find Bin Laden or wipe out the heroin trade.  Why the hell are we there?

I don’t think that the idiots in this administration are aware, but you cannot win a war from a defensive position.  They could “Google” General Custer for a better understanding.  They’re either not aware, don’t care or they are the enemy.  You cannot appease a foe whose only goal is to kill infidels and who considers everybody an infidel who is not Muslim.  Perhaps Obama can feel safe, but I don’t.

We can reduce or eliminate our nuclear arsenal.  They will do all that they can to build and stockpile theirs.  After all, self sacrifice in order to annihilate a population of non-believers is honored by Islam.  If tens of thousands of Muslims are also sacrificed in the name of Allah, so be it.

We can be inattentive to our borders because “they only want to come here to do the work Americans won’t do”.  Approximately one in one hundred of the invaders caught crossing the southern border are from Arab countries and estimates range from 800,000 to 1.2 million people attempt to enter this country illegally each year.  Using the above figures, it is safe to accept that there are 800-1200 potential threats to our country attempting to breach our national security annually.  “They only want to come here to kill the infidels that Americans won’t kill.”  Even if that estimate is exaggerated by a factor of ten, and only 80-120 bulk murders are allowed, for my money it is far too many.

So what is The Department of Homeland Security strategy to protect us?  They eliminate all references to radical Islam, terrorist and Muslim from national security documents.

Now we’re also looking at Mexican assassination teams targeting border patrol and local law enforcement to clear paths for drug and human smuggling.  Again, our protectors will be prosecuted for defending themselves unless they first sustain a life-threatening injury.  This administration, like the past few, wants to again sanctify the lawbreakers already here with amnesty.

Therefore, to me it looks like our President, his administration and congress no longer want to take the fight to the enemy.  They want to reduce our defenses and allow our enemies into our country where they can inflict the most damage to our nation.

Hey, thanks for the CHANGE, Obama.  Now I have HOPE for my future.

DESTROYING BUSINESS IN AMERICA

April 5, 2010

Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created hostile work environments and multiple law suits, H.R. 3017 is destined to do the same.

Our buddy, Rep. Barney Frank, is fulfilling his obligation to his core supporters with the re-introduction of H.R. 3017 – the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009.  H.R. 3017 includes “gender questionable and alternate sexual lifestyles” as protected species.  With its passage, it will be unlawful for businesses with more than 15 employees and government employers not to hire or promote persons based on “gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth”.

The resolution, aka ENDA, was tabled until the “health care” mandate could be rammed through congress and down our throats.  The acronym (ENDA) is probably an intended innuendo.  I know my innuendo innuendo regarding this bill is.  Now that we have been shafted once, it’s time to move ahead with more unreasoned encroachments to our freedom.

This resolution has co-opted much of the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and applied it to personal choice in place of skin color.  Once enacted, it will be virtually impossible not to hire persons of alternate gender identity.  Picking the most qualified candidate will not be an option and it will be impossible for an employer to defend his business against assault from ACLU lawyers.  The ACLU will be suing every hiring or promotion that goes to any other person when there is also an applicant of gender questionability or alternate sexual orientation.  I expect that soon we will be seeing servers at Chili’s dressed in leather with dog collars, chains and whips sashaying to and from the kitchen singing, “We are the World”.

This bill, like virtually everything that recent congresses have put forth, is another step to ruin American business.  Either small businesses will remain small (less than 15 employees) or they will be owned by, and cater to and have a client base of only progressive liberals.

There are already cases on the books where employers along the southern border have been sued for not hiring people who cannot speak English.  Thanks to our legislators, it is considered discriminatory.  In order to avoid such suits, employers must have someone with bi-lingual capabilities on the premises during work hours.  Now it looks like there may have to be a bi-sexual present as well.  Knowledge, intelligence, skill and ability once qualified a person for a particular position in business, but “diversity” has changed that.

We gotta get ‘em out of office and vote in people who actually care about America.  If they don’t perform on our behalf, they should be replaced in 2, 4, 6 years or even earlier when warranted.  In addition, if they can’t hold their position of public trust for a minimum of two terms there should be no retirement pay.  After the second term, they should be replaced.  No more 40 year entrenched Congressmen or Senators; owned in whole by lobbyists.