Here's a great article by Dana Milbank entitled, "Debauchery: An American Speciality," and published in the Washington Post, of all places:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/misbehaving-government-employees-are-just-like-us/2012/04/17/gIQALZS0OT_print.html
"We are, after all, the land of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Snooki." What a sad spectacle the United States has become in the eyes of the world. And don't blame the teachings of Jesus or New Testament Christianity!!
**********
From Yahoo News: "The U.S. Secret Service is investigating faded '70s rock star Ted Nugent for his recent insistence he'll be 'dead or in jail' in a year's time if President Barack Obama is re-elected in November."
Yes. As one person so aptly put it, "Secret Service looking into Ted Nugent's violent anti-Obama rant... from the underside of a Colombian hooker...."
Cultural Rot and (Surprise!) Liberals Who Spoke the Truth
Rush asked a great question yesterday: "After years of cultural rot, why are we surprised by the Secret Service scandal?" But, of course, it is the Southern, backwoods, hayseed, ignorant, God-fearing Christian hicks that are causing all the problems in America today....
**********
And here’s from the "ha-ha-ha" department. A Democrat finally tells the truth, though the Obama administration says it was an accident. Well, that’s probably true. Democrats are such congenital liars that when they do speak the truth, they don’t do it intentionally. Anyway, David Axelrod was asked about the "choice in the coming election." Here’s what he said: "The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a -- a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead. Uh, and an economy that continues down the road, uh, we're on where fewer and fewer number of people do very well and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace."
"An economy that continues down the road we’re on where fewer and fewer number of people do very well". Nicely put.
Who’s been in charge of the economy for the last three years—the "road we’re on"?
But, of course, it's all George Bush's fault.
**********
And it was also funny to watch the liberals scramble to save their political hides after Hilary Rosen's contemptuous comment last week about Ann Romney--"she never worked a day in her life." Rosen, of course, let the cat out of the bag about what liberals truly think about the family and stay-at-home mothers. As I have written many times on this blog, liberalism hates the family and the church, two institutions that can operate independently of the state and don't need liberals controlling and directing their lives. But most Americans still have a great respect for motherhood and those women who stay at home and raise their children. So, the left was immediate and at pains to deny Rosen's remarks, even at the cost of their ideology. But then, to liberals, anything can be sacrificed--for a time--in order to secure power. Rosen spoke what liberals truly believe, and was told, in no uncertain terms, to "shut up." Liberals depend greatly upon the ignorance of the masses to stay in power, and so statements like Rosen's, which revealed some of the true doctrine of modern leftism, caused great angst and massive panic among the secular elite.
It will be interesting to see if Mitt Romney can make any hay out of it. Probably not.
**********
And here’s from the "ha-ha-ha" department. A Democrat finally tells the truth, though the Obama administration says it was an accident. Well, that’s probably true. Democrats are such congenital liars that when they do speak the truth, they don’t do it intentionally. Anyway, David Axelrod was asked about the "choice in the coming election." Here’s what he said: "The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a -- a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead. Uh, and an economy that continues down the road, uh, we're on where fewer and fewer number of people do very well and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace."
"An economy that continues down the road we’re on where fewer and fewer number of people do very well". Nicely put.
Who’s been in charge of the economy for the last three years—the "road we’re on"?
But, of course, it's all George Bush's fault.
**********
And it was also funny to watch the liberals scramble to save their political hides after Hilary Rosen's contemptuous comment last week about Ann Romney--"she never worked a day in her life." Rosen, of course, let the cat out of the bag about what liberals truly think about the family and stay-at-home mothers. As I have written many times on this blog, liberalism hates the family and the church, two institutions that can operate independently of the state and don't need liberals controlling and directing their lives. But most Americans still have a great respect for motherhood and those women who stay at home and raise their children. So, the left was immediate and at pains to deny Rosen's remarks, even at the cost of their ideology. But then, to liberals, anything can be sacrificed--for a time--in order to secure power. Rosen spoke what liberals truly believe, and was told, in no uncertain terms, to "shut up." Liberals depend greatly upon the ignorance of the masses to stay in power, and so statements like Rosen's, which revealed some of the true doctrine of modern leftism, caused great angst and massive panic among the secular elite.
It will be interesting to see if Mitt Romney can make any hay out of it. Probably not.
This Pretty Well Nails It
This quote is attributed to somebody in the Czech Republic. I don't know who said it, or when, and it really doesn't matter. It sums up, very nicely, the current problem in the United States. It's a brilliant statement:
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."
Awesome.
What happened to America? How could such a once-great nation sink to such depraved depths as to elect people like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy, Barack Obama--and a multitude of others, on both sides of the aisle--to the highest offices in the land? Where are the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Madisons, the Henrys, the Adams'...? They don't exist any more, or at least, are hidden from public view. And it is because the Washingtons, Jeffersons, etc., no longer exist, that we shouldn't be giving excessive power to the people who are elected!! It is Washington, D.C., that is destroying the United States, and that is simply and only because the people of the country are electing incompetents and entrusting them with power the Founders never intended politicians to have. If Madison and Jefferson didn't even trust themselves with power, they certainly wouldn't trust buffoons like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
What do you do? Elect Mitt Romney? That might delay the train wreck. But not for long. Because, again, as our friend from the Czech Republic so wisely points out, it's not the politicians; they are just being what they are--fallible, limited human beings. The problem is the people who elect them. And then expect the fallible, limited humans they elect to do things that no human being is capable of doing, that government, inherently, by the very nature of government, is unable to do.
What America needs, but will never have, are political leaders who will stand up and say, "People, get off your lazy butts, get to work, and rebuild your country. We can't help you any more. We're going home."
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."
Awesome.
What happened to America? How could such a once-great nation sink to such depraved depths as to elect people like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy, Barack Obama--and a multitude of others, on both sides of the aisle--to the highest offices in the land? Where are the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Madisons, the Henrys, the Adams'...? They don't exist any more, or at least, are hidden from public view. And it is because the Washingtons, Jeffersons, etc., no longer exist, that we shouldn't be giving excessive power to the people who are elected!! It is Washington, D.C., that is destroying the United States, and that is simply and only because the people of the country are electing incompetents and entrusting them with power the Founders never intended politicians to have. If Madison and Jefferson didn't even trust themselves with power, they certainly wouldn't trust buffoons like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
What do you do? Elect Mitt Romney? That might delay the train wreck. But not for long. Because, again, as our friend from the Czech Republic so wisely points out, it's not the politicians; they are just being what they are--fallible, limited human beings. The problem is the people who elect them. And then expect the fallible, limited humans they elect to do things that no human being is capable of doing, that government, inherently, by the very nature of government, is unable to do.
What America needs, but will never have, are political leaders who will stand up and say, "People, get off your lazy butts, get to work, and rebuild your country. We can't help you any more. We're going home."
Obama Knows Best
In a recent speech, President Obama made this attack on the views of his opponents: "[They say] if we would just convert these investments that we're making throughout government in education, research and healthcare. If we just turn those into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, then somehow the economy is going to grow stronger. That's the theory." In other words, that's what the opposition believes. Let's examine this a moment.
The only time cutting taxes--i.e., letting the people keep the money they have earned--is wrong is if it leaves the people in such a position that government cannot sufficiently protect their property rights. Otherwise, cutting taxes is always good. So yes, there should be tax cuts for the wealthy, and every other American who is paying taxes now. Of course, government spending should be brought into line with what government is supposed to do, and that is, again, to protect people's property.
But there's something even more insidious in Obama's statement above, and it's this nonsense about government "investing" in "education, research, and healthcare." I wonder what makes him think, except the narcissism and love for government that is so much a part of his being, that government knows better how to invest people's money than the people do themselves! This is arrogance gone to seed, the power-mad tyrant that thinks businesses (and the people) are too stupid to know how to spend their own money, that he can do it better, and more wisely, than they can. Barack Obama and most people in his government have never run a business in their lives. They've proven, conclusively, for three years, that know nothing about how to balance a budget, and many of their "investments" have gone bankrupt. His ignorance of "investing" is matched only by his over-inflated ego. Obama's whole economic theory is to put a gun to people's heads, take away their money, and invest it where he thinks it ought to be invested. That is not what government is for, and it is the main reason that the United States government is in such a tremendously precarious financial position right now.
He goes on to say in this speech, "Here is the news. We tried this for eight years before I took office. We tried it. It is not like we did not try it. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Meanwhile, insurance companies, financial institutions, there were all allowed to write their own rules, find their way around the rules. We were told the same thing we're being told now -- this is going to lead to faster job growth, it's going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn't." I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mr. President, but there was well over four years of solid job growth under George Bush, almost 6 million jobs created, so it did work (and compare especially the 1980s), and it wasn't until the Democrat/government-caused recession of 2008 hit that the economy went into a tailspin that Barack Obama has done nothing but extend and make worse.
His statement is, frankly, utterly ridiculous. This nonsense about insurance companies, etc. writing their own rules is pure demagoguery. Liberals have been trying to blame the current recession on the free market, on capitalism, on "laissez-faire," as if there were no government regulations on business at all. Mr. President, in case you don't know, there are at least 9 Cabinet departments, spending untold billions of dollars every year, that regulate various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. And that is just a small, small, small representation. As Walter Williams wrote, "Tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed" ("Capitalism and the Financial Crisis," 11/5/2008). And whether or not these regulations are good is not the issue here. The point is, they DO exist, in massive numbers, and for anybody to try to say America has a "free market capitalistic" economy today is a full indication that said person has no idea what a free market or capitalism is. But Obama intends to demagogue as best he can to get four more years in the White House. How, when what he says is so far from the truth, how can another four years of him be good for the country?
Barack Obama is either wilfully lying or he is wilfully stupid. Either way, he has absolutely no business being President of the United States.
The only time cutting taxes--i.e., letting the people keep the money they have earned--is wrong is if it leaves the people in such a position that government cannot sufficiently protect their property rights. Otherwise, cutting taxes is always good. So yes, there should be tax cuts for the wealthy, and every other American who is paying taxes now. Of course, government spending should be brought into line with what government is supposed to do, and that is, again, to protect people's property.
But there's something even more insidious in Obama's statement above, and it's this nonsense about government "investing" in "education, research, and healthcare." I wonder what makes him think, except the narcissism and love for government that is so much a part of his being, that government knows better how to invest people's money than the people do themselves! This is arrogance gone to seed, the power-mad tyrant that thinks businesses (and the people) are too stupid to know how to spend their own money, that he can do it better, and more wisely, than they can. Barack Obama and most people in his government have never run a business in their lives. They've proven, conclusively, for three years, that know nothing about how to balance a budget, and many of their "investments" have gone bankrupt. His ignorance of "investing" is matched only by his over-inflated ego. Obama's whole economic theory is to put a gun to people's heads, take away their money, and invest it where he thinks it ought to be invested. That is not what government is for, and it is the main reason that the United States government is in such a tremendously precarious financial position right now.
He goes on to say in this speech, "Here is the news. We tried this for eight years before I took office. We tried it. It is not like we did not try it. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Meanwhile, insurance companies, financial institutions, there were all allowed to write their own rules, find their way around the rules. We were told the same thing we're being told now -- this is going to lead to faster job growth, it's going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn't." I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mr. President, but there was well over four years of solid job growth under George Bush, almost 6 million jobs created, so it did work (and compare especially the 1980s), and it wasn't until the Democrat/government-caused recession of 2008 hit that the economy went into a tailspin that Barack Obama has done nothing but extend and make worse.
His statement is, frankly, utterly ridiculous. This nonsense about insurance companies, etc. writing their own rules is pure demagoguery. Liberals have been trying to blame the current recession on the free market, on capitalism, on "laissez-faire," as if there were no government regulations on business at all. Mr. President, in case you don't know, there are at least 9 Cabinet departments, spending untold billions of dollars every year, that regulate various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA. And that is just a small, small, small representation. As Walter Williams wrote, "Tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed" ("Capitalism and the Financial Crisis," 11/5/2008). And whether or not these regulations are good is not the issue here. The point is, they DO exist, in massive numbers, and for anybody to try to say America has a "free market capitalistic" economy today is a full indication that said person has no idea what a free market or capitalism is. But Obama intends to demagogue as best he can to get four more years in the White House. How, when what he says is so far from the truth, how can another four years of him be good for the country?
Barack Obama is either wilfully lying or he is wilfully stupid. Either way, he has absolutely no business being President of the United States.
Quotes from Booker T. Washington
Debbie sent me the first quote below from Booker T. Washington. I've added a few more as well from that great American. Of course, the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright would say that Washington was "worshipping another god."
This first statement, with the exception of the (politically incorrect?) references to "colored people" and "Negros" could have been written today (and about people like Jeremiah Wright):
"There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."
This second quote is rather sad, frankly, because it hasn't happened:
"I want to see my race live such high and useful lives that they will not be merely tolerated, but they shall actually be needed and wanted because of their usefulness to the community."
I don't necessarily agree with his statement about not "waiting for the heaven of the future," but there is no doubt his reference to how to get heaven closer to earth is the absolute truth--and, of course, would be utterly repulsive to headonistic liberals (a redundancy, I know):
"I do not believe in waiting for the heaven of the future. If we imitate the life of Christ as nearly as possible, heaven will come about more and more right here on earth."
And, yes, this final statement is certainly true:
"A whining, crying race may be pitied but seldom respected."
Why can't liberals see what they have done to the black community of America? Well, they can see it, but why are they are so power mad as to keep American blacks in a continual condition of servitude? Well, I know the answer to that, too, but I won't go into it now.
The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. And it still is.
This first statement, with the exception of the (politically incorrect?) references to "colored people" and "Negros" could have been written today (and about people like Jeremiah Wright):
"There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."
This second quote is rather sad, frankly, because it hasn't happened:
"I want to see my race live such high and useful lives that they will not be merely tolerated, but they shall actually be needed and wanted because of their usefulness to the community."
I don't necessarily agree with his statement about not "waiting for the heaven of the future," but there is no doubt his reference to how to get heaven closer to earth is the absolute truth--and, of course, would be utterly repulsive to headonistic liberals (a redundancy, I know):
"I do not believe in waiting for the heaven of the future. If we imitate the life of Christ as nearly as possible, heaven will come about more and more right here on earth."
And, yes, this final statement is certainly true:
"A whining, crying race may be pitied but seldom respected."
Why can't liberals see what they have done to the black community of America? Well, they can see it, but why are they are so power mad as to keep American blacks in a continual condition of servitude? Well, I know the answer to that, too, but I won't go into it now.
The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. And it still is.
Some Obama Economic Data
Here is some economic information:
--As of this writing, the average price of gasoline in America is $3.94 per gallon ($4.29 in California); on the last day of George W. Bush's presidency, the average price was $1.84;
--20% of American men are out of work;
--Only 56.9% of black men over the age of 20 are working; even Maxine Waters is saying that black unemployment is 16%;
--One out of seven Americans (14%) receives food stamps;
--In 2006 and 2007, 90% of college graduates found a job; under Obama, only 56% of college graduates have found work;
--87,897,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force;
--Obama has added more to the national debt in three years than Bush did in eight;
--The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And yet people wonder why American corporations are moving overseas, supplying jobs for foreigners;
--And almost half the people in America pay no income tax at all.
In spite of being an absolutely atrocious leader who is perhaps the most divisive President the country has ever had, Barack Obama is very likely to win re-election in November. Why? Well, there are basically three classes of people who (largely) will vote for him. One, he will get the dependent-vote, i.e., those who are getting some kind of government assitance. Two, minorities will vote for him simply because he is black, and three, he will get the "reprobate" vote, those who hate God and Christianity and anything to do with virtue, decency, and morality.
Do those three groups now represent a majority of the American people, enough to put Obama back in the White House? I'm not sure, but it's very, very close. We'll see, this November, if America has passed the point of no return. There is no way, in a country ruled by decency, honor, integrity, industry, thrift, self-control, and virtue, that a man like Barack Obama could be elected President, much less re-elected. The United States is in absolutely horrible condition right now, and Obama has done nothing, for three years, but make things worse. I don't believe, like some people, that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America. But ideas and especially policies have consequences. He is not sufficiently intelligent, or well-versed enough in history, to understand the devastaing results that the policies he propogates are bound to have.
But yet...
...the people on the dole, the minorities who simply have shown no ability to think for themselves, and the increasing number of people who believe "freedom" means they should be as licentious as they want to be, with no responsibility and no consequences to their actions....might just re-elect Obama.
Barring a major catastrophe, it will be very, very difficult for the country to ever recover from another four years of Barack Obama.
--As of this writing, the average price of gasoline in America is $3.94 per gallon ($4.29 in California); on the last day of George W. Bush's presidency, the average price was $1.84;
--20% of American men are out of work;
--Only 56.9% of black men over the age of 20 are working; even Maxine Waters is saying that black unemployment is 16%;
--One out of seven Americans (14%) receives food stamps;
--In 2006 and 2007, 90% of college graduates found a job; under Obama, only 56% of college graduates have found work;
--87,897,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force;
--Obama has added more to the national debt in three years than Bush did in eight;
--The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And yet people wonder why American corporations are moving overseas, supplying jobs for foreigners;
--And almost half the people in America pay no income tax at all.
In spite of being an absolutely atrocious leader who is perhaps the most divisive President the country has ever had, Barack Obama is very likely to win re-election in November. Why? Well, there are basically three classes of people who (largely) will vote for him. One, he will get the dependent-vote, i.e., those who are getting some kind of government assitance. Two, minorities will vote for him simply because he is black, and three, he will get the "reprobate" vote, those who hate God and Christianity and anything to do with virtue, decency, and morality.
Do those three groups now represent a majority of the American people, enough to put Obama back in the White House? I'm not sure, but it's very, very close. We'll see, this November, if America has passed the point of no return. There is no way, in a country ruled by decency, honor, integrity, industry, thrift, self-control, and virtue, that a man like Barack Obama could be elected President, much less re-elected. The United States is in absolutely horrible condition right now, and Obama has done nothing, for three years, but make things worse. I don't believe, like some people, that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America. But ideas and especially policies have consequences. He is not sufficiently intelligent, or well-versed enough in history, to understand the devastaing results that the policies he propogates are bound to have.
But yet...
...the people on the dole, the minorities who simply have shown no ability to think for themselves, and the increasing number of people who believe "freedom" means they should be as licentious as they want to be, with no responsibility and no consequences to their actions....might just re-elect Obama.
Barring a major catastrophe, it will be very, very difficult for the country to ever recover from another four years of Barack Obama.
A Boatload of Un-Coerced Money
Here is a statement by Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan during last week’s hearings on the health care bill:
“Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We're giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”
Is this woman stupid or is this woman stupid?
Number one, forcing people to do anything is coercive, and when the federal government tells people they must buy health insurance or be punished, that is coercion. Now, for those “poor people” who are being given a “boatload of money”…sigh…Justice Kagan, is it so hard for you liberals to understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and when the federal government gives money to one group of people it first has to take it—by force or the threat thereof—from somebody else. What is that, if it isn’t coercion?
I love her language. A "gift" from the federal government. Put a gun to somebody's head, take their money, and give it to somebody else. And that becomes a "gift."
No, it is coercion, and coercion is exactly what government is--the nationalization of force! In some instances, it's necessary and has a legitimate purpose--to protect property from criminals and foreign invaders. But, it's still force. Everything government does is does by force, or by threatening to use it. That isn't difficult to understand.
I love her language. A "gift" from the federal government. Put a gun to somebody's head, take their money, and give it to somebody else. And that becomes a "gift."
No, it is coercion, and coercion is exactly what government is--the nationalization of force! In some instances, it's necessary and has a legitimate purpose--to protect property from criminals and foreign invaders. But, it's still force. Everything government does is does by force, or by threatening to use it. That isn't difficult to understand.
Elena Kagan, of course, isn’t on the Supreme Court to think, or to apply the Constitution. She is there for one reason and one reason only—to push a liberal agenda for more and bigger government. To legally steal money from those who have earned it and give it to liberal power brokers to distribute as they see fit (i.e., to buy votes). She’s Obama’s puppet and that’s all she was ever intended to be. She doesn’t have to think, she just obeys.
Is Obamacare unconstitutional? Of course it is, and it only takes a law school education to decide that it isn’t. All one has to do is read the Constitution, a document intended to be understood by everyone. I challenge anybody, anywhere to find the exact clause in Article One, Section 8, that gives the federal government any authority in health care whatsoever. And please don’t try to twist the “commerce” clause past me. The men who wrote the document would be appalled at the way Congress and the courts have utterly butchered the intended meaning of that statement. The Supreme Court was never intended to have the kind of power it has today. Read what the Constitution says about the Court, too, and see if it makes the Supreme Court--nine unelected, unaccountable people who, realistically, cannot be removed except by retirement or death--the final arbiter on what is lawful in the United States.
And, speaking of the men who wrote the document and the federal government’s authority to give “boatloads” of money to “poor people”…Here is a quote from James Madison, the man who is called the “father of the Constitution.” If anybody ought to know what it means, it’s Madison. After all, he wrote it. Madison: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” And they even had boats around back then, too.
But, of course, Elena Kagan knows more about what the Constitution means than the fellow who authored it.
Current Event Ramblings and Obama's America
We got a few snow flurries yesterday here in Dalian. I much prefer cold weather to hot weather, but even I am getting a little tired of this. It is supposed to get into the 50s next week, so maybe spring will arrive soon.
**********
Baseball season will begin in less than 2 weeks. There is not much reason to be excited about it. The Astros are going to stink, and the Rangers aren't going to make it back to the World Series again. I do appreciate something the Astros recently did. This is the 50th year of their existence, so one of the things they are going to do in celebration is to wear some of their old-time uniforms, including the Colt .45 jerseys of the first years of their existence. Well, that particulary jersey happens to have a gun on it. A few months ago, Bud Selig, baseball commissioner and first class sycophant who can't do enough to kiss the feet of political correctness, ordered the Astros to take the gun off that uniform. The Astros said no, and a long negotiation was held about it. Finally, MLB said "do what you want to." Astros management decided to take a vote of their fans to see whether they wanted the gun to remain on the jersey.
Do I have to tell you the outcome of that vote in Texas?
**********
I said a few weeks ago that there was liable to be violence in the streets in America in this election year. And I still think it is very possible. It is what the left does, and the farther they move away from Christian principles, the more likely it is to happen. There is reason for it. Liberalism--leftism--is simply wrong. Its ideas are against moral and economic law and thus cannot work. But, having rejected Chrisitianity, liberalism is a liberal's religion and he won't give it up. So, since the application of his ideas do not work, but only produce greater division, corruption, and failure in a society, he has to resort to something else to try to get his way, and that's violence. Cower, frighten, and intimidate others into getting his way. In America's case, some people are eventually going to start shooting back.
Coming soon to an America near you.
**********
Obama is actually liable to lose the election if gas prices don't go down. The Obama media can fool the blind about the economy (not) improving, but gasoline prices are something that people can actually see and feel and that can't be hidden under media spin. The Republicans are doing everything they can to ensure Obama's re-election, but he might lose anyway. But probably not. As Adolf Hitler once said, "There are no end of stupid people in the world."
**********
Many of those people reside in the United States, of course, but Europe is full of them, too. It is hard to find a period in history that has produced as many incompetent, retarded, ignorant, and utterly dimwitted politicians as Europe has right now. It's almost unbelievable how stupid those "leaders" are. And it's a shame. Europe produced the greatest civilization in human history after Columbus (the apex was the country established by America's Founding Fathers), and they are doing everything they can to throw it all away. It takes centuries to build a civilization. It takes only a few years to descend into barbarism. The current Europe, of course, is Obama's model so it is not surprising to see America heading in the same direction.
**********
Jesse Jackson: "Blacks are under attack." Yes, and they have been for many, many years from liberal politicians who need to keep blacks as degraded and confused as possible in order to win elections. And blacks keep believing people like Jesse Jackson and voting for Democrats. The tragic situation of the black population in America will never get better as long as they continue to vote for liberal policies--policies which, as noted above, cannot succeed. Barack Obama is not helping, of course, The man who was supposed to heal all wounds and bring America together has become the most divisive President in American history. Only the ignorant are surprised at that. It was inevitable, given his policies and beliefs. There ARE good people in the world, and they are not going to cave to error and wickedness. That is what is causing the division in America.
But whose fault is that? The people who believe in truth and righteousness, or those who introduce and demand error and iniquity?
It is way, way, way past time for the black community to stop blaming slavery, Jim Crow laws, white racism and anything they can think of for their own degraded, slop-filled lifestyle and condition. It is time those people start accepting responsibility and the consequences of their own actions, to quit fornicating and having babies out of wedlock, to stay in school and study, and start becoming productive members of society. We all have a dream of a united America, but Mr. King, if we judge your people right now by the "content of their character," it isn't a pretty picture. People simply cannot mock God and His laws and expect to prosper for long. What do they want anyway--besides more money from hard-working, God-fearing white people? How many more trillions of dollars are going to have to be wasted before enough is enough? When will liberalism learn that the problem is moral, not economic! (Liberals will never learn that, of course.) White people have actually been very, very patient and tolerant when it comes to black America, giving them time, money, special privileges ("affirmative action"), and even electing a black President. But nothing satisfies racial pimps like Jesse Jackson. Well, keeping racial division alive is the only thing that keeps Jackson and his ilk in the public eye. He does what he does for his own personal grandeur and glory, he doesn't care how many people are hurt by it, and he is a disgusting human being because of it.
But this is Barack Obama's America, and if you voted for him and continue to support him, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
**********
Baseball season will begin in less than 2 weeks. There is not much reason to be excited about it. The Astros are going to stink, and the Rangers aren't going to make it back to the World Series again. I do appreciate something the Astros recently did. This is the 50th year of their existence, so one of the things they are going to do in celebration is to wear some of their old-time uniforms, including the Colt .45 jerseys of the first years of their existence. Well, that particulary jersey happens to have a gun on it. A few months ago, Bud Selig, baseball commissioner and first class sycophant who can't do enough to kiss the feet of political correctness, ordered the Astros to take the gun off that uniform. The Astros said no, and a long negotiation was held about it. Finally, MLB said "do what you want to." Astros management decided to take a vote of their fans to see whether they wanted the gun to remain on the jersey.
Do I have to tell you the outcome of that vote in Texas?
**********
I said a few weeks ago that there was liable to be violence in the streets in America in this election year. And I still think it is very possible. It is what the left does, and the farther they move away from Christian principles, the more likely it is to happen. There is reason for it. Liberalism--leftism--is simply wrong. Its ideas are against moral and economic law and thus cannot work. But, having rejected Chrisitianity, liberalism is a liberal's religion and he won't give it up. So, since the application of his ideas do not work, but only produce greater division, corruption, and failure in a society, he has to resort to something else to try to get his way, and that's violence. Cower, frighten, and intimidate others into getting his way. In America's case, some people are eventually going to start shooting back.
Coming soon to an America near you.
**********
Obama is actually liable to lose the election if gas prices don't go down. The Obama media can fool the blind about the economy (not) improving, but gasoline prices are something that people can actually see and feel and that can't be hidden under media spin. The Republicans are doing everything they can to ensure Obama's re-election, but he might lose anyway. But probably not. As Adolf Hitler once said, "There are no end of stupid people in the world."
**********
Many of those people reside in the United States, of course, but Europe is full of them, too. It is hard to find a period in history that has produced as many incompetent, retarded, ignorant, and utterly dimwitted politicians as Europe has right now. It's almost unbelievable how stupid those "leaders" are. And it's a shame. Europe produced the greatest civilization in human history after Columbus (the apex was the country established by America's Founding Fathers), and they are doing everything they can to throw it all away. It takes centuries to build a civilization. It takes only a few years to descend into barbarism. The current Europe, of course, is Obama's model so it is not surprising to see America heading in the same direction.
**********
Jesse Jackson: "Blacks are under attack." Yes, and they have been for many, many years from liberal politicians who need to keep blacks as degraded and confused as possible in order to win elections. And blacks keep believing people like Jesse Jackson and voting for Democrats. The tragic situation of the black population in America will never get better as long as they continue to vote for liberal policies--policies which, as noted above, cannot succeed. Barack Obama is not helping, of course, The man who was supposed to heal all wounds and bring America together has become the most divisive President in American history. Only the ignorant are surprised at that. It was inevitable, given his policies and beliefs. There ARE good people in the world, and they are not going to cave to error and wickedness. That is what is causing the division in America.
But whose fault is that? The people who believe in truth and righteousness, or those who introduce and demand error and iniquity?
It is way, way, way past time for the black community to stop blaming slavery, Jim Crow laws, white racism and anything they can think of for their own degraded, slop-filled lifestyle and condition. It is time those people start accepting responsibility and the consequences of their own actions, to quit fornicating and having babies out of wedlock, to stay in school and study, and start becoming productive members of society. We all have a dream of a united America, but Mr. King, if we judge your people right now by the "content of their character," it isn't a pretty picture. People simply cannot mock God and His laws and expect to prosper for long. What do they want anyway--besides more money from hard-working, God-fearing white people? How many more trillions of dollars are going to have to be wasted before enough is enough? When will liberalism learn that the problem is moral, not economic! (Liberals will never learn that, of course.) White people have actually been very, very patient and tolerant when it comes to black America, giving them time, money, special privileges ("affirmative action"), and even electing a black President. But nothing satisfies racial pimps like Jesse Jackson. Well, keeping racial division alive is the only thing that keeps Jackson and his ilk in the public eye. He does what he does for his own personal grandeur and glory, he doesn't care how many people are hurt by it, and he is a disgusting human being because of it.
But this is Barack Obama's America, and if you voted for him and continue to support him, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
I Keep Telling You That There Is No Hope...
...and I keep providing evidence to prove it. It's not hard to find.
The following is a news story. And from Texas, I'm sad to say....
"SAN ANTONIO -
A local school district is apologizing after an apparent incident of racism at a boys high school basketball game this past weekend.
When the final whistle blew Saturday, Alamo Heights celebrated a convincing victory over San Antonio Edison.
Alamo Heights Head Coach Andrew Brewer said he was proud of his team.
"Tremendously proud,” Brewer said. “Tremendously. It's the best group of kids."
But it was just after the trophy presentation when the coach was not proud of the chant coming from Alamo Heights fans.
"USA, USA, USA," they chanted.
San Antonio Independent School District officials took the chant as a racial insult to a school with all minority players from a school with mostly white ones.
On the KSAT 12 Defenders Facebook Page, Santos Villarreal's post reads “this has to stop.”
SAISD Spokeswoman Leslie Price heard about the incident after it had happened.
"This is very disrespectful to our students,” Price said.
She said the district is glad the coach put a stop to the chant immediately and hopes Alamo Heights addresses it quickly.
"It is surprising and it's disappointing to hear that anyone would be out there making those kind of remarks," Price said.
Edison students who attended Saturday's game were shocked when they heard the chant. Some thought the fans of the victors should have been better behaved.
Ruby Arredondo and Forest Lebaron are seniors at Edison and Julian Castellano is a junior.
"I was very surprised,” Castellano said. “Very appalled."
"They didn't really have any class," Arredondo said.
"It just rubbed us the wrong way," Lebaron said.
Alamo Heights Superintendent Dr. Kevin Brown also apologized for the chant.
"We just hope that people know that that's not who we are and we're not going to let it happen again," Brown said.
Alamo Heights has apologized to SAISD and the students identified will also have to apologize and have been banned from the state title games.
"We think that you have to earn a right to be there and that's not a reflection of our school district," Brown said.
Both districts are now just trying to move past this disturbing incident.
Another SAISD school, Lanier High, faced a similar incident within the last year from students in the Cedar Park school district."
Folks, can you believe this? It's RACISM, surprising, disappointing, disturbing, disrespectful, appalling, shocking, classless, misbehaving, rubbed some people the wrong way, and worthy of an apology by the "leaders" of the school district (and perpetrators) to chant "USA USA USA", the country where students from BOTH schools live??? Why would ANY American be offended by that? And more, WHY WOULD ANY AMERICAN APOLOGIZE FOR IT??
As hard as it is to fathom, the life forms that believe that chanting "USA" is racist do actually exist and walk around on two legs. Not that they have any right to our respect. But they DO have power. And they control the White House.
I suggest the San Antonio school district had better change the name of both of those schools. Thomas Edison was a white man, an American, whose inventions Hispanics use all the time, and the Alamo was the location of a great battle in the Texas War for Independence from Mexico, a war where the white man eventually kicked the Mexicans' butts. It led to another war, between the United States and Mexico, from 1846-48. The white man easily won that war, too.
But Mexico is winning the war now. And without even firing a shot. In fact, the victory is being handed to them on a silver platter by gutless white liberals. And a few black ones.
The following is a news story. And from Texas, I'm sad to say....
"SAN ANTONIO -
A local school district is apologizing after an apparent incident of racism at a boys high school basketball game this past weekend.
When the final whistle blew Saturday, Alamo Heights celebrated a convincing victory over San Antonio Edison.
Alamo Heights Head Coach Andrew Brewer said he was proud of his team.
"Tremendously proud,” Brewer said. “Tremendously. It's the best group of kids."
But it was just after the trophy presentation when the coach was not proud of the chant coming from Alamo Heights fans.
"USA, USA, USA," they chanted.
San Antonio Independent School District officials took the chant as a racial insult to a school with all minority players from a school with mostly white ones.
On the KSAT 12 Defenders Facebook Page, Santos Villarreal's post reads “this has to stop.”
SAISD Spokeswoman Leslie Price heard about the incident after it had happened.
"This is very disrespectful to our students,” Price said.
She said the district is glad the coach put a stop to the chant immediately and hopes Alamo Heights addresses it quickly.
"It is surprising and it's disappointing to hear that anyone would be out there making those kind of remarks," Price said.
Edison students who attended Saturday's game were shocked when they heard the chant. Some thought the fans of the victors should have been better behaved.
Ruby Arredondo and Forest Lebaron are seniors at Edison and Julian Castellano is a junior.
"I was very surprised,” Castellano said. “Very appalled."
"They didn't really have any class," Arredondo said.
"It just rubbed us the wrong way," Lebaron said.
Alamo Heights Superintendent Dr. Kevin Brown also apologized for the chant.
"We just hope that people know that that's not who we are and we're not going to let it happen again," Brown said.
Alamo Heights has apologized to SAISD and the students identified will also have to apologize and have been banned from the state title games.
"We think that you have to earn a right to be there and that's not a reflection of our school district," Brown said.
Both districts are now just trying to move past this disturbing incident.
Another SAISD school, Lanier High, faced a similar incident within the last year from students in the Cedar Park school district."
Folks, can you believe this? It's RACISM, surprising, disappointing, disturbing, disrespectful, appalling, shocking, classless, misbehaving, rubbed some people the wrong way, and worthy of an apology by the "leaders" of the school district (and perpetrators) to chant "USA USA USA", the country where students from BOTH schools live??? Why would ANY American be offended by that? And more, WHY WOULD ANY AMERICAN APOLOGIZE FOR IT??
As hard as it is to fathom, the life forms that believe that chanting "USA" is racist do actually exist and walk around on two legs. Not that they have any right to our respect. But they DO have power. And they control the White House.
I suggest the San Antonio school district had better change the name of both of those schools. Thomas Edison was a white man, an American, whose inventions Hispanics use all the time, and the Alamo was the location of a great battle in the Texas War for Independence from Mexico, a war where the white man eventually kicked the Mexicans' butts. It led to another war, between the United States and Mexico, from 1846-48. The white man easily won that war, too.
But Mexico is winning the war now. And without even firing a shot. In fact, the victory is being handed to them on a silver platter by gutless white liberals. And a few black ones.
The Limbaugh-Fluke Saga, and Some Other Current Events
The current storm over what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, his subsequent apology, and several of his advertisers quitting him allow for a great teaching point. Let me say up front—and make absolutely no mistake about it—this matter has nothing to do with the specific words Limbaugh used to describe Fluke; I mean, what else would you call a woman who brazenly broadcasts her licentious lifestyle to the world, and wants to get paid for it? That’s not the issue, as much as the left and the media are trying to make it so. Even Rush himself fell into that trap because he doesn’t fully understand what is at stake here, either. Limbaugh’s acumen basically ends with politics.
This issue goes down to the very nature of man and his source and purpose on the earth. And, ultimately, here is where the left and right disagree, where the true division rests. Is man a creature from the mind of God, created in His image, with a purpose in this world of serving and glorifying the Almighty, or is man nothing more than matter in motion, an accident of nature, a “naked ape,” an animal, whose existence finally and completely ends when he breathes his last breath on earth? Christians, of course, believe the former; the secular left believes the latter. The slight obeisance some on the left make to “God” is purely for political purposes. In effect, the lifestyle they defend is atheistic, i.e., subjective, changing with the circumstances, and defined totally by themselves. And it is this philosophy which has led to the moral degeneration and decadence of so much of the United States. It is, ultimately, this philosophy that Limbaugh, the “Tea Party,” and “God-fearing, conservative hicks” are fighting against, though few of them truly understand it. The liberal education system surely isn’t going to teach them about it.
This issue goes down to the very nature of man and his source and purpose on the earth. And, ultimately, here is where the left and right disagree, where the true division rests. Is man a creature from the mind of God, created in His image, with a purpose in this world of serving and glorifying the Almighty, or is man nothing more than matter in motion, an accident of nature, a “naked ape,” an animal, whose existence finally and completely ends when he breathes his last breath on earth? Christians, of course, believe the former; the secular left believes the latter. The slight obeisance some on the left make to “God” is purely for political purposes. In effect, the lifestyle they defend is atheistic, i.e., subjective, changing with the circumstances, and defined totally by themselves. And it is this philosophy which has led to the moral degeneration and decadence of so much of the United States. It is, ultimately, this philosophy that Limbaugh, the “Tea Party,” and “God-fearing, conservative hicks” are fighting against, though few of them truly understand it. The liberal education system surely isn’t going to teach them about it.
The consequences of secular ideology are this: in the words of Fyodor Dostoevsky, “If there is no God, everything is permitted” (Jean-Paul Satre said the exact same thing, as have other philosophers down through history). If there is no God, there is no heaven to be gained, no hell to be avoided, no Judgment Day when man will stand before his Creator and give an account of how he lived the life on earth which God graciously gave him. In other words, when this life is over, that’s it—eternal nothingness. Given that—and remember, that is the basic world-view of the secular left—then let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Live it up, get all the gusto you can in this life, because you only go around once, so you might as well enjoy whatever you want to enjoy, for as long as you want, and “responsibility” and “consequences” be damned. And if somebody else gets hurt, so what? What does Adolf Hitler care, right now, what we think of him? Now, of course, the left has a problem with that, because they have God-given consciences (how many animals do?). And so, to the left, there are some moral values, but again, those moral values are defined by themselves, are subjective, evolutionary, and determined only by current conditions and circumstances. Thus, if Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin think they can create a better world by killing countless millions of people, then logically, the left cannot truly condemn them. Stalin and Hitler were only doing the very thing that the American left is trying to do: since there exists no heavenly “utopia”, an earthly one must be built, based upon the vision of these secular “intellectuals,” a vision which they are trying to force upon the rest of us through government action (it’s what the American “progressives” have been doing for over 100 years now, and exactly what Hitler and Stalin attempted). And any politician (or preacher or radio broadcaster or anybody else) who opposes them must be destroyed. At the moment, in America, that destruction can only take place by character assassination. But it’s only a matter of degree between America’s left and Soviet Communism. As Stalin said, “all the peasants are going to die someday anyway.” America’s capital of Christianity—and maybe the NRA—are about the only things that stand between America’s left and the Soviet Union’s. There is no ultimate, absolute line the left can draw, for their morality is no higher than the human brain as it has currently evolved. Why should I believe Barack Obama rather than Joseph Stalin, since both of them are nothing more than purposeless, accidental blobs of unspiritual matter in motion? And "all the peasants are going to die someday anyway"?
So, again, eat, drink, and be merry, for this life is all we are ever going to have. Why should Sandra Fluke feel any shame at all for announcing her pleasure-seeking lifestyle? And the left certainly feels no shame at defending her. Sex with no consequences and responsibility is one of the major religious doctrines of the American left, and—don’t forget this next statement, it explains much, from Bill Clinton to Sandra Fluke: the greatest “sin” to the American left is any attempt to prevent someone from living as hedonistic a lifestyle as he/she wants. That is why they hate God and Christianity so bitterly. And they are so perverted that, to quote Dostoevsky again, “it is not possible to eat me without insisting that I sing the praises of my devourer.” We not only have to let the left destroy America, we must exalt and praise them as “moral” and “progressive” while they are doing it.
One reason why Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers caved is there is little, very little moral courage left in the United States. Plato said, “The greatest victory a man can have is to conquer himself.” And John Adams, speaking of why democracy is such an incompetent form of government, wrote, “Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies, never.” When you give power to people like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, et al, you can expect people like Sandra Fluke to appear. Democracy, by definition, cannot omit even the lowest common denominator among the people. But a system like that can only work when virtue and excellence are demanded of the whole populous. The people, so few of whom can indeed “conquer themselves,” must be guided and lifted by a vision of excellence, virtue, nobility, and moral beauty; it is the only hope of a “self-governing” nation. When subjective, atheistic morality takes over, when Hollywood and pop music set the ethical standards, and Bill Clinton becomes a respected “elder statesman” politician, the only possible result is moral and spiritual decadence. I.e., America, 2012.
But the lessons of history still stare us in the face. As the prophet Jeremiah wrote, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the sixth century B. C., “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD” (Jer. 6:15).
**********
And, on a bit of a humorous note--but not irrelevant because the issue also illustrates the left's determination to create an earthly utopia, overseen by them, through government power--there is this recent headline from a French News Agency:
"Global Warming Is Making the World Colder"
**********
The latest on Sandra Puke, uh, Fluke. It has recently been discovered that she is a liberal activist who has written a paper for a Georgetown Law School journal arguing that employers also ought to also cover medical expenses for people to have "sex changes." A real virtuous woman we have here....the idea that she is just some poor, innocent random Georgetown co-ed is, to no intelligent person's surprise, liberal media mythology.
**********
It's also interesting that Bill Maher can call Sarah Palin a horrible name (the "c-word", they call it), and of course, the liberals all think it is hilarious. But let Rush call a woman a "slut"...well, as Maher explained, Rush has sponsors but Maher, on HBO, doesn't. As if that makes any difference. Or any sense. Limbaugh explained why he apologized to Fluke: "It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt." Rush, they don't care what you called her, and they certainly don't care that you apologized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)