Posts
.
"You are the thought leaders," the artists were told. "You are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or promote a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what's cool and what's not cool. And so I'm hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we're passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president's initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration." This from Michael Skolnik, political director for a hip-hop mogul.
"We're going to need your help, and we're going to come at you with some specific 'asks' here," added Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. "But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate, so one we want to thank you, and two, I hope you guys are ready." The White House Office of Public Engagement, together with the NEA and “United We Serve,” an initiative created by President Obama, held this telephone conference in August with hand-picked artists from across the country.
They are the “thought leaders,” according to the White House, being directed to change our minds. They are the thought leaders, whose jobs are to tell us what to do and think.
How offensive is that? Who does this administration think they are: first telling hundreds of thousands of the American public – the elderly, veterans, young families, from all walks of life - that they are a “mob,” “astro-turf,” and “racists,” for speaking their minds, and now telling rappers and painters that the public is also so stupid that they will let artists tell them what they are supposed to think? And at our own (tax-payer) expense?
This administration appears to have no understanding of the American public. They seem to assume that Americans are lemmings, and any lemming that doesn’t follow must have something wrong with him.
This administration is way off in "left" field. Art inspires, but only when it touches what is already in the heart. In other words, the art that becomes popular only becomes so because it is reflecting what people are feeling. It is public passion that inspires art, not the other way around.
So in the current political climate, on a grass roots level, did you notice how quickly the picture of the President as a joker took off? Or the t-shirts with the words, “RIP Constitution”? Or the “I am the Mob” logos on twitter? Wow. Artists creating popular political art without the help or instruction of the government. Have you seen anything from the liberal side catch on like that recently on a grass roots level? Sure, during the campaign there were things that were meant to inspire the public, but there they were created as campaign tools and died as soon as the campaign was over. Heard any classrooms singing Obama songs lately?
AND for goodness sake – get off the bandwagon that any news station or host is leading the public. It is the public that is leading Fox News! Fox News is merely the megaphone for the thoughts and feelings of millions of Americans. It is currently the only station listening to the public and giving them the news they are looking for. I've EVEN heard people say that Bill O"reilly is becoming too soft! And yes - we know that Beck is a little silly - but he's offering us documented information that no one else is willing to discuss. We don't all draw his same conclusions, but we appreciate the information. When will it occur to the left that people choose to watch programs that reflect what’s already on their hearts – not the other way around? They are leaving MSM in droves because they know much NBC and ABC are only reporting what they are told to report.
The left is imbedded in the concept that they are able to bend minds. Thus the efforts to control what is taught in schools, push the “Fairness Doctrine,” and coax artists to support their agenda. What they forget is that throughout history, other countries attempting to control the thoughts and lives of their citizens have eventually failed at the effort. People push back. People inherently want freedom and independence. Ever heard of Solzhenitsyn? Or the underground churches in China? There were rebels even in Nazi Germany. It was for rebels like that that leaders created, at best, the re-education camps, at horrific worst, Gulags and even death camps.
No! I’m not suggesting that’s where we are headed. All I am saying is that when the effort to bend people’s minds’ fails, a government must either push harder, or come to the realization that it just doesn’t work. So realize it right now. It doesn’t matter to me what you pay a rapper to sing, a painter to paint, a troll to twitter, or even how well articulated an Obama speech is. My experience and knowledge tell me it is wrong.
.
Make Mine Freedom (1948)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Is Acorns CEO Bertha Lewis Clearly Corrupt?
.
What, pray tell, had Lewis changed about this disingenuous - some say even criminal - organization? When Acorn CEO and Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis told Fox News Sunday that she has made many changes, and "Since I took over, I have overhauled the entire system," what changes was she speaking of?
She said that there at now firewalls protecting the organizations finances, but Congressman Darrell Issa responded, "Your own counsel, Kingsley, said is not true. You don't have firewalls."
When Host Christ Wallace asked Congressman Issa to explain why he thinks Acorn is a criminal organization, the Congressman said,
But Ms. Lewis doesn’t seem to understand how all this matters. On September 12, she stated, "We are their Willie Horton for 2009. We are the boogeyman for the right wing and its echo chamber," During Fox News interview, Ms. Lewis also called the proposal to defund Acorn an "Anti-Acorn Amendment,” as if it was an unwarranted and prejudicial attack rather than the logical result of Acorn's own mismanagement.
Chris Wallace asked Lewis, “Can you still say this is just about race and politics?”
She avoided the question by responding with the excuse, "Any organization is not entirely perfect."
Mr. Wallace, it is clear that Ms. Lewis does still think this is about race, as evidenced by her continual references to her organization as “mostly people of color” and her constituents as, “500,000 poor black and brown, Asian and white people in this country." People that don’t feel race is a priority don’t continuously and unnecessarily refer to the color of people’s skin. I know, I’m also the administrator of an organization serving a minority issue. I refer to heritage only when necessary and I refuse to count or keep data on the heritage of our members or donors.
After telling Ms. Lewis that he doesn’t know of another organization structured like Acorn (a political wing of the Democratic Party, closely related to unions, taking federal dollars as well as charity, yet no disclosure or transparency) Congressman Issa asked, “If you're going to change this, will you come before Chairman Towns, a man who, by the way, voted not to cut off your funding, and get -- and give the kind of disclosure to where the Government Oversight and Reform Committee can know that you are doing work with firewalls… so the American people know that their dollars don't end up doing political activities prohibited by law?”
Ms. Lewis not only refused to answer, she refused to even look at him. Instead she immediately jumped into a prepared statement, saying, “Here's the question that we really should be asking…”
Wallace attempted to stop her, saying, “Well, no, no. Answer his question, if you will,” but she continued avoiding the issue, seeking instead the collective white guilt that had so been so effective in the past, “There are poor people in this country every day that we're saving their homes,” she started…
Wallace tried to redirect her back to the question seven more times, but she continued to talk over him, …“my job is to serve our 500,000 members. My job...”
Congressman Issa finally got her attention when he said, “There is no God-given right for any organization to receive a grant from the American people. The fact is there are organizations standing in line that wish they won instead of you, and they're giving us the transparency so we can have the confidence the money is spent only for the purpose of the grant.”
But even in this response she wouldn’t look at Issa or even address it to him. Addressing Wallace instead, she said, “Congressman Issa is right. You have competitive grants and you need to compete with a lot of other folks. You need to deliver those services. He's absolutely right…Since I took over; I have overhauled the entire system…”
Not seeing the overhaul, Congressman Issa again asked her to come with transparency before the committee. Once more, Lewis refused to respond. The Congressman later ended by saying, “… my opinion continues to be you shouldn't get another penny of federal dollars until you demonstrate that those dollars are firewalled for only that use, and that has not been the history of the organization.”
Lewis, again, not understanding the severity of the issues and not addressing the Congressman directly, retorted, “And I'm glad Congressman Issa said that is his opinion.”
What is it that Ms. Lewis doesn't understand?
The founder of Acorn, despite his embezzlement, continued to work with Acorn affiliates. That’s on Ms. Lewis’ watch. Earlier this month, eleven Acorn staff were arrested in Florida for filing fraudulent voter registrations. That was on Ms. Lewis' watch. And now the pimping, tax evasion, child smuggling videos – again, Lewis’ watch. Further, she not only refused to face the Congressman when he was speaking to her, but refused to answer his questions, talked over the host, and instead of understanding the severity of the problems, snapped about things being just peoples “opinions.” For many of us in the public, Ms. Lewis seemed not only evasive, but rude. This, while at the same time accusing her employees of being too stupid to understand that they are not reaching professional standards. Ms. Lewis, what is YOUR understanding of professional standards?
If Congressman Issa is right about Acorn being a criminal organization, one has to wonder just which standards Lewis’s employees have ‘stupidly” bungled on. Were they unprofessional in the advice they gave, or in not being careful as to whom they gave it to?
Just what, pray tell, had Lewis changed about Acorn in the last year, and what can we realistically hope will be changed this year?
.
What, pray tell, had Lewis changed about this disingenuous - some say even criminal - organization? When Acorn CEO and Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis told Fox News Sunday that she has made many changes, and "Since I took over, I have overhauled the entire system," what changes was she speaking of?
She said that there at now firewalls protecting the organizations finances, but Congressman Darrell Issa responded, "Your own counsel, Kingsley, said is not true. You don't have firewalls."
When Host Christ Wallace asked Congressman Issa to explain why he thinks Acorn is a criminal organization, the Congressman said,
"Well, one thing they did was they covered up an embezzlement, both internallyThe House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms issued an 88-page report in July charging that "Acorn has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce."
and externally, and then glossed over the dollars...almost a million dollars.
Basically, the founder stayed on the board until this became public eight years
later. Now he's with affiliates doing the same work and able to say well, he's
not with the company. The bottom line is there's no transparency in Acorn. Any
charity that you would look at...You normally find out who's paid what, where
the money goes, what the collection costs are and so on.
"Here we have
literally hundreds of organizations tied under the ACORN umbrella, and you can't
even find out what their incorporation is, whether they pay taxes, who makes
what or, more importantly, whether corporations within the affiliates work in
different areas -- political fundraising, getting candidates elected, voter
registration, other community activities, whether or not those moneys are
fungibly moved illegally.”
But Ms. Lewis doesn’t seem to understand how all this matters. On September 12, she stated, "We are their Willie Horton for 2009. We are the boogeyman for the right wing and its echo chamber," During Fox News interview, Ms. Lewis also called the proposal to defund Acorn an "Anti-Acorn Amendment,” as if it was an unwarranted and prejudicial attack rather than the logical result of Acorn's own mismanagement.
Chris Wallace asked Lewis, “Can you still say this is just about race and politics?”
She avoided the question by responding with the excuse, "Any organization is not entirely perfect."
Mr. Wallace, it is clear that Ms. Lewis does still think this is about race, as evidenced by her continual references to her organization as “mostly people of color” and her constituents as, “500,000 poor black and brown, Asian and white people in this country." People that don’t feel race is a priority don’t continuously and unnecessarily refer to the color of people’s skin. I know, I’m also the administrator of an organization serving a minority issue. I refer to heritage only when necessary and I refuse to count or keep data on the heritage of our members or donors.
After telling Ms. Lewis that he doesn’t know of another organization structured like Acorn (a political wing of the Democratic Party, closely related to unions, taking federal dollars as well as charity, yet no disclosure or transparency) Congressman Issa asked, “If you're going to change this, will you come before Chairman Towns, a man who, by the way, voted not to cut off your funding, and get -- and give the kind of disclosure to where the Government Oversight and Reform Committee can know that you are doing work with firewalls… so the American people know that their dollars don't end up doing political activities prohibited by law?”
Ms. Lewis not only refused to answer, she refused to even look at him. Instead she immediately jumped into a prepared statement, saying, “Here's the question that we really should be asking…”
Wallace attempted to stop her, saying, “Well, no, no. Answer his question, if you will,” but she continued avoiding the issue, seeking instead the collective white guilt that had so been so effective in the past, “There are poor people in this country every day that we're saving their homes,” she started…
Wallace tried to redirect her back to the question seven more times, but she continued to talk over him, …“my job is to serve our 500,000 members. My job...”
Congressman Issa finally got her attention when he said, “There is no God-given right for any organization to receive a grant from the American people. The fact is there are organizations standing in line that wish they won instead of you, and they're giving us the transparency so we can have the confidence the money is spent only for the purpose of the grant.”
But even in this response she wouldn’t look at Issa or even address it to him. Addressing Wallace instead, she said, “Congressman Issa is right. You have competitive grants and you need to compete with a lot of other folks. You need to deliver those services. He's absolutely right…Since I took over; I have overhauled the entire system…”
Not seeing the overhaul, Congressman Issa again asked her to come with transparency before the committee. Once more, Lewis refused to respond. The Congressman later ended by saying, “… my opinion continues to be you shouldn't get another penny of federal dollars until you demonstrate that those dollars are firewalled for only that use, and that has not been the history of the organization.”
Lewis, again, not understanding the severity of the issues and not addressing the Congressman directly, retorted, “And I'm glad Congressman Issa said that is his opinion.”
What is it that Ms. Lewis doesn't understand?
The founder of Acorn, despite his embezzlement, continued to work with Acorn affiliates. That’s on Ms. Lewis’ watch. Earlier this month, eleven Acorn staff were arrested in Florida for filing fraudulent voter registrations. That was on Ms. Lewis' watch. And now the pimping, tax evasion, child smuggling videos – again, Lewis’ watch. Further, she not only refused to face the Congressman when he was speaking to her, but refused to answer his questions, talked over the host, and instead of understanding the severity of the problems, snapped about things being just peoples “opinions.” For many of us in the public, Ms. Lewis seemed not only evasive, but rude. This, while at the same time accusing her employees of being too stupid to understand that they are not reaching professional standards. Ms. Lewis, what is YOUR understanding of professional standards?
If Congressman Issa is right about Acorn being a criminal organization, one has to wonder just which standards Lewis’s employees have ‘stupidly” bungled on. Were they unprofessional in the advice they gave, or in not being careful as to whom they gave it to?
Just what, pray tell, had Lewis changed about Acorn in the last year, and what can we realistically hope will be changed this year?
.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Tea Party announces "Hall Pass On that"
.
National Tea Party Coalition Announces “Hall Pass on That” for September 8th Presidential Address
National Tea Party Coalition Announces “Hall Pass on That” for September 8th Presidential Address
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition announces “Hall Pass on That,” the alternative to President Barack Obama’s September 8th address to school children across the nation. The group asks that schools who choose to participate in the president’s September 8th program offer an alternative to students and families who do not wish to view, or have their children view, a partisan address or participate in activities that did not follow proper educational protocol or obtain parental consent.
Dana Loesch, Nationwide spokesperson for the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, announced the launch of the Hall Pass on That website: http://www.hallpassonthat.com to provide parents who oppose the Department of Education’s proposed presidential program. “We are suggesting several action steps parents can take if they do not approve of their children participating in a partisan presentation conducted without their consent.” The four steps propose by the Coalition:
1. Contact the child’s school to find out whether or not your school is
participating in the president’s September 8th program.
2. If your child’s school is participating, ask what alternatives there are for the children of families who wish their students learn about the establishment of the country respective to the Founding Father’s intentions. Discussion can focus on the
Constitution, the definition and actions of a republic, and the responsibility
of elected leaders to their constituents.
3. Ask if the school can excuse your child from the presentation and instead receive a DVD of the address and copy of the activity directives to be evaluated by parents at a later date.
4. Request meeting with the school board, superintendent, and principal to
inquire as to why parents were excluded from the decision-making process of this
event.
Katrina Pierson, member of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, described some of the tools available http://www.hallpassonthat.com: “We will provide alternative lesson plans to the ones initially sent out by President Obama’s Department of Education. Those plans, which people can download from the site, were uncomfortably partisan with no real focus on how our officials serve the people, not vice-versa. Our alternative lesson plans also focus appropriately on the role of parents in the education plan for every child.”
Yes, presidents have spoken to schoolchildren before, but when circumstances required it. President Ronald Reagan addressed students after the Challenger shuttle disaster was witnessed live by millions of schoolchildren; George H. W. Bush addressed students as part of the effort to counteract the growing drug use by schoolchildren.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued directives to principals of locals schools, bypassing the school boards and superintendents of those districts – but most importantly, bypassing parental notification or consent. Conservative parents are further concerned as the material issued by the Department of Education focuses on the president’s partisan agenda. The responsibility of this nation’s government to its people is completely obscured by questions that strictly detail response and submission to the president’s wishes.
Parents are also concerned as the entire program was crafted with help from the president’s White House Teaching Fellows, some of whom are activists with documented hostility towards the very tenants of our republic.
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition cannot afford to extend this administration the courtesy of any doubt when it comes to the education of our children and our schools are not the place to present one-sided agendas, especially without parental consent.
.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sarah Palin: Current Health Care Debate
,
Sarah Palin: Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost....
MORE
.
Sarah Palin: Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost....
MORE
.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
We Can All See Russia from Our Own Houses
.
From Conservative WARRIOR on http://www.thefoxnation.com/cash-clunkers/2009/08/20/cash-clunkers-runs-out-gas
Quote -
Saturday, August 22, 2009 at 12:52 AM
.
From Conservative WARRIOR on http://www.thefoxnation.com/cash-clunkers/2009/08/20/cash-clunkers-runs-out-gas
Quote -
Effectively nationalizing banks.
Nationalizing Chrysler and GM.
Firing the CEO of GM.
Breaking contract law.
Sending union thugs to break up citizen meetings.
Intimidating private citizens.
Attempting to nationalize health care.
Trying to destroy the insurance industry.
Appointing unaccountable "czars".
After six months of Obeyme, we can all see Russia from our own houses.
Saturday, August 22, 2009 at 12:52 AM
.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Cash for Clunkers Hurts Poor People
.
The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association has predicted that there will be a backlash to the "Cash for Clunkers" program. I agree, only it will come too late. "Cash for Clunkers" hurts lower income people, but no one has thought much about that yet - including the lower income people that voted for Obama.
Although I drive a 1994 Suburban, I wasn't planning on doing the "Cash for Clunkers". Gas guzzler that the Suburban is, it's actually been nice for our size family, who are all too big to be sitting in the back seat of small five-seater cars anymore. And I can carry and move things.
But even if I wanted to get a more fuel efficient minivan, I can't afford to participate in "Cash for Clunkers" program (more officially known as the CAR Allowance Rebate System or the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009.)
To participate, a person has to be buying a new car. Sure you get up to $4500 in a rebate, but you still have to have quite a bit of actual money in order to afford a new car. People of lower income don't have the kind of money.
But more importantly, because "Cash for Clunkers" merely replaces your trade-in value, the benefit of the program isn't as great as many anticipate, and for the American taxpayer, it's another program that they can't afford. As nice as free money (ie: the rebate) sounds, American taxpayers can't afford to be giving this money away. And low-income people, most especially, can't afford to be helping pay for any more bailouts.
So I just figured I'd hang onto my car for another dozen or more years, until it becomes valuable as an antique, because there won't be any other cars of this time period around. Most will have been crushed. Maybe we'd fix it up and drive it in the parades!
But here's when I realized the AAIA is right. Junk yards that crush the CARS program cars aren't allowed to pull engines or certain other parts before they are crushed. Earlier this month, I made use of a junk yard twice - once for a radiator and once for an engine. I still need to put in an alternator. Will certain parts for older cars become harder - and more expensive - to get?
When all is said and done - "Cash for Clunkers" benefits New Car Dealerships primarily, by increasing sales, and the upper and middle class possibly, but giving them an extra few hundred dollars. But it's not good news at all for lower income people.
We can't afford a new car, and we won't be able to continue fixing our older cars at an affordable price, if we can find the parts at all. This isn't good. In fact, the Obama administration knew they were taking away our options to keep our vehicles running. They want our cars off the road, and they really don't care how it affects those of us with very little money. The little guy isn't a priority. Obama pretended to champion the little guy in order to get their vote, but it's becoming more and more obvious that special interest - those that have received the bailout money and those industries he is choosing to socialize - are what he really champions. Politics as usual.
I'll bet many of the people that voted for Obama haven't even thought of this particular ramification yet. Their still waiting for him to pay their mortgages and health insurance. The "Cash for Clunkers" program will be all done and over with, with most of the cars crushed, before the little guy realizes that the price of his used part just went up a whole lot.
.
The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association has predicted that there will be a backlash to the "Cash for Clunkers" program. I agree, only it will come too late. "Cash for Clunkers" hurts lower income people, but no one has thought much about that yet - including the lower income people that voted for Obama.
Although I drive a 1994 Suburban, I wasn't planning on doing the "Cash for Clunkers". Gas guzzler that the Suburban is, it's actually been nice for our size family, who are all too big to be sitting in the back seat of small five-seater cars anymore. And I can carry and move things.
But even if I wanted to get a more fuel efficient minivan, I can't afford to participate in "Cash for Clunkers" program (more officially known as the CAR Allowance Rebate System or the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009.)
To participate, a person has to be buying a new car. Sure you get up to $4500 in a rebate, but you still have to have quite a bit of actual money in order to afford a new car. People of lower income don't have the kind of money.
But more importantly, because "Cash for Clunkers" merely replaces your trade-in value, the benefit of the program isn't as great as many anticipate, and for the American taxpayer, it's another program that they can't afford. As nice as free money (ie: the rebate) sounds, American taxpayers can't afford to be giving this money away. And low-income people, most especially, can't afford to be helping pay for any more bailouts.
So I just figured I'd hang onto my car for another dozen or more years, until it becomes valuable as an antique, because there won't be any other cars of this time period around. Most will have been crushed. Maybe we'd fix it up and drive it in the parades!
But here's when I realized the AAIA is right. Junk yards that crush the CARS program cars aren't allowed to pull engines or certain other parts before they are crushed. Earlier this month, I made use of a junk yard twice - once for a radiator and once for an engine. I still need to put in an alternator. Will certain parts for older cars become harder - and more expensive - to get?
When all is said and done - "Cash for Clunkers" benefits New Car Dealerships primarily, by increasing sales, and the upper and middle class possibly, but giving them an extra few hundred dollars. But it's not good news at all for lower income people.
We can't afford a new car, and we won't be able to continue fixing our older cars at an affordable price, if we can find the parts at all. This isn't good. In fact, the Obama administration knew they were taking away our options to keep our vehicles running. They want our cars off the road, and they really don't care how it affects those of us with very little money. The little guy isn't a priority. Obama pretended to champion the little guy in order to get their vote, but it's becoming more and more obvious that special interest - those that have received the bailout money and those industries he is choosing to socialize - are what he really champions. Politics as usual.
I'll bet many of the people that voted for Obama haven't even thought of this particular ramification yet. Their still waiting for him to pay their mortgages and health insurance. The "Cash for Clunkers" program will be all done and over with, with most of the cars crushed, before the little guy realizes that the price of his used part just went up a whole lot.
.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Did This Democratic Advisor Torch His Own Car?
.
According to Fox News, Brian Welsh, a Democratic adviser and Political Advisor, said his parked 1996 Audi "may have" been blown up by someone on July 23
The story states, "Welsh said his Audi convertible exploded into flames around 11:15 p.m. July 23, a Thursday, while he and his wife were walking their dog nearby."
"He said he "became suspicious" after reviewing surveillance tapes of the street where his car was parked."
A local news channel appeared to have picked up the story, but it didn't get national attention until a candidate he was advising got arrested for domestic abuse on Saturday.
Welsh, not getting any national attention on the event, purportedly then posted fuzzy security tapes on YouTube of a person in a white shirt loitering around his car and apparently getting into it shortly before the car explodes in a ball of flames. If the video is posted, I wasn't able to find it. But even that effort didn't seem to bring him any attention.
Interestingly, Welsh's car was reported to be parked Wednesday in the same spot where it caught on fire, on a little-used street near the New Orleans convention center. Why would anyone leave a burned out car on the street for a week? To get attention?
What I find most interesting is the way Welsh talks about it. He is quoted as saying, he "feared someone caused the explosion." Okay. Right. Well, cars don't spontaneously erupt very often. I admit that I had a car that started on fire once, but the fire came from the engine, not the inside passenger area, and it had to do with a gas leak that we were aware of prior to the fire. And there was no explosion. So, MOST LIKELY, yes, someone caused his car to explode.
"Maybe there is a reason, more of an intentional reason for the car blowing up," Welsh said. "I want to get more facts," he is quoted as saying. "Clearly, if someone tried to blow up my car, it's cause for concern; it's not cause for me to stop doing my job, stop me from talking about the things that are important," Welsh said.
"Maybe," "if, "May have," "became suspicious"...what's all the couching about?
It's this last sentence that really struck me, because I was already thinking by this point that he'd set up the fire himself, to try to get attention to his ho-hum campaign. So I was thinking - Well, would someone be willing to blow up their own convertible for attention? They'd be out a nice car..." Then I read that he said, "I really wish this had not happened," Welsh, 38, said. "I need a car."
And I thought - How emotionless. How lame. This sounds so much like a person that set it up himself. And if he didn't, then he's kind of out of touch and not a very good communicator. Certainly NOT a person I'd want running a campaign. Another interesting note; I couldn't find him anywhere when googling his name. If he is a campaign advisor, he hasn't been in the business for too long.
.
According to Fox News, Brian Welsh, a Democratic adviser and Political Advisor, said his parked 1996 Audi "may have" been blown up by someone on July 23
The story states, "Welsh said his Audi convertible exploded into flames around 11:15 p.m. July 23, a Thursday, while he and his wife were walking their dog nearby."
"He said he "became suspicious" after reviewing surveillance tapes of the street where his car was parked."
A local news channel appeared to have picked up the story, but it didn't get national attention until a candidate he was advising got arrested for domestic abuse on Saturday.
Welsh, not getting any national attention on the event, purportedly then posted fuzzy security tapes on YouTube of a person in a white shirt loitering around his car and apparently getting into it shortly before the car explodes in a ball of flames. If the video is posted, I wasn't able to find it. But even that effort didn't seem to bring him any attention.
Interestingly, Welsh's car was reported to be parked Wednesday in the same spot where it caught on fire, on a little-used street near the New Orleans convention center. Why would anyone leave a burned out car on the street for a week? To get attention?
What I find most interesting is the way Welsh talks about it. He is quoted as saying, he "feared someone caused the explosion." Okay. Right. Well, cars don't spontaneously erupt very often. I admit that I had a car that started on fire once, but the fire came from the engine, not the inside passenger area, and it had to do with a gas leak that we were aware of prior to the fire. And there was no explosion. So, MOST LIKELY, yes, someone caused his car to explode.
"Maybe there is a reason, more of an intentional reason for the car blowing up," Welsh said. "I want to get more facts," he is quoted as saying. "Clearly, if someone tried to blow up my car, it's cause for concern; it's not cause for me to stop doing my job, stop me from talking about the things that are important," Welsh said.
"Maybe," "if, "May have," "became suspicious"...what's all the couching about?
It's this last sentence that really struck me, because I was already thinking by this point that he'd set up the fire himself, to try to get attention to his ho-hum campaign. So I was thinking - Well, would someone be willing to blow up their own convertible for attention? They'd be out a nice car..." Then I read that he said, "I really wish this had not happened," Welsh, 38, said. "I need a car."
And I thought - How emotionless. How lame. This sounds so much like a person that set it up himself. And if he didn't, then he's kind of out of touch and not a very good communicator. Certainly NOT a person I'd want running a campaign. Another interesting note; I couldn't find him anywhere when googling his name. If he is a campaign advisor, he hasn't been in the business for too long.
.
Monday, July 27, 2009
What Gates' Teaching Moment Taught Some of Us...
.
Professor Henry Louis Gates said he hoped his arrest by Crowley leads to greater sensitivity on racial profiling. He described it as a teaching moment, saying that he planned to use his arrest and jail experience as the basis of a documentary on racial profiling.
So what did we learn from the Gates arrest in Boston? For me, it confirmed my belief that many (not all) accusations of racism and racial profiling are excuses for beligerance when someone is in a situation they don't like. For many others, the Boston incident taught them that some accusations of racism might be simple grandstanding and can be ignored.
My education along this line began twenty some years ago, when I first met the man that was to become my husband. I remember one incident in particular. I was paying for a meal at a chain restaurant. The cashier, before taking my check, asked me for some ID. I pulled out my driver's license and showed it to her, and we went on our way.
Walking out the door, my to-be husband whispered to me that she wouldn't have done that if he hadn't been standing behind me. He truly believed that the only reason she asked for the ID was because I was with a minority. Nothing could have been further from the truth. I knew that getting carded at a restaurant was nothing new for me. Sometimes they did it, sometimes they didn't, but it had nothing to do with whether he was there or not. I scoffed at his assumption that it was all about him.
And we had other such "teaching moments" when he needed to learn that it wasn't all about his skin. He needed to learn that some clerks are just tired or have bad days, just like he does, and if they scowl, it doesn't mean that they are even thinking about him let alone hating him. I'm a person who falls into deep thought about various issues and I don't always notice who is around me. If I am lost in my own thoughts, thinking about something difficult or emotional, it frequently shows on my face. It has nothing to do with who is in the room. There are many people in this world just like me. Not every scowl is racially motivated.
When I first met him and he attended a party at my Dad's house, he gravitated after a short time to the garage and ate his meal out there. This wasn't because anyone in the house had any animosity against him. It was a reaction born of his own insecurity.
Fortunately, my husband did learn from these teaching moments, and the older he got the more he began to relax around people of "non-color" and even enjoy himself. In his later years, he not only enjoyed people of all heritages, but he felt comfortable standing up and speaking to various politicians about the fallacy of race-based laws (such as ICWA). He even went to DC several times to speak to various Congressmen on issues.
This isn't to say that we never experienced real racism. On a few isolated occasions, we ran up against the real thing. But now he could tell the difference.
Interestingly, it was because he relaxed and became comfortable with his own thoughts and voice that he himself began to be accused of being a racist by a state Human Rights Network. You see, he was a minority speaking against political correctness. That makes the Left very uncomfortable. They would rather that all minorities stay in neat little, controllable packages.
When he passed away five years ago, his birth family was surprised by the number of people of "non-color" that not only showed up at his funeral, but stood up and spoke of their admiration for him.
Perhaps Professor Gates has spent too much time in his ivory tower and needs to get out more.
.
Professor Henry Louis Gates said he hoped his arrest by Crowley leads to greater sensitivity on racial profiling. He described it as a teaching moment, saying that he planned to use his arrest and jail experience as the basis of a documentary on racial profiling.
So what did we learn from the Gates arrest in Boston? For me, it confirmed my belief that many (not all) accusations of racism and racial profiling are excuses for beligerance when someone is in a situation they don't like. For many others, the Boston incident taught them that some accusations of racism might be simple grandstanding and can be ignored.
My education along this line began twenty some years ago, when I first met the man that was to become my husband. I remember one incident in particular. I was paying for a meal at a chain restaurant. The cashier, before taking my check, asked me for some ID. I pulled out my driver's license and showed it to her, and we went on our way.
Walking out the door, my to-be husband whispered to me that she wouldn't have done that if he hadn't been standing behind me. He truly believed that the only reason she asked for the ID was because I was with a minority. Nothing could have been further from the truth. I knew that getting carded at a restaurant was nothing new for me. Sometimes they did it, sometimes they didn't, but it had nothing to do with whether he was there or not. I scoffed at his assumption that it was all about him.
And we had other such "teaching moments" when he needed to learn that it wasn't all about his skin. He needed to learn that some clerks are just tired or have bad days, just like he does, and if they scowl, it doesn't mean that they are even thinking about him let alone hating him. I'm a person who falls into deep thought about various issues and I don't always notice who is around me. If I am lost in my own thoughts, thinking about something difficult or emotional, it frequently shows on my face. It has nothing to do with who is in the room. There are many people in this world just like me. Not every scowl is racially motivated.
When I first met him and he attended a party at my Dad's house, he gravitated after a short time to the garage and ate his meal out there. This wasn't because anyone in the house had any animosity against him. It was a reaction born of his own insecurity.
Fortunately, my husband did learn from these teaching moments, and the older he got the more he began to relax around people of "non-color" and even enjoy himself. In his later years, he not only enjoyed people of all heritages, but he felt comfortable standing up and speaking to various politicians about the fallacy of race-based laws (such as ICWA). He even went to DC several times to speak to various Congressmen on issues.
This isn't to say that we never experienced real racism. On a few isolated occasions, we ran up against the real thing. But now he could tell the difference.
Interestingly, it was because he relaxed and became comfortable with his own thoughts and voice that he himself began to be accused of being a racist by a state Human Rights Network. You see, he was a minority speaking against political correctness. That makes the Left very uncomfortable. They would rather that all minorities stay in neat little, controllable packages.
When he passed away five years ago, his birth family was surprised by the number of people of "non-color" that not only showed up at his funeral, but stood up and spoke of their admiration for him.
Perhaps Professor Gates has spent too much time in his ivory tower and needs to get out more.
.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Crowley Better Bring a Friend to that Beer Party
.
So they're supposed to sit down over a beer and come out all smiles? Come on, you know how it goes. Not one of the three has actually backed down from their positions, and there's two of them and only one of Crowley. Anyone of us faced with that kind of situation wants to bring emotional support along.
Sergeant Crowley continues to assert that he didn't do anything wrong and the entire Boston police force stands behind him, stating that everything he did was standard procedure. Further, Crowley, as it turns out, has for years been teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling. He knows that what he did that day was what he would have done in any home under the same circumstances.
Professor Gates, on the other hand, stated Friday evening in an email that he hoped the incident would bring "greater sensitivity on racial profiling," even though no racial profiling apparently occurred. No apology was given by Gates for misunderstanding Crowley and jumping to conclusions.
Obama has also failed to apologize for his rush to judgment, saying that he only wishes he "calibrated those words differently." In fact, he went on to say, "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."
I'm sorry, but I do want the police to ask for identification if there is suspicion that someone doesn't belong in my home. Even if it's me that they are requesting ID from.
Now, I understand that Professor Gates had just returned from a long trip. I know that when I come home from a long trip, I am tired and crabby. It had to further aggravate him that when trying to get into his home to finally kick his shoes off and rest, the door was jammed. Topping off a long and tiring day, the police showed up and began questioning him. All he wanted to do was take a hot shower and go to bed, right? That's all understandable. But none of it was Crowley's fault and there is no indication that racial profiling occurred.
So now is the time to apologize to the men in blue who were just doing their jobs, and quit the grandstanding.
That all said, will there be humbling apologies over that beer? With both Gates and Obama, proud men that they are, still convinced that profiling occurred and Crowley knowing it hasn't? his bounds? Not likely. No real apologies, but unfortunately, Crowley will probably feel pressure to suck up whatever spiel the White House wants to put on the beer fest, even if his stomach is turning. After all, the beer is supposed to end the fight, and they are all supposed to come out smiling. We've all been faced with similar situations. How can he say no without looking like a jerk?
,
So they're supposed to sit down over a beer and come out all smiles? Come on, you know how it goes. Not one of the three has actually backed down from their positions, and there's two of them and only one of Crowley. Anyone of us faced with that kind of situation wants to bring emotional support along.
Sergeant Crowley continues to assert that he didn't do anything wrong and the entire Boston police force stands behind him, stating that everything he did was standard procedure. Further, Crowley, as it turns out, has for years been teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling. He knows that what he did that day was what he would have done in any home under the same circumstances.
Professor Gates, on the other hand, stated Friday evening in an email that he hoped the incident would bring "greater sensitivity on racial profiling," even though no racial profiling apparently occurred. No apology was given by Gates for misunderstanding Crowley and jumping to conclusions.
Obama has also failed to apologize for his rush to judgment, saying that he only wishes he "calibrated those words differently." In fact, he went on to say, "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station."
I'm sorry, but I do want the police to ask for identification if there is suspicion that someone doesn't belong in my home. Even if it's me that they are requesting ID from.
Now, I understand that Professor Gates had just returned from a long trip. I know that when I come home from a long trip, I am tired and crabby. It had to further aggravate him that when trying to get into his home to finally kick his shoes off and rest, the door was jammed. Topping off a long and tiring day, the police showed up and began questioning him. All he wanted to do was take a hot shower and go to bed, right? That's all understandable. But none of it was Crowley's fault and there is no indication that racial profiling occurred.
So now is the time to apologize to the men in blue who were just doing their jobs, and quit the grandstanding.
That all said, will there be humbling apologies over that beer? With both Gates and Obama, proud men that they are, still convinced that profiling occurred and Crowley knowing it hasn't? his bounds? Not likely. No real apologies, but unfortunately, Crowley will probably feel pressure to suck up whatever spiel the White House wants to put on the beer fest, even if his stomach is turning. After all, the beer is supposed to end the fight, and they are all supposed to come out smiling. We've all been faced with similar situations. How can he say no without looking like a jerk?
,
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I Give Up. Welfare Wins; Small business Sucks
.
I am eating a peanut butter sandwich, ingredients of which were bought with a food stamp EBT card, while sitting in the office of my restaurant, facing a stack of bills I can't pay.
And I am thinking that if I had never started this business six months ago, I would have been better off.
I never did take a draw. All the money that has been made has gone back into expenses. But there were so many expenses. I suppose I should have done better research.
I did go to a small business resource center before I started, and they did draw up a business plan with projections. The bank and attorney both accepted it. But no one, not I, the banker nor the attorney, expected the state to announce that before I could have a sales tax number, I needed to give them a $4000 bond. This was AFTER all the documents were signed and I already owned the place, with very little money left over for cash flow. I called my representative, and he went to the tax commissioners office to ask why. Even he hadn't heard of such a thing before. He got them to reduce it to $1500, but that was still $1500 I had expected to use for operating expenses.
Then there was the insurance. They wanted $1800 up front, and about $330 a month! That wasn't how much the previous owner paid, and I'd never burned down a building. There was no explanation for the $1800. At least none that I understood. I wrote the check with a lump in my throat. There again went my precious funds in an unexpected direction.
Later, I found a less expensive insurance. Slightly less monthly payments, I mean. Being only two weeks behind on my previous insurance payments when I switched (I'd waited because I was looking for an alternate plan), I and the new insurance agents all assumed I'd get most of my $1800 back. Wrong. The State, in it's infinite wisdom, allows unregulated insurance companies to operate within the state if they are covering difficult clients, such as a new business owner. My initial insurance carrier, it turns out, was unregulated. So, I'm told, they can keep my money if they wish to. Apparently, because I was a new business, my agent wasn't able to find a normal company to take me.
Okay...so do I understand this right? The state requires you to have insurance - but regulated insurances aren't required to take you, and if there isn't an insurance that will take you, you are required to get it through the equivalent of a loan shark. So the state, in other words, required me to go to a loan shark. Is that right? All I know is that I am totally out hundreds of dollars, with nothing to show for it.
Further, I expected the sales tax, but hadn't been clear about all of the payroll taxes. I'm new to all this. Let's see...federal tax, state tax, unemployment tax, and workman's comp...is that all? Oh my gosh. I can't afford all this!
Now, I read in the paper that small businesses will be taxed even more to pay for Obama's new health care plan. Taxed more? Where am I supposed to get the money? Again, I haven't even been able to pay myself from this business yet!
I'll tell you something. I am a widow with several underage children still in the home. Last week, our family applied for food stamps and we got them. We applied for Medicaid as well, but I didn't qualify because the state figures that I'm taking 25% of my sales home. This, despite that I showed them that my expenses are much more than the sales.
But our family would be completely covered by Medicaid if I just quit this stupid business. Hey, we'd be covered, I'd have a lot less stress, no more payroll taxes or insurance, and some other stupid business person can be stuck paying for our medical. Isn't Obama's America great?
.
I am eating a peanut butter sandwich, ingredients of which were bought with a food stamp EBT card, while sitting in the office of my restaurant, facing a stack of bills I can't pay.
And I am thinking that if I had never started this business six months ago, I would have been better off.
I never did take a draw. All the money that has been made has gone back into expenses. But there were so many expenses. I suppose I should have done better research.
I did go to a small business resource center before I started, and they did draw up a business plan with projections. The bank and attorney both accepted it. But no one, not I, the banker nor the attorney, expected the state to announce that before I could have a sales tax number, I needed to give them a $4000 bond. This was AFTER all the documents were signed and I already owned the place, with very little money left over for cash flow. I called my representative, and he went to the tax commissioners office to ask why. Even he hadn't heard of such a thing before. He got them to reduce it to $1500, but that was still $1500 I had expected to use for operating expenses.
Then there was the insurance. They wanted $1800 up front, and about $330 a month! That wasn't how much the previous owner paid, and I'd never burned down a building. There was no explanation for the $1800. At least none that I understood. I wrote the check with a lump in my throat. There again went my precious funds in an unexpected direction.
Later, I found a less expensive insurance. Slightly less monthly payments, I mean. Being only two weeks behind on my previous insurance payments when I switched (I'd waited because I was looking for an alternate plan), I and the new insurance agents all assumed I'd get most of my $1800 back. Wrong. The State, in it's infinite wisdom, allows unregulated insurance companies to operate within the state if they are covering difficult clients, such as a new business owner. My initial insurance carrier, it turns out, was unregulated. So, I'm told, they can keep my money if they wish to. Apparently, because I was a new business, my agent wasn't able to find a normal company to take me.
Okay...so do I understand this right? The state requires you to have insurance - but regulated insurances aren't required to take you, and if there isn't an insurance that will take you, you are required to get it through the equivalent of a loan shark. So the state, in other words, required me to go to a loan shark. Is that right? All I know is that I am totally out hundreds of dollars, with nothing to show for it.
Further, I expected the sales tax, but hadn't been clear about all of the payroll taxes. I'm new to all this. Let's see...federal tax, state tax, unemployment tax, and workman's comp...is that all? Oh my gosh. I can't afford all this!
Now, I read in the paper that small businesses will be taxed even more to pay for Obama's new health care plan. Taxed more? Where am I supposed to get the money? Again, I haven't even been able to pay myself from this business yet!
I'll tell you something. I am a widow with several underage children still in the home. Last week, our family applied for food stamps and we got them. We applied for Medicaid as well, but I didn't qualify because the state figures that I'm taking 25% of my sales home. This, despite that I showed them that my expenses are much more than the sales.
But our family would be completely covered by Medicaid if I just quit this stupid business. Hey, we'd be covered, I'd have a lot less stress, no more payroll taxes or insurance, and some other stupid business person can be stuck paying for our medical. Isn't Obama's America great?
.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Bravo, Sarah Palin!
.
In Governor Sarah Palin's resignation statement, she said that frivolous lawsuits and stupid attacks are costing Alaska huge amounts of money as well as administration time and energy.
Knowing that she and her staff had already accomplished most of the goals they had set out to accomplish, and not wanting to further burden Alaska with the cost of idiotic attacks directed at her and her family, she bravely made the right decision and stepped down.
Now, she is free to speak as she needs to without concern that senseless new attacks will cost Alaskan taxpayers more. No more will the idiots be able to use the Governor's office as leverage to try to stop her.
As she said, no more politics as usual. This move was brilliant in that it snatched from the jerks their ability to mess with her via empty ethics complaints. I bet that left them pretty surprised. Now all they're left to attack with is 'name calling.''
Neither Sarah Palin nor the people that love and support her will disappear into the night. What many on the left, and even in McCain's slimy camp, forget is that half of America really does support her.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not she runs for President. That's not the point, and I don't believe that was the point of her resignation. Sarah has always been straight forward. She's never hidden her thoughts and plans. That's the reason so many on the left have chosen to dislike her. (Including the slobs who ran McCain's campaign). I believe what she said in her statement was very well said, and exactly what she meant. Which is why so many of the rest of have chosen to love her.
Having made the courageous decision she has made, she has only made us love her more. Sarah Palin - we're behind you, and we desperately need many more like you. May God Bless you and your family in whatever path you take over the next few years.
.
In Governor Sarah Palin's resignation statement, she said that frivolous lawsuits and stupid attacks are costing Alaska huge amounts of money as well as administration time and energy.
Knowing that she and her staff had already accomplished most of the goals they had set out to accomplish, and not wanting to further burden Alaska with the cost of idiotic attacks directed at her and her family, she bravely made the right decision and stepped down.
Now, she is free to speak as she needs to without concern that senseless new attacks will cost Alaskan taxpayers more. No more will the idiots be able to use the Governor's office as leverage to try to stop her.
As she said, no more politics as usual. This move was brilliant in that it snatched from the jerks their ability to mess with her via empty ethics complaints. I bet that left them pretty surprised. Now all they're left to attack with is 'name calling.''
Neither Sarah Palin nor the people that love and support her will disappear into the night. What many on the left, and even in McCain's slimy camp, forget is that half of America really does support her.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not she runs for President. That's not the point, and I don't believe that was the point of her resignation. Sarah has always been straight forward. She's never hidden her thoughts and plans. That's the reason so many on the left have chosen to dislike her. (Including the slobs who ran McCain's campaign). I believe what she said in her statement was very well said, and exactly what she meant. Which is why so many of the rest of have chosen to love her.
Having made the courageous decision she has made, she has only made us love her more. Sarah Palin - we're behind you, and we desperately need many more like you. May God Bless you and your family in whatever path you take over the next few years.
.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Palin VS. Letterman; Have People Finally Woken Up?
.
The most amazing thing to me about this interchange is that up until now, Letterman has been getting away his with nasty, bitter vitriol toward Palin and other conservatives. He's been able to say pretty much whatever he wanted and no one has called him onto the carpet prior to this.
All the way back in October 2008, it was considered OK by the left to call Governor Palin anything you wanted. Swear at her, mock her, judge her hair, her ideas, her husband and her children. Slander her church, ridicule Alaska, call her supporters white trash. Accuse her husband of incest, tell everyone she is an unfit mother, make sexual innuendos about her and her family, paste photo-shopped porn images all over the internet.
So it must have come as just as much a shock to Letterman as to the rest of us that people actually reacted this time. What brought on the double standard?
Hopefully it has to do with people finally waking up. Obama has been in office for five months now, and in that time he has done a litany of horrible things. I hope that what we are seeing now is a large number of people rethinking all that happened during the 2008 campaign and realizing that they were wrong.
.
The most amazing thing to me about this interchange is that up until now, Letterman has been getting away his with nasty, bitter vitriol toward Palin and other conservatives. He's been able to say pretty much whatever he wanted and no one has called him onto the carpet prior to this.
All the way back in October 2008, it was considered OK by the left to call Governor Palin anything you wanted. Swear at her, mock her, judge her hair, her ideas, her husband and her children. Slander her church, ridicule Alaska, call her supporters white trash. Accuse her husband of incest, tell everyone she is an unfit mother, make sexual innuendos about her and her family, paste photo-shopped porn images all over the internet.
So it must have come as just as much a shock to Letterman as to the rest of us that people actually reacted this time. What brought on the double standard?
Hopefully it has to do with people finally waking up. Obama has been in office for five months now, and in that time he has done a litany of horrible things. I hope that what we are seeing now is a large number of people rethinking all that happened during the 2008 campaign and realizing that they were wrong.
.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Obama is "God" according to Newsweek Editor
.
President Obama is "God," according to Newsweek editor Evan Thomas.
“In a way,” Thomas told Chris Matthews during a taping of Hardball, “Obama is standing above the country. Above … above the world …“He’s sort of God.”
Matthews appeared to agree.
Have you ever heard anything so stupid?
And while it's disturbing enough to know that there is probably at least a dozen more that agree with him, what's even more disconcerting is remembering various times throughout history when a man was worshipped as God, only to turn around and seriously hurt the very people that worshipped him.
.
President Obama is "God," according to Newsweek editor Evan Thomas.
“In a way,” Thomas told Chris Matthews during a taping of Hardball, “Obama is standing above the country. Above … above the world …“He’s sort of God.”
Matthews appeared to agree.
Have you ever heard anything so stupid?
And while it's disturbing enough to know that there is probably at least a dozen more that agree with him, what's even more disconcerting is remembering various times throughout history when a man was worshipped as God, only to turn around and seriously hurt the very people that worshipped him.
.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Obama's Double Standard re: Muslims vs. Israel
.
President Obama, putting his own popularity over the best interest of United States citizens, has run around the World apologizing for what he claims are America's arrogant, aggressive and selfish actions.
Two months ago, President Obama apologized to the Turks for the tense relationship during the Bush administration. It seems that Obama feels we owe the world an apology for putting our nose where it doesn't belong.
However, while speaking in Cairo, the ever arrogant president Obama proceeded to dirty his nose by telling Israel what to do. He said, "For more than sixty years they (Palestinians) have endured the pain of dislocation...They endure the daily humiliations...that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt...The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
First off, there has never been a country called Palestine. Israel does not occupy their land. The Palestinians have made several agreements with Israel through the decades.
Obama apologized to the Muslim world for what he claims has been America's arrogant micro-management. In the meantime, he tells Israel what they can and can't do.
And what are the examples of America's arrogance, aggression, and selfishness?
To put things into perspective, let's highlight some areas where the U.S. has been involved over the last few decades. How about when we aided and defended allies in two World Wars, or sent billions of dollars in international aide to needy countries - regardless of race or religion? Then there was the assistance to South Korea in their time of need, economic assistance to Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed, liberating Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm, tripling aide to Africa, providing over $350 million to help Tsunami victims in 2004, aide to earthquake victims in Pakistan, India, China and even Iran, and then drawing attention to Darfur. Yup, if the U.S. kept its nose out of everyone's business, the world would be different.
.
President Obama, putting his own popularity over the best interest of United States citizens, has run around the World apologizing for what he claims are America's arrogant, aggressive and selfish actions.
Two months ago, President Obama apologized to the Turks for the tense relationship during the Bush administration. It seems that Obama feels we owe the world an apology for putting our nose where it doesn't belong.
However, while speaking in Cairo, the ever arrogant president Obama proceeded to dirty his nose by telling Israel what to do. He said, "For more than sixty years they (Palestinians) have endured the pain of dislocation...They endure the daily humiliations...that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt...The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
First off, there has never been a country called Palestine. Israel does not occupy their land. The Palestinians have made several agreements with Israel through the decades.
Obama apologized to the Muslim world for what he claims has been America's arrogant micro-management. In the meantime, he tells Israel what they can and can't do.
And what are the examples of America's arrogance, aggression, and selfishness?
To put things into perspective, let's highlight some areas where the U.S. has been involved over the last few decades. How about when we aided and defended allies in two World Wars, or sent billions of dollars in international aide to needy countries - regardless of race or religion? Then there was the assistance to South Korea in their time of need, economic assistance to Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed, liberating Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm, tripling aide to Africa, providing over $350 million to help Tsunami victims in 2004, aide to earthquake victims in Pakistan, India, China and even Iran, and then drawing attention to Darfur. Yup, if the U.S. kept its nose out of everyone's business, the world would be different.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)