Sanity Sentinel

Requiem for a Friend

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 25 May 2012 22:02:00 +0000

Earth Loses, Heaven Gains

People live their lives in a variety of fashions. Some succeed wildly while sacrificing the simple pleasures of personal relationships. Others cling to old ways, content to remain in their original towns and settle for being merely comfortable. My town is like that for the most part, as we have a very large segment of it comprised of people who either stayed or returned.

My friend Steven Hintze is one of those who stayed for all of his 60 years, and his measure of success was entirely different from the traditional notion. For that matter, so was the measure of his multitude of friends who saw him as a figure to be both loved and envied.

Steve was one of those men who never seemed angry -- unless the New York Yankees were losing a ball game -- and brought sunshine into any room he entered. I refer to him as the unofficial Mayor of our town because he knew almost everyone, and they knew him. To my knowledge, no one who knew him had anything but love for him. I can't think of another man I know without at least one enemy.

Steve was a rich man, but not in the sense one usually associates with wealth. His was a world many would embrace, a world full of family and friends and the opportunity to enjoy it all to the fullest. He worked close to home, so he never had the brutal commutes many people face. His family is very close knit, just as his friendships have always been, and his outlook on life was always optimistic. Steve could take the worst barbs of jest with a self-deprecating grin that would instantly disarm the person delivering them, and he rarely fired back.

Steve liked his Coors Light, enough to cause a prohibitionist to declare that Heaven was not an option at the end. As it turns out, God had other plans. Steve was taken from us a few days ago, called from his dreams into the Heavenly arms of our Father.

Funny how life works out; as we get older, we think about death a bit more, realizing that we're not as immortal as we thought at twenty. None of us is in a hurry to go, though, but at the same time, when a brother like Steve Hintze is called as he was, some of us feel like the last kid picked for basketball in gym class.

If you don't get the analogy, don't worry; it was designed for Steve and God. They'll get it.

God speed, Steve, and prepare a place for your family and all your friends. I just hope that when we all meet again, we don't laugh a hole in the clouds and plummet back down here.

Propaganda for Hamsters

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:07:00 +0000

The Life of Julia

A hamster is happiest when it is in its wheel -- in its cage -- and tended to by its owner with care. It is much too dangerous, you see, for the hamster to be running around free where the family cat may pounce or a careless foot might crush it. And to believe Barack Obama's view of opposing ideology, any Republican would toss the hamster from its safe haven onto the carpet and not give the act a second thought.

What in the world am I talking about, you're probably asking right about now. In order to understand it, a quick trip to barackobama.com/life-of-julia might be prudent. After that, the rest will be clear. Suffice it to say that Obama -- and Democrats in general -- consider the entire electorate nothing more than so many hamsters that need their constant care.

At the link provided, the viewer is guided through a multi-slide cartoon composite depicting the life of a generic woman and her journey through life as the beneficiary of Big Government's care and generosity. During a discussion of this frightening propaganda show, in a political forum of which I'm a member, a dear friend of mine likened the life of Julia to that of a hamster. To quote her, she said of Julia: "Her idea of patriotism can be likened to a hamster in a cage, thankful to it's master...that comes by to drop in some kibble, and laugh at her spinning on her wheel, in her cage with no outlet. She has no idea life could be better."

My friend is a small business owner in Texas and knows a thing or two about personal responsibility and risk, facts of life with which Obama's fictitious Julia will never be acquainted. No, she will be relegated forever to an alleged life of bland bliss, the stuff of which ignorance is made. This is also the stuff being eagerly peddled by a media determined to see the Obama agenda implemented, apparently unaware of their own peril. My friends analogy was spot on.

What Obama and the Democrats have attempted throughout our history is to enslave their constituents through the promise of benevolence and the false facade of compassion. Call it the wolf in sheep's clothing method. In Barack Obama's propaganda slide show, Julia is portrayed as wanting for nothing, apparently not even a man when she "decided" to have a child.

Even a Prisoner is Cared for.

But anyone who cherishes liberty sees her pitiful existence as a dismal one, perhaps viewed as a grainy, bleak environment devoid of any joy whatsoever. She becomes a pre-programmed robot, her entire life planned for her and guided by the government. That is the promise offered by the agenda of Barack Obama and his Democrat cohorts. Ask someone who fled Soviet oppression how living in such a fashion feels.

"The Life of Julia" is being touted by Obama as the promise of a better life, free from both worry and responsibility. The relative happiness of an individual can only be truly appreciated with the accompanying sorrow to measure against; success with the triumph over failure. The human spirit is not designed for guarantees, which would be nothing more than shackles in this context.

Everywhere I have seen comments on the fairy tale of Julia, people have mentioned the absence of the mention of funding for Julia's multitude of handouts. What I haven't seen anyone notice is the fact that the story never mentions Julia's personal life and her state of mind. She is never mentioned as falling in love, for example, and getting married. She apparently has no friends or family, other than little Zach. What is the worth of her life?

I don't want my children and grandchildren to live like Julia in a desolate, barren world where all that matters is what the government determines for them.

The Alleged Inevitability of Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:36:00 +0000

Is Obama Really Unstoppable?

In the wake of the news that Rick Santorum has dropped out of the Republican primary race, many pundits are declaring Mitt Romney the de facto victor, while the Obama campaign prepares for Romney as the ultimate challenger. To hear the leftist media tell it, however, it really doesn't matter because Obama is destined for a second term. Really.

Many people who remember the Carter years have not seen the country in as bad a shape since then, and if you ask any of them, you'd be hard pressed to find a supporter for Obama this year. But if you ask the minions of government-supported Obama acolytes -- Obama's own creations, incidentally -- you would find a rabid group diametrically opposed to the former.

It will thus come down to the numbers; which group is larger and will also be more inclined to vote will determine the outcome in November. Between now and then, though, lies a minefield of campaign ads and stump speeches guaranteed to nauseate even the stoutest of constituted individuals.

For example, when the eventual Republican nominee (I have not yet conceded that it will be Romney) asks the nation whether they are better off today than they were four years ago, Obama will undoubtedly counter that George W. Bush left him a much worse disaster than originally thought, and that "we have more work to do". While even Larry Kudlow acknowledges that the economy is improving, it does so in spite of Obama's policies, not as a result thereof. In other words, the truth is that the American economy is much more resilient than Obama originally thought, and he needs another four years to tear it asunder completely.

And he's got some finely credentialed supporters who will effectively counter any common-sense attack the Republican nominee's campaign can muster regarding the state of the economy. Despite the fiscal pain most individuals are currently experiencing, too many pay more attention to the fact that they can't afford that new iPad than they do the actual reason why, and when told by the Nightly News that it's still Bush's fault, or that it's because the rich folks are hoarding all the money, they will readily believe it.

The Brainwashed Masses

They are the so-called "99 percent", the people who communicate and entertain themselves with all the products produced by the very corporations they simultaneously revile, and they will most likely vote this year. What this tells us right off the bat is that our informed votes will be running a war of attrition at the ballot box, for if polls are to be believed, our numbers are nearly equal.

Many of the 99-percenters represent the group to which New Jersey Governor Chris Christie alluded when he declared that America is becoming a country whose citizens sit on the sofa and wait for their next government check. So effective has this administration been -- with the help of the Democrats who control the Senate -- in creating legions of dependents that they have nearly guaranteed permanent control of the country. It has been the strategy of leftists since the dawn of time; keep people deprived and needy and they will vote for themselves more handouts.

On the flip side of the coin, Obama and his minions in the media appear to have adopted the tactics used by Attila the Hun, tactics designed to create an aura of invincibility around Obama. At the same time, the goal is to cause in the opposing masses a feeling of utter dread and futility, thus removing most of the fight from them. Attila would have his army beat many drums for days during their approach to a target village, and the result would be that many of the citizens would flee in terror before his arrival, assuring a quick victory for the Huns.

What the Democrats are attempting here is simple. They are ensnaring as many citizens as are so gullible to believe that their government must provide for them in exchange for votes, while attempting to convince the rest of us of the inevitability of Obama in order to discourage us from bothering to vote against him. If enough people fall for the ruse, I believe that America will be lost.

Please people, no matter how affected you may be seven months from now, no matter how lethargic you may be made to feel by it all, vote. Get out, get down to your polling place, and vote. Our very lives may just depend on it.

DOJ's Double Standard and the Bounty

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:55:00 +0000

They've Got a Friend in the DOJ

I suppose the argument could be made that all of the years in the United States in which we've had a white president and a white attorney general saw racial preference in that blacks are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites. Either that, or it could have been mere coincidence. The point is, it's an ambiguous topic with no clear conclusion.

Now that we have a black president and a black attorney general, examples of racial preference are far more evident than at any time in history. From the beginning of the forty-fourth president's term right on through the Trayvon Martin shooting, the double standard is glaring, and the New Black Panther Party seems to be the obvious beneficiary of the Department of Justice's bias.

NBPP at PA Polling Place 2008

During the election of 2008, when several New Black Panthers -- dressed in military-style garb and carrying weapons -- were intimidating voters at a Pennsylvania polling place, a young man filmed part of the day's action. The DOJ took up the case and was moving toward criminal proceedings until Eric Holder, as the newly appointed Attorney General, squashed the case. There was nothing arbitrary about the intentions of the New Black Panthers that day, it was obvious voter intimidation, serious business. That is, to everyone but Eric Holder.

When Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested by Cambridge police, President Obama leaped into the fray before he knew any of the facts, and because Gates is a black friend, publicly stated that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly".

And now, in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting, we are getting a very eye-opening look at the depths of our new government's bias and the liberties their favorites can take with the law. Despite all of the facts of the shooting not having yet come out, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) has put out a very public $10,000 bounty for the "capture" of shooter George Zimmerman. (It matters not, apparently, that Zimmerman is every bit as white as the president, which is half).

Consider that in announcing the bounty, the NBPP declared that if law enforcement wouldn't do the job (of apprehending Zimmerman), they would, and the Department of Justice has not raised a peep of protest. This is the same Department of Justice, however, that has sued several states and harassed local law enforcement officials in those states over immigration laws, claiming that the federal government's jurisdiction is being usurped.

Imagine, a Department of Justice being run by people who will prevent legitimate bodies of government from trying to stop the illegal entry into the country by foreigners, prosecute a local sheriff, sue its own member states to get their laws repealed, but they won't utter a word over an organization openly declaring that they are preparing to take the law into their own hands.

And there's the media, who wailed about the "vigilantism" of George Zimmerman" in participating in the Neighborhood Watch program, all the while gleefully reporting on the NBPP bounty. How will they report on the information trickling out from the alternative media about the angelic Trayvon and his apparently questionable character? Or the allegations -- seemingly corroborated -- that Trayvon viciously attacked Zimmerman before being killed?

More importantly how will the New Black Panther Party and the Department of Justice react if it is proven that they have had it wrong all along? My guess is that they will quickly and quietly fade into the woodwork until the next sensational opportunity arises for fame and retribution. And they will never admit that they were wrong.

Stand Your Ground

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:47:00 +0000

Getting the Kids Involved Already

Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and a whole host of liberals of all stripes are enraged over the incident in Sanford, Florida on February 26th. News broadcasts are uniformly led with the story of Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old black male who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch man, George Zimmerman. We've even got a "Million Hoodie March", in honor of the hoodie Trayvon wore that night.

The president has also weighed in, curiously thinking that it mattered to anyone that "if [he] had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". And while all this outrage swirls around us, the tragic death of this young man is being exploited by the very people who profess to care the most about him. Those who perpetuate the race game as a cottage industry for retention of relevance, and those who would strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights for preserving power, are all shamelessly using this poor kid's death for personal gain.

Now there are reports that may pour cold water on their efforts to exploit the tragedy and render the outrage moot.

To briefly recap, George Zimmerman is a Neighborhood Watch captain in his community. He has a penchant for frequently calling police, and some reports allege that this is because they have had a bit of a crime wave in the community. On the night of February 26th, Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin walking in the rain, and began to trail him, phoning police as he did. In the end, Trayvon Martin was dead of a single gunshot.

Sean Hannity has been discussing this with guests on his syndicated radio show for most of the previous week, and he's played audio of Zimmerman's call to a police dispatcher as he pursued Martin. Also, Hannity has played audio of a neighbor's call to 911. On that call, a man can be heard screaming just before the fatal gunshot is heard, and it has been assumed that they were the screams of Trayvon Martin, particularly by Al Sharpton.

Now, however, it is being reported by MY FOX Tampa Bay that there was a witness to the shooting, one who paints a different picture of that night than has been painted for us thus far. Sanford police have in their possession a file containing the deposition of this witness, known only as "John", to be presented to a grand jury in a matter of weeks. The report states that the information from the witness was key in determining whether to arrest Zimmerman that night.

According to the accounts, Zimmerman's claim to self defense appears valid based on the eyewitness deposition and corroborates Zimmerman's statement that he was attacked by Martin while returning to his SUV. The witness says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was beating him. Police described Zimmerman as having a bloodied face and a wound to the back of his head.

MY FOX Tampa Bay writes the following:

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

And further: "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Based on this information, one would reasonably surmise that the screams were not Martin's, but rather Zimmerman's.

None of this negates the tragedy of it all in the slightest bit, but instead promises to exacerbate it. It remains true that Zimmerman may well be innocent of murder, but no less guilty of poor judgement. He should have heeded the dispatcher when told to break off pursuit, and he should have adhered to the "rules" of the neighborhood watch committee. He may have been attacked by the smaller Martin, that will come out in court, but even if true, the likelihood that -- absent the gun -- anyone would have lost their life would have been greatly reduced.

What will be truly tragic for the Martin family will be if Zimmerman's story holds up, along with that of the witness. When all of the agenda-driven "support" from the left wanders off seeing no further profit in remaining, and the Martins are left alone to grieve, who will be there to comfort them? Who will care then?

The answer is equally sad; the same silent Americans who had the good form to remain apart from the circus will care and pray for them. Regrettably, the Martins will never know it.

The Crazy Kabul Kabuki Dance

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:32:00 +0000

And Then the Trouble Started

Most people know that the troops in Afghanistan burned some Qur'an's, and they also know that the locals quickly became unhinged, predictably rioting and causing other acts of enraged "hijinx". Beyond that, the attention of those who know these two pertinent facts has long since been drawn away by such important things as the latest reality show episode or when the next unemployment check will arrive.

They may be peripherally aware that, to date, four American servicemen have been murdered by Afghans they have trained to fight alongside them, and they might be even somewhat aware that the United Nations is calling for the prosecution of the troops that have thus far survived the treachery suffered by their comrades. But they remain oblivious to any mitigating facts in the entire episode, and it is not completely due to selfish ignorance; it is because the mainstream media is not trumpeting those facts and defending those who make their profession possible.

It began on February 20th after NATO workers -- including Afghans -- burned some Qur'an's at the library at Bagram Air Field in the Parwan Province, used to detain Taliban captures. Shortly after the incident, which was initially reported as "an inadvertent act" on the part of the NATO workers, hundreds of protesters arrived. World news outlets were quick to report the ensuing violence, Muslim groups and their sympathizers were quick to condemn the actions of the international forces, and our troops' own Commander-in Chief was fast on his obsequious trigger, leaping at the opportunity to deliver yet another heartfelt apology to the Muslim world.

As our Secretary of State reinforced the President's claim that his apology "calmed things down" in Afghanistan -- despite the fact that two of our murdered soldiers were killed after said apology -- it is infuriating that neither high-level figure has demanded of the Afghan government an apology for the lives of those kids. And it might be noted with a modicum of pride and gratitude that, for the simple fact that average Americans are nothing like the mindless Islamists who will riot at the drop of a hat, we have not begun to demand the destruction of the entire region after learning that our troops may face Afghan trials for their "crimes".

This is where the entire affair may cause our neighbors to come similarly enraged as their Muslim counterparts. This is where the actual facts come to play.

On February 20th, the workers at the Bagram Library discovered that many of the books in the base library -- including Qur'ans -- were being used by Taliban detainees as message boards. As part of their "torture routines", as many so-called human rights activists might call them, detainees were permitted access to the base books for recreational use. They chose to write messages in them for their cohorts to read in an effort to coordinate future attacks on the NATO forces.

Among the books so desecrated by Muslim prisoners -- ostensibly required to kill those who desecrate the Qur'an -- were copies of... the Qur'an. In the Muslim tradition, the proper disposal of a Qur'an in a state of disrepair is burning. Still with me here? Muslim Afghans are burning and killing anything within reach because Americans, they believe, actually showed the ultimate respect for their Holy Book which was desecrated by their own brothers. And then our president, who reportedly studied Islam as a child in Indonesia, apologized for the alleged transgression.

To miss the sad irony in all of this would require being in a coma.

Lt. Col. Oliver North was a guest on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday. North had just returned from Afghanistan, and he said that among all the damaged books that were burned at Bagram, four were the Qur'an, yet the mainstream media would have us believe that some soldiers cavalierly burned a whole pile of them.

Despite the fact that four of our soldiers have been murdered at the hands of their Afghan "partners" in the war -- that would be one for each Qur'an burned -- President Karzai is calling for those responsible for the book burning to be tried in an Afghan court. Shortly after Karzai made the demand, President Obama sent a three page letter, which stated, in part:

“I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies. We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

That is such a vague assurance from Obama, yet there has been no official denial from Washington that NATO has agreed to "hand over" the soldiers involved for trial. For an American Commander-in Chief to vacillate on a matter of such magnitude is unconscionable, for it would, in effect, allow American soldiers to be tried under Shar'ia Law, which requires death to those who desecrate the Qur'an.

Obama has allowed the opportunity to demand an apology for our murdered soldiers to pass unseized. There is still, however, time to firmly tell Karzai that we will not be turning our soldiers over to anyone for trial.

UPDATE: As of this writing, two more American soldiers have been murdered, bringing the number now to six. Rather than apologize and appease, perhaps the time is drawing nigh for Obama to unleash our troops to put a stop to this outrage immediately.

Obama's Obnoxious Proselytization

noreply@blogger.com (Woody) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:26:00 +0000

Arrogant Hubris Defined

One of the lefts' favorite pastimes is mocking religion, particularly Christianity, for they find it a form of validation of their notion that conservatives and religious people in general are uneducated. It convinces liberals that they are somehow superior to conservatives. And when the left isn't denigrating religion, they also like to use it to taunt their right-leaning counterparts.

A favorite tool of the left is the acronym, WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) How many times have we heard the ridiculous claim by the left that "Jesus was a liberal"? President Obama whipped out this tactic last week at the Washington Hilton during the annual prayer breakfast.

First, it is telling that the president is incapable of ceding the annual prayer breakfast to the Lord, instead using the opportunity to further his political agenda. Rather than speak of the blessings of God, Obama took the time to claim that Jesus would approve of his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, saying that it was inherently unfair to ask struggling middle class families to "shoulder the burden alone". Incredibly, he concluded, "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that, from to whom much is given, much shall be required." (He should be careful because I doubt whether George Stephanopoulos was there to correct him if he slipped and mentioned his Muslim faith).

As a matter of convenience, Obama solicits the Lord to give credence to his plan, which would not be a bad thing if (a), he truly believed it or (b), he was consistent in abiding the Word of God. For example, one must wonder what God thinks of the gluttony of Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Would He approve of the opulent lifestyle of the first family, in such times of distress when people are suffering?

When someone on the left smugly asks, "What would Jesus do?", it might be prudent to remind them that Jesus would certainly disapprove of murdering gifts from God; unborn babies. Yet the left insists that abortion is a right, while the president himself thinks that one of daughters would be "punished" if she was with child. Is that also in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, Mr. President?

There is also the issue with lying, misleading or otherwise obfuscating the truth, something this allegedly devout Christian, Obama, does with regularity. Claiming to seek "fairness" in our tax system, Obama lies repeatedly when implying that the poor are paying the tab while the rich ride free. With nearly half the population of the United States (forty-seven percent) paying no federal taxes -- while the top ten percent of the wealthiest pays fifty percent of all taxes -- the question then becomes, who is getting the free ride? And those forty-seven percent are voting for themselves more free stuff.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

Perhaps, then, Obama doesn't even understand the Jesus quote he so cavalierly used, "From to whom much is given, much shall be required". For the forty-seven percent to whom much is indeed given, it seems the only thing required of them is their vote. And if Obama is referring to the gifts God bestows on the successful, then who is he to require anything? Or did he confuse Jesus' words with those made popular by Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

As evidenced by the selective nature of Obama's faith, the left thinks conservatives are too dumb to realize that they are being duped. Obama thinks that no one will remember that in his first few months as president, he blew off the National Day of Prayer. He believes that the majority of the slobs he once accused of "clinging to their guns and their religion" will hear him invoke the Gospel and immediately fall into line.

Democrats have for decades been pushing the notion that compassion can only come from government, and that to resist their magnanimity is somehow cold and heartless. Just as parents, through coddling, raise a child poorly equipped to deal with the realities of adulthood, so have the democrats been fitting the populace for the velvet shackles of dependency, claiming that theirs is the humane way of governing. Now they're resorting to Jesus to sell their wares.

This is one conservative who isn't buying it.

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.