Kudos to the people who supported traditional marriage by going to Chick-Fill-A yesterday. The queer marriage debate is just further evidence of the moral degeneration of the United States, but frankly, it's not that big of a deal, in my mind. Of course people of the same sex can't get "married." God created marriage and He alone can define what it is. But, keep in mind, that, according to Jesus in Matthew 19:9, anyone who divorces his/her mate, except for fornication, and marries again, is committing adultery. So, in God's eyes, those people aren't truly "married", either, they are living in adultery. Given feminism and the destruction of marriage and the family in America today, how many millions of people does that encompass? Adultery is just as soul-damning as homosexuality is, so the queers haven't got a monopoly on trying to re-define marriage and have society accept something that God rejects.
**********
There seems to be some concern in the major media--and joy among conservatives--about President Obama's re-election chances. I don't see it. To me, unless something really catastrophic happens, it's almost a slam-dunk that he's going to win. According to nearly every poll, he has way over 200 electoral votes pretty well sewn up; Rasmussen's projection has him at 247 electoral votes, and Romney with 191. Obama, of course, will win every state in the decadent North, as well as the left coast--California and New York alone give him 84 electoral votes. Given the current situation, he only needs less than 50 more electoral votes (23 if Rasmussen is accurate). There are a few "toss-up" states--CO, VA, NC, OH, FL, WI, and IA; if he wins Florida, he wins the election. A combination of 2 or 3 of the others would also put him over the top. It looks almost like a done deal to me. Get ready for 4 more years of Obama. America will never recover from that, but then, America is already too far gone or the country never would have elected him (or Bill Clinton) in the first place.
Mitt Romney inspires nobody. The only thing he has going for him is he isn't Barack Obama. But he can't out-promise Obama, and with almost half the country on government support now, Obama and the Democrats will win. They won't do so well in a lot of local elections because, actually, there are more "red" states than "blue" states. But the population is greater in the "blue" states, so that carries the national election.
Here's the link to Rasmussen's projection, if you want to read it and weep:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
**********
As I write this, the Texas Rangers are getting slaughtered again by the Los Angeles Angels--the third straight night. At the moment, the Rangers are in first place, but I don't think that's going to be the case much longer. As Texas is again finding out, pitching wins championships, and the Angels have the better of that. The Astros, of course, are the dis-astros; they have one of the worst teams in major league history. But they are trying to rebuild, so they have traded away nearly all of their major-league caliber players to stock their minor league system. Right now, they are basically fielding a AA-AAA team, and it's pretty obvious that there is a major gap between major and minor leagues. Next year, when they enter the American League, it won't be any better. It's a long haul for the Astros.
**********
The country of India lost power to about 670 million of its citizens this week--that is one-tenth of the world's population. More socialism, folks?
********** A little later in the day.....
I'm going to have to eat a little crow here. Regarding the Rangers-Angels baseball game mentioned above, Texas made a remarkable comeback--two of them, actually--and won the game, 11-10, in 10 innings. Still, having to score 11 runs to win is not a good omen. They've got a great team and might make it back to the World Series, but my guess is they won't.
**********
And, regarding guessing, nobody knows whom Mitt Romney will choose for his Vice-Presidential running mate. Condi Rice and Marco Rubio are the glamor picks, but I'm going to guess he'll pick Rob Portman of Ohio. Ohio is one of those "swing states" with quite a few electoral votes that Romney needs. Of course, he needs Florida, too, and that's where Rubio is from, but to avoid a lot of distraction about Rubio's background and experience, Romney needs to make a "safe" pick, and one that gives him a good chance to win an important state. The Democratic propaganda wing, a.k.a, the "mainstream media," are obviously going to do everything they can to distract the election away from the incredibly incompetent and failed administration of Barack Obama. Romney doesn't need those distractions, so I think he would be wise to go with a solid, if unspectacular, pick. I don't know much about Portman, but from what little I've read, he seems to be a good man.
Obama vs. Lincoln
I've never especially been an Abraham Lincon fan, but he did have a lot of wisdom in his head and he spoke a lot of truth.
Now, Barack Obama.....well, let's just consider the following:
Obama: "If you've got a business, you -- you didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen."
Lincoln: "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."
What Barack Obama is, and what the Democratic Party has become, is one of the saddest things in human history. The United States, never a perfect country, of course, began with great principles, a shining light, a gleaming hope for mankind. The restoration of New Testament Christianity arose from the ground planted by the men who founded America. Countless millions came to America to be what they could be, not what "somebody else made...happen." That is the very thing they fled from in the first place!
Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to destroy that. And they are having an untold amount of success in doing so.
Now, Barack Obama.....well, let's just consider the following:
Obama: "If you've got a business, you -- you didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen."
Lincoln: "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."
What Barack Obama is, and what the Democratic Party has become, is one of the saddest things in human history. The United States, never a perfect country, of course, began with great principles, a shining light, a gleaming hope for mankind. The restoration of New Testament Christianity arose from the ground planted by the men who founded America. Countless millions came to America to be what they could be, not what "somebody else made...happen." That is the very thing they fled from in the first place!
Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to destroy that. And they are having an untold amount of success in doing so.
Baseball Trivia Question
The baseball All-Star game is tonight (well, Tuesday night in America), and in keeping with that spirit. I have a trivia question, the answer of which will probably surprise a lot of people.
Who holds the American League record for most shutouts in a season by a left-handed pitcher (9)? (This man also led the league in ERA in 1916 and for pitching the longest shutout, 14 innings, in World Series history.)
The answer?..........Well, I'll give it to you in Chinese first, and then tomorrow I will give it to you in English: 贝比鲁斯
If you can't wait till tomorrow to know the answer, copy and paste that Chinese into an online translator.
**********
The answer to the trivia question is........Babe Ruth. A lot of people forget that, before he became perhaps the greatest hitter in the history of baseball, he was one of the greatest pitchers, including holding the records mentioned above (he won almost 100 games as a pitcher before he became a regular player and had a lifetime ERA of 2.28, which is also one of the lowest in the history of the game). He was almost exclusively a pitcher his first five years in the baseball (1914-18). Over his entire career, he averaged 46 homeruns per 162 games. Given that ratio, if he had been exclusively a hitter from 1914-18, he would have ended up with over 900 homeruns in his career (eat that Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron). He had a CAREER slugging percentage of .690 (total bases divided by at bats), a figure that Willy Mays, Hank Aaron, and Joe Dimaggio never reached even one time in their careers. Babe also had a lifetime OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) of 1.164--that's for his entire career. Again, Aaron, Mays, and Dimaggio never got that high in any single season.
Incidentally, the Babe's debut in baseball was on July 11, 1914, 98 years ago today. Mom, that was....a few years...before you were born....
**********
The National League won the All-Star Game, 8-0, which means they will get home field advantage again in the World Series this year. Bud Selig, in all his idiotic glory, may have cost the Rangers another championship...
Who holds the American League record for most shutouts in a season by a left-handed pitcher (9)? (This man also led the league in ERA in 1916 and for pitching the longest shutout, 14 innings, in World Series history.)
The answer?..........Well, I'll give it to you in Chinese first, and then tomorrow I will give it to you in English: 贝比鲁斯
If you can't wait till tomorrow to know the answer, copy and paste that Chinese into an online translator.
**********
The answer to the trivia question is........Babe Ruth. A lot of people forget that, before he became perhaps the greatest hitter in the history of baseball, he was one of the greatest pitchers, including holding the records mentioned above (he won almost 100 games as a pitcher before he became a regular player and had a lifetime ERA of 2.28, which is also one of the lowest in the history of the game). He was almost exclusively a pitcher his first five years in the baseball (1914-18). Over his entire career, he averaged 46 homeruns per 162 games. Given that ratio, if he had been exclusively a hitter from 1914-18, he would have ended up with over 900 homeruns in his career (eat that Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron). He had a CAREER slugging percentage of .690 (total bases divided by at bats), a figure that Willy Mays, Hank Aaron, and Joe Dimaggio never reached even one time in their careers. Babe also had a lifetime OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) of 1.164--that's for his entire career. Again, Aaron, Mays, and Dimaggio never got that high in any single season.
Incidentally, the Babe's debut in baseball was on July 11, 1914, 98 years ago today. Mom, that was....a few years...before you were born....
**********
The National League won the All-Star Game, 8-0, which means they will get home field advantage again in the World Series this year. Bud Selig, in all his idiotic glory, may have cost the Rangers another championship...
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;
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 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.
"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
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.
"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...
"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.
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.
**********
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)