According to the United States Government....

....people who love freedom are terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security (perhaps George W. Bush's biggest mistake) recently released a study which defined the following people as terrorists (based upon Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, a 2011 study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, whoever they are...).  Anyway, these frightening folks are "terrorists": 

--Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;

--Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;

--People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);

--Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;

--Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;

--Americans who are opposed to killing unborn babies.

 

Hoooooo-huuuuummmm....

 

Why should anybody be surprised that government thinks that people who believe in freedom are "terrorists"?   Government, intrinsically, is opposed to freedom.  The very purpose of government is to limit freedom.  That's what laws do--limit freedom.  In some cases, that is a good thing, of course.  We don't murderers having the "freedom" to murder.  But, even with that, the laws against murder limit the murderer's freedom to murder!  Every law passed by government, in some way, limits freedom.  Again, in many instances, that's what needs to be done.  But giving government the power to pass laws that restrict freedom makes government very, very dangerous to individual liberty.  Our Founding Fathers knew that, which is why they wrote a document (the Constitution) which specified exactly what the federal government can and cannot do.  They feared government and knew that it was the greatest enemy of individual liberty.  Unfortunately, thanks to Abraham Lincoln and a few others of his ilk, it didn't work (read my recent "Village Idiot" post for further explanation of this). 

 

The point is, it is in government's interest not to let freedom flourish.  If I'm government, I want power, I want to limit freedom.  That's good for me.  But bad for the people's liberty.  The more government, the less liberty for the people; the more liberty for the people, the less government control.  This isn't rocket science; it's common sense, and even more, it's history. 

 

So, how can it be any surprise that the United States federal government writes a document which defines people who believe in "individual liberty" and who are "suspicious of centralized federal authority" as "terrorists"?  Hahaha.  Are the American people ever going to wake up (no, they aren't) and realize that Washington, D.C., is a classic historical case of governmental power, and that it is the very thing the men who founded America warned about and tried to prevent? 

 

And rebelled against.

 

Thomas Jefferson, where are you when we need you so badly?

 

**********

One more thought along this line; I've made it before on this blog, but I'll include it here for any new readers.  Regarding liberty:  the more that humans control themselves, the less government they need.  If people would conscientiously live according the teachings of Jesus Christ, we wouldn't need government (or very little).  As James Madison said, "if all men were angels, we wouldn't need government."  But this is the major reason why liberals, "progressives", hate religion.  Liberals, "progressives", believe in government as the solution to man's problems (with themselves in control of the government, of course).  The more religious, i.e., "self-governing" people are, the less government they need.  That is, they don't need liberals.  Thus, it has been a major goal of liberalism to destroy Christianity in America.  And in direct proportion to the success they have had, we have seen government grow in the United States.  Remember the Benjamin Franklin quote I posted a few weeks ago:  "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  Do you think liberals don't know that?  Well, the "intellectuals" do, and that's why they are so vicious in their attacks on Christianity and in their attempts to silence those who truly exalt the teachings of Jesus.  Liberal, I don't need you.  I have a higher Master than you, one a whole lot smarter and wiser, whose ethical standards put yours to shame, and, if they were applied properly, would solve every, single solitary problem America has.  Without you, liberal.  But I know that's why you hate God and Christianity.  Well, there's one more reason.... 

Sometimes words have to be defined to be understood.  "Freedom" is one of those.  To the men who founded America, "freedom" meant the absence of governmental control over the people.  Moral law (God's) does exist, but people should freely choose to obey that law, for the betterment of themselves and respect for other people's rights.  But that's not what the modern liberal means by freedom.  To him, "freedom" means "sex."  That is the only thing liberals don't want government to control--people's right to have as much sex as they want, with any adult they want, and without having any responsibility or consequences.  And if an accident DOES happen (a baby conceived), somebody else's freedom should be limited (taxes) in order to pay to get rid of it.  Otherwise, to the liberal, there is no such thing as freedom.  You have only one course of action--obey to what the liberal tells you to do.

Liberal=government=Department of Homeland Security=hatred of individual liberty...

The Village Idiot and the Village Genius

Here's a great quote from a recent article by Thomas Sowell:

"John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." ("Judicial Betrayal," 7/3/12)

The last sentence bears repeating: "few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." I have often said--even told my students--that the stupidest people in the world are so-called "intellectuals." Most of them have no common sense, they rarely live in the real world where they themselves must accept the responsibility and bear the consequences of their fallacies, and worse yet, too many of them don’t believe in God.  It hasn’t been the Gomer Pyles who have started wars and killed untold millions, but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and a whole host of such “intellectual” leftists who thought they had the genius to re-make the world according to their own vision (and, in their subjectivism, they never agreed on what that vision is), and, all the while, they completely ignored history and the moral and spiritual laws that the Creator handed man for his own good. 

That’s the quintessence of stupidity.  And barbarism.  And human tragedy.  And the reason why the United States, and most of the world, is in a mess right now.

**********
I haven’t written on the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare because, to me, it was ho-hum.  How could anybody be surprised at the decision?  When was the last time the SCOTUS was right about any major decision?  Why, why, why do we expect “intellectuals” to do the right thing?  They rarely ever do.  So, of course, the Supreme Court got it wrong.  Ho-hum.

**********
Overlooked in all of this, and a point I haven’t seen anybody talk about, is that nowhere in the Constitution does that document make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what is “constitutional” or not.  I know that, from very early in the history of the United States (actually from even before Marbury v. Madison), the Court has taken it upon itself to declares laws of Congress and/or the states unconstitutional, and it has been accepted practice ever since.  But, again, where does the Constitution give the Court that right?  That 9 (or 5) unelected, unaccountable scoundrels have the ultimate power to decide what is to be bound upon the rest of the people can hardly be considered in harmony with a republican form of government or the intentions of the Founders.  In that sense, Chief Justice Roberts was right—the legislature makes the laws, regardless of how stupid they might be.  The executive “executes” (enforces) the laws, and the judiciary is to apply the laws.  That’s by simple definition.  If Congress makes an unconstitutional law, technically, it’s up to Congress to repeal it.  If they don’t, the states have the right to nullify it (nobody can be forced to obey an illegal law), as a warning to the national legislature.  If Congress still doesn’t repeal it, and insists on continuing to enforce its unconstitutional (tyrannical) mandates, the states have the right to secede from the Union—that’s the ultimate Damocles’ sword the Founders put over the head of the national government to help keep it in check.  If Congress insists on going beyond the delegated powers given to it in the Constitution, then the states, who created that Congress in the first place, have the right to secede—Congress won’t have anybody to govern anymore!  The United States government exists by the “consent of the governed,” and if all, or part, of those “governed” no longer consent to that government, then they have the right to leave it and form their own.  (Abraham Lincoln concurred in that view, which was, by far, the majority opinion of the Founders of the country.  It had to be since that is exactly what they did to England!)  Otherwise, those people are no longer free, but enslaved.  That’s the way the country was founded and intended.  The Southern states tried to make it work.  They failed.  Now, the federal government defines its own powers, so it is hardly surprising that there are virtually no limitations on what it can do (keep in mind that the SCOTUS is a part of the federal government, thus a major part in allowing Washington, D.C., to determine its own dominion).  Article One, Section 8, of the Constitution means nothing anymore because it can mean everything.  That is hardly what the men who founded the country had in mind.

Jefferson, et al, knew exactly what they were doing, and it was the most brilliant governmental construction the human mind has yet conceived.  The only thing is, it didn’t work.  And it didn’t work because of the very thing those men feared and tried to prevent—the undying, unquenchable thirst that humans—especially so-called “intellectuals”—have for power.  It is an intoxicant that has killed more of God’s creatures than any other vice in history.  And it is the intoxicant that is the main motivation of Barack Obama and the “progressives” whose one obsession is to control the United States of America and to create a utopian vision that only they can see.  That scares me to death.  Because other such “progressive” visionaries have been named…Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…

History teaches that man has been plenty barbaric even when he acknowledges there is a God in heaven.  Man, without God, has absolutely no boundaries and no controls—and no reason to have any.  And so much the worse for the countless, nameless millions who have lived—and brutally died—under such a system. 

Give me Gomer Pyle any day of the week.

The Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Decision

From reading about it, one would think that the state of Arizona won 1 of the 4 decisions that the Supreme Court handed down a few days ago.  Well, no, Arizona did NOT win 1 decision, simply because the Obama administration has made it plain that it has absolutely no intention of enforcing it.  In fact, they are inviting people to snitch on Arizona law personnel if THEY try to enforce it.

Rush has a fine explanation of it.  Read it and gag.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/26/the_regime_refuses_to_enforce_the_border_and_tells_the_state_of_arizona_to_go_to_hell

The Man is an Embarrassment

Here's the latest from America's Joke-in-Chief.  It's called the "Obama Event Registry":

"Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy--so get started today."

Here is a man who descries selfishness, has made attacks against it the chief cornerstone of his entire presidency, and yet he has the unmitigated gall to ask people, on one of the most important events of their lives, to forego receiving gifts from well-wishers and instead give the money to him.  The man has absolutely no shame.  What an embarrassment he is.

What's next?  Funerals?  Donations in lieu of flowers?  Well, the dead won't mind.  If Eric Holder has his way, they'll all be able to vote for Obama anyway. 

What the Democratic Party Has Become

Rush had a couple of quote-worthy remarks yesterday. Here is the first:

"We ask the question: 'Has the citizenry finally devolved to the point that they would rather not work and be taken care of?' That's what it boils down to. That's the overriding question that we ask, in fear, every time we start thinking about this next election. And Obama has clearly rolled the dice and said, 'Yeah. There's more people that want to sit around and be taken care of by me than there are people who want to assume responsibility for themselves.' That's what he's banking on."

And Rush's second statement: "I don't think we've lost the country. I think we're close, but I don't think we've lost it."

The election this year will detemine whether Rush is right or not.

**********
"Gay Activists Invited to WH 'Flip Off' Reagan." Last Friday, Obama held the first-ever queer pride reception at the White House. Some of the queers made a beeline to the portrait of Ronald Reagan and gave him their middle finger. Classy. But, obviously, people who wallow in a cesspool and keep their noses up somebody else's rear wouldn't know excellence when they see it. Don't forget, though; it's "progressive."

**********
And here is some more information that portrays the current Democratic Party. A few weeks ago, some kindergarten students were banned from singing Lee Greenwood's song, "God Bless the USA" at a graduation ceremony. The principal (a black woman) was afraid that other cultures might be "offended." Well, enough of the children's parents were offended by her blatant anti-Americanism that, a few days later, some of the children were taken to a nearby playground where they sang the song together. And were actually heckled by some adults.

One of the protesters said, "The kids don’t even know what they’re singing. They got something you tell them to say. It’s ridiculous. It’s sad, sad, sad. You all are going to burn in hell. You all burn in hell. Shame on you. Shame on you." Another adult said--now notice this--"You Republicans go to a Republican area and do that. We don't want that here. Go to a Republican area." Ah. Singing a patriotic song is a "Republican" thing. Yes, it is....

The "leadership" of the Democratic Party would, of course, deny that their party is "unpatriotic," but after years and years and years and years and years of bashing the United States, of telling people how unfair America has been, of criticizing and blasting the history of the country and its role in world affairs, how can anybody be stunned when the rank-and-file despise the country? And make no mistake about it--there are many, many people in the United States who hate America. All they have heard, all their lives, from people they respect and trust, is how bad America is, how wicked, immoral, racist, exploitative, and unfair the United States has been in its history (and at present); how could they NOT abhor it? They hate the rich because they've been told--by Democrats, academia, and the media, the "progressives"--that all the economic evils in the country are because the rich have exploited the poor, robbing, cheating, and swindling them. And so--back to paragraph one and Rush's statements--there are people who don't want to work in the first place, who don't want to assume responsibility for their own lives, and who Obama and the Democrats are happy to cater to by telling them they have a RIGHT to live off others because those others stole from them in the first place. Obama's recent immigration announcement, in effect allowing hundreds of thousands of people to break the law with no consequences, was nothing more than a politcal play to get votes. Barack Obama cares nothing, absolutely nothinig, for the United States; he's probably to be numbered among those who hate the country. Regardless of that, he is obsessed only with himself, only about his own re-election, and he is doing everything he can to build a coalition that will win him a second term. He has given up on the white working class, on decent, hard-working, mainstream America, the people who built the country and who made it the greatest nation in the world. He knows he isn't going to get many votes from them. So he's reaching out to every fringe group he can find--blacks, illegals, queers, potheads, Hollywood, welfare bums, left-wing environmental kooks--in hopes he can put together a big enough group to give him an electoral victory in November.

And he's liable to do it.

And if he does, Rush, the country will be lost for good. There will be no coming back. Well, given the way the demographics of the country are going--and who controls the education system--it's only a matter of time anyway.

You've got to give the Democratic Party credit, though--they know how to win. They don't care if they destroy America in the process, but they do know how to win, gain, and keep political power. And, believe me, to the liberals, political power is what it is all about. Those fringe groups are people that they can control. And that's what they want. That's all they want.

**********
I have never been a proponent of democracy and, as I have noted on this blog before, neither were the men who founded America. I won't go into the reasons here; I've done that before. But I will present to you now another--perhaps the most powerful--argument against democracy. I can do it in two words: Nancy Pelosi. That any human being, as stupid, ridiculous, and witless as she is, could be elected to the House of Representatives is certainly one of the most damning indictments of any political system. And then....and then...the rest of the democratically-elected Democratic Party made her the Speaker of the House of Representatives--two heart-beats away from being President of the United States!!! That is a frightening thought, a scenario too horrifying to contemplate, a nightmare beyond even the most foreboding terrors of the ghoulish mind of a depressed, demonic Poe....

Nancy Pelosi. I rest my case against democracy. An utterly unanswerable argument.

Oh. What's the best form of government, you ask? An aristocracy of virtue and merit. The people who rule must prove themselves worthy of it by their character.

Let Jeremiah search Washington, D.C. with candles to see if he can find one such person...

Is Obama a Socialist or a Fascist?

In a relatively recent post, I indicated that Barack Obama is moving the United States towards fascism, not socialism.  It is very popular, among conservatives, to refer to Obama as a "socialist," and some recent books have broadened the definition of "socialism" so wide as to include almost any intervention of government into the economy.  I've never been comfortable with that because the classical definition of "socialism" is government ownership of the means of production, and Obama is not really pushing for that; he yearns more for government control of private production--leave business in the hands of private enterprise, but have the government order it what to do.  That is fascism, not socialism.  That's Mussolini and Hitler, not Stalin and Mao.

I was pleased to note that, today, Thomas Sowell has published an article about this very thing, entitled "Socialist or Fascist?"  He didn't come right out and call Obama a "fascist," (I didn't, either, though the implication is strong), but if you are interested in reading his article, here is the link: 

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell061212.php3

Keep in mind that Thomas Sowell is a trained economist, so this is not the vision of an ignorant sap, but of an expert in the field.

Why Obama Can (Unbelievably) Still Win

Well, what's been going on lately?  I've been very busy with school, but finals are next week so it should slow down soon.  I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do during the summer holiday; I'd like to take a Chinese language course, but the one offered by the university here is more expensive than I want to pay.  I might be able to get them to discount it some, but I don't know.  I may do some traveling, and I certainly want to do some reading and writing.  Regardless, I'm a little weary, so I'm looking forward to the break.

**********
As amazing at it might seem, Barack Obama still has a very good chance of being re-elected President of the United States this year.  It really has very little to do with Mitt Romney, who actually is, so far, turning out to be a very level-headed and solid candidate.  It is simply a matter of demographics.  Obama and the Democrats have desperately been trying to get as many people as possible dependent upon government largesse, and then convince these people that the Republicans will steal their candy and leave them starving in the streets.  Almost 50% of Americans are receiving some kind of government assistance now and almost the same number pay no income tax.  Most of those piglets aren't going to turn away from the teat they suck on.

But there is something deeper involved here.  Self-government is, largely, a product of western European (basically English) Calvinism.  The most stable self-governing countries in the world, for the most part, were former British colonies.  Most other peoples simply have struggled with "self-government" because they have no history of it (the Japanese, Koreans, and non-communist Chinese are notable exceptions to this).  As the United States has become more heterogeneous--especially rising black and Hispanic populations--the natural tendency of those ethnic groups is to drift towards dependence.  Those two groups, especially, have no tradition of self-government, of independence, of making decisions on their own.  They've been told all of their history, by some absolutist ruler, what to do, and thus it is easier for them simply to allow government to take care of them, rather than take the risk, responsibility, and consequences that freedom offers.  This is not a racial argument, it is an historical one.  The Latin American countries, for 200 years, have struggled with self-government because they were colonies of an absolutist Spain.  Those Hispanics who are now gravitating to the United States have no idea how "self-government" works, so they lean on government.  The Europeans spent only enough time in Africa to screw that continent up, not teach them self-government.  America, of course, kept blacks subservient through slavery and Jim Crow laws--and liberals today want to continue that subservience--so they, too, look to government for support.  A recent study which indicated that the birth of minority babies now exceeds that of Caucasian babies is a godsend to Democrats and a death knoll for freedom in the United States.  What will happen in 20 years when all those people can vote?  How can the private sector survive without a massive re-education program, extolling the virtues of the family, church, hard work, and individual responsibility--all of which are diametrically opposed to the very principles of government?  And since the government controls the union-dominated education system, what are the chances of educational reform happening?

There is also the "heathen" factor.  Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  The whole need for government is based upon man's unwillingness to control himself, and the more wicked man becomes, the more government he requires.  This is not only history, it's common sense.  As the left continues its unrelenting attacks on Christianity and everything decent, moral, and virtuous, it is no surprise that government continues to grow.  It is exactly what the secular left wants!   And yet, they have the unmitigated gall to call it "progressive."   More wickedness is "progressive."  Well, it is to some people, and those people will vote for Obama.

Even Bill Clinton admitted that Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital was "sterling" and that he was a well-qualified candidate.  I never have especially liked Romney, but he is obviously far superior to the incredibly incompetent Obama.  But that doesn't matter.  In a democracy, superiority doesn't always win.  In fact, because democracy caters to mediocrity, "superiority" is often frowned upon.  Bottom line is, don't be surprised if Obama is re-elected.

**********
In one sense, it's really amazing that anybody would still support Obama.  The job of President is way over his head, he was never qualified for the position in the first place, and thus it is absolutely no surprise that the country is floundering and directionless.  Recently, he said “The private sector is doing fine.  Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy, have to do with state and local government....cuts initiated by governors or mayors..."  How anybody could be that stupid is...well, no, I realize that people can, indeed, be that stupid.  He backed off the "private sector is doing fine" comment when everybody, including liberals, laughed at him.  But to say that the economy is weak because of cuts in state and local government budgets is buffoonery of the highest order.  But that is Barack Obama.  He has no talent, no acumen, and he never did.  He was a creation of media propaganda.  The masses are easy to lead around by the nose; Adolf Hitler is a perfect example of that.  He was democratically elected by the most educated people in the world at that time.  As I have said before, that Obama has been a failure is no surprise to anyone who knows the first thing about history and economics.  I knew he would fail before he ever got into office, simply because what he believes is wrong.

But then, I guess it depends on what you mean by "failure."  If more government power is considered "successful," then he has certainly been one of the most successful Presidents in American history.   But if freedom, self-government, virtue, righteousness, industry, morality, and decency are the standards and criteria, then Obama has been exactly what could have been expected, because he and the Democratic Party don't believe in any of those things.

Current Events Ramblings, May 13

Happy Mother's Day, mom!  I love you.  I wish I could be there to see you, though I am having an increasingly difficult time determining why anybody would want to live in the immoral cesspool liberals are turning the United States into.  And I'm not the only one who has that sentiment....

**********
Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co-founder of Facebook, renounced his U.S. citizenship.  It seems like he wants to get out of the country before his next tax bill is due.  Apparently a lot of rich people have been fleeing America recently.  Why not?  Why stay there and give your hard-earned money to Barack Obama, who is going to turn around and give it to lazy bums who haven't worked for it?  For that same reason, people have been leaving California in droves and now Jerry Brown finds the state is $16 billion in debt.  A lot of wealthy Frenchmen are apparently planning on leaving France before their newly-elected Socialist President can tax them out of existence.  (Incidentally, it's now being reported that Francois Hollande owns three homes on the Riviera and is immensely wealthy.  Not only are most socialists tyrants, they are also hypocrites. Well, maybe he'll tax himself into oblivion--but don't bet on it.)  Liberals seem to think that wealthy people are just dying to give their money to government and thus will sit around and wait for their taxes to be raised so that liberals can waste more of it on welfare programs that, for 80 years, not only haven't worked, but have been socially disastrous.  But the rich didn't get rich by allowing themselves to be taxed out the wazoo by wasteful government.  Tax receipts will not increase if Obama is successful in raising tax rates.  He'll simply kill off initiative and prolong the recession.  Recovery can only come through business investment and that will only happen under an administration that encourages entrepreneurial activity, not threatens to punish it with higher taxes and more regulations.  Please study the 1930s to see why FDR failed to get America out of the Great Depression.  Somebody needs to study it; Barack Obama obviously isn't.

**********
Albert Einstein once said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."  More evidence of that, from the AP:  "In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that President Obama has not lived up the the lofty expectations that surrounded his 2008 election and Nobel Peace Prize a year later."  Awww, the world is disappointed in their "Messiah."  But this simply shows the boundless ignorance--yea, stupidity--of humans.  There is absolutely no way that Barack Obama could succeed as President.  His policies are a direct violation of economic, historic, and moral law.  Liberalism is doomed to fail wherever it is tried because it is simply wrong, it contradicts eternal truth.  "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and "the fear of the Lord" is the very thing liberalism despises more than anything else.  And yet the world is "disappointed" that Obama has failed.  There is no excuse for such ignorance and I don't feel one bit sorry for those who placed so much hope in Obama.  They have the light in their hands--the Bible and the testimony of thousands of years of human history--but they refuse to look at it.  They deserve what they get.

**********
Just a little anecdote confirming what I just wrote.  The following was said by Roman orator and statesman Cicero in 55 B.C.:  "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.  People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

He said that 28 years before the fall of the Roman Republic.  Anyone willing to learn from history?

Obama Supports Queer "Marriage"

This is not a surprise, of course.  Indeed, it would have been a surprise if he hadn't.  Nearly the entire Democratic Party has given itself over to a deliberate rejection of Christianity and the values upon which the United States was founded.  As I have noted before many times, America's continued degeneration into an immoral, hedonistic swamp is wholly in line with history and Biblical teaching--further confirmation of the truth of Bible, incidentally, which teaches, and illustrates with historical examples, that God cannot be mocked forever.

Economically, look at Europe today.  That's where the Democrats are taking America.  And America will get there, some day, regardless of who wins the election this year.  This year's election will simply indicate how far the United States has gone towards European style fascism (it's not socialism, it's fascism), and how deep the immoral quagmire has become.  And again, none of this surprises me in the least.

No, really the only reason I'm even posting about this is to ponder an interesting question.  Regarding the queer "marriage" question, I wonder whether the "Reverends" Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright are going to support God and marriage as He intends it--or Barack Obama and Sodom and Gomorrah?  It's a clear choice.  Which is more important to them--the principles of the religion they supposedly are ministers for...or the color of their own skin?

I'm not a betting man, of course, but if I were, I'd bet every dime I had that those three men will continue to support Barack Obama.  And so will 90% of the black people in America.  To their own destruction.

**********
I confess to being a pessimist and a cynic; it is hard to be even moderately educated in the Bible and history and have a cheery outlook on humanity's prospects for the near future (having clinical depression doesn't help, either).  I've tended to believe that Barack Obama will win re-election this November, simply because the numbers of government dependents and God-haters has been increasing steadily over the years and, at some point (if they don't already), they will outnumber those who still believe in hard work, virtue, excellence, and Christian morality.  I'm not so sure about this election, however, and it is possible that Obama could lose.  He is so incredibly incompetent and unqualified, he's a joke of a President, and millions of American people are utterly fed up with the condition of the country--a direct result of godless liberalism and the Democratic Party (and a gutless Republican Party hasn't helped much).  Many people--having been educated in government schools--don't understand what the problem is, but they do sense that something is terribly wrong with America, and Barack Obama represents that.  His endorsement of queer "marriage" is a direct attack on the traditional values of the United States and an insult to God and thousands of years of human existence.  The very fact that pea-brained parasites like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are considered seriously by the national media is further evidence of how far America has descended into an ignorance and moral turpitude.  Wise people can see that; the question is, are there enough wise people left in America to vote such bumbling fools like Obama out of office?

I couldn't help but laugh, along with millions of other people, at the results of the West Virginia Democratic primary yesterday.  Some prison inmate in Texas paid the fee to get on the ballot and he got 40% of the vote against Obama.  This, of course, was to send a message of how many people--Democrats in West Virginia--are disgusted with Obama.  It was an insult to him, and it was intended to be.  But it further illustrates how much of a joke this man is, if the people of West Virginia are willing to stoop so low--really degrading the office of the Presidency--by voting for a convicted criminal.  But the one who is really degrading the office is...Barack Obama.  Frankly, I would have voted for the Texas inmate, too.  There is absolutely no way he could do more harm to the country than Barack Obama has done.

The Democrats are in trouble, there's no question about that.  The unions in Wisconsin were able to get enough signatures to have a recall election against Republican governor Scott Walker, but the results yesterday of the primary for that election were interesting.  Walker was the only Republican in that party's primary; no Republican even had to vote because Walker is going to be the candidate.  But yet, he received more votes than the two Democratic candidates combined.  Ultimately, this doesn't mean anything, of course; the election is next month (I think).  But it does seem to indicate that Republican voters are motivated.  And scared.  And they have every right to be.

The Presidential election, of course, isn't until November; that's an eternity in politics.  The fact that Obama's approval numbers are still in the 40s--when he should be laughed out of office--is another fair indication of how far gone America truly is.  Mitt Romney doesn't inspire a lot of people; but Barack Obama does, and mainly he inspires people to vote against him.  Yet, don't underestimate the Democratic political machine.  They've succeeded in putting more and more people on the government dole, which is exactly what they wanted, and most of those people will vote for Obama.  Add to that the hedonistic crowd and minorities...I'm still not optimistic that Obama will be defeated, but he and Vice-President Buffoon might just incompetently bumble their way out of the White House.

Current Event Ramblings, May 4

It has been a while since I checked in, so I thought I'd post a word or two.  The weather has finally started warming up here in Dalian, up to 77 degress today.  But it's been so cold for so long that it feels like 90.  Spring fever has hit me with a vengeance, so I haven't been terribly active.  But then, I never am.

**********
There has been no school this week because of the "May Day" holiday.  That's the big communist holiday, officially on May 1.  I was out on May 1 and curiously noted that many people did, indeed, take the day off, but that virtually none of the shops were closed as hordes of these Chinese capitalistic pigs obviously decided to not honor the countless millions of people who died in the name of communistic purity.  Economic reality has a way of pushing aside utopian idealism.

**********
The American media got tired of George Zimmerman because the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death gave them an opportunity to campaign for Barack Obama.  This is the only "success" they can find in his entire administration, so they've tooted the horn as much as possible.  The narcissistic Obama, of course, hasn't been slow, either, to remind people of Osama's death, apparently wanting Americans to believe that he is the only person in the world who would have given the order to go get the terrorist (Mitt Romney certainly wouldn't have done it).  This is utterly ridiculous and shameless, of course; it was a no-brainer.  Any retarded third grader would have given the same order Obama did.  To imply otherwise is to hope that America is as full of stupid people as...well, as America apparently is or Obama would never have gotten elected in the first place.

Obama is in some degree of trouble, regarding his re-election.  He is so incompetent and unqualified, and his administration has been such an unmitigated failure, that there may be enough Americans left who see it.  Some people are comparing this administration to the Carter years and thus, since Reagan won by a landslide, Romney might do the same.  But I'm not so sure.  We are 30 years farther into the future, a new generation that knows not Reagan has been born, and the Democrats have done everything they can to make as many people as possible dependent upon government.  Trotting along behind Europe and headed for the same disaster.  Those dependents are going to vote for Obama, of course, at least most of them.  He'll be over halfway to the electoral votes he needs, given the fact he will win California, New York, and New England.  It speaks volumes--encyclopedias--about America, that he has a chance to be re-elected.  But, as I've noted many, it is no surprise to anyone who knows history and the Bible, it's just a shame to anyone who loves the United States.

Oh, speaking of George Zimmerman, if he were illegally in the country, he'd be an "Hispanic" and a media darling, but since he killed a black, his "white" ancestry got all the media attention, at least initially.  "Black" trumps "Hispanic".  And everything else.  Barack Obama is also half-white, of course.  Tiger Woods is half-Asian.  Of course, women, who are the majority in the country, are also a "minority," and Elizabeth Warren, the liberal thing who is running for Senator in Massachusetts, is further a minority because she is 1/32nd Indian....

I think I'll go back to bed....