Sanity Sentinel

In the Footsteps of Manuel Zelaya

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:52:00 +0000

Similar Paths, Similar Fates?

There is a trend developing in the Obama administration that is troubling in more ways than one. The obvious reason is not the most disturbing, however, since many like me expected it, and that is Obama's disdain for our nation and its Constitution. What is more unsettling than that is the fact that Obama is unabashed about his intentions and increasingly unconcerned about our reaction to his acting upon them.

Obama has half jokingly stated that it would be a lot easier to govern a country like China, where his edict would become law automatically, or how he could get more done if he didn't have to bother with Congress. Oh, how we laughed and laughed at those silly remarks. Funny, they were, because this is America, after all, and that's not how we roll. Or is it?

Just as poor parenting can allow a petulant child to run amok, so have we and our alleged watchdog free press surrendered incremental latitudes to this president. Just as the child tests his parents' limits of allowable transgressions, so has this president. When little Johnny steps over the line set by the parents, and the parents then set another line rather than discipline the child, the road to ruin is begun. Soon there will be no rules for Johnny that can't be broken with impunity. The same may be happening with Barry, but he can prove much more dangerous than one little boy gone awry.

Just last month, Obama told a news station in Colorado, KOAA-TV, that Congress is inconsequential, saying:

"Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”

Here, the president effectively dismisses the constitutional requirement for the advice and consent of Congress and there was hardly a whisper of caution. Yet, on January 20, 2009, Obama was compelled to say these words before the American people and to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did Obama have his fingers crossed as he was sworn in? It would appear to be so -- Orly Taitz notwithstanding -- since he immediately set about violating the document he swore to uphold.

From the "Patient Affordable Care Act (PACA), otherwise known as "ObamaCare", to the recent illegal non-recess, recess appointments of four people, Obama has thumbed his nose at us and the constitution, using a false sense of urgency and, in some cases, semantics. Congress was not in recess when Richard Cordray, et al, were appointed, but Obama declared that they were. Swell, so now the president makes his own determinations on constitutionality?

Then, while Congress has been haggling over the particulars of the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Obama took it upon himself to sign an international treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote. Another line to cross, another chance to see if he'll get away with it.

So to where do these incremental steps ultimately lead? We might look back a few years to the country of Honduras. In June of 2009, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office by what has been termed a "military coup". While it is true that the Congress and the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the exile of Zelaya via the military, the description is somewhat misleading.

Zelaya was nearing the end of his eligibility to lead as president, as his second term would end in January of the following year. Seeking to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya sought a referendum on whether the electorate wanted to do so. A lower court ruled the referendum unlawful, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Zelaya, nevertheless, ordered his military to distribute the extra ballot boxes -- interestingly received from Venezuela -- in violation of the courts. His top general refused and was fired by Zelaya.

On June 28th, the country's Supreme Court ordered the detention of Zelaya and he was seized by the military. The Honduran constitutional crisis was underway. The military may have executed the deed, but a military coup, it was not. The military acted at the behest of a unanimous Supreme Court and an equally unanimous Congress. Hugo Chavez was livid, and demanded the immediate return of Zelaya as president.

Soul Mate Handshake?

What was truly odd then was the same demands being made by Barack Hussein Obama. The day after Zelaya's ouster, Obama said, "We are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president." Further lamenting what he called an "illegal action" by the government of Honduras, Obama said, "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."

One would think that a U.S. President would applaud the obvious application of "democratic traditions" by a Honduran Congress actually defending its constitution. Not so with a president who has demonstrated his loathing of his own constitution.

END22 Screenshot

One more interesting note; there was a group of people who launched a website called END22.com on January 20th, 2009. The site has since disappeared, or been scrubbed, but it is curious that such a website would see its inception on the very same day as Obama's inauguration.

One might ask how such an organization could assume that Obama would even win a second term much less plan for a third. That would be a valid question to ponder, but consider this; Obama, by all standards, shouldn't even be where he is today. It is a feat virtually unprecedented in our history.

How does someone rise so fast from absolute obscurity to the presidency of the most powerful country on Earth? How does this same person enjoy such a level of immunity from the media afforded no other president before him? Is it Providence, or is it master planning? These are questions I'll leave to you, dear reader, to ponder. Mine is just to offer that which is to be pondered. Suffice it to say, there is much to see and hear, much we personally witness each day, and much that will be cavalierly dismissed by those who would seek to gain from deflecting the importance of them. So I leave you with this:

When our eyes are no longer our most trusted instruments, when we rely upon others to tell us a truth contrary to that which we plainly see, we are a lost people.

Fracking The Party

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:54:00 +0000

The reason for Mitt Romney's general unpopularity has recently been exposed, and in the process, so have a great many operatives working for his rise to the presidency. The sad thing is, this has caused a rift in the political family that may be difficult to work past.

For the past few days, the Drudge Report has been plastered with damning stories of Newt Gingrich's alleged infidelity, but not the marital type. Instead, Drudge has linked to story after story of reports from other conservative darlings coming out to figuratively stone Gingrich into oblivion, thereby paving a smoother path for Romney to the nomination.

Ann Coulter -- a huge Romney gal -- has all but Borked Newt, most recently and most shrilly claiming that a Gingrich nomination will reelect Obama. When our beloved Ann uses the scare tactics usually reserved for the "enemy", it is quite unsettling when she turns them on her fan base. Drudge joining in on the antics hasn't helped, either. It's one of my first online stops of the day, and I've been feeling quite glum in the past few. Even Tom Delay piled on, despite the solidarity he enjoyed from many of us just a few short years ago.

"What could be happening?", many of us thought. Since it seemed so unseemly that our former champions could turn on us in such dramatic fashion, I started to wonder early today if I had misjudged Newt Gingrich; I started to doubt my backing him.

Fortunately Red County.com -- an organization to which I am more proud today than ever to be a contributor -- discovered something that both assuaged my fears and confirmed my worst suspicions; the Republican Party had been fractured. To make matters worse, the very people and outlets I had counted on for truth had lied to me. Whether these are differences that will prove to be irreconcilable or not remain to be seen. I suppose it depends on the level of contrition of the offenders when the dust settles. Suffice it to say that for now, dear Ms. Coulter, I am very disappointed in you. (You're on my list, too, Matt!)

Red County posted an editorial with a a full response from the Gingrich team enclosed. It's an article from Legal Insurrection, written by former Reagan staffer William A. Jabobson, and it puts to rest the notion being spread all over the web by Romney-ites that Gingrich was less than an enthusiastic supporter of Reagan. This bolstered my spirits instantly, but my anger began to mount in unison with the good news when repeated trips back to Drudge failed to mention the breakthrough. That's when I was sure that Drudge was also in the tank for Romney.

Learning later today that Rush Limbaugh had discussed the strafing of Gingrich by his colleagues and railed against it helped to buoy my mood. Ronald Reagan's son Michael also came out to counter the lies being spread by the cabal against Gingrich, but the icing on the cake was seeing Drudge finally and -- I suspect -- grudgingly post this welcome news up on his aggregate.

Speaking to Newsmax, here's part of what Michael Reagan had to say today:

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.
Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.
It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president."

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.
I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

I'm gratified to learn that my allegiance to Newt is not unfounded, but I am deeply disturbed at the depths to which people I have trusted have sunk so as to achieve a goal of promoting a candidate clearly not desired by the choir to whom they preach.

I think the time has come for all of the angry electorate to unite behind the man they would most like to see face Obama in the general election in November. I would also love to see the TEA Party come out in full endorsement of Gingrich. That will teach the haughty among us that they are preferred pundits but not our true representatives.

We can work on the bitter betrayal somewhere down the road.

At Long Last, the Awakening Masses

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:57:00 +0000

And the Scales Fell from Their Eyes

Here we are on the dawn of a new revolution, albeit one a bit tamer than the one of our inception, yet one no less dependent on the extraordinary courage of its participants. After all, this time the stakes just might be higher than 240 years ago, while the combatants include not only ideological enemies but allies gone somewhat awry.

Conservatives have been under attack for the past half century, and have only recently mounted an effective counter-insurgency in perhaps the last decade. Some of the key players in the climb back to respectability have been cult heroes such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, and others of their ilk. And while they deserve much credit for the arousal of the right, something happened to them along the way, something that seems to happen to leaders of all stripes at some point; a sense of self-adorned majesty apparently crept into their minds, one that refused to accept defiance.

We have had our favorite commentators since the Clinton presidency, and we have allowed ourselves to fall comfortably into the warm folds of their embraces, somewhat secure in the notion that they shared our core values. What we have seen in this primary season is not so much a betrayal of those shared values, but a sudden veering off the road to their achievement. We're now sharply at odds with the voices we not long ago cherished over the proper course to our nation's revival, and our alleged leader-pundits are not at all happy over our detour.

Ann Coulter -- who I love dearly -- has become apoplectic over the possibility that Newt Gingrich could become the republican nominee to face Obama. No, she warns, only Mitt Romney can save us! Once upon a time, many of us would have fallen into lockstep with Ann's decrees, but the times, they are a-changin'.

A Crowd of Motivated TEA Partiers

Thanks in part to the TEA Party, we are poised to see a record number of voters turn out for a presidential election. More importantly, however, is the fact that many more people are actually engaging early and making their wishes known, and clearly. Traditionally, perhaps half of the electorate hibernates throughout the primary process, relying on sound bites and campaign ads and emerging on Election Day like Punxsutawney Phil to cast their votes for -- or against -- whomever the eventual nominee may be.

Not so this time around. People are angry, frustrated, fed up with this failed president, and disgusted with the mainstream media for its malfeasance in reporting accurately on it. To top it all off, we have learned to stand on principle rather than probability, making the voices of our side less crucial to the decision making process.

This is why Newt has done so well; we know of his foibles and frailties, and they are not that important now in the face of the task we must undertake. That is because we also know of Newt's strengths. We are no longer going to meekly offer up a candidate we are told can garner the most votes. We are prepared to put up the candidate we believe will be the most effective, and then we will vote for that candidate en masse.

Timidity is what gave us John McCain in 2008, and that was slightly more palatable than today because we had only a speculative notion of Barack Obama. Now that we have experienced three years of Obama's "leadership", the urgency to be rid of him has aided in our boldness.

It seems we are more than sufficiently motivated to grab the reins of our own destiny in this election year, even if it does cause some past heroes a bit of agita.

Gingrich Refuses to Bow

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:51:00 +0000

Gingrich Under Attack from
Liberal "Victims"

The fastest and easiest way to get what you want in current-day America is to be portrayed -- or portray yourself -- as a victim. Liberals love a victim as conservatives love apple pie, mom, and baseball. Or liberty.

Both ideological groups will defend what they love fiercely, albeit through vastly different methods. The latter group will defend with honor that which they hold dear simply because the affection is genuine. The former will use lies and misdirection not out of genuine concern for their charge, but rather the benefit to themselves for success in doing so.

To a vast many Americans, both the lives they have known and the stories of their ancestors' lives are something they wish to continue, and that which they see slowly slipping away. They have seen first hand or been told on a knee of the immigrants that have built this nation into what it is...or was until a few short years ago. Those immigrants have succeeded and become us without the alleged benefit of advocates shrieking on every corner about how they have been unjustly discriminated against.

So what has changed? Today, Democrats have built for themselves a cottage empire -- designed not to aid those they profess to champion, but rather to exploit for a continuance of power -- that vilifies anyone who dares to speak the truth. The targets of liberal accusations to this effect have themselves become overly sensitized to criticism, and have sacrificed principle for acceptance.

This week, Newt Gingrich has shown us what courage under such fire looks like.

During Monday night's Republican debate, moderator Juan Williams tried to get Gingrich to back-pedal on his recent criticism of President Obama. Gingrich has previously referred to Obama as the food stamp president, and Williams on Monday asked Gingrich if he was "seeking to belittle people" with such rhetoric. Rather than apologetically try to rephrase his criticisms, Gingrich firmly reiterated his meaning:

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history ... I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.”

When Gingrich finished his answer, the audience was on its feet, roaring its approval. Part of the reason for this is that, despite making the most noise, liberals are not the majority in this country. Most people want someone who will finally stand up to the political correctness running amok in America, and Gingrich has demonstrated a willingness to do just that. He has also shone a spotlight on the suffocating effects of liberal coddling of minorities, keeping them dependent rather than freeing their entrepreneurial spirits.

What Gingrich showed on Monday night is that he will not be put on the defensive against Obama when the Divider-in-Chief whips out the race card, nor when he launches into his heart rending class warfare. Newt has shown a desire to thoughtfully articulate the conservative principle of a hand up rather than a hand out. With that ability, Obama will be forced into policy debates with Gingrich, where he will lose badly.

This is the reason that the media is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to rip Gingrich from the top of the Republican nominee list, and why they continue to promote Romney in yet another bid to "McCain" us like they did in 2008. While the rest of the field had their rising moments -- only to ultimately fall back down again -- Newt has risen, fallen, and risen again. The latest Rasmussen poll from South Carolina is expected to show Gingrich leading Romney by 2 percentage points, 33%-31%.

There is still a long way to go to the nomination, but the thought of a president who refuses to bow has a nice feel to it.

The Scenic Route to Dystopia

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:52:00 +0000

Is This America's Future?

Despite the repeated calls by Barack Obama for the need for speed concerning key elements of his agenda, he is prudent enough to choose the scenic route to our eventual doom when expediency demands. After all, even he must realize the trauma to all those aboard his speeding "bus" should they witness, through the windows, the passing splendor of America rapidly turning to despair and decay.

Having already accomplished an estimated ninety percent of Alinsky, Cloward and Piven's goals -- overloading the system to a point of near collapse in order to implement radical change under the guise of rescue -- Obama can now use subterfuge to seize control with no discernible resistance and even the tacit approval of a large portion of the electorate.

He's already tested the waters of apathy with success, first floating the notion that he'd prefer to bypass Congress in the form of a joke (yuk, yuk), and then proceeding to do that very thing with impunity. Obama recently made four "recess appointments" when Congress was not in recess. Three of them -- all to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), were only nominated by the president weeks before their appointments, yet Obama claimed that he "couldn't wait any longer". Therein is the evident need for speed.

But Obama's intent to bypass Congress began long before that, and while the Republicans raised barely a whimper in protest or outrage at these latest appointments, they had set a precedent of indifference from the inception of Obama's presidency, timidly watching Obama name a record number of czars. Democrats, for their part, exhibited a haughty enthusiasm and feckless surrender to the Executive Branch. Thus, a figurative prince was born and his ascension to the first "throne" of the United States was begun.

Just as our Constitution was the final affront to King George, so has it become the perpetual impediment to those who would once again institute a monarchy. When Obama declared, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!", he wasn't kidding. And while many saw this statement as benign, and the intent as good, the rest of us knew what we've always known; anything transformed never resembles the original.

Obama and his administration have been busy in that transformation in the most incremental ways, such to the effect that most people don't even notice the cage being built around them, one wall at a time. In a speech to the Virginia Convention in 1788, James Madison had this to say:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Liberty's Demise

One of those gradual and silent encroachments happened on the last day of 2011. On New Years Eve, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), giving him the arbitrary authority to have any U.S. citizen arrested by the United States military and detained indefinitely. American gulags, anyone?

And just as a child will test his parent's resolve slowly, Obama has pushed the limits of his executive powers inch by excruciating inch, each time finding little to no resistance from congress. Now, astutely finding a precedent in the Reorganization Act of 1939 -- which was allowed to expire in 1984 -- Obama wants Congress to grant him the authority to consolidate ~~power~~ agencies. At what point does that last inch complete the mile?

The plan has been deliberate and painstaking, but it seems to be working to perfection. Obama has been taking our economy down the chute very effectively. What this is doing is causing more and more unrest among the people, and it is only a matter of time before we can be legally branded as enemies of the state and removed from existence. Is this the change half of you voted for in 2008? Because there is no dispute that it is indeed a "fundamental transformation" of America.

Perhaps if one of the Republican candidates vowed to be more like George Washington, and indicated that as president, these powers would be removed from the books, there would be a chance to reverse this madness. Think long and hard about this, people. Do your own research, dig, get involved. If half of the electorate persists in relying solely on soundbites and campaign ads, I fear that the America I've long known will vanish into a desolate Dystopia.

Hateful Rhetoric and the Intolerance of the Tolerant

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:27:00 +0000

Is America Terminally Ill?

America, once the healthiest and most vibrant nation on the planet, has a disease, and I pray that it is not ultimately determined to be terminal. The people running the show today -- liberals -- seem to think that they are well on the way to curing the disease, but they are really the root cause of our ills, despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

Part of me clings to the hopeful belief that liberals truly consider their crusade to be noble, for I would mourn at the realization that theirs is a malicious quest. Why, I ask myself, would people so fortunate to live here wish to destroy the blessings we have? The other part of me sees nothing but malice in the hearts of liberals, simply because I cannot imagine such rude behavior as anything that could be construed as constructive.

Liberals today have the Midas touch, only in reverse; everything they touch that was once golden in America turns to rust, including our reputation on the world stage. For example, while our enemies' opinion of us hasn't really changed much over the years, their boldness in expressing their contempt of us has. Once there was a time when the likes of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Hugo Chavez wouldn't have dared display such mocking of America in public, yet today they do so with childlike glee, giggling and joking about something as serious as a nuclear bomb.

Iran, in particular, rattles its sabre with regularity, never seeming to worry that they will be forced to match their words with actions. Similarly, the leaders of that country blatantly express the intention to annihilate an entire people, and formerly righteous nations dismiss the words as mere blather. We have seen such cavalier dismissal before in history, and it never ended well when rhetoric became reality too late for prevention.

While our enemies are no longer afraid, our friends -- those we have remaining -- are afraid. This is a symptom that can be relatively quickly rectified with the right leader, but what of the decay of our own people? That is not as easily treatable, sad to say.

Before the complete erosion of morals had taken place in America, our soldiers returning from Viet Nam were spat upon and called "baby killers", which was then considered a right proper insult, and for good reason. Who would want to be accused of killing such innocent creatures as babies, after all? Today, the same people who loathed our military enough to hurl such vile insults themselves now fight like soldiers for the right to kill babies. Doesn't anyone see the irony in this?

We would call the language of those protesting hippies (there, I said it) hateful rhetoric. They, however, referred to it as "speaking to truth". Herein lies irony number two: while some soldiers in Viet Nam may have killed babies, it is demonstrably false to suggest that they all did. Yet when conservatives condemn radical Islam, we are accused of hate speech. By extension, then, it was ok for 1960's liberals to spit indiscriminately on even those soldiers who had fought honorably, yet now we must treat even the most dangerous of Muslims among us as fine upstanding people.

"Hateful rhetoric" has been the malignant tumor we have ignored in other facets of our society, as well. We have allowed ourselves to be cowed into accepting notions once alien to us, all out of a fear of being labelled by the left. (Funny how stigmatization only applies to honorable people these days).

"Why do you hate..." has become the opening salvo of the liberal in any argument over right and wrong, to great effectiveness. For example, when a conservative demands that our borders and sovereignty be protected from invasion, he is asked by a Democrat, "Why do you hate Latinos"? Said conservative immediately is placed on the defensive when he has no reason to be, but the reaction is reflexive. We are reminded that this nation was built by immigrants, and that is true, but there has been a shift in the intentions of immigrants in the last few decades.

Homogeneous No More

In the early 20th century, immigrants risked death to come to America in order that they might better their lives and those of their children. The object then was to immigrate here and become Americans. Today's immigrants want to come here -- in many cases illegally -- to carve out a piece of America in their home countries image, complete with language and culture.

Conservatives don't hate immigrants, they just hate the idea that America is slowly being divided into a multilingual, multicultural patchwork rather than the melting pot it was intended to be, and special rights afforded to people who are not yet citizens can be infuriating at times. Worst of all, however, is the lack of humility exhibited by people -- especially those here in violation of the law -- when demanding rights and services.

The same can be said of the gay community. Once gay people lived in fear of discovery for it would have not only been humiliating, but potentially dangerous if anyone found out. It was referred to as "living in the closet". Gradually, the idea of someone being gay was accepted and the danger was minimized, with the exception of a small segment of society that still thought it "fashionable" to assault gay people.

Most people were willing to live in harmony with this newly exposed lifestyle until a portion of the group became militant, demanding that society accept increasingly offensive displays of the lifestyle. When people complained over the in-your-face attitude of some in the gay community, they were immediately labelled homophobes and intolerant neanderthals by the left.

And finally, illustrating irony number three, we have David Silverman of American Atheists, who is upset over the existence of Tim Tebow. Claiming that Tebow is, "full of crap" for his public prayer and praise of Jesus, Silverman declares that Tebow should "pray in the closet".

That pretty much sums up the hypocrisy of the allegedly tolerant left in America. Since there is so much room in all the closets now, we can start stuffing Christians into them. Wouldn't this be considered hateful rhetoric? Not if you asked a liberal.

Perhaps the Mayans Foresaw Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:08:00 +0000

A Critical Time for America

We've torn yet another page off of the calender, and as we plunge into perhaps the most important election year of our American lifetimes and hurtle toward November, there are issues that must be dredged up from the 2008 campaign, despite the efforts of the mainstream media to bury or ignore them, both then and now.

There are still the unanswered issues of Obama's past associations -- deftly deflected by a press hell bent on seeing our first president of color -- that must be revisited in this campaign season. Add to those the only track record we have of the man, despite a coordinated war on truth by a compliant media, and the case against the incumbent would appear to be ironclad. Sadly, the defense seems to hold all the cards and the favor of the figurative judge.

While the ultimate judge is ostensibly we, the people, the fact is that we are merely the jury, while the media sets the rules and allows only select testimony, a la the judge in a trial. The good news is that this is not a trial in the true sense of the word, and we are not sequestered as a proper jury. We have other avenues to the truth, and it is imperative that we navigate those avenues with a keen scrutiny.

I'll leave it to the professionals to wage the war of nostalgia against the incumbent with the solemn hope that they play this election season like an inspired team, a team on a mission; a team with its backs to the wall. For the rest of us -- we of the metaphorical choir who need no further convincing -- it is imperative that we bang loudly the drum of discernible transgressions committed by Obama. Far from a campaign booster for a particular candidate, this is a desperate plea to my countrymen to put a stop to the march of tyranny on display before us for all to see.

Barack Hussein Obama and the current Democrat class of Congress are waging an all out war on our Constitution even as they insist that the opposite is true, and when we protest too loudly, our media "watchdogs" do little more than bark at our trespasses and fetch water for their ideological masters. Couple that with Obama Czars such as Mark Lloyd, FCC "diversity chief", whose mission is to stifle Conservative broadcasting through the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and our survival as the nation we once knew is indeed in jeopardy.

This Democrat in the Oval Office no longer believes that he needs to have the patience to abide by the rules of the Founders, as evidenced by his recent non-recess-recess appointments of four new Directors who should have been subject to the advice and consent of the Legislative Branch. Obama went so far as to defend his actions with remarks that Mark Levin declared the "forthright statement of a dictator".

Leftist Democrats have long held the belief that we the people are but stupid livestock, too stupid to fend for ourselves and therefore in dire need of their care and guidance. History proves otherwise, for it is the spirit of free men and women that built this great nation into the grand empire it recently was, before the opulent decided to oppress through false compassion.

If the Republicans can't mount a serious challenge to Obama -- what with the available material just waiting to be compiled into ready-made ads -- it might as well be that the Mayan calender ended in anticipation of Barack Hussein Obama, at least where America is concerned. Still, to go down without a fight would be a sin. So it is incumbent upon all of us to come to the realization that the world we once knew is on the verge of extinction, and the climate has nothing to do with it.

It is our very liberty that needs saving.

A Nation's Surrendered Standing

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:38:00 +0000

We're Not Worthy!

In November of 2008, more people voted for Barack Obama than voted for John McCain, of that there is no question. Well, there may be, but that is an entirely different subject. For now, we'll simply deal with the people who voted for themselves and not for their nation.

Many of the people who cast those Obama votes in 2008 now regret their decisions, wondering what they could possibly had been thinking. In short, they were duped by not only the man's handlers, but by an allegedly unbiased press, which provided an inordinate amount of cover for a completely unproven candidate.

That leaves the people who still enthusiastically support Obama, the only man to occupy (pardon the pun) the White House since Jimmy Carter that leaves the latter in a somewhat positive light. Carter must be dancing with delight at the eventual legacy of Barack Obama, which would, by default, include him among Obama's continued supporters for selfish motives.

While Obama has worked overtime since inauguration day to weaken our standing around the globe -- from apologizing for our "arrogance" to bowing in obsequiousness to foreign leaders who once respected American superiority -- it is still the people who pray for his continued reign and rejoice at the "work" he has already done who are most culpable in our slow death as a nation. Whether it be powerful political allies of the president -- depending on the continued wave of privilege -- or the lowest among our society, at least economically, who crave the continued flow of "free stuff", our fellow citizens have sold us out.

Our collective morality is continually mocked as hokey, quaint, or just plain stupid. We're told that we're being hypocritical when -- as sinners -- we demand that others adhere to a higher standard. What the left fails to grasp is that we fully understand our own frailties while constantly seeking to atone for them. They decide that sin is a normal function of life since they also mock God. While it is perfectly within their right to do so, even at their own peril, what is tragic is that that view is catching hold in our country.

Success in America is also slandered while it was once the station virtually everyone sought to achieve. And this president is stoking the very flames of envy and false entitlement that are the hallmarks of the absence of morality. There was a day in America when it was considered shameful to depend on others. Charity at that time was for the unfortunate. Normal folk would accept it in only the most dire of circumstances, even then placing as condition of acceptance the promise to repay the kindness. Today, it is demanded with not so much as a "thank you" offered.

Virtue is vanquished regularly, with politicians blatantly lying without fear of consequence. Lying to get ahead has become so pervasive in our society that ordinary people lie to each other with absolutely no remorse. The practice has woven itself into the very fabric of our souls like a rogue thread, and the stigma of discovery has been rendered impotent. Culprits routinely shrug and retort, "Well, what did you expect?".

Our people have not only accepted the increasing role of government in our every day lives, we have craved it. We have begged for it. And we have embraced it. Once upon a time unemployment insurance lasted twenty six weeks, and then the checks stopped. After that, the alternative to finding a job was to apply for welfare, which was once properly stigmatized. People out of work actually worked to find a job in twenty six weeks to avoid such shame. Now we have two years of checks flowing to people who "can't find work", and government is seeking to extend that even more.

We are rapidly descending into a third world scenario where wealth is held by the rulers and doled out to the hungry masses, all because we allowed ourselves to be lured by the alleged magnanimity of a government that was designed to serve us, not to provide for us. But we permitted those we elected to stay too long, and they got very comfortable with the opulent trappings of their place in society, a place that was implicitly intended to be temporary.

We surrendered it all; the freedoms of a young nation and the blessing of liberty bestowed by our creator at the hands of our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take everything you have". I believe ours is almost at that size.

As for our standing in the world, there is not one nation that respects or fears us the way they did just forty years ago. We have had presidents in office whose very presence kept hostile and impotent foreign leaders from voicing their hatred and contempt for us. Today, most of the planet's bad actors are thumbing their noses at us and laughing. That is because we elected an utter neophyte to be our "leader" based on a manufactured brilliance of the candidate and a desire to finally elect a black president. (At least ESPN can't fire me).

China brazenly mocks us, Iran openly taunts us, and Mexico continues its march across our borders, all the while our federal government sues its own states to prevent them from enforcing American laws regarding immigration. As if that wasn't bad enough, our own Department of Homeland Security increasingly hints that we, the people, are becoming more the focus of their work.

In other words, we're not dead yet. There is still hope, ironically, that our great nation can be saved. We have eleven short months to decide our fate, and the clock is ticking. It is up to all of you, and me. I know which way I want to go.

These Capricious Critters in Control

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:33:00 +0000

Liberals Pretending to Care
for the "Little Guy"

One year ago, the fierce debate on Capitol Hill and in the pages of our State Run Media was all about the payroll tax cut. Today, the debate rages yet again, just as ferociously, only this time the roles are reversed. It makes one wonder if these people we elect understand at all that we, the little people, even pay attention to their antics.

Do the bloggers and actual "journalists" not realize that their works are products for posterity? Perhaps the belief that many of us are too lazy to check recent events is justified since such intellectual sloth has been fostered for decades by the propagators of poppycock. But anyone with a few minutes to spare, a modicum of curiosity and a computer -- or a library card -- can retreat into history and read the opinions of people who now champion the opposite position.

Such is the case with the current "payroll tax cut" extension. The same mission that Democrats -- both political and pundit -- vehemently opposed one short year ago and for decades previous. The same mission that Democrats -- most notably President Barack Hussein Obama -- now use as a weapon to attempt to bludgeon Republicans in a general election season.

Obama spoke in Osawatomie, KS -- despite his opening claim of it being good "to be back in Texas" -- where his campaign-on-our-dime continued. The same man who brokered a deal with Republicans in December of 2010 for a temporary payroll tax "holiday" was speaking where Teddy Roosevelt had a century earlier, ostensibly as a form of comparison between the two presidents. (One wise soul suggested that Obama should try being the president rather than trying to be a past one.)

The payroll tax break of 2010 caused much consternation among Democrats across the nation since it was the first time the Democrats ever allowed a rate cut in the program since its inception. With Social Security edging toward insolvency in the near future, and its sole funding source historically having been payroll taxes, it is understandable that anyone would have been skeptical of a reduction. It seems, though, that even liberal Democrats underestimated Obama's Socialist tendencies.

As it turns out, the payroll tax holiday did not create a dent in the coffers of the trust fund. How can that be, you ask? Simple; Obama's redistributive shenanigans have breached the once impenetrable wall between the trust fund and the general fund. What that means is that now the federal government can take tax money for any project and pump it into the Social Security fund. What's odd is that they have been raiding that fund for years to spend on general fund projects while resisting any attempts to replenish it from any other source. Obama waved his wand and poof, now they can.

Here's the rub, however, which will explain the title of this article: in 2010 when the White House first floated the idea of a payroll tax holiday, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the Senate Subcommittee On Retirement and Aging Chair, expressed concern. At the time she said, "I'm concerned this could be the beginning of the slippery slope to getting rid of the payroll tax and cause a way of getting rid of Social Security as a public issue in the way of heading to privatization."

Ironically, the White House used these words as a way to assuage those fears:

"It is explicitly temporary and there's a general revenue transfer in the bill so it will not negatively impact the social security trust fund at all."

Further, Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post wrote an article on December 8th, 2010 in which he moaned about the expiration being labelled a "tax hike", and then wrote another in September of 2011 in which he labels the pending expiration a...tax hike. To add to the irony, Ryan's first article was titled Tax Cut Deal A Hidden Threat To Social Security, suggesting that he was totally against it. The second article is titled Paul Ryan, Herman Cain Push For Tax Increases On Middle Class.

Aha! There it is; if it can be used as a tool against Republicans, it's got to be good!

To fully understand what the end game is for Obama in all this confusion, it is this; getting the "rich" to pay for your retirement while you enjoy a payroll tax "holiday". If the general revenue transfer is also "explicitly temporary", it stands to reason that it will also expire with the tax cut. So in order for Obama to raise the taxes on the "wealthy", he needs the payroll tax cut extended.

You gotta give credit where credit is due. The man is nothing if not cunning.

Mitt's Gall, Newt's Baggage

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:11:00 +0000

The Two Front-Runners for GOP

There can be no argument that the 2011 incarnation of Mitt Romney, the candidate, is not a far better candidate than the version that ran in 2008, and as if to punctuate the point, Mitt's campaign has come out with the first direct salvo of the season against Obama-the-incumbent.

The surprise of the move is not in the hubristic nature of such presumptuousness --Gingrich, after all, has made it clear that the two are rivals and not "opponents" -- but in the aggressiveness of it. And it's already drawing howls of protest from Obama's camp and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as a whole, claiming that the ad is misleading.

Romney's ad, which ran today in New Hampshire to coincide with Obama's visit, could legitimately be labelled "sleight of hand", but it nevertheless suggests a basic truth: if Obama's campaign keeps talking about the economy, he will lose. The ad uses Obama's own words from the 2008 campaign against John McCain, but Obama was quoting a McCain staffer at the time. From the Daily News:

At one point, Obama is heard saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

Although it sounds [sic] Obama is talking about his chances of winning in 2012, the then-Senator was actually quoting an aide from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008.

How fitting it is, then, that Newt Gingrich shares the lead with Romney.

Gingrich knows a thing or two about misleading ads, himself a victim of creative editing in a time when the technology was not nearly what it is today. As Speaker of the House in 1995, Gingrich was leading the fight against the last Democrat President's attempt to inflict National health care on Americans and, as usual, the leftist sycophants struck back hard, albeit deceitfully.

As Bill Clinton was trying valiantly to implement the signature plan of his wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton, for health care reform, Gingrich was leading the opposition and gave a speech on the matter in 1995 to a Blue Cross audience. His words were selected in part and used to demonize him in what has turned out to be a most effective way. I know people to this day who still harbor a deep hatred for the man based on a lie.

It was the infamous "wither on the vine" faux-quote", in which the left allegedly caught the right wing Speaker admitting that the Republicans wanted to kill Medicare. In 1996, during the re-election campaign of Bill Clinton, the AFL-CIO ran an ad with Newt's "own words" saying, "Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine."

But, as I pointed out in 2009, the quote was not in the full context of Gingrich's speech. Here's what he actually said, and meant:

"What do you think the health care financing administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

Voters will do well to remember that it wasn't Medicare that Republicans wanted to kill, it was government-run health care, much as it still is today. And as Gingrich moves closer toward the nomination, also remember this when he begins to take on that which the Democrats inflicted on us when they controlled it all. Whomever ends up with the GOP nomination, repeal of Obamacare will be a top priority, for it is that route which will cause the most immediate impact on our foul economy.

It is also pertinent to note Gingrich's use of the word "voluntarily". Think of how many of Obama's own cronies have already filed for waivers from his health care monstrosity. Even people who view this president favorably have already begun preemptively leaving it, voluntarily.

If the Democrats want to whine their way through what is slated to be a particularly nasty campaign, let them, but the Republicans must be prepared to hit them with all of Mitt's gall and the full weight of Newt's baggage.

Preoccupied "Zoo Creatures"

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:02:00 +0000

Gambling's "Zoo Creatures"

What started out in a privately owned park in New York's Manhattan as a day of protest has turned into a cottage industry unto itself, thanks in large part to a media machine sired by 1960's Vietnam War protesters; aging hippies who relish unrest and detest any form of "establishment", a particular irony that should be self-evident.

WOR Radio's morning talk show host, John Gambling, parks his car and walks past Zuccotti Park some mornings when it's still dark, and he's seen the vermin encamped there with his own eyes. It was Gambling who dubbed this sorry lot the "Zoo Creatures" on his popular show, and the moniker has stuck, at least locally. Even some of the inmates have noticed, holding up signs in rebuttal.

But the movement didn't stay in a small parcel of land in posh Manhattan for long, quickly spreading to urban areas across the nation, again aided by those who report such things with giddy glee, and the explicit approval of pampered celebrities who -- despite lifestyles most certainly defined as those of the one percent -- find themselves compelled to go slumming every now and then, just to show how "real" they are. (Susan Sarandon made a cameo appearance in Manhattan a few weeks ago on her way to her flight to Italy, popping out of a chauffeur-driven limousine like Punxutawney Phil long enough to show some "solidarnosc").

As this movement grows bigger and decidedly badder, it is still revered by the left even as the TEA Party movement is continually vilified, yet to date, there have been no arrests and no reports of misconduct at any TEA Party rallies since they've been operating. I won't belabor the point about the TEA Party, however, simply because the only "story" there is one of harmony and patriotic indignation over what has become of our great nation. Rally locations are routinely left in pristine condition and as mentioned above, there has been no reason for a police presence at all, other than to protect the demonstrators from outside mischief.

Occupy Oakland Disorderly Conduct

So let's now take a closer look at how this beloved leftist phenomenon -- the Occupy Movement -- has fared thus far. Five D's sum it all up rather neatly: Disorderly, Destruction, Depravity, Disease, and Death. To help keep things in perspective -- and as the "occupiers" repeatedly insist that none of the events are related to their movement -- try to imagine any of the following incidents happening at a TEA Party rally, and the ensuing mainstream media reaction.

As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi fretted over the "rhetoric" of the TEA Party, inferring that it was a dangerous movement, but recently said of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, "God bless them". Yet the occupiers have had numerous clashes with police and have displayed a complete disregard for authority. (The infamous defecating on a police car comes to mind). The occupiers have destroyed storefronts, smashed windows and littered every park upon which they have squatted.

Reports have come in from around the nation of rampant drug use, public acts of sex and general lewdness, and sexual assault. Throw in a little pedophilia for good measure; in early October, 24-year-old Richard Armstrong was arrested for sexual assault of a 14-year-old runaway girl at the Occupy Dallas encampment. There have beed several reports of sexual assault in the New York version of Occupy and another in Cleveland.

There also the issue of theft among the protesters, as in the woman who reported that her $5,500 Macintosh laptop computer was stolen. (One wonders which percentage of the population even owns such an expensive rig).

Next up is Disease, which is becoming more prevalent in the filthy conditions in which these people are living. In Atlanta, the Occupy base has been beset with reported cases of tuberculosis, and in New York's Zuccotti Park, protesters are contracting what's been dubbed "Zuccotti Lung" at an alarming rate. According to NBC New York:

With little sleep in cold conditions, cigarettes and drinks being passed from mouth to mouth, and few opportunities to wash hands, Zuccotti Park may now just be the best place to catch respiratory viruses, norovirus (also known as the winter vomiting virus) and tuberculosis, according to one doctor.

The damp clothing and cardboard signs wet with rain are also breeding grounds for mold. Some protesters are urinating in bottles and leaving food trash discarded throughout the campground, providing further opportunities for nastiness.

It is frightening to think what may happen when these people return to the real world, possibly infecting the rest of us in the process.

And finally, we bring you Death, which has been on the rise at these Occupy camps. In Salt Lake City, Utah, a man in his 40's was found dead in his tent. Authorities believe the cause was a combination of drug use and carbon monoxide from a space heater in his tent. In Vermont, a military veteran committed suicide with a bullet to the brain, and in Oakland, California, a man was murdered by gunfire. And still, every news account I have read tries to distance these events from the movement itself.

Rules Were Not Meant To
Be Broken

It is time to disband these not-so-merry men (and women) before any more damage is done. I would recommend a period of quarantine prior to any of them being released to the public, for safety and health concerns.

This is no longer about the right to peaceably assemble or petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It's now about the rights of others and the rule of law. Perhaps to best describe what this has devolved into it would be prudent to add two more D's to the mix: Disaster and Disgrace.

Five Day Warning

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:24:00 +0000

It Was Telegraphed

Giving a speech in 2008, just five days before Election night, candidate Barack Hussein Obama uttered his final warning to America; "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America!" That was the moment that punctuated all of the previous warnings from the legions of bloggers like myself, and the more in depth probings of the few remaining news outlets that have not been co-opted by the State.

In what may be considered a strange coincidence, it was the day before Halloween when Obama uttered those words, and the fright has not ended since.

In the interval between that speech and the night that voters actually pulled the levers -- or impregnated their chads, depending on geography -- we still had time and validation in our favor to save this nation. Sadly, that opportunity knocked until its knuckles bled.

Once those ballots were cast, and Obama was elected, it was like Sauron had finally obtained the ring. All of the preparations were carefully and meticulously taken, all the pieces were in place, and the "fundamental transformation" was now just a matter of flipping the proverbial switch.

Since the 1950's, after the socialists and communists failed to do what Obama is now credited with, the methodology was changed to one of subterfuge and covert planning. My grandfather used to warn me again and again that the communists would take us without firing a single shot, and he was right.

Leftists went below the radar and began subverting our young through the Board of Education, molding the minds of our children into idiots who only knew the greatness of the agenda. Facts and history be damned, only the lies of the State are truth. Don't believe it? The Right Scoop has a very telling video in which a former Soviet subject encounters some of the products of public education. That video can be seen here.

The Idol of "Occupy"

To the people occupying Wall Street, Ronald Reagan was a villain and Che Guevara is a hero. And North Korea is a wonderful place with full employment and high wages. The former resident of the now defunct U.S.S.R. tried to tell these people of the true horrors of living in a communist state, but they scoffed at him. "Stop telling the truth!", they seemed to say.

George Orwell once said:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

I guess that makes the TEA Party truly revolutionary, because Washington, D.C. and our schools are cesspools of deceit that have overflowed into the streets where protesters dwell.

Through all of this, America still stands, albeit while clinging precariously to the corner ropes on wobbly knees. We haven't hit the canvass yet, however, and we now find ourselves with 369 days -- considerably more than the five Obama gave us three years ago -- to make amends and set this ship right. Opportunity's knuckles have since healed; let's not make it knock unheeded this time around.

Unlike the poor dupes in the video above -- who wouldn't believe the experience of another -- we have but to look around us in our own personal experience to see the product of socialism. What you see is just a drop on the tip of the tongue. Do you want an entire mouthful of this? For those old enough to remember, compare what you see today to the days of Reagan, and begin thinking about your decision a year from now.

Herman Cain Called It: Here Come the WiFi Nooses

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:01:00 +0000

Here we go again

Brace yourselves for some heightened hypocrisy and delirious demagoguery, because the liberal press has decided once again to engage in what Herman Cain referred to as a "high tech lynching". Examples of hypocrisy will abound, from the sudden feigned outrage by the defenders of Bill Clinton over an allegation of "inappropriate behavior" -- a rather subjective term, especially when compared to the hard evidence of a semen stain -- to the revived curiosity about a candidate's past, something that saw it's inception only after Obama had won the nomination.

Remember how incurious was the media concerning all of the mystery that swirled around then-candidate Obama, and compare that to the legions of reporters who descended on a small Alaska town to go dumpster diving in pursuit of whatever garbage could be found on Sarah Palin. And of course, never forget the treatment of Clarence Thomas during his nomination process to the Supreme Court.

That treatment, and the instant notoriety it afforded Anita Hill, is about to be recreated in all its ugliness, just as Herman Cain prophetically predicted, only this time, it will be served with a heaping side dish of audacity. It will be interesting -- to eminently downplay the actual adjective -- to see the most ardent defenders of Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky affair (pardon the pun) suddenly and hysterically attempt to convince voters that Herman Cain is unfit to run for president, especially when based on speculation. Keep in mind that that speculation concerns a rather ambiguous charge, as well.

Politico's crack investigative team has "unearthed" some charges brought against Herman Cain back in the 1990's which ironically coincide with Bill and Monica's woes. But one must wonder again; where were these investigators in 2007 and 2008, when Obama was running for president, and his past seemed obviously murky? Surely the team members couldn't all fit into the dumpsters of Wasilla. Maybe the rest were all on line at said dumpsters.

What we're really seeing here is page one of the leftist's playbook regarding winning elections. Just as the media and the open primaries process herded John McCain toward the nomination in 2008, so are they trying to foist Romney upon us. But Herman Cain is not about to lay down and let that happen without a fight, so now the left -- afraid that Cain may be more serious than they originally believed -- will run him down and flatten him.

Once that mission is accomplished, and the mission of nominating Romney is complete, they will train their sights on Romney. Some newspaper is probably already sitting on a story just waiting for the appropriate time to unveil it to hurt Romney. That is precisely what the New York Times tried to do to McCain after they had propped him up on their pages like a bowling pin. That backfired on the Times because the story turned out to be false. It was a brazen attempt at king making, however.

It must also be remembered that it wasn't until after McCain selected Sarah Palin that the attacks became more virulent. It was perfect because the other news outlets that also praised McCain were now free to attack his campaign through Palin without appearing as two-faced as the Times had.

So now, as Herman Cain becomes ever more frightening to the liberal establishment, he will suffer the slings and arrows of vitriol and viciousness both in an attempt to run him out of the campaign and get back to the task of building their rickety pedestal for Mitt Romney. The media doesn't care who gets hurt in the process, especially Cain's wife who will undoubtedly be peppered with questions when she eventually joins the candidate on the trail.

As for Politico, they claim to have verified the identities of Cain's alleged accusers but, conveniently, the names are being withheld. So Cain was right after all in his prediction of the attacks to come. As Jeffrey Lord of American Spectator puts it, High Tech Lynching: The Sequel Starring Herman Cain. Perfect.

Barack and Mahmoud: Two Peas in a Pod

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:32:00 +0000

Barackmadinejad

Were Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad separated at birth? That was my first thought when conceiving this piece, but realizing that they were born nearly five years apart, that would render the theory invalid. However, considering the myriad relatives of Obama that have popped up around the globe since his nomination for president, there is still reason to believe that the two could be brothers, if only ideologically.

While Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamist State of Iran, run in actuality by the "spiritual" leader in the Ayatollah, Obama has been working extra hours in the expansion of Iran's boundaries or, at the very least, an expansion of sister states nearby. (In the Islamist world, I suppose the term "sister states" would, by necessity, be changed to "brother states". Theological misogyny, and all that jazz).

Since his inauguration, Barack Hussein Obama has been campaigning for the rise of Islam in the Middle East and the decline of Western influence. His speech in Cairo in 2009 was an open admission that America had been "arrogant" in the past and must now atone for its insolence, while his foreign policy has been to relegate our dearest friend and ally in the region -- Israel -- to the ash heap.

It is no mistake that the one man who has been instrumental in the relative peace that has lasted for the past 30 years in the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak, was treated as any of Obama's aides who didn't toe his line. Mubarak and these aides all bear the same tread marks on their torsos as a result of Obama's bus, which they were unceremoniously tossed beneath when they proved an impediment to his agenda. Thus began the so-called "Arab Spring".

Oh, the glee here at home, in our doe-eyed media, as the prospect of a "democratic uprising" began to unfold in Egypt. Why, those poor, oppressed people are finally going to experience freedom once Mubarak is gone! The problem is, no one was complaining about oppression in Egypt for much of those 30 years as they were already free to move about the country and enjoy a somewhat secular lifestyle. Nevertheless, Obama had made his pronouncement: "Mubarak must go!"

OK, so maybe it was a foreign policy blunder on the nubile Obama's part, one that might be excusable, I suppose. After all, Jimmy Carter inadvertently got Anwar Sadat killed, which ushered in the era of Mubarak, so what's one more mistake by an American president? Considering what is poised to fill the void in Egypt this time around, it's a big mistake.

*Special aside: Consider the current angst over the foreign policy experience of a candidate like Herman Cain, who actually loves America and freedom.

Not long before the "Arab Spring", however, there was another uprising in the Middle East, this time by a decidedly more pro-Western contingent; the people of Iran. In June of 2009, Iran held its presidential elections. In the aftermath, the people felt that they had been duped and began protesting the outcome, for which they were promptly and brutally suppressed. The Obama administration's reaction was initially one of condemnation combined with support for the people of Iran, but quickly and "masterfully" withdrew for fear of appearing to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs.

So while the Iranian people were being crushed by a brutal regime, Obama turned his back on them. I still maintain that -- especially now in retrospect -- it was because Iran was already a solidly Islamist State and needed no prodding from this version of Washington, D.C. There was much work to be done, and much "regional organizing" to accomplish.

With Egypt now creeping closer to Shar'ia law under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama doubled down on the unrest in Libya. As he proved with Mubarak, countries such as Egypt and now Libya were fertile grounds for "meddling" and, in the case of Libya, even military intervention. Perceptions of Western meddling were no longer a concern. The march to the Caliphate had begun.

I can't even imagine Jimmy Carter -- a man who bears virtually no resemblance to anyone I admire -- saying that the Muslim call to prayer "is the most beautiful sound I ever heard", as Barack Hussein Obama did. Never could I believe that an American president would express such contempt for the Bible while quoting liberally from the Qur'an. Yet here we stand today with an alleged "leader" who leads nothing at home aside from rapid decline, but guides the advance of Islam abroad, all but ignoring the country already most firmly ensconced in its tenets.

Indistinguishable

Barack and Mahmoud...two peas in the same religious pod. As Coptics get run out of Egypt by the thousands and Christian churches burn, Obama and our giddy media gleefully anticipate the coming elections in that formerly all Coptic country and mention not the burning churches. The "party" likely to gain the most legislative seats in the new Egyptian government is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sad that such a country, once a peaceful yet strategically critical one in the region, will now fall to the enemies of liberty and peace. Egypt once was all Coptic for two hundred years, from the 4th to the 6th centuries under Roman rule. It wasn't until the 7th century -- and the birth of Islam -- that that all changed.

Perhaps that is yet another similarity between Mahmoud and Barack Hussein; they both cling to 7th century ideology and the rule of Islam.

Of course, this is just a theory.

Solyndra on Wheels

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:00:00 +0000

The Federal Government's
Latest Wager on "Green" Tech

Here we go again. The uber-liberal White House -- hell bent on forcing allegedly planet-saving products down our throats -- is using our tax dollars not to protect the borders and our citizens, not to provide for the general welfare of our nation, nor to establish a more prosperous nation. No, they are throwing our cash at supposedly "green" companies in an infantile attempt to save the planet.

It's not going so well thus far.

After tossing $535 million at Solyndra, the solar panel company in California, and losing it after that company declared bankruptcy, we were told that it was a gamble, a bet. This, despite the sirens wailing all around them from industry experts who said it was like betting on a lame horse to show in the fifth race. Here's hoping that Congressional investigations into that fiasco yield some results, because it turns out that the Solyndra executives were pretty heavy contributors to camp Obama.

The newest case of Fisker Automotive bears some striking similarities to that of Solyndra, with an added twist; it seems our government lent a slightly smaller amount of cash, but this time to a green company that will outsource its production facilities.

Fisker Automotive raked in $529 million from the Obama administration last year to build electric cars in the United States, even dragging Vice President Joe Biden on a publicized tour of a vacant GM plant in Delaware (his home state as a senator), where the Veep beamed about the potential job creation in that district. Fisker was going to fire up the old building and start pumping out electric cars that would make Americans feel good about their carbon footprints once behind the wheel of Fisker cars. (The carbon footprint of these cars is a myth we'll examine later).

The loan was first announce in 2009, but two years later the company's founder, Henrik Fisker, determined that there was " no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle". "They don't exist here", Fisker said. So the company is building it's luxury electric sedan in Finland. I guess Finland's unemployment rate dropped a bit, thanks to the American taxpayers struggling to keep or find a job.

What is particularly galling is Fisker's words. Are we to believe that a nation that -- at the behest of President John F. Kennedy -- scrambled to produce a Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) that would land men safely on the moon and get them back to the ship that would ultimately bring them back home to Earth is incapable of building an electric automobile?

Mr. Fisker is being just a trifle disingenuous. The reason, as he cryptically admits, is not that we couldn't build the product; it's just that we couldn't do it for the money he was willing to pay in wages and expenses in the United States. Perhaps the United Auto Workers union (UAW) was one impediment, and perhaps high taxes and constricting EPA regulations were also in the equation. Nevertheless, Fisker had this to say:

"We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business. That's why we went to Finland."

But failing is exactly what has some watchdog groups and industry analysts so spooked. One problem is the fact that the Karma is more than a year late in rolling out. Only 40 have been produced so far, and only two have been delivered. One went to actor Leonardo DeCaprio, which is understandable considering the price tag of $97,000. More are promised soon, according to ABC News , but not many people will be willing to take out a mortgage to buy one. Future sales could lag considerably enough to cause a cash flow problem for Fisker, despite the inexpensive production in Finland.

Another problem with this vehicle -- and others like it, electric vehicles that are allegedly environmentally friendly -- is that it is not exactly very "green". This is sure to cause a modicum of embarrassment for one of the venture capital partners steering money into the project; Al Gore. The EPA has given the Karma a miles-per-gallon equivalent (MPGe) rating of 52. Sounds rather impressive until one examines the true fossil fuel consumption needed to make the darned thing go. Thankfully, Warren Meyer of Forbes.com has done the heavy lifting in that regard.

The Karma has a range of 32 miles after which it switches to the gasoline source. In this mode, the car earned an MPG rating of just 20. As Mr. Meyer also points out, the EPA conveniently skipped around a standard set by the Department of Energy (DOE) back in the Clinton administration. Dubbed "well to wheels", this standard incorporates the fossil fuel consumption required to produce the electricity needed to power cars like the Karma. In determining the MPGe of the Karma, the EPA began their analysis after the first step of electricity creation.

An analogy from Mr' Meyer's article:

Lets consider an analogy. We want to measure how efficiently two different workers can install a refrigerator in a customer’s apartment. In both cases the customer lives in a fourth floor walkup. The first installer finds the refrigerator has been left on the street. He has to spend much of his time struggling to haul the appliance up four flights of stairs. After that, relatively speaking, the installation is a breeze. The second installer finds his refrigerator has thoughtfully been delivered right to the customer’s door on the fourth floor. He quickly brings the unit inside and completes the installation.

So who is a better installer? If one only looks at the installer’s time, the second person looks orders of magnitude better. But we know that he is only faster because he offloaded much of the work on the delivery guys. If we were to look at the total time of the delivery person plus the installer, we’d probably find they were much closer in their productivity. The same is true of the mileage standards — by the EPA’s metric, the electric vehicle looks much better than the traditional vehicle, but that is only because someone else at the power plant had to do the really hard bit of work that the traditional auto must do itself. Having electricity rather than gasoline in the tank is the equivalent of starting with the refrigerator at the top rather than the bottom of the stairs.

Mr. Meyer thus concludes that the true MPGe of the Karma is 19. Not very good for the planet after all.

With a price tag beyond the means of most Americans and without the warm, fuzzy feeling of saving the planet, the allure of the Karma, et al, becomes somewhat dull. This could prove to be a problem for the company and ultimately for you, the taxpayer. Are we seeing Solyndra on wheels, then?

Some Movement Comparisons

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:11:00 +0000

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

As the Occupy Wall Street movement drags on and on, there are the inevitable comparisons to the TEA Party movement by various talking heads both on television and radio. Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two, however, is the way Democrats and the media treat each.

With the TEA Party rallies, the media routinely tried to downplay the size of the crowds, while the Democrats and liberal critics continually try to portray the movement as comprised of white racists, all with virtually no evidence of any such thing. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi just the other day reiterated the lie that TEA Party activists spit on black congressmen in the aftermath of the health care vote. Meanwhile, Andrew Breitbart is still waving that $100,000 reward for anyone who can provide audio or video evidence of such an event.

In the aftermath of the 9/12 TEA Party event in Washington DC, the only evidence that such a large rally took place was the neatly placed Hefty bags full of trash left near receptacles for parks employees to collect. In contrast, New York City officials averted a potential riot on Friday by postponing a scheduled cleaning of Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, where Occupy Wall Street protesters have been soiling the grounds for the past three weeks. In honor of their perceived "victory", the protesters promptly began scuffling with police and getting themselves arrested.

There have been no arrests at any TEA Party rallies to date. And as the photo above clearly demonstrates, the TEA Party group reveres the American flag, while the leftist "occupants" see the flag as a canvass for their ridiculous slogans. If one more person tells me that one exercising his "right to desecrate the flag" is patriotic, I may blow an artery.

An Endorsement the
TEA Party would reject

While most clear-thinking Americans support the TEA Party and its smaller government objectives, the Occupy Wall Street movement has just picked up the support of two groups that the TEA Party would flat out reject, despite the claims of the left to the contrary.

Gateway Pundit recently reported that both the American Nazi Party and the Communist Party USA have expressed solidarity with the "occupiers", with the CPUSA once again aligning themselves with Barack Hussein Obama. The CPUSA endorsed Obama for president in 2008, and Obama is seeking to capitalize on the Occupy movement for his reelection.

We all know that Obama is no fan of America. He's made that clear by his Forgive Us Our Trespasses Tour shortly after his inauguration. But for him to align himself with a movement that sings songs like "F*** the USA" just speaks volumes about his national fidelity.

Yes, a website named Verum Serum has posted a lovely little video of some Portland Occupants singing the lovely little ditty mentioned above. While participants at TEA Party rallies routinely sing the Star Spangled Banner or listen to Lee Greenwood sing God Bless the U.S.A., the cretins who are now backed by Nazis, Communists and Obama sing of their loathing for our country. The video is below, but be aware that -- as incoherent as the "band" appears to be, there is still graphic language involved.

The irony is that they are singing this in the United States of America, where such actions are protected by the very military these sots loathe. I would like to see this band succeed, go on tour, and perform in Iran where they can change the hook line in the song to match the country in which they sing, which is common practice among touring bands. Please, jester-head, go to Tehran and sing F*** the Ayatollah. When your body returns to the blessed USA, we promise to take lots of pictures.

Whenever liberals get their knickers in a wad over having their patriotism questioned, we will always be available to direct them back toward such disgusting displays as this video. Meanwhile, the TEA Party will always love and fight for America.

Terrified, Wild-Eyed Liberals

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:21:00 +0000

The End of a Stranglehold?

Herman Cain represents everything the left has long feared, that being his potential catalyst status for the end of liberal dominance over black America. The liberal media pundits have taken on this tender subject en force, from Lawrence O'Donnell to Ed Schultz to Janeane Garafolo. All of them, and more, are petrified that Herman Cain is about to expose the greatest lie ever told.

My goodness, the liberal left in all its manifestations is reacting as though some stranger is poised to spill the beans to their children that Santa Clause doesn't really exist. Herman Cain is being compared to the Grinch, the ogre who tried
to steal Christmas from the Whos in Whoville. I suppose there is a modicum of merit in such a comparison, because Herman Cain is about to blow the lid off of the entire cottage industry the Democrats and their cohorts have profited from all these years.

The big difference here, however, is that the Whos that have run our urban areas like the slumlords they truly are bear little resemblance to the storybook Whos, whose purity was unassailable and therefore immune to the whims of the evil Grinch. And Herman in that role is not the evil entity Dr. Seuss intended but, rather, the savior who will ultimately free the denizens of our inner cities, if only they will accept the message.

The usual MSNBC suspects are working overtime -- and themselves into quite a froth -- to portray Herman Cain as some sort of Al Jolson, the famous vaudeville white guy who wore black face makeup. The lily-white Lawrence O'Donnell had the temerity to try to school Mr. Cain on how to be genuinely black, and he of the scrunchy-face, Ed Schultz, is busy shrieking about the alleged racism of any conservative who dares to endorse Herman Cain.

Yet the abject fear on the collective countenance of the left is undeniable, revealing the horror they anticipate if the floodgates are ever opened and their wards ultimately permitted to see the light of the true dawn, a morning that does not include the boot of their benevolence. They see the real possibility of their power being cast into the winds of veracity, and they tremble.

Liberal Dream Team

As the architects of apartheid, the liberals are simultaneously trying to steer the Republican voting base toward the man they believe has the best chance of losing to Obama in 2012, Mitt Romney. Just as they foisted John McCain on us in the run up to the 2008 elections, so do they wish to repeat the trick. Of course, once that goal is accomplished and Romney is the nominee, the left will turn its venom on him with a vengeance.

Part of the strategy, I maintain, is to preserve the myth that the Republican Party is the party of whites only, a notion they have managed to manipulate by revising history textbooks. Because Herman Cain happens to be black, the left will propagate the lie that he is being used as a sort of shield for Republican racism. There is no lie they won't tell as long as they can prevent a successful, self-made black man from rising to the Oval Office as a Republican.

Such a feat would shatter the illusion carefully crafted by Democrats and the rest of the left that blacks cannot succeed without the tender loving care of a Democrat-controlled government. For that reason -- and with thirteen months before the election -- expect the attacks on Herman Cain to dwarf those the left perpetrated on Sarah Palin in the last election cycle. They will do everything in their power to destroy the man with virtually no outcry from the main stream media. In fact, that media will be actively aiding and abetting the process.

Hypocritically, expect the issue of political experience to creep into the dialogue at some point, especially if Cain doesn't fade into the pack toward the end of the campaign season, despite the fact that Obama had only slightly more than Herman Cain. That is a problem with an easy remedy should Cain win the nomination; pick the former Speaker of the House as a running mate. Newt Gingrich would erase any worries about how a President Cain would navigate the tricky sea of dealing with both chambers of Congress, and Cain could focus more on his forte which is the economy.

But that is something for much farther down the road. For now, look for the Lawrence O'Donnell-types to really ratchet up the racial attacks on Herman Cain in the hopes of delegitimizing him as quickly as possible. After all, the left has much to lose, and black Americans much to gain. The left simply can't have that.

Blacks, Democrats, and Battered Spouse Syndrome

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Cain Under Attack Already as

"Unauthentic" Black Man

The Reverend Al Sharpton has already questioned Herman Cain's "African-American credentials", insinuating that because the candidate is a Conservative, he can't possibly be a "real" black man. Harry Belafonte has referred to Cain as a "bad apple", ostensibly for betraying the strange mantra of Black Liberals the land over.

If you're reminded of a woman -- being beaten by her husband -- suddenly fighting her defender alongside her attacker, one could hardly blame you, for the Black population ignores the history of who has been actually fighting for them while remaining fiercely loyal to the party that has been their biggest obstacle to freedom and equality.

Democrats have perpetrated the greatest sleight of hand illusion in the history of Man, turning an abysmal record of human rights into a facade of benevolence, all the while successfully vilifying the political party that has for centuries been truly friendly to Blacks. While it seems that no level of education will suffice, I remain committed to the attempt, so let's revisit a bit of history.

An 1860's Democrat Poster

Despite the giddy accusations of the enemies of America that one of our Founders, Thomas Jefferson, was himself a slaveholder, he was a member of a society in a time when the cruelty of the practice was not realized. And despite the societal acceptance of it, Jefferson nonetheless felt the tug of moral injustice without the peer pressure of others to force him. He just felt it was wrong.

Nearly a hundred years later, the Democrat Party was still fighting to save the institution of slavery and proudly declaring their disdain for "Negroes". It was a time that they felt unabashed about such sentiments, as evidenced by the poster to the left, something our children will never see today in a school textbook in spite of its historical significance.

Then there is the recently departed "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's, rising to the ranks of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops. In eulogy, former President Bill Clinton mentioned Byrd's "brief daliance" with the Klan, but the levels to which the deceased Senator rose in that vile organization suggests otherwise. But Clinton's cavalier excuse for Byrd's transgression was even more telling; Clinton said that Byrd only joined "to get elected". Really? That would suggest that in order to get elected as a Democrat, Byrd had to pose as a raging racist.

Byrd once said in opposition to integration of the U.S. Armed forces, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Lovely fellow, that Robert Byrd. But he did recant and ultimately claim to champion Civil Rights, even though he filibustered the vote in 1964 by holding the floor for 14 hours.

There is also former Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, who famously tried to block the doorway to a school in order to prevent desegregation by keeping Blacks out of the school. Wallace, Democrat. And let's not forget Lester Maddox, who wielded an axe handle at Negroes, and closed his restaurant in Atlanta rather than serve Blacks. The same Lester Maddox who would become Governor of Georgia as -- you guessed it -- a Democrat.

Byrd's Klan Garb

It was Democrats who wrote the Jim Crow laws, who opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, and who opposed anti-lynching legislation for years.

Rush Limbaugh once said that being a Liberal is the laziest, easiest position to take because all it requires is that you notice something and claim that it's terrible. So the Democrats, after decades and decades of oppressing Black Americans, suddenly embraced them and sobbed how sorry they were. And just like a battered spouse -- grateful that the beatings are over -- Blacks fell into that false embrace and spurned the party that had actually been fighting for them the whole time.

Herman Cain answered his Black critics succinctly. He stated that he "left that plantation long ago". Hopefully, he can get a large portion of the Black population to follow suit.

Back on the Horse

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:30:00 +0000

Facing Our Fears

I really hate the need to broach this subject, especially in the context in which it must be done, but I feel strongly about the subject and hope that you, the reader, will too. I am so tired of the race issue -- mainly because I was never part of the problem -- but since I finally see a light at the end of that tunnel, I will be happy to delve into it one last time if that is what it takes to kill it once and for all.

I fully understand that the election of Barack Hussein Obama was an act of opportunity combined with a desperation on the part of our electorate who, wishing to feel good about themselves, seized on the virtually unknown in a fit of self righteousness which blinded the sensibilities of those who voted. We as a people saw a chance and leapt at it, careless of the open space below. Now, as we find ourselves free-falling into that gaping void, we desperately grasp for any hold that will save us.

No family is immune from this affliction; my own daughters voted for Obama, an act for which today they are deeply ashamed and personally angered. They feel betrayed, as well they should. I, on the other hand, feel some form of vindication in that they realized their mistakes on their own without my overbearing criticisms. Yes, they were aware of my disappointment in their choices, but I never beat them over the head with it. I let them come to their own conclusions, trusting in the way my wife and I raised them. We never promised our children that they'd never make mistakes, only that they would eventually use what they had learned to ultimately set things straight.

(Completely irrelevant, but noteworthy...my son never strayed far from the farm).

There is an old saying on the farm -- or ranch, as the case may be -- and that is that if you get thrown from your horse, it is imperative that you remount him as soon as possible, both to confront your own fear, and to let the horse know that you are in control. The "control" aspect of this analogy is what makes me uncomfortable, but the analogy itself is worth the risk.

There is great irony in what I am about to write, as well, and while I am a big fan of irony, this particular brand has giant question marks, especially since we are still thirteen months from the elections of 2012. Herman Cain is making great strides in the polls, but with over a year to go, anything could happen. Having said that, I must make it clear that the time to get back on the horse is right now, not four or eight years from now.

The irony lies not in the skin color of Barack Obama and Herman Cain, but in their respective "inexperience". Never in my wildest imagination could I have envisioned a nubile such as Barack Hussein Obama winning the Oval Office. Presidents have come directly from the upper chamber of Congress, but not many, and certainly none with so wafer-thin a resume as Obama. But despite his abject ineffectualness, America still stands, albeit a tad wobbly at the knees.

So as we head to the next showdown, we offer as a candidate a man who is also black, but one with infinitely more practical experience than Obama. A man who can speak to his constituents with a clarity that his predecessor never acquainted, a man who has proven to be the problem solver that his opponent could never more than envy. And a man who can assuage the fears of a decidedly milk-toast populace if only the alternative to that which they have already experienced.

To make myself clear, if now is not the time for our next black candidate, it may be decades in the future before we dare try again. Get back on the horse, America, get right back on. If Obama couldn't kill America with a full court press, and with Cain vowing to bring us back to greatness, even if he falls short in his attempts, how much worse -- or better -- will we be?

A Meandering Musing

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:20:00 +0000

Normally my MO is to pick a subject and write about it, offering all of the information I have managed to find on the subject while adding my own opinions into the mix. Today, I want to touch on a variety of subjects -- all politically oriented, of course -- simply because there is too much happening too fast with which to keep up.

Sarah on the Loose

I'll begin with Sarah Palin's decision not to enter the presidential race, a decision that apparently has many of her fans disappointed. While I understand the sentiment, I happen to agree with her choice and the reasons for it, for it was the one I personally hoped she would make.

Based on her performance as Governor of Alaska, I have no doubt she would have made an excellent president, but I believe that she is correct in her own assessment of her effectiveness on the "free range", so to speak. Left unencumbered by the pomp and protocol of the office, Sarah can be a fierce advocate for the principles we hold dear, and a potent champion for those who seek office to that end.

She has a huge following that she will now be free to remain connected without the hindrance of being "president of all the people", not that that has proved much of a deterrent to the current occupant of the Oval Office. To that end, I would hope that all of those who have expressed dismay over her decision not to run will not shun her now out of some feeling of abandonment. Sarah hasn't abandoned you, she has ensured her best chance to fight your battles. Here is the audio of her decision as told to Mark Levin.

Morgan Freeman Broke My Heart

Next up is Morgan Freeman, who cut me to the quick with his recent comments on the Piers Morgan show. To me, Morgan Freeman was one of those beautiful actors who remained above the political fray and, more importantly, out of the racial divide. He is a fabulous actor, of that there is no question, and part of his personal appeal was that one never knew his ideological proclivities.

In all the years I have watched his work, he could have either been a flaming Liberal or a hardcore Conservative. It never mattered much because he never let on, and no one ever asked. And he never appeared to let race impede him. Then he gets on the show and denigrates the entire right of the political spectrum as racists, and he broke my heart. I was heartened, then, to learn that Ali Akbar, a 26-year-old TEA Party organizer, invited Morgan Freeman to meet in Tennessee, in a letter that can be seen here. As far as I'm aware, there has been no response from the actor.

The main crux of Freeman's accusation is that the TEA Party has one goal; to get "this black man out of here", referring to Obama and the White House, respectively. I wonder how Mr. Freeman -- and apparently Samuel L. Jackson has joined the chorus now -- would reconcile the fact that one of the people the TEA Party would love see "this black man" replaced with is...Herman Cain. Truly perplexing.

A TEA Party Hopeful

Herman Cain is a clear TEA Party favorite who has managed in a few short weeks to change my entire perspective on political possibilities. From the moment I was "introduced" to the man, I liked him and his message, but the practical half of my brain had no choice but to dismiss him as a candidate without a prayer. Since only three U.S. Senators have ever been elected President, and no one has ever been elected straight from the House, what chance could even the most qualified and charismatic person have of attaining the Oval Office with virtually no political background?

Then Cain kept pressing ahead, performed well in debates, and won the Florida Straw Poll. Still, I felt it was a momentary glimpse of a very brief glory for a fine man who nonetheless was tilting at windmills while destined to suffer a bitter disappointment in the end. As it turns out, Herman Cain is not accustomed to brief success, nor ever content to rest on his laurels. This man has the practical half of my brain ceding territory to cautious hope. Part of that hope is that this condition spreads amongst the electorate, for it is we who ultimately decide who is president, not the pundits who try to steer our choice.

As President Obama stokes the Occupy Wall Street protests with his class warfare rhetoric, Herman Cain offers those misguided kids some tough love, telling them to blame themselves if they are poor and unemployed. Imagine that...a self-made Black man telling a bunch of privileged white kids to get off their asses and better themselves. Compare that image to a carefully cultivated Black president who incites those same kids to riot against the "wealthy".

So I am sorry to disappoint Morgan Freeman, but the main goal of the TEA Party is not to get a black guy out of the White House simply because he's Black. The goal is to replace him with perhaps another Black man who can restore the people's faith in America and the abilities of the individual as opposed to the current preaching of the futility of life without dependence on the Government.

Who Would Herman Cain Pick?

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:40:00 +0000

Dream Team

That may well turn out to be the biggest question leading to the nomination of Herman Cain, a back-to-back offering of Black candidates. Got a problem with that? Too bad, it may be reality on the horizon, so I would beseech any White Supremacist readers to reconsider your views.

Herman Cain is gaining momentum and could set a record as an American first; no, not the first Black president, but the first of any color to attain the Oval Office with virtually no political experience. Can't happen, you say? Uh-huh, I used to believe the same thing, but hasn't Barack Hussein Obama come through on at least one promise, that being "change"?

Yes, I would tip my hat in that regard.

Obama was only the third U.S. Senator to win a general election for President of the United States directly from the Senate, sharing that distinction with John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding. Good company, but such that would now be recoiling in horror at what their new inductee hath wrought. However, Obama has achieved that which the others never considered; opening the field for the best candidate over the established crop, and our nation is once again ready to cast off old customs in the spirit of desperation.

Would it require desperation to elect a man like Herman Cain? In a purely political sense, I would say yes, but I believe that the electorate has had its fill of the unknown, trusting that Obama was a new ray of hope even as they have seen those hopes dashed by the machinations of a master manipulator. Obama made promises to deliver goods to which he held no title.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, is making lofty promises as well, but ones that bear no similar traits as the gossamer vows offered by Obama. Cain is holding out as candy the opportunity that all Americans have come to expect, sans the alleged guarantees that Obama pledged. If any further explanation is required on that topic, I'm afraid that you, the reader, simply can't understand.

Suffice it to say that Herman Cain may be the only member of the current crop of candidates who actually comprehends the desires of ordinary Americans, no matter what color he may be. No one that I know is asking for anything other than to be left to their own devices with as little government interference as possible. They want to be able to succeed or fail at their own discretion. Is that so bad?

Which brings us to the title question: "Who would Herman Cain pick?", as in, a running mate. Should Cain win the nomination, it would be on the whims of the electorate closely aligned with the same philosophy while the entire middle of the spectrum would be skeptical of a political neophyte in the Oval Office. (Again, that's already been tried, with disastrous results).

But what if a second attempt was all that remained available to an electorate ready to explode? Would our neighbors shun a new path simply because its direction was unclear, despite the end they see rapidly approaching downstream? For instance, let's suppose that Herman Cain was standing at the bow begging for an oar; would we be reluctant to deliver it to him and accept a rocky fate out of uncertainty?

I would be happy with Herman Cain at the helm, and if it meant someone like Newt Gingrich reading the charts, great! The Captain makes the ultimate decision but often relies on the expertise of his navigator. No better man is there than Gingrich, a seasoned House negotiator and himself an eloquent speaker, pardon the pun.

If Cain could set the course and have Newt available to avoid the anomalies therein, who could ask for anything more? While there is little doubt that our local "news" stations or papers would do their utmost to convince us otherwise, I'm committed to the fact that most of us have moved beyond the daily feeding cycle of those sources in determining our futures.

For the first time in my life, I am beginning to believe that we may actually have the chance to elect the best person to lead us, regardless of political pedigree. If Herman Cain can maintain his current stature in the polls and ultimately win the nomination, America would be faced with a 2012 choice between Obama or Cain. The irony is too delicious, and on so many levels.

The First Casualty of the Arab Spring

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:53:00 +0000

Ousted by Obama?

We've been told from the beginning of the campaign and every day since his election that Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant man, perhaps the smartest to occupy the White House in the nations history. Many people believed the hype in part due to the eloquence of the way he read speeches from teleprompters, which allowed for the appearance of extemporaneous speaking.

With transparent screens -- the only transparent aspect of this administration thus far -- the teleprompters allow even live audiences to see his face, and long camera shots seem to miss the darned things. Without ever having to glance down to keep his place with notes, Obama's head swings from side to side -- catching his script effortlessly -- as he delivers heart-racing speeches that make his adoring masses swoon.

With all of that being said, however, I am now more convinced than ever of the man's utter brilliance, however sinister that brilliance may be. No one could have inflicted the damage on such a strong nation that Obama has -- and in such record time -- through simple ineptitude. No one could have accelerated the chaos we see around the globe so masterfully as he without either a keen understanding of the major culprits involved, or without their explicit anticipation.

Many will read what is about to follow and simply roll their eyes and click out of the site. That is exactly the reaction that has allowed Barack Hussein to come as far as he's come, and one I fully expect to continue. If one percent of people continue to read, however, and let the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, I will have done my job.

Briefly, his past was somewhat fuzzy as he rapidly advanced toward the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, and those who threw up the flags were ignored. The reason for this was the fact that it looked like America really had a shot at finally electing a Black president, and no one wanted to see that opportunity slip by. (Never mind the obvious racism involved in such a mindset, none of them would ever accept such a notion even if water boarded).

But someone was trying to sound the alarm in 2008, someone who was shooed away and brushed aside. His name is John Drew, and he was a classmate of Barack Obama's at Occidental College. He tried to warn anyone who would listen that Obama was a thoroughly dangerous man, as Charlie Daniels might say. The problem was that no one wanted to hear it; not even our own right-wing watchdogs. What Drew was saying seemed too fantastical to be taken seriously, despite his having been at the college with a young, Marxist Barack.

By the way, John Drew -- by his own admission -- was himself a "leader of the Marxist students at Occidental".

The people with whom Obama subsequently associated have been well documented, enjoying the same reception as that of John Drew's story. But the president has gone on to establish his own, very public track record, and one that -- if anyone cared to connect the dots -- points to an extremely nefarious agenda. When his treatment of Israel is considered, the dots appear.

After a series of damning encounters with the Israeli state and its head, Benjamin Netanyahu, it became evident that Obama was no fan of Israel. The community organizer extraordinaire, however, did recognize a perfect venue to further endanger the tiny democracy in the Middle East, and he would ironically use the guise of democracy in Egypt to remove one of the biggest barriers of security for the Jewish people.

Hosni Mubarak may have been a dictator, but he was far from the level of Saddam Hussein in terms of brutality. Mubarak kept order in Egypt and maintained its Northern border with Israel, giving that country a bit of breathing room over the past thirty years that allowed it to counter the relentless attacks from the East and the West (Gaza and the Golan Heights). Egypt was stable and tranquil, and posed no threat to Israel.

So Obama chose Cairo for his first international address abroad.

Not long after Obama signaled the Muslim world that he was with them, Egypt erupted into the dawn of the "Arab Spring", which spawned similar revolts in Yemen and Syria and Libya. These were preceded, however, by an unrelated and impromptu uprising by the people of Iran. The Iranian people were brutally suppressed in that incident with nary a peep of condemnation from the Obama regime. Nor did Obama object to the reactions of the Yemeni or Syrian governments.

He was quick to demand the resignation of Mubarak in Egypt, though, as he now bombs Moammar Ghadaffi in Libya. I would posit that Yemen and Syria were ignored as was Iran because they are already a significant threat to, and bold enemies of, Israel while Egypt and Libya were not. Perhaps in Obama's mind, these relatively benign states needed some inspiration. And that inspiration came in the clear demonstration that Obama shared their Muslim populations' disdain for Israel and that he would aid in the ascension of the "rebels" in these states that they may gain sufficient power to amass another front against Israel.

At the same time, Obama works feverishly here in America to weaken the very foundation of our nation while "organizing" a massive rebellious force, using labor unions and their sympathizers, and placing figurative bees in the bonnets of ordinary working, middle class Americans. One may speculate that he seeks an "Anglo Autumn" to complement the Arab version, making a sort of perfect storm.

It all sounds ominous and portends a bad ending for America. Then again, that's what warnings are all about, and that's what this is; a warning. A wake-up call, if you will. For while my declaration of Obama's diabolical genius stands, such characters usually fail because of a fatal miscalculation of their enemies determination and capabilities. And equally of their collective gullibility.

Many of our fellow citizens have discovered that they've been hoodwinked, many more believe that they have been betrayed. Both groups are correct, and will join the ranks -- albeit reluctantly -- of the true American patriots in the portions of the country considered "fly-over country" by the elites so destined to fail.

Even if they don't, the patriots have always had sufficient numbers to thwart any attempt to hijack America. They've just been asleep for a very long time. The problem with an agenda such as Obama's is that it requires a lot of construction and, therefore, makes a lot of noise.

That will always awaken the sleeping giant.

Barack Obama and the Bottomless Bucket

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:49:00 +0000

It's All an Illusion

The highly anticipated Obama jobs plan has been unveiled after a tantalizing few days tease. The big news is that the president has decided since lighter fluid is wet, that's what should be poured on this economic fire.

Remember that he said this would be "paid for"? Turns out it will be, ostensibly, by taxes on the "rich"; those making $200,000 per year. Oh sure, it was $250,000 originally, but now it's been lowered by fifty grand. Prime territory for small business owners, who file as individuals. How will that create job incentives? And it's odd that Obama makes this revelation in a speech to a labor-friendly crowd, but in his televised speech to a joint session of Congress, he gave the impression that his plan already had all the bases covered.

Oh yeah, Obama will take the increased taxes and offer a small business a $4000 credit as long as they hire a $50-70,000 employee that they don't really need. That, my friends, is the epitome of insanity.

While all this goes on, our media seems to have forgotten the first "stimulus" program that created nearly no new jobs. In a blushing, faux-mea culpa, Obama giggled and said that those jobs "weren't quite shovel ready", despite his and Joe Biden's insistence that they were at the time. Now he wants to "create" construction jobs, put teachers back in the classrooms, and "get this economy moving".

And Obama is still harping on this high-speed rail boondoggle that will never be self-sustaining -- much less profitable -- in a country like ours. Oh, and according to David Axelrod, Obama wants to put veterans back to work.

The problem with this "plan" of his is that government never created a job, the private sector always has done that, but when people aren't consuming like they have in the past because they can't afford it -- and therefore companies aren't selling like they used to -- then there is no need to hire anyone, despite all the carrots Obama can dangle.

Pointless Work

Just like the magical "faucet from nowhere" and the "bottomless bucket" it appears to fill, Obama's economic plan is an illusion that creates not a bit of wealth, but rather, attempts to create busy-work for people in order to create yet another illusion of productive employment. In order for the government to pay its workers, it must first take taxes from the people. Then the government worker pays taxes, and receives a check. It recycles money just as the faucet and bucket recycle the same water, over and over.

What government can, and must, do is to create an environment let will allow the private sector -- the American people -- to do that which we do best; create actual jobs and genuine product. That is the surest way to kick-start our economy.

Sadly, this president either doesn't know that or simply doesn't want to believe it, because it's antithetical to the very core of his existence. The only other explanation is that he truly does know precisely what he is doing. I would hope that is not the case.

The Rationale of a Self-Loathing Liberal

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:51:00 +0000

Are You Ashamed?

Paul Krugman is fast becoming perhaps the most valuable accelerant for my creative juices. Gracing the safe haven that is the New York Times -- yet again -- with the radiance of his razor sharp intellect, Krugman manages to insult virtually every one of his fellow countrymen on a day when we are nearly unanimous in our thoughts. While offending us, he is also brazen in his contempt for the people who so valiantly guided us through the awful events of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath.

Early on Sunday morning, five minutes before the first plane struck the first tower ten years earlier, Krugman filed an OpEd piece in the New York Times that would be better described as an exercise in projection rather than an actual article. Better yet, it more closely resembles a brief vomiting of built up loathing for his own people or perhaps his own guilt. The big question is whether the timing was accidental or deliberate.

Titled The Years of Shame, this vile diatribe actually refers to police chief Bernard Kerik, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and President Bush as "fake heroes", then baldly hides behind his closing declaration that, "I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Perhaps that's because many, like myself, would like to ask for an example of how any of these "fake heroes" cashed in on the horror of those attacks, or who the "lot of other people" who "behaved badly" are, and what they did to earn Krugman's condemnation.

Come on, Paulie, open it up for discussion. No? Well, that's to be expected from a coward.

Paul Krugman

My biggest problem is not the attacks on the three aforementioned public figures, however. They expect this level of vitriol. They knew going into public life that they would be subjected to it, and they are tougher as a result. When I think of some kid -- maybe the one who today read a note to the father he never met --reading Krugman's hatred, though, I am both saddened and angered.

The biggest brain-rattler in Krugman's lament comes when he declares that, "the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned." One must wonder if he believes that this "article" of his is supposed to be some form of antidote. I'd ask him, but he has decided that he would not field questions. Darn.

Finally, just to be additionally annoying I suppose, Krugman insists twice that we know he is right even if we won't admit it. Finishing -- just before he slams the door to challenge, that is -- with this bit of wisdom:

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

Krugman makes a leaping assumption that has no basis in reality, but only serves to infuriate an already tender populace as we commemorate this occasion. Then he retreats into seclusion.

Good job, Paul, and I mean that most insincerely.

Cometh the Proletariat

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:24:00 +0000

Labor Declares War on America

I doubt that most of our fellow citizens are aware, but the "Soviet invasion" has begun in earnest. Oh yeah, we we're busy hunkering down in school hallways or under our desks in the myriad drills we participated in as kids, but then we saw the old USSR fall in the 80's and complacency set in; we believed it was over.

When Nikita Khrushchev bellowed, "We will bury you!", we naturally assumed that meant with bombs. The truth today is that "they" are already throwing the dirt on our bodies without so much as a small "boom" being heard.

"They", of course, are not the Soviets or even the Russians, but our own neighbors who adhere to the same ideology of our former enemies. The labor movement; the working class. The proletariat.

In separate speeches over the Labor Day weekend, TEA Party members and proponents were called barbarians by Vice President Joe Biden, and sons of female dogs by Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa Jr., who went a step further by threatening to "take [us] out". Joe Biden's comment was particularly amusing, however, considering his choice of target and the characterization of them.

While union thugs routinely bully and beat people and destroy property when "protesting" something, TEA Party rallies are calm and respectful. Heck, look at a park a few hours after a TEA Party rally has taken place...one wouldn't know there was anyone there. Those rallies are attended by people who were raised properly, people who respect the property on which they stand, and who clean up after themselves. There really isn't much to clean up since they don't litter in the first place.

So Joe, really? Barbarians? I hardly think so.

Hoffa's comments were more vicious, hinting at the violent nature of union members that we have come to know and loathe. Part of what he said:

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war.

President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bi**hes out and give America back to an America where we belong."

Hoffa's words were part of a crowd-warmer for Obama's own "jobs" speech. How troublesome, then, that the president never bothered to repudiate those words, even declaring during his speech that he was "proud" of Junior and other labor leaders in attendance. And despite his appeals for civility in our political dialogue, Obama didn't even mention Hoffa's speech.

Compare that with the losing tactics of John McCain in February of 2008. As a warm up and introduction for then-candidate McCain, syndicated talk radio host Bill Cunningham whipped up the crowd by twice referring to Obama by his full name (gasp!), Barack Hussein Obama. Cunningham also called Obama a "hack, Chicago-style Daley politician". When McCain was told of Cunningham's comments, he issued a rebuke:

"I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said. I will not tolerate anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen. (Hillary) Clinton."

What a barbarian!

As the labor movement gets ever more bolder, it becomes more radical and determined to remake America into a soviet-style nation. It is a socialist's dream come true, and they will do all that they can to bring it to fruition. Perhaps that is why the Communist Party U.S.A. endorsed Obama in 2008, and why they will probably do so again next year. Obama's platform mirrors that of the CPUSA.

I wonder if our media watchdogs will ever get off of Obama's porch long enough to actually do what they're supposed to do; report the truth.