Sunday, December 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
White House Tells Artists to Tell Country "What to do."
.
"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.
.
"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.
.
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?
.
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,
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.
.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Hugo Chavez says Obama more Liberal than HE is.
.
On June 2, 2009, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stated, "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful, or we are just going to end up to his right."
Nuff said.
Hey, where are all those trolls that were claiming just 8 months ago that we were alarmists? Hey "John," the guy that claimed he was some great businessman, you still out there? No comment? I didn't think so.
Sure hope all those smart libs that voted this child into office have a plan for how to fix things now.
.
On June 2, 2009, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stated, "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful, or we are just going to end up to his right."
Nuff said.
Hey, where are all those trolls that were claiming just 8 months ago that we were alarmists? Hey "John," the guy that claimed he was some great businessman, you still out there? No comment? I didn't think so.
Sure hope all those smart libs that voted this child into office have a plan for how to fix things now.
.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
What's Obama Thinking?
.
According to the Associated press, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said that the U.S. is "deeply hated" in the Middle East and Israel is a "cancerous tumor in the heart" of the Muslim world.
According to a Reuters report, Khamenei said the hatred toward Americans could not be changed with "slogans." "The nations of this part of the world ... deeply hate America." "Even if they give sweet and beautiful (speeches) to the Muslim nation ... that will not create change." "Action is needed."
The Mid-east hates America. But Obama figures he can go over there and tell them that he's a Muslim and everything will change. But they've said repeatedly that speaches alone won't convince them. So what is Obama planning on doing? What kind of action will he take - what kind of changes will he force upon Americans - in order to please the people that hate us? And what makes him truly believe that even with those actions, those that hate us will change their minds and suddenly we will have complete world peace?
Obama bin Laden wrote several years ago that unless America becomes a Muslim state, there will be no peace. So what is President Obama thinking as he grovels at their feet?
Stand up, Sir, and be a man! You don't even understand America if you think that what you are doing and saying reflects and represents the thoughts and feelings of most Americans. More importantly, you could very well be bringing us closer to war rather than farther away, because the "actions" they are looking for aren't going to happen, the promises you are making will not manifest, and you are making us appear weak
.
According to the Associated press, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said that the U.S. is "deeply hated" in the Middle East and Israel is a "cancerous tumor in the heart" of the Muslim world.
According to a Reuters report, Khamenei said the hatred toward Americans could not be changed with "slogans." "The nations of this part of the world ... deeply hate America." "Even if they give sweet and beautiful (speeches) to the Muslim nation ... that will not create change." "Action is needed."
The Mid-east hates America. But Obama figures he can go over there and tell them that he's a Muslim and everything will change. But they've said repeatedly that speaches alone won't convince them. So what is Obama planning on doing? What kind of action will he take - what kind of changes will he force upon Americans - in order to please the people that hate us? And what makes him truly believe that even with those actions, those that hate us will change their minds and suddenly we will have complete world peace?
Obama bin Laden wrote several years ago that unless America becomes a Muslim state, there will be no peace. So what is President Obama thinking as he grovels at their feet?
Stand up, Sir, and be a man! You don't even understand America if you think that what you are doing and saying reflects and represents the thoughts and feelings of most Americans. More importantly, you could very well be bringing us closer to war rather than farther away, because the "actions" they are looking for aren't going to happen, the promises you are making will not manifest, and you are making us appear weak
.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama Admin looks the other way as North Korea shoots off Nuclear Missiles
.
By Friday North Korea had conducted its 6th short range missile test since doing a nuclear test last Monday. It has also renounced it's truce with South Korea - the one that has kept peace since the Korean War ended in 1953.
Over half the Chinese fishing boats, which had been in the area earlier in the week for crabbing season, have left without finishing the season.
But U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters on Friday, "I don't think that anybody in the (Obama) administration thinks there is a crisis."
By Friday North Korea had conducted its 6th short range missile test since doing a nuclear test last Monday. It has also renounced it's truce with South Korea - the one that has kept peace since the Korean War ended in 1953.
Over half the Chinese fishing boats, which had been in the area earlier in the week for crabbing season, have left without finishing the season.
But U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters on Friday, "I don't think that anybody in the (Obama) administration thinks there is a crisis."
Friday, May 29, 2009
Obama Admin looks the other way after Black Panthers intimidate Voters
.
FOX News reports that "Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department."
Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged after an incident in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, where they had threatened voters, hurled racial slurs. and blocked poll and campaign workers. Prosecutors said Shabazz held a nightstick or baton and pointed it at people and tapped it.
Bartle Bull, who was a 1960's civil rights lawyer as well as a campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen. He wrote in an affidavit obtained by FOX News, "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said that they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," and one turned toward white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
The wimp Obama Department of Justice told FOX News that they had obtained "an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again." Claims were dismissed against the other defendants. Oooh. That was a harsh wrist slap. Well, as long as they were there to support him and keep other voters away, all's good. Let's dismiss all those nasty accusations against the Acorn crew as well.
One has to wonder how the Obama administration would have handled it had it been white Supremists doing the same thing.
Further, now that Obama and followers have gotten away with it this time - what will the next election be like? I can only guess that it will be worse.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/
.
FOX News reports that "Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department."
Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged after an incident in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, where they had threatened voters, hurled racial slurs. and blocked poll and campaign workers. Prosecutors said Shabazz held a nightstick or baton and pointed it at people and tapped it.
Bartle Bull, who was a 1960's civil rights lawyer as well as a campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen. He wrote in an affidavit obtained by FOX News, "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said that they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," and one turned toward white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
The wimp Obama Department of Justice told FOX News that they had obtained "an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again." Claims were dismissed against the other defendants. Oooh. That was a harsh wrist slap. Well, as long as they were there to support him and keep other voters away, all's good. Let's dismiss all those nasty accusations against the Acorn crew as well.
One has to wonder how the Obama administration would have handled it had it been white Supremists doing the same thing.
Further, now that Obama and followers have gotten away with it this time - what will the next election be like? I can only guess that it will be worse.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/
.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor and “Making Policy”
.
May 27th, 2009 by Rob Natelson
.
"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy” has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era" Read more...
"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy” has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era" Read more...
.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Blackwell: Obama Divides to Conquer
.
May 14th, 2009 4:53 PM Eastern
KEN BLACKWELL: Why Is Obama Going to Notre Dame? To Divide and Conquer American Catholics
Many ask why Notre Dame would invite President Obama to speak at their graduation. Ken Blackwell, former vice president of Xavier University (a Jesuit institution) and presently a fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., asks why Notre Dame extended the invitation to a pro-abortion president in the first place.
He reports that Fr. James Schall, a highly respected professor at Georgetown University, (another Jesuit institution) offered this judgment on a Catholic Web site.
Our president wants the government to run all health care in America - but he and his group don't recognize the human right to life. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS and self-described Catholic, says inalienable rights do not apply in utero. She is in charge of the health care of millions of Americans whose right to life can be taken away through government’s decisions to fund or not fund certain medical care. When Congress passes the new health care bill, she and Obama will even more say in our right to health care.
Another reason Blackwell sees for President Obama going to Notre Dame is to divide and conquer. Look at the debate currently going on within the Catholic community over his speaking at the Notre Dame granduation. Catholics against Catholics, and Obama seems to be enjoying every minute of it. Blackwell notes that Catholic intellectuals, even law professors, are publicly hailing Obama as a way to get past the “toxic debate” on human life. Why do they see the standing up for human lives as a "toxic debate" that must be gotten past by - gotten past by submitting in defeat to the side that condones the killing?
Divide and Conquer. Look around, Obama has been doing that within many groups. But ram-rodding the opposition isn't the way to bring people together and make us all "one" as he likes to pretend. It may have the temporary appearance of having solved the debate, but people of conscience and conviction aren't going to just roll over and go away. We may be in shock right now, but we aren't going to quit on what we know to be true and right.
Obama is exporting abortion around the world, has slashed funding for abstinence education, and intends to strip doctors and nurses of their right to not take part in abortion. I used to be a nurse. I will never return to nursing if it would mean being forced to participate in abortions. I know many in the health care field that will resign rather than be forced to murder. This debate is not over. It will never be over.
When Obama is through, this country will be more divided than it has ever been. I pray it won't be divided to point of destruction. But I'm guessing that there is no turning back. We are two different people's, the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives, and our visions for the nation are polar. On many of the issues dividing us, there simply isn't any room for compromise. Obama, Ayers, and the rest of their buddies already know that. That's why twenty years ago, Ayers and his friends were talking about what to do with people like us - the unrepentant conservatives.
.
May 14th, 2009 4:53 PM Eastern
KEN BLACKWELL: Why Is Obama Going to Notre Dame? To Divide and Conquer American Catholics
Many ask why Notre Dame would invite President Obama to speak at their graduation. Ken Blackwell, former vice president of Xavier University (a Jesuit institution) and presently a fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., asks why Notre Dame extended the invitation to a pro-abortion president in the first place.
He reports that Fr. James Schall, a highly respected professor at Georgetown University, (another Jesuit institution) offered this judgment on a Catholic Web site.
Blackwell states that if we define human rights in these terms, they are no longer inalienable rights, "They become through intellectual sophistry alienable by government edict.""So when President Obama goes to Notre Dame this week, we should be sure what is at issue. He goes there for one reason, namely, in this symbolic place, to convince the vast majority of Catholics that his operative definition of “human rights,” not that of the Church, is the correct one.
“Rights” mean precisely what the government defines them to mean. The president is the government."
Our president wants the government to run all health care in America - but he and his group don't recognize the human right to life. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS and self-described Catholic, says inalienable rights do not apply in utero. She is in charge of the health care of millions of Americans whose right to life can be taken away through government’s decisions to fund or not fund certain medical care. When Congress passes the new health care bill, she and Obama will even more say in our right to health care.
Another reason Blackwell sees for President Obama going to Notre Dame is to divide and conquer. Look at the debate currently going on within the Catholic community over his speaking at the Notre Dame granduation. Catholics against Catholics, and Obama seems to be enjoying every minute of it. Blackwell notes that Catholic intellectuals, even law professors, are publicly hailing Obama as a way to get past the “toxic debate” on human life. Why do they see the standing up for human lives as a "toxic debate" that must be gotten past by - gotten past by submitting in defeat to the side that condones the killing?
Divide and Conquer. Look around, Obama has been doing that within many groups. But ram-rodding the opposition isn't the way to bring people together and make us all "one" as he likes to pretend. It may have the temporary appearance of having solved the debate, but people of conscience and conviction aren't going to just roll over and go away. We may be in shock right now, but we aren't going to quit on what we know to be true and right.
Obama is exporting abortion around the world, has slashed funding for abstinence education, and intends to strip doctors and nurses of their right to not take part in abortion. I used to be a nurse. I will never return to nursing if it would mean being forced to participate in abortions. I know many in the health care field that will resign rather than be forced to murder. This debate is not over. It will never be over.
When Obama is through, this country will be more divided than it has ever been. I pray it won't be divided to point of destruction. But I'm guessing that there is no turning back. We are two different people's, the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives, and our visions for the nation are polar. On many of the issues dividing us, there simply isn't any room for compromise. Obama, Ayers, and the rest of their buddies already know that. That's why twenty years ago, Ayers and his friends were talking about what to do with people like us - the unrepentant conservatives.
.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Did Perez Purposely Set Miss California Up with Gay Question?
.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, while competing for the Miss USA crown, answered a question honestly. By doing that, royally ticked off the Miss California USA Directors and many others and might have thrown the contest. Did Perez Hilton, asking this stupid question, purposely cost her the Miss USA title?
Pageant judge and blogger, Perez Hilton, posed the following question to her: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”
Prejean answered, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Gay advocates in the crowd made sure people knew they were offended. A Miss California director Keith Lewis is quoted in a statement as saying, "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman." "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family." His felllow co-director, Shanna Moakler, agreed.
Excuse me? If the Pageant organizers don't want politics or religion in the pageant, they shouldn't have allowed such a politically charged question. It's not Prejean's fault The question was asked. It's the pageant's fault for having allowed the question. I applaud her for an honest answer.
Then there was Scott Ihrig, a gay man who attended the pageant with his partner and was shouting in the lobby afterwards. "It's ugly," he said. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Wake up, Scott. Miss California represents California, not the pageant audience. Most of the people in California do not support gay marriage. That's why gay marriage lost at the polls, remember? If the pageant organizers don't want honest answers, they shouldn't ask questions. In my mind, Miss California should have won due to her courage and conviction.
But Scott's statement begs additional questions. What qualified a gay blogger to judge the Miss USA contest? And why WERE lots of gays attending the event? I guess many of us don't pay as much attention to pageants as others do. There are many more important things to do - and more important issues to pay attention to. Economy, Iraq, world hunger...to name a few.
But if you can't win at the California polls...cause controversy at televised events in order to give the appearance of populous angst.
You don't think so? What kinds of questions did the other contestant get? Were their questions equally politically charged? If not, was it a fair contest? Why was Miss California targeted with this particular question? Did Hilton know her background and how she would answer?
Be on the look out for this type of gimmick to happen again and again.
.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, while competing for the Miss USA crown, answered a question honestly. By doing that, royally ticked off the Miss California USA Directors and many others and might have thrown the contest. Did Perez Hilton, asking this stupid question, purposely cost her the Miss USA title?
Pageant judge and blogger, Perez Hilton, posed the following question to her: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”
Prejean answered, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Gay advocates in the crowd made sure people knew they were offended. A Miss California director Keith Lewis is quoted in a statement as saying, "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman." "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family." His felllow co-director, Shanna Moakler, agreed.
Excuse me? If the Pageant organizers don't want politics or religion in the pageant, they shouldn't have allowed such a politically charged question. It's not Prejean's fault The question was asked. It's the pageant's fault for having allowed the question. I applaud her for an honest answer.
Then there was Scott Ihrig, a gay man who attended the pageant with his partner and was shouting in the lobby afterwards. "It's ugly," he said. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Wake up, Scott. Miss California represents California, not the pageant audience. Most of the people in California do not support gay marriage. That's why gay marriage lost at the polls, remember? If the pageant organizers don't want honest answers, they shouldn't ask questions. In my mind, Miss California should have won due to her courage and conviction.
But Scott's statement begs additional questions. What qualified a gay blogger to judge the Miss USA contest? And why WERE lots of gays attending the event? I guess many of us don't pay as much attention to pageants as others do. There are many more important things to do - and more important issues to pay attention to. Economy, Iraq, world hunger...to name a few.
But if you can't win at the California polls...cause controversy at televised events in order to give the appearance of populous angst.
You don't think so? What kinds of questions did the other contestant get? Were their questions equally politically charged? If not, was it a fair contest? Why was Miss California targeted with this particular question? Did Hilton know her background and how she would answer?
Be on the look out for this type of gimmick to happen again and again.
.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Obama Won't be Upstaged By That Silly Jesus
.
It seems that Obama, who claims to be a Christian, is ashamed of the Gospel. He didn't want to appear on TV surrounded by Christian symbols, and worse, a symbol of Jesus Christ's name. Maybe he thought all his non-Christian supporters would be offended. Maybe he thought his new buddies in the Middle East would be offended. At any rate, it wasn't important whether other Christians were offended, or worse, the Lord himself.
Either Obama was ashamed of the Gospel, or "The One" didn't want to have to compete with the True Lord for attention. All eyes and homage needed to be on Obama.
Whatever the reason, on Tuesday, April 14, Georgetown, a Christian University founded in 1789 by the Jesuits, hid the inscription "IHS" at the request of President Obama's staff. "IHS" is short for Iesous Christos - the Greek name of Jesus Christ.
According to Fox News, White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage. Apparently, they didn't want Jesus' name to show up on TV during his speech. The monogram, which is normally above the Gaston Hall stage, was covered over with what Fox News said appeared to be black wood during the speech.
The White House said that the backdrop, which included blue drapes and American flags, was standard during policy speeches and other events. They insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech -- and said that "any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."
I have to wonder why the founding Jesuits made the decision to decorate the Hall as they had. Do you suppose they put it there during all events, over the head of all speakers, for the very purpose of continutally reminding all those in the hall that Jesus is Lord and the most important factor in all we think do and say? How would the founding Jesuits have felt about the hiding of Jesus Christ's name?
Many a foolish king has decided he's more important than God. If Obama is a Christian, surely he has read and understands the spiritual consequences of pushing God aside in order to puff himself up.
.
It seems that Obama, who claims to be a Christian, is ashamed of the Gospel. He didn't want to appear on TV surrounded by Christian symbols, and worse, a symbol of Jesus Christ's name. Maybe he thought all his non-Christian supporters would be offended. Maybe he thought his new buddies in the Middle East would be offended. At any rate, it wasn't important whether other Christians were offended, or worse, the Lord himself.
Either Obama was ashamed of the Gospel, or "The One" didn't want to have to compete with the True Lord for attention. All eyes and homage needed to be on Obama.
Whatever the reason, on Tuesday, April 14, Georgetown, a Christian University founded in 1789 by the Jesuits, hid the inscription "IHS" at the request of President Obama's staff. "IHS" is short for Iesous Christos - the Greek name of Jesus Christ.
According to Fox News, White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage. Apparently, they didn't want Jesus' name to show up on TV during his speech. The monogram, which is normally above the Gaston Hall stage, was covered over with what Fox News said appeared to be black wood during the speech.
The White House said that the backdrop, which included blue drapes and American flags, was standard during policy speeches and other events. They insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech -- and said that "any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."
I have to wonder why the founding Jesuits made the decision to decorate the Hall as they had. Do you suppose they put it there during all events, over the head of all speakers, for the very purpose of continutally reminding all those in the hall that Jesus is Lord and the most important factor in all we think do and say? How would the founding Jesuits have felt about the hiding of Jesus Christ's name?
Many a foolish king has decided he's more important than God. If Obama is a Christian, surely he has read and understands the spiritual consequences of pushing God aside in order to puff himself up.
.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Loser McCain's Top Strategist Still Trying to Give Advice
.
Steve Schmidt, Senator McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign, is still a loser and still giving loser advice. On Friday he told Republicans to ditch Religion and support same-sex marriage.
At a Log Cabin Republican Convention in Washington DC, he urged Republicans to support civil unions. "If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party." "If the party is seen as anti-gay, then that is injurious to its candidates" in Democrat-leaning and competitive states, he said.
In other words, all that matters is the survival of the Party itself. What it stands for, the principals it holds, are irrelevant. Winning and keeping power are all that matters.
My quesion is, if what a Party stands for doesn't matter or is fluid to the times, than what is the point of being a member of that Party? If the only reason for being a member of a Party is to be on a "team" that works together to gain control of the power in the community, than I suppose what he said makes sense. But most of us choose a party that best reflects our beliefs out of a hope that it's candidates will support those beliefs while in office. We're not trying to get "just anyone" elected. We're trying to get someone that REPRESENTS us elected.
This "strategist" for McCain obviously missed that point during the Presidential campaign and is still missing it. He thinks that for many of us, the social issues are of equal or less importance than the economic issues. Therefore, in the hope of obtaining our economic goals, we should have no problem letting go of what we believe is socially important.
That's obviously how he advised McCain during the campaign. That's why McCain's team marginalized all that Sarah Palin stood for. And that's why so many conservatives couldn't stand McCain.
What a dunce.
He and his fellow jerks, those that are currently in control of the Party, may very well win their way and get the Party to wimp out on what it has stood for for so long. But in doing do, they will lose millions of conservative voters, who will simply walk away to find candidates that are willing to stand for the social issues we care about. We have no interest in supporting Steve Schmidt, Senator McCain, or any of their ilk. They can have the Republican Party if they really want it. Many of us are already so fed up with it we're actively searching for a new, better, third party. Maybe it will be the Tea Party.
.
.
Steve Schmidt, Senator McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign, is still a loser and still giving loser advice. On Friday he told Republicans to ditch Religion and support same-sex marriage.
At a Log Cabin Republican Convention in Washington DC, he urged Republicans to support civil unions. "If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party." "If the party is seen as anti-gay, then that is injurious to its candidates" in Democrat-leaning and competitive states, he said.
In other words, all that matters is the survival of the Party itself. What it stands for, the principals it holds, are irrelevant. Winning and keeping power are all that matters.
My quesion is, if what a Party stands for doesn't matter or is fluid to the times, than what is the point of being a member of that Party? If the only reason for being a member of a Party is to be on a "team" that works together to gain control of the power in the community, than I suppose what he said makes sense. But most of us choose a party that best reflects our beliefs out of a hope that it's candidates will support those beliefs while in office. We're not trying to get "just anyone" elected. We're trying to get someone that REPRESENTS us elected.
This "strategist" for McCain obviously missed that point during the Presidential campaign and is still missing it. He thinks that for many of us, the social issues are of equal or less importance than the economic issues. Therefore, in the hope of obtaining our economic goals, we should have no problem letting go of what we believe is socially important.
That's obviously how he advised McCain during the campaign. That's why McCain's team marginalized all that Sarah Palin stood for. And that's why so many conservatives couldn't stand McCain.
What a dunce.
He and his fellow jerks, those that are currently in control of the Party, may very well win their way and get the Party to wimp out on what it has stood for for so long. But in doing do, they will lose millions of conservative voters, who will simply walk away to find candidates that are willing to stand for the social issues we care about. We have no interest in supporting Steve Schmidt, Senator McCain, or any of their ilk. They can have the Republican Party if they really want it. Many of us are already so fed up with it we're actively searching for a new, better, third party. Maybe it will be the Tea Party.
.
.
CNN, MSNBC, Mock Tea Parties with Lewd Jokes
.
According to reports, MSNBC's David Shuster lewdly mocked hundreds of thousands of Americans Monday while filling in for fellow jerk, Keith Olbermann.
The Tea Party protests, he said, amounted to "Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it." He described the parties as "full-throated" and "toothless." He even said, "They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending" and protesters "whipped out" the demonstrations this past weekend.
Other gross commentators included CNN's Anderson Cooper, analyst David Gergen, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and Air America's Ana Marie Cox.
Their disrespect is Unbelievable. What's wrong with these people? Do they forget that half of America votes conservative? How can they continue to mock us like this, and yet expect to be listened to and respected? The only thing I can figure is that they really do believe that the media has huge control over people. They truly believe that conservative believe as they do because Limbaugh tells them to, and if they can be a little more clever than Limbaugh, Americans will start to like and believe them instead. They really don't understand that the reason we like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others isn't because they are telling us what to think, but because they are saying what WE ALREADY think. And no, it doesn't matter how clever jerks like Shuster and Olbermann think they are. We won't ever like them.
.
According to reports, MSNBC's David Shuster lewdly mocked hundreds of thousands of Americans Monday while filling in for fellow jerk, Keith Olbermann.
The Tea Party protests, he said, amounted to "Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it." He described the parties as "full-throated" and "toothless." He even said, "They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending" and protesters "whipped out" the demonstrations this past weekend.
Other gross commentators included CNN's Anderson Cooper, analyst David Gergen, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and Air America's Ana Marie Cox.
Their disrespect is Unbelievable. What's wrong with these people? Do they forget that half of America votes conservative? How can they continue to mock us like this, and yet expect to be listened to and respected? The only thing I can figure is that they really do believe that the media has huge control over people. They truly believe that conservative believe as they do because Limbaugh tells them to, and if they can be a little more clever than Limbaugh, Americans will start to like and believe them instead. They really don't understand that the reason we like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others isn't because they are telling us what to think, but because they are saying what WE ALREADY think. And no, it doesn't matter how clever jerks like Shuster and Olbermann think they are. We won't ever like them.
.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
McCain Snubs Palin on Jay Leno
.
Can you Beleive it? Mr. Spineless, the guy that slithered his way through his Presidential Campaign, gave Leno a list of Governors he considered "young and dynamic" as leaders of the Republican Party and left Sarah Palin off the list. Excuse me? She is the only reason I voted that ticket. McCain has never impressed me as someone that could be depended on.
He's the one that chose her for vice president. I had never heard of her prior to the Republican Convention. He's the one that brought her forward so we could all hear her. Many of us fell in love with her practical, conservative beliefs right away. Again, I was going to go ahead and vote Ron Paul, except that she stepped into the picture. A large number of people voted for her, not him. She's the only reason he didn't lose by a landslide.
Now, for some reason, she's not good enough for him. Jerk.
If Republican Party leaders continue to jealously diss her, maybe we'll have to ask her to lead the new Tea Party.
.
Can you Beleive it? Mr. Spineless, the guy that slithered his way through his Presidential Campaign, gave Leno a list of Governors he considered "young and dynamic" as leaders of the Republican Party and left Sarah Palin off the list. Excuse me? She is the only reason I voted that ticket. McCain has never impressed me as someone that could be depended on.
He's the one that chose her for vice president. I had never heard of her prior to the Republican Convention. He's the one that brought her forward so we could all hear her. Many of us fell in love with her practical, conservative beliefs right away. Again, I was going to go ahead and vote Ron Paul, except that she stepped into the picture. A large number of people voted for her, not him. She's the only reason he didn't lose by a landslide.
Now, for some reason, she's not good enough for him. Jerk.
If Republican Party leaders continue to jealously diss her, maybe we'll have to ask her to lead the new Tea Party.
.
ABC's Gun Control Propaganda
.
JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment
Posted at Fox News By John R. Lott, Jr.
Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10, ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long “20/20″ special called “If I Only Had a Gun.” It is ABC’s equivalent of NBC’s infamous exploding gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn’t surprising.
The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims to carry guns would not help keep them safe –- not even with hundreds of hours of practice firing guns.
No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes even the best editors can’t hide everything the camera sees.
The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.
Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.
But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by “20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.
Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the difficulties the students face in handling their guns.
Given this set-up the second student, Danielle, performed admirably well. She shot the firearms expert in his left leg near the groin. If real bullets had been used, that might well have disabled the attacker and cut short his shooting spree.
Nevertheless, even terrible shooters can often be quite effective. Despite all of ABC’s references to the Columbine attack, the network never mention the armed guard at the school. He had an unusually poor target shooting record –- indeed it is reported that he couldn’t even hit a target. Yet, his bravery still saved many lives because his poorly aimed shots forced the two killers to engage in gunfire with him. This slowed down their killing spree and gave many students a chance to escape the building. The guard was only forced to retreat and leave the school himself because of the homemade grenades that the Columbine murderers had.
The Columbine murderers strongly and actively opposed passage of Colorado’s right-to-carry law, particularly the part that would have allowed concealed handguns being legally carried on school campuses. What goes unnoticed is that the Columbine attack took place the very day that the state legislature scheduled final passage of the concealed handgun law.
Time after time the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings consciously avoid areas where people might be able to defend themselves. In the attack on the Jewish community center in Los Angeles in which five people were wounded, the attacker had apparently “scouted three of the West Coast’s most prominent Jewish institutions—the Museum of Tolerance, the Skirball Cultural Center and the University of Judaism—but found security too tight.”
In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender. Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any more shots fired.
Even if the cases don’t get much attention, gun permit holders stop these multiple victim attacks on a regular basis. Ironically, just this past Saturday, the day after ABC’s broadcast, a permit holder in Columbia, Texas stopped a mass robbery by fatally shooting the criminal. Some Web sites have started collecting these and other defensive gun use cases (e.g., see here, here, and here).
ABC’S “20/20″ exaggerates “the danger of accidentally hitting a friend” when confronting an attacker. The show cites as an example is a man who mistook his wife for an intruder. Obviously that case is a tragedy, but those cases are exceedingly rare. But why didn’t they present a single multiple victim attack as an example? Simple, because it has not happened.
ABC pushes the notion that gun show regulations, rather than arming potential victims, can stop these attacks. But very few criminals get their guns from gun shows: a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) of prisoners had obtained their gun from a gun show. Even adding flea markets and gun shows together raises the number to just 1.7 percent. There is not a single academic study showing that regulating private individuals selling their own guns — the so-called “gun show loophole” — reduces any type of violent crime. What the regulations have accomplished is cutting the number of gun shows by 25 percent.
The show ends with this claim:
“If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory.”
Yet, “contradictory” is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.
You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies, there wouldn’t be these multiple victim public shootings in those European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a crowded café in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school shootings are in Europe.
Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent annually in the United States for police officers on campus and other programs, one would hope that this relatively inexpensive alternative, where people are willing to bear the costs themselves to protect others, would be taken more seriously.
ABC never mentions a simple fact: all multiple victim public shootings with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at convincing Americans that guns are ineffective. Unfortunately, ABC’s advice, rather than making victims safe, makes things safer for attackers.
John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, second edition, 2000) and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery, 2003). Much of the discussion here is based on both books.
.
JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment
Posted at Fox News By John R. Lott, Jr.
Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10, ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long “20/20″ special called “If I Only Had a Gun.” It is ABC’s equivalent of NBC’s infamous exploding gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn’t surprising.
The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims to carry guns would not help keep them safe –- not even with hundreds of hours of practice firing guns.
No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes even the best editors can’t hide everything the camera sees.
The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.
Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.
But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by “20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.
Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the difficulties the students face in handling their guns.
Given this set-up the second student, Danielle, performed admirably well. She shot the firearms expert in his left leg near the groin. If real bullets had been used, that might well have disabled the attacker and cut short his shooting spree.
Nevertheless, even terrible shooters can often be quite effective. Despite all of ABC’s references to the Columbine attack, the network never mention the armed guard at the school. He had an unusually poor target shooting record –- indeed it is reported that he couldn’t even hit a target. Yet, his bravery still saved many lives because his poorly aimed shots forced the two killers to engage in gunfire with him. This slowed down their killing spree and gave many students a chance to escape the building. The guard was only forced to retreat and leave the school himself because of the homemade grenades that the Columbine murderers had.
The Columbine murderers strongly and actively opposed passage of Colorado’s right-to-carry law, particularly the part that would have allowed concealed handguns being legally carried on school campuses. What goes unnoticed is that the Columbine attack took place the very day that the state legislature scheduled final passage of the concealed handgun law.
Time after time the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings consciously avoid areas where people might be able to defend themselves. In the attack on the Jewish community center in Los Angeles in which five people were wounded, the attacker had apparently “scouted three of the West Coast’s most prominent Jewish institutions—the Museum of Tolerance, the Skirball Cultural Center and the University of Judaism—but found security too tight.”
In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender. Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any more shots fired.
Even if the cases don’t get much attention, gun permit holders stop these multiple victim attacks on a regular basis. Ironically, just this past Saturday, the day after ABC’s broadcast, a permit holder in Columbia, Texas stopped a mass robbery by fatally shooting the criminal. Some Web sites have started collecting these and other defensive gun use cases (e.g., see here, here, and here).
ABC’S “20/20″ exaggerates “the danger of accidentally hitting a friend” when confronting an attacker. The show cites as an example is a man who mistook his wife for an intruder. Obviously that case is a tragedy, but those cases are exceedingly rare. But why didn’t they present a single multiple victim attack as an example? Simple, because it has not happened.
ABC pushes the notion that gun show regulations, rather than arming potential victims, can stop these attacks. But very few criminals get their guns from gun shows: a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) of prisoners had obtained their gun from a gun show. Even adding flea markets and gun shows together raises the number to just 1.7 percent. There is not a single academic study showing that regulating private individuals selling their own guns — the so-called “gun show loophole” — reduces any type of violent crime. What the regulations have accomplished is cutting the number of gun shows by 25 percent.
The show ends with this claim:
“If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory.”
Yet, “contradictory” is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.
You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies, there wouldn’t be these multiple victim public shootings in those European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a crowded café in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school shootings are in Europe.
Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent annually in the United States for police officers on campus and other programs, one would hope that this relatively inexpensive alternative, where people are willing to bear the costs themselves to protect others, would be taken more seriously.
ABC never mentions a simple fact: all multiple victim public shootings with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at convincing Americans that guns are ineffective. Unfortunately, ABC’s advice, rather than making victims safe, makes things safer for attackers.
John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, second edition, 2000) and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery, 2003). Much of the discussion here is based on both books.
.
Tea Party Day - Obama still doesn't get it
There weren't any Tea Parties in our area, so we had a special on Tea at our restaurant yesterday. 50% off. It was much appreciated by businessmen in our community. It doesn't matter what party people are in; people are mad about taxes. I don't know what cloud Obama has his head in, but he totally misunderstands the average working American.
Interesting that despite that numbers of people out at the Tea Parties, President Obama totally ignored them. He didn't address them at all. What can one expect. He's a Chicago Politician. He knows Chicago and how that works. He supports people on Welfare, because many of his Chicago constituents were on welfare. He understands crooked politicians, pay back, and paying off, because he's from Chicago. But he doesn't understand most Americans.
Interesting that despite that numbers of people out at the Tea Parties, President Obama totally ignored them. He didn't address them at all. What can one expect. He's a Chicago Politician. He knows Chicago and how that works. He supports people on Welfare, because many of his Chicago constituents were on welfare. He understands crooked politicians, pay back, and paying off, because he's from Chicago. But he doesn't understand most Americans.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Ban All Personal Expression in College Faculty Offices
.
From Fox News, Friday, April 10, two students are suing Peralta Community College District in California for threatening to suspend them for praying.
Fox reports that according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga said the College of Alameda accused them of "disruptive behavior" and issued suspension notices to them after they had prayed with a sick teacher in a faculty office in December of 2007.
The Chronicle reported that U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the women can proceed with a lawsuit against the college district because students have the right to pray in private outside the classroom. Their attorney, Steven Wood, was quoted as saying that they aren't seeking damages apart from attorneys' fees. All they want is an acknowledgment of their right to pray, an apology, and all disciplinary action to be rescinded. However, the district's attorneys argue that faculty offices are "places for teaching and learning and working" not "protests, demonstrations, prayer" or other disruptive activities.
How sickening that the District would try to cover their spiritual prejudice by showing even more stupidity - putting prayer in the same line as protests and demonstrations in faculty offices. Unbelievable.
If prayer is considered disruptive equal to protests and demonstrations, then they need to make their rule cover everything else as well. Arguments between staff, Birthday parties, Holiday decorations, listening to the radio, personal conversations, telephone calls to Mom, and muttering under ones breath. What jerks.
.
From Fox News, Friday, April 10, two students are suing Peralta Community College District in California for threatening to suspend them for praying.
Fox reports that according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga said the College of Alameda accused them of "disruptive behavior" and issued suspension notices to them after they had prayed with a sick teacher in a faculty office in December of 2007.
The Chronicle reported that U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the women can proceed with a lawsuit against the college district because students have the right to pray in private outside the classroom. Their attorney, Steven Wood, was quoted as saying that they aren't seeking damages apart from attorneys' fees. All they want is an acknowledgment of their right to pray, an apology, and all disciplinary action to be rescinded. However, the district's attorneys argue that faculty offices are "places for teaching and learning and working" not "protests, demonstrations, prayer" or other disruptive activities.
How sickening that the District would try to cover their spiritual prejudice by showing even more stupidity - putting prayer in the same line as protests and demonstrations in faculty offices. Unbelievable.
If prayer is considered disruptive equal to protests and demonstrations, then they need to make their rule cover everything else as well. Arguments between staff, Birthday parties, Holiday decorations, listening to the radio, personal conversations, telephone calls to Mom, and muttering under ones breath. What jerks.
.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Obama to Force Doctors to do Abortions
.
A letter I received today:
"...You might be interested in learning about the Obama Administration’s proposed plan to overturn federal regulations known as “conscience protections” that protect health care workers and organizations that refuse to provide abortions or other medical procedures that violate their convictions.
"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that it will have a 30-day comment period for Americans to express their opinions about the government’s plan to withdraw existing conscience protections for health care professionals. "A Doctor's Right" needs your help in informing HHS that reversing conscience protections violates freedom and punishes health care providers for choosing to act according to their conscience. Connie just visited http://www.adoctorsright.com/ and emailed a comment directly to HHS through our website and thought you too might want to get involved. We must urge the government to protect freedom of conscience for health care workers.
"Please visit http://www.adoctorsright.com/ to submit a comment to HHS voicing your opposition to rescinding regulations that protect health care professionals’ ability to act according to their conscience. The comment period ends April 9, so we must act now!
"Sincerely,
The "A Doctor's Right" Coalition - http://www.adoctorsright.com"
And Rita writes:
On April 9, Obama will remove the protection of concience from Health and Human services..we will be forced to support abortion, etc. Hospitals, physicians pharmacists. et al.
Phone call to comment line 202-456-2222 or http://wwwfreedom2care.org
Phone calls prefered,,immediately - before April 9.
Rita Senkler
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Scream at Congress and Obama.
.
Obama's behavior in London has been embarrassing. I can't believe he's given the Queen of England an ipod with his speeches on it. What a self-absorbed child!
He and his people are on a road to doing serious damage to our country. They are children playing adult.
We all need to scream at our Congress people and Obama, and do it right away because they are voting on the budget today or tomorrow - and get as many others to scream as well.
For a complete list of contact information for Congress, Obama, his cabinet, and 40 top Obama aides, go to www.Data-aide.com. Get the Contact info and share it with your friends.
This administration is going to continue to steam roll over everyone unless people start to scream.
.
Obama's behavior in London has been embarrassing. I can't believe he's given the Queen of England an ipod with his speeches on it. What a self-absorbed child!
He and his people are on a road to doing serious damage to our country. They are children playing adult.
We all need to scream at our Congress people and Obama, and do it right away because they are voting on the budget today or tomorrow - and get as many others to scream as well.
For a complete list of contact information for Congress, Obama, his cabinet, and 40 top Obama aides, go to www.Data-aide.com. Get the Contact info and share it with your friends.
This administration is going to continue to steam roll over everyone unless people start to scream.
.
Obama is Truly Scary
.
Starting with the decision to move the 2010 census into the White House where that Obama team can "manage" it, to firing CEO's of private companies, telling companies what they can and can't do with their legal contracts, telling car companies what kinds of cars they can and can't make, 'allowing the car companies to have some input" in the white house decisions as to who is on their boards, and finally the bail out money that frightened banks now can not return even if they want to.
Now there is talk of mandatory "volunteer" programs for teen agers. I think part of the joy my daughter gets in all of the volunteer work that she does is in the knowledge that it is all really volunteer.
And knowing a wide spectrum of teenagers and their personalities, I have to wonder how the government would make a "volunteer" program work; ie who would supervise it, what kind of "educating" would be included, how far they would go to enforce participation, and how much the volunteer program would end up costing.
The current social climate is more scary to me that the global warming fuss.
.
Starting with the decision to move the 2010 census into the White House where that Obama team can "manage" it, to firing CEO's of private companies, telling companies what they can and can't do with their legal contracts, telling car companies what kinds of cars they can and can't make, 'allowing the car companies to have some input" in the white house decisions as to who is on their boards, and finally the bail out money that frightened banks now can not return even if they want to.
Now there is talk of mandatory "volunteer" programs for teen agers. I think part of the joy my daughter gets in all of the volunteer work that she does is in the knowledge that it is all really volunteer.
And knowing a wide spectrum of teenagers and their personalities, I have to wonder how the government would make a "volunteer" program work; ie who would supervise it, what kind of "educating" would be included, how far they would go to enforce participation, and how much the volunteer program would end up costing.
The current social climate is more scary to me that the global warming fuss.
.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Dire Predictions for National Bison Range Coming True
From Susan Reneau, Wildlife Author, January 1, 2009
During the first week of December 2008 Mike Carter, a riffed employee of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and a older middle aged white man, was selected by the CSKT leaders to become the first tribal assistant project leader in charge of all the contract employees and most of the operational budget at the National Bison Range. I had predicted three months ago that a non-Indian man would be selected for this position, proving that the CSKT did not intend to fill these contract positions with their own people or other Indian people. During negotiations the CSKT argued with our Montana Congressional Delegation that these federal positions were vital to help “their” people secure viable employment for economic development purposes but in fact the CSKT has hired non-Indians from outside Montana to fill key positions in this agreement. Mr. Carter does not have any experience managing a national wildlife refuge yet is being paid more than the federal assistant project leader with decades of experience in the National Wildlife Refuge System. His position is inherently federal but this agreement ignores that fact of federal law. This was a new position created just for the CSKT that never existed at the NBR and has a salary level of in excess of $108,000 with benefits. The CSKT leaders wanted all positions at the NBR but since the USFWS negotiator Dean Rundle refused to give them the project leader and assistant project leader positions this fiscal year, Brian Upton, George Waters, and their crew of lawyers demanded a new tribal assistant project leader position be created, which was done.
On Monday, December 22, it was announced that no maintenance workers under the agreement would come and do work at the National Bison Range until late March or early April. Several months ago I had been told this by my CSKT informant but the CSKT leadership and their spokesperson Ron McDonald denied this would happen. Three of the best CSKT workers from the 2005-2006 agreement were not considered for this current agreement contract because they sided with the policies and work goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and not with the CSKT. Politically, they were blackballed by their own government from working at the NBR under the CSKT and three workers with no refuge experience will eventually come to the NBR in the spring. The remaining two maintenance workers that are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees loaned to the CSKT under and IPA agreement will now have to perform all the maintenance duties alone without support from the three CSKT hires. Two federal workers left the NBR (one as a retirement and one as a transfer) after a cumulative experience level of more than 45 years on December 31, 2008, but their duties will not be replaced by the CSKT until the spring so their work will not get done as scheduled. As the agreement was written by CSKT lawyer Brain Upton and a stable-full of other CSKT lawyers, the CSKT will not be evaluated for a failure to perform any duties nor will the CSKT receive less money for not performing necessary duties.
Also, the maintenance workers might not arrive at all during this fiscal year of 2009 unless the CSKT are paid more money for their work since the CSKT government officials have already complained to the DOI and USFWS that the budgeted amount of money for the work these maintenance workers do “just isn’t enough” for the CSKT to make any money on it. Remember, the federal workers that performed these tasks in the past were more than willing to work for that salary or hourly wage, but not the CSKT. You will recall that on January 16, 2008 I reported to you that the highly paid chief lobbyist for the CSKT, George Waters, told me outside the secret meetings at the Hilton Gardens that if the CSKT had known how little money they would make on this deal they might not have entered into any negotiation and that the CSKT needed more money to do the work. That was BEFORE any official agreement was signed and sealed.
The head secretary position in charge of managing the financial records, paying bills, and doing payroll accounts that was vacated in early November 2008 by a highly trained federal worker with decades of experience is now replaced by a CSKT worker with no experience in this field as a transfer from another part of the CSKT government. This secretary complained that he needed an assistant to complete his work that in the past has been done by one federal worker so an assistant was authorized and financed as of December 22. The assistant secretary is a CSKT worker with no experience dealing with finances of a national wildlife refuge. The same can be said for the head secretary.
As for the lead wildlife biologist for the national wildlife refuge (a plum job at any national wildlife refuge), a non-Indian white man who recently graduated from the University of Montana was selected and with him came two bio tech workers that are also non-Indian with limited experience performing duties on a national wildlife refuge. The lead wildlife biologist and his two bio techs replace federal workers with decades of experience and advanced college degrees. These, too, are inherently federal positions and vital to the health and welfare of the wildlife and habitat of any national wildlife refuge. The previous head wildlife biologist who was a federal worker and her assistant had decades of experience between them and had advanced college degrees in wildlife management. At least one of the bio techs has no college degree.
All positions, including Mike Carter’s salary, are less than the former federal workers received and have less experience but the CSKT government is pocketing the difference in salary so taxpayers continue to pay the same amount of money for each position and inherently federal task but receive a less qualified worker for their money. As the CSKT informant told me, “It’s a shell game.” For example, if a federal worker with a Master’s Degree and 20 years of experience was paid $50,000 for a professional position, the new CSKT worker would receive $30,000 and the CSKT government would pocket $20,000 as their “fee” for managing the contract agreement.
The lawsuit filed by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) with eight heroic plaintiffs will receive a response from the solicitors (lawyers) of the U.S. Dept. of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 60 days, as required by federal law, but I predict that the solicitors will not respond to the lawsuit until the final moment. I also predict they will move to throw out the lawsuit but the federal judge will not allow this since this is a viable lawsuit. I also predict that PEER and their plaintiffs will win their case but the decision will be appealed by the DOI and USFWS to a higher court. Eventually, I predict this case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Other lawsuits are likely to occur, maybe as early as this week, related to federal laws that are being broken and experienced and dedicated federal workers (scientists and technicians) that are being harmed because of this agreement with the CSKT that was ramrodded down the throats of the USFWS since February 2003 when the current round of negotiations for a new agreement began in secret.
No contract worker or special interest group, no matter who they are, should take over inherently federal positions and tasks or manage federal operational budgets, especially if they have less experience and education than the federal workers that have successfully performed those tasks for decades.
If you have not contributed to the lawsuit, please do so immediately by contributing as much as you can to this 501c3 corporation (tax deductible): PEER, 2000 “P” Street, N.W., Suite 240, Washington, D.C. 20036. You can call in a donation with a credit card at (202) 265-7337 or contribute on their website at http://www.peer.org/.
.
During the first week of December 2008 Mike Carter, a riffed employee of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and a older middle aged white man, was selected by the CSKT leaders to become the first tribal assistant project leader in charge of all the contract employees and most of the operational budget at the National Bison Range. I had predicted three months ago that a non-Indian man would be selected for this position, proving that the CSKT did not intend to fill these contract positions with their own people or other Indian people. During negotiations the CSKT argued with our Montana Congressional Delegation that these federal positions were vital to help “their” people secure viable employment for economic development purposes but in fact the CSKT has hired non-Indians from outside Montana to fill key positions in this agreement. Mr. Carter does not have any experience managing a national wildlife refuge yet is being paid more than the federal assistant project leader with decades of experience in the National Wildlife Refuge System. His position is inherently federal but this agreement ignores that fact of federal law. This was a new position created just for the CSKT that never existed at the NBR and has a salary level of in excess of $108,000 with benefits. The CSKT leaders wanted all positions at the NBR but since the USFWS negotiator Dean Rundle refused to give them the project leader and assistant project leader positions this fiscal year, Brian Upton, George Waters, and their crew of lawyers demanded a new tribal assistant project leader position be created, which was done.
On Monday, December 22, it was announced that no maintenance workers under the agreement would come and do work at the National Bison Range until late March or early April. Several months ago I had been told this by my CSKT informant but the CSKT leadership and their spokesperson Ron McDonald denied this would happen. Three of the best CSKT workers from the 2005-2006 agreement were not considered for this current agreement contract because they sided with the policies and work goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and not with the CSKT. Politically, they were blackballed by their own government from working at the NBR under the CSKT and three workers with no refuge experience will eventually come to the NBR in the spring. The remaining two maintenance workers that are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees loaned to the CSKT under and IPA agreement will now have to perform all the maintenance duties alone without support from the three CSKT hires. Two federal workers left the NBR (one as a retirement and one as a transfer) after a cumulative experience level of more than 45 years on December 31, 2008, but their duties will not be replaced by the CSKT until the spring so their work will not get done as scheduled. As the agreement was written by CSKT lawyer Brain Upton and a stable-full of other CSKT lawyers, the CSKT will not be evaluated for a failure to perform any duties nor will the CSKT receive less money for not performing necessary duties.
Also, the maintenance workers might not arrive at all during this fiscal year of 2009 unless the CSKT are paid more money for their work since the CSKT government officials have already complained to the DOI and USFWS that the budgeted amount of money for the work these maintenance workers do “just isn’t enough” for the CSKT to make any money on it. Remember, the federal workers that performed these tasks in the past were more than willing to work for that salary or hourly wage, but not the CSKT. You will recall that on January 16, 2008 I reported to you that the highly paid chief lobbyist for the CSKT, George Waters, told me outside the secret meetings at the Hilton Gardens that if the CSKT had known how little money they would make on this deal they might not have entered into any negotiation and that the CSKT needed more money to do the work. That was BEFORE any official agreement was signed and sealed.
The head secretary position in charge of managing the financial records, paying bills, and doing payroll accounts that was vacated in early November 2008 by a highly trained federal worker with decades of experience is now replaced by a CSKT worker with no experience in this field as a transfer from another part of the CSKT government. This secretary complained that he needed an assistant to complete his work that in the past has been done by one federal worker so an assistant was authorized and financed as of December 22. The assistant secretary is a CSKT worker with no experience dealing with finances of a national wildlife refuge. The same can be said for the head secretary.
As for the lead wildlife biologist for the national wildlife refuge (a plum job at any national wildlife refuge), a non-Indian white man who recently graduated from the University of Montana was selected and with him came two bio tech workers that are also non-Indian with limited experience performing duties on a national wildlife refuge. The lead wildlife biologist and his two bio techs replace federal workers with decades of experience and advanced college degrees. These, too, are inherently federal positions and vital to the health and welfare of the wildlife and habitat of any national wildlife refuge. The previous head wildlife biologist who was a federal worker and her assistant had decades of experience between them and had advanced college degrees in wildlife management. At least one of the bio techs has no college degree.
All positions, including Mike Carter’s salary, are less than the former federal workers received and have less experience but the CSKT government is pocketing the difference in salary so taxpayers continue to pay the same amount of money for each position and inherently federal task but receive a less qualified worker for their money. As the CSKT informant told me, “It’s a shell game.” For example, if a federal worker with a Master’s Degree and 20 years of experience was paid $50,000 for a professional position, the new CSKT worker would receive $30,000 and the CSKT government would pocket $20,000 as their “fee” for managing the contract agreement.
The lawsuit filed by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) with eight heroic plaintiffs will receive a response from the solicitors (lawyers) of the U.S. Dept. of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 60 days, as required by federal law, but I predict that the solicitors will not respond to the lawsuit until the final moment. I also predict they will move to throw out the lawsuit but the federal judge will not allow this since this is a viable lawsuit. I also predict that PEER and their plaintiffs will win their case but the decision will be appealed by the DOI and USFWS to a higher court. Eventually, I predict this case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Other lawsuits are likely to occur, maybe as early as this week, related to federal laws that are being broken and experienced and dedicated federal workers (scientists and technicians) that are being harmed because of this agreement with the CSKT that was ramrodded down the throats of the USFWS since February 2003 when the current round of negotiations for a new agreement began in secret.
No contract worker or special interest group, no matter who they are, should take over inherently federal positions and tasks or manage federal operational budgets, especially if they have less experience and education than the federal workers that have successfully performed those tasks for decades.
If you have not contributed to the lawsuit, please do so immediately by contributing as much as you can to this 501c3 corporation (tax deductible): PEER, 2000 “P” Street, N.W., Suite 240, Washington, D.C. 20036. You can call in a donation with a credit card at (202) 265-7337 or contribute on their website at http://www.peer.org/.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)