It's been a really busy semester and that's interfered with my writing and some other things I wanted to do. But I've got a few minutes and have a few thoughts.......
**********
The Democrats are running a TV ad aimed at young people. Some sleazy actress compares voting for Obama the first time to the feeling one gets from losing his/her virginity. Absolutely, utterly disgusting. But that is the Democratic Party now. Obviously, Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party see nothing wrong with this kind of appeal. There are very few taboos to these people, and the mindset that would even think of an ad like that is indicative of how far into immoral slime the Democrats have sunk. It also tells us that Obama has nothing positive to run on.
**********
It really looks, at the moment, like Mitt Romney is going to win the election. Barack Obama has been a horrible President; I knew--and said--four years ago that he would be, and it's only ignorance of history and the Bible that ever had any hope that he would do a good job. Such ignorance still supports him. And there is no excuse for it, not in this day and age. This election should not even be close. It borders on amazing that any American would support Obama. Yet, he still has a chance to win. The vast majority of blacks, who have absolutely no ability to think for themselves, will vote for Obama. It's a racist thing, and most blacks are far more racist than most whites. An increasing number of Americans are living off other people, have no conscience about it, and fear losing their lazy lifestyle; Obama certainly appeals to those people. There is also--and don't underestimate this--an increasing number of people who hate Christianity and everything it stands for. That is just about the only way a white, working individual could support Barack Obama, and it largely explains his support in the notheastern part of the country, which is largely white. They hate the South, they always have, and it's a moral issue, not economic or anything else. That number of Americans is growing, too. And, of course, the Democrats will do anything they can to win; no scruples. If they can steal the election by voter fraud, they will do it. Make no mistake about that, either. Any group of people that would support the murder of unborn children, the rights of queers to get "married", and disgusting TV ads like the one mentioned above, certainly would have no qualms about lying about voting, and no conscience about stealing an election.
The simple question is--the only question is--do there remain enough decent Americans to elect Mitt Romney? Romney is certainly not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he is a decent human being, and Barack Obama is nothing but a lying, Chicago thug. He never was qualified to be President, he was a media creation from the very beginning. He is not especially intelligent, has no talent except to read, from a teleprompter, a speech written by somebody else, he is an amoral Marxist, who is the most radical, left-wing President ever elected. And, frankly, all this was known four years ago; this is not new. The "mainstream" American media, who put him in power in the first place by their savage attacks on George Bush and their Messianic exaltation of Obama, is doing everything they can to get him re-elected. The reason Romney might win is that, now, Obama has a four-year record as President, and it's a horrible one. Obama has wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars and put the country deeper in debt. Americans realize that making the decision to kill Osama bin Laden did not take a lot of intestinal fortitutde; only Bill Clinton wouldn't make a decision like that. The economy has not recovered (the 7.8% unemployment rate is a joke), and it will not and cannot under Obama's policies. The world is not a safer place, and Libyan disaster can be laid right at Obama's feet. He knew about it almost immediately, and just as quickly, in a clear case of CYA, he lied about repeatedly. For all his talk of "healing" the country, he is as partisan as any President in history.
But, yet, he still might win. The fact that almost half the people are going to vote for him indicates how little education Americans have, and how far the country has drifted from decency, morality, and plain old common sense. This election will tell if America has passed the point of no return.
Why the Presidential Race is Close
There's two ways of looking at the "why the race is close" question. Given the condition of the United States, both domestically and its foreign policy, Mitt Romney should win the election in a landslide. Barack Obama's incompetence is manifest, and another four years of his policies are indeed horrifying to contemplate.
But then, given the fact, that almost none of Obama's bungling is being fairly reported in the "mainstream media," that they are doing everything they can to destroy Romney and cover for Obama, it's amazing, from that standpoint, that the race is as close as it is. Romney makes a mistake and it's plastered all over the country. Obama is protected as tightly as possible. But, as the Nazi well knew, the bigger the lie, the more people are apt to believe it.
Why is the race close? Because America is not the same country as before.
Basically, the United States has become the Chicago teachers' union--many people living off of somebody else (at least the teachers work for it). And they want more. About 47% of the country doesn't pay any income tax. Over 8,000,000 are living on disability. Over 45,000,000 on food stamps. 67% of the people who claim to Democrats say the government isn't doing enough. This is, obviously, not the America of the past, nor is it a recipe for continued greatness.
Think about it. If somebody comes along and says, "I'm going to cut your taxes," that means nothing to half the people. Indeed, that half wants the other half taxed more.
If Barack Obama can convince enough people that the Republicans are going to take away their government benefits, then that's another countless number of millions of people who will vote for Obama.
And, of course, there is the anti-God vote--a growing number of people who want their immoral rights, not just defended, but accepted as mainstream and given the same moral status as the laws which God has given to us. They will vote for Obama, too.
So, it doesn't matter how bad the economy is. It doesn't matter how big a liar Barack Obama is. It doesn't matter how disastrous American foreign policy is.
Romney was exactly right. Obama has almost half the people ready to vote for him because it's in their selfish interest to do so. People will vote what they perceive to be their own interests, and the United States government, led by the Democratic Party, has made dependency and immorality the "interest" of about half the country. What a sad, sad thing that is.
Alexander Tyler once again: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." The United States has been living on borrowed time anyway.
But then, given the fact, that almost none of Obama's bungling is being fairly reported in the "mainstream media," that they are doing everything they can to destroy Romney and cover for Obama, it's amazing, from that standpoint, that the race is as close as it is. Romney makes a mistake and it's plastered all over the country. Obama is protected as tightly as possible. But, as the Nazi well knew, the bigger the lie, the more people are apt to believe it.
Why is the race close? Because America is not the same country as before.
Basically, the United States has become the Chicago teachers' union--many people living off of somebody else (at least the teachers work for it). And they want more. About 47% of the country doesn't pay any income tax. Over 8,000,000 are living on disability. Over 45,000,000 on food stamps. 67% of the people who claim to Democrats say the government isn't doing enough. This is, obviously, not the America of the past, nor is it a recipe for continued greatness.
Think about it. If somebody comes along and says, "I'm going to cut your taxes," that means nothing to half the people. Indeed, that half wants the other half taxed more.
If Barack Obama can convince enough people that the Republicans are going to take away their government benefits, then that's another countless number of millions of people who will vote for Obama.
And, of course, there is the anti-God vote--a growing number of people who want their immoral rights, not just defended, but accepted as mainstream and given the same moral status as the laws which God has given to us. They will vote for Obama, too.
So, it doesn't matter how bad the economy is. It doesn't matter how big a liar Barack Obama is. It doesn't matter how disastrous American foreign policy is.
Romney was exactly right. Obama has almost half the people ready to vote for him because it's in their selfish interest to do so. People will vote what they perceive to be their own interests, and the United States government, led by the Democratic Party, has made dependency and immorality the "interest" of about half the country. What a sad, sad thing that is.
Alexander Tyler once again: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." The United States has been living on borrowed time anyway.
American Foreign Policy I
American foreign policy, right now, is in shambles. The mess in the Middle
East is simply symptomatic of it. It's not all Barack Obama's fault, though he
has certainly made things worse. Liberals do not understand a cardinal
principle of humanity, and that is, some people are just evil and understand
nothing short of the business end of a gun. Paul Johnson, the great British
historian, wrote, "The experience of the 20th century indicates that
self-imposed restraints by a civilized power are worse than useless. They are
interpreted by friend and foe alike, not of humanity, but of guilt and lack of
righteous conviction" (Modern Times, 636). If you try to be
"nice" to some people, they will take advantage of you. To these thugs in the Middle East, "niceness" and "apologies" are weakness. And weakness can, and will be exploited. A foreign policy
of apology--the cornerstone of the Obama administration policy--is doomed to
failure and only encourages the kinds of actions we've seen in the past few
days. If you are sorry for what you did to somebody, you certainly aren't going
to try to stop them if they decide to take a piece out of your hide.
But American foreign policy issues are much deeper than Barack Obama's liberal naivete and guilt; you can trace the current malaise back at least to Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, the "Imperial President," as he has sometimes been called. Roosevelt believed that the wealth America had accrued in the previous generation should be manifested in national power and gave us the right to exercise that power as we saw fit. From that point, America, usually on its own initiative--often for good, often without warrant--begin to intervene wherever American leaders deemed necessary. And that included almost every area of the globe. Such intervention infuriated many people, and understandably so. Nobody likes a bully. Yet, in many instances, the American intervention did proved beneficial; for space' sake, I won't give examples here, I will only mention the obvious: two world wars. Defeating communism was also a worthwhile goal and the countless millions who have been liberated from Marxist tyranny would no doubt agree. The problem is, American leaders often don't know when to stop. And here is the key, here is where it came from and its continued source: the same "progressive" mentality that believes government can solve domestic problems also rules American foreign policy. If these liberal, secular elites can build a utopian country, why not a utopian world?
There is absolutely no difference, in principle, in the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to buy health insurance and the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to have a democratic government. Some call it the “welfare/warfare state.” The source is the same: “progressive,” secular intellectuals who think they know how to create an earthly utopia. Those who opposed the war in Iraq, but who condone the welfare state at home, are being inconsistent; it’s the same mentality behind both. Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped, just like Osama bin Laden did. But once you kill the target, you come home. The United States military has no business trying to nation-build. That must be left to the people of the countries we’ve helped. But, building a better world is what the liberal, secular elite is all about, and the so-called “neo-cons” have fallen for it, too. The temptations of power are just too great for most mortals to resist. Only a few, an elite, only excellence, can do it. And mediocrity—democracy—elects excellence only by accident. And as mediocrity slides closer and closer to barbarity, do not be surprised when utter incompetents, like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are handed the reins of power. The last four years are evidence of the result of such mind-boggling folly.
Americans recently died in Libya when a bunch of people, who didn’t want us there in the first place, killed them. A question too few people are asking is, what are we doing there? Why do we need an embassy in Libya? Or Egypt? Or Tunisia? How many Americans can even find Tunisia on a map? (Protesters are tearing up our embassy there, too). Why do we have embassies in 95% of the countries where we have them? What are our troops doing in South Korea? And Japan? And Europe? The United States is not being invaded in South Korea, but we are being invaded on our southern border. Why aren’t the troops there, where they are really needed? Well, the answer to that question is obvious: the Democrats want that southern invasion, so they can give those people amnesty and make voters out of them. What a way to run a foreign policy. Waste money around the world, get Americans killed in places in which we have no vital interest, and yet open the floodgates so that certain politicians can stay in power.
It’s over, folks. America is finished, because neither political party has the will or the guts to do what is necessary to save the country—domestically or internationally.
America, of course, does have interests in the world, and the United States needs to maintain a strong military. We must remain on the cutting edge of military technology and that will take significant sums of money. But that is a legitimate government function—protecting its people. We should, indeed, be concerned if Iran gets nuclear weapons; in the hands of the wrong people, such weapons could be utterly catastrophic. The Obama way will never work. Quit apologizing for the country. Remain the strongest country, economically and militarily in the world, but leave other people alone, except to build friendly trade relations. If somebody threatens us, if somebody needs their butt kicked, go do it, get it over with, and come home. Close every embassy except a very few. Maybe China, Russia, England. One in South America and one in Africa, although I don’t know any safe countries in the latter continent. I’m not going to claim wisdom enough to know every place where an embassy might truly serve our interest. But I do know that, if the people of a country don’t want us there, if they start killing our people and burning our flags, it’s time for us to leave--not because we are running scared, but because we never should have been there in the first place. Most of those people are going to kill somebody, because that's what they have been doing their entire history. I wish they would all convert to the Lord, but if they aren't going to do that, then let them kill each other; get Americans out of harm's way. And in other regions of the world where there is really no vital interest, pack up and leave (can anybody give me a reason for having an embassy in Chile?). “No entangling alliances,” George Washington said, and while he wasn’t necessarily talking about embassies, he was talking about a wise foreign policy that minded its own business, didn’t waste the taxpayers’ money, and protected America, not the rest of the world. Once again, the men who founded the country knew what to do. And the people running the country today—and for most of the 20th century—have made America a hated country, and cost American lives, because they refused to heed the wisdom of our forefathers.
And then…and then….there is Israel….
But American foreign policy issues are much deeper than Barack Obama's liberal naivete and guilt; you can trace the current malaise back at least to Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, the "Imperial President," as he has sometimes been called. Roosevelt believed that the wealth America had accrued in the previous generation should be manifested in national power and gave us the right to exercise that power as we saw fit. From that point, America, usually on its own initiative--often for good, often without warrant--begin to intervene wherever American leaders deemed necessary. And that included almost every area of the globe. Such intervention infuriated many people, and understandably so. Nobody likes a bully. Yet, in many instances, the American intervention did proved beneficial; for space' sake, I won't give examples here, I will only mention the obvious: two world wars. Defeating communism was also a worthwhile goal and the countless millions who have been liberated from Marxist tyranny would no doubt agree. The problem is, American leaders often don't know when to stop. And here is the key, here is where it came from and its continued source: the same "progressive" mentality that believes government can solve domestic problems also rules American foreign policy. If these liberal, secular elites can build a utopian country, why not a utopian world?
There is absolutely no difference, in principle, in the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to buy health insurance and the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to have a democratic government. Some call it the “welfare/warfare state.” The source is the same: “progressive,” secular intellectuals who think they know how to create an earthly utopia. Those who opposed the war in Iraq, but who condone the welfare state at home, are being inconsistent; it’s the same mentality behind both. Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped, just like Osama bin Laden did. But once you kill the target, you come home. The United States military has no business trying to nation-build. That must be left to the people of the countries we’ve helped. But, building a better world is what the liberal, secular elite is all about, and the so-called “neo-cons” have fallen for it, too. The temptations of power are just too great for most mortals to resist. Only a few, an elite, only excellence, can do it. And mediocrity—democracy—elects excellence only by accident. And as mediocrity slides closer and closer to barbarity, do not be surprised when utter incompetents, like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are handed the reins of power. The last four years are evidence of the result of such mind-boggling folly.
Americans recently died in Libya when a bunch of people, who didn’t want us there in the first place, killed them. A question too few people are asking is, what are we doing there? Why do we need an embassy in Libya? Or Egypt? Or Tunisia? How many Americans can even find Tunisia on a map? (Protesters are tearing up our embassy there, too). Why do we have embassies in 95% of the countries where we have them? What are our troops doing in South Korea? And Japan? And Europe? The United States is not being invaded in South Korea, but we are being invaded on our southern border. Why aren’t the troops there, where they are really needed? Well, the answer to that question is obvious: the Democrats want that southern invasion, so they can give those people amnesty and make voters out of them. What a way to run a foreign policy. Waste money around the world, get Americans killed in places in which we have no vital interest, and yet open the floodgates so that certain politicians can stay in power.
It’s over, folks. America is finished, because neither political party has the will or the guts to do what is necessary to save the country—domestically or internationally.
America, of course, does have interests in the world, and the United States needs to maintain a strong military. We must remain on the cutting edge of military technology and that will take significant sums of money. But that is a legitimate government function—protecting its people. We should, indeed, be concerned if Iran gets nuclear weapons; in the hands of the wrong people, such weapons could be utterly catastrophic. The Obama way will never work. Quit apologizing for the country. Remain the strongest country, economically and militarily in the world, but leave other people alone, except to build friendly trade relations. If somebody threatens us, if somebody needs their butt kicked, go do it, get it over with, and come home. Close every embassy except a very few. Maybe China, Russia, England. One in South America and one in Africa, although I don’t know any safe countries in the latter continent. I’m not going to claim wisdom enough to know every place where an embassy might truly serve our interest. But I do know that, if the people of a country don’t want us there, if they start killing our people and burning our flags, it’s time for us to leave--not because we are running scared, but because we never should have been there in the first place. Most of those people are going to kill somebody, because that's what they have been doing their entire history. I wish they would all convert to the Lord, but if they aren't going to do that, then let them kill each other; get Americans out of harm's way. And in other regions of the world where there is really no vital interest, pack up and leave (can anybody give me a reason for having an embassy in Chile?). “No entangling alliances,” George Washington said, and while he wasn’t necessarily talking about embassies, he was talking about a wise foreign policy that minded its own business, didn’t waste the taxpayers’ money, and protected America, not the rest of the world. Once again, the men who founded the country knew what to do. And the people running the country today—and for most of the 20th century—have made America a hated country, and cost American lives, because they refused to heed the wisdom of our forefathers.
And then…and then….there is Israel….
Quotes From Some Intelligent People
In
the posts on this blog, I have often praised the thinking of America’s Founding
Fathers. They were wise, mainly for two
reasons: they understood that there is
such a thing as “moral law,” directed and overseen by a Creator (most of them
were strong believers in the Christian religion, though not pure New Testament
Christians), and—almost as important—they knew history. And that IS crucial. Today’s politicians know neither. The following are some quotes from Thomas
Jefferson (one from Abraham Lincoln).
This is almost amazing, the foresight and wisdom seen in these
statements. I say, “almost amazing,”
because they are not amazing to anyone who understands the Bible (the source of
moral law) and history.
The
choice, Jefferson said in 1816, is
“between economy and liberty, or [government] profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be
taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our
labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of
England are, our people, like them, must come to labor 16 hours in the 24, give
the earnings of 15 of those to the government for their debts and daily
expenses; and the 16th being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as
they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes.”
Or food stamps. He is being a
little facetious, obviously, in this statement, but the meaning is clear.
Jefferson
complained of federal politicians who seem “at a loss for objects whereon to
throw away the supposed fathomless funds of the treasury.”
“A
single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on
earth.” The more power in the hands of
government, the more corrupt it becomes.
“To
compel a man to furnish contributions of money (taxes) for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Read that again. Now, read it again. Following this irrefutable principle would eliminate 90% of federal spending.
“If
we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the
pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” Welfare state, anyone?
Even
in his own day, Jefferson bemoaned “the rapid strides with which the federal
branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights
reserved to the States.” One federal
judge today—one judge—can strike down a state law.
Regarding
interpreting the Constitution: “On every
question of construction [we should] carry ourselves back to the time when the
constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” If the courts don’t do that, of course, then
the Constitution becomes meaningless. It
can, in effect, mean anything, thus, it means nothing.
On
becoming President in 1801, Jefferson slashed federal spending and abolished
all domestic taxes. He also closed
several American embassies around the world as a waste of money. What a novel idea. He also cut military spending, although
interestingly, he did have a small Middle Eastern war against some pirates who
were raiding American ships. He sent
Marines to Tripoli, hence the Marine hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma to the
shores of Tripoli….”
And I love this one from Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you've got." I'm just...almost overwhelmed...by their wisdom and foresight. But, then again, I'm not.
One
more quote, this one from Abraham Lincoln:
“If the Almighty had ever made a set of men that should do all of the
eating and none of the work, he would have made them with mouths only and no
hands.” That’s what Americans used to
believe. Well, today, some still
do. Unfortunately, the entire Democratic
Party does NOT believe that, and such is the source of their political
power. And they know it. And they aren’t about to give it up.
To
find justification for such rampant theft of honest people's money, the Democrats flee to the Marxist dogma of “zero
sum” economics, i.e., that there is only so much wealth in a society, and thus,
the more the rich have, the less the poor have.
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” That is pure, unadulterated Marxism, and shows
absolutely no understanding of wealth creation.
Jefferson, and probably Lincoln, would respond, “Well, if the rich are
getting richer because they are investing, providing jobs, goods, and
services that people want, and the poor are getting poorer because they are
sitting around on their lazy backsides doing nothing, then the rich OUGHT to be
getting richer and the poor OUGHT to be getting poorer.” This, however, does not mitigate the propriety of
charity. There will always be poor
people, of course, and those who are truly needy should be helped. No one denies this. No one denies this! The question is not, and never has been,
should the “needy poor” be assisted; the question is only, and always, HOW
should they be helped? Is that a
legitimate function of government? To
the men who founded America, it was not, because they believed government
assistance to the poor only encouraged people to look for handouts rather than
become productive citizens of society.
The more government freely hands out money, the more people who will
stand in line for it; that’s part of human nature that America’s Founders
grasped well. To them, charity/poverty
was a moral, as much as an economic, issue.
Government welfare encourages sloth and vice, and as we can see from
American society today, they obviously knew exactly what they were talking
about.
But
then, they knew history and they understood the eternal, moral laws flowing
from the nature of God. America will
never recover until we again get leaders of the same quality.
**********
And if I'm going to have a quote from some intelligent people, to be fair, I must also have a quote from an idiot. This is Jay Carney, the White House press secretary: "this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims." Yes, a spontaneous protest that had obviously been planned for quite some time....
Just another reason Barack Obama must be removed from office for the good of the country. He hasn't a clue what's going on in the world.
Or maybe he agrees with the protesters. That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
**********
And if I'm going to have a quote from some intelligent people, to be fair, I must also have a quote from an idiot. This is Jay Carney, the White House press secretary: "this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims." Yes, a spontaneous protest that had obviously been planned for quite some time....
Just another reason Barack Obama must be removed from office for the good of the country. He hasn't a clue what's going on in the world.
Or maybe he agrees with the protesters. That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
And A Few More Headlines....
I won't even bother to comment on most of these, except to say...how can anybody believe that the United States is better off now than four years ago?
"Jobless claims rise 382,000 in latest week" An Obama Labor Department official blamed Hurricane Isaac for the increase. If they weren't destroying the country, Obama and his people could be really funny sometimes.
"Inflation jumps; wholesale gas up most in 3 years"
"Obama rejects Netanyahu meeting, invites Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president to talk"
"Median income lowest since 1995"
"Lower class grows..."
"Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967..." I thought that was what Obama was supposed to cure.
"Michelle O: Being fat 'Greatest Threat to National Security." I kid you not, folks, she said it.
"Dollar Weakens Before Fed Move"
"Protesters storm American embassy in Yemen"
"US Flags Burned at Tunisia embassy"
"New Clashes in Cairo"
"Consulate in Berlin evacuated"
"Iraqi militia threatens U.S. interests"
Let's have four more years of this....
**********
And if I didn't already know how brain dead, ignorant, and downright stupid millions of Americans are, then this poll figure would convince me. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 47% of Americans (polled) trusted Obama in job creation compared to only 45% who trusted Romney more. Here's a man who has never created a job in his life, against a man who worked, very successfully, in the private sector and created countless jobs and thus knows how to do it....and yet more Americans trust Obama to create jobs than Romney. Brain dead. People just don't care. That's what Romney is up against. People don't know or care about the well-being of the country. They are going to vote Obama, and not one single, solitary shred of evidence will ever convince them to do otherwise. That's frightening, for people who cannot, or who refuse to think for themselves, can and will be led by demagogues. And demagogues have killed countless of hundreds of millions of people in history.
"Jobless claims rise 382,000 in latest week" An Obama Labor Department official blamed Hurricane Isaac for the increase. If they weren't destroying the country, Obama and his people could be really funny sometimes.
"Inflation jumps; wholesale gas up most in 3 years"
"Obama rejects Netanyahu meeting, invites Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president to talk"
"Median income lowest since 1995"
"Lower class grows..."
"Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967..." I thought that was what Obama was supposed to cure.
"Michelle O: Being fat 'Greatest Threat to National Security." I kid you not, folks, she said it.
"Dollar Weakens Before Fed Move"
"Protesters storm American embassy in Yemen"
"US Flags Burned at Tunisia embassy"
"New Clashes in Cairo"
"Consulate in Berlin evacuated"
"Iraqi militia threatens U.S. interests"
Let's have four more years of this....
**********
And if I didn't already know how brain dead, ignorant, and downright stupid millions of Americans are, then this poll figure would convince me. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 47% of Americans (polled) trusted Obama in job creation compared to only 45% who trusted Romney more. Here's a man who has never created a job in his life, against a man who worked, very successfully, in the private sector and created countless jobs and thus knows how to do it....and yet more Americans trust Obama to create jobs than Romney. Brain dead. People just don't care. That's what Romney is up against. People don't know or care about the well-being of the country. They are going to vote Obama, and not one single, solitary shred of evidence will ever convince them to do otherwise. That's frightening, for people who cannot, or who refuse to think for themselves, can and will be led by demagogues. And demagogues have killed countless of hundreds of millions of people in history.
More Interesting Headlines and Stuff
This isn't a headline, but is the first paragraph of a New York Post article regarding the attack on the American embassy in Libya two days ago:
"US officials are increasingly suspicious that the murder Tuesday of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American officials was not the result of a protest against an anti-Islam film, but instead was a coordinated terror strike timed for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks."
I can only shake my head in amazement. How long did it take these "US officials" to figure this out? This is an absolutely horrendous failure of American foreign policy, and yes, Barack Obama is to blame. Liberals don't get it that, to radical Muslims, 9/11 is a day to celebrate, not apologize for or mourn over. Everyone of America's embassies and consulates in the Middle East should have been triple-prepared, on that day, for something to happen. And then, intially, they want to blame some movie maker for offending Muslims? I doubt very seriously that those people in Libya and Cairo knew a thing about that movie. 9/11 is an anniversary to them and America should have been prepared.
One fellow asked a great question: if Obama is so concerned with feelings
in the Muslim world, why is he bragging so much about killing Osama bin Laden?
Why am I not surprised that we weren't prepared for what happened two days ago? Well, here are a couple of reasons:
Headline number 1: "President Skips More Than Half of Intel Briefings...Report: Spent 412 hours in economic meetings, 600 hours on the golf course"
Obama doesn't know what's going on because he doesn't care. On top of that, even if he did, his whole philosophy makes it impossible for him to successfully deal with any major policy issue in the country. You cannot apologize your way to national greatness or tax and regulate your way to economic growth.
Headline number 2: "White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama...'Schedule Full'...Announces 'Letterman' Appearance..."
Appearing on the David Letterman show is more important to the President of the United States than meeting with the head of state of one of our best friends from a country in one of the most vital, strategic, and volatile regions of the world. Jimmy Carter was George Washington compared to this guy.
And an economic headline that explains why there has been no recovery under this administration: "Obama Adds 11,327 Pages of Regulations in Three Years...18 pages to define 'full-time employee' for Obamacare..."
"You didn't build that...." Well, nobody is going to build anything if Barack Obama remains President....
"US officials are increasingly suspicious that the murder Tuesday of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American officials was not the result of a protest against an anti-Islam film, but instead was a coordinated terror strike timed for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks."
I can only shake my head in amazement. How long did it take these "US officials" to figure this out? This is an absolutely horrendous failure of American foreign policy, and yes, Barack Obama is to blame. Liberals don't get it that, to radical Muslims, 9/11 is a day to celebrate, not apologize for or mourn over. Everyone of America's embassies and consulates in the Middle East should have been triple-prepared, on that day, for something to happen. And then, intially, they want to blame some movie maker for offending Muslims? I doubt very seriously that those people in Libya and Cairo knew a thing about that movie. 9/11 is an anniversary to them and America should have been prepared.
One fellow asked a great question: if Obama is so concerned with feelings
in the Muslim world, why is he bragging so much about killing Osama bin Laden?
Why am I not surprised that we weren't prepared for what happened two days ago? Well, here are a couple of reasons:
Headline number 1: "President Skips More Than Half of Intel Briefings...Report: Spent 412 hours in economic meetings, 600 hours on the golf course"
Obama doesn't know what's going on because he doesn't care. On top of that, even if he did, his whole philosophy makes it impossible for him to successfully deal with any major policy issue in the country. You cannot apologize your way to national greatness or tax and regulate your way to economic growth.
Headline number 2: "White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama...'Schedule Full'...Announces 'Letterman' Appearance..."
Appearing on the David Letterman show is more important to the President of the United States than meeting with the head of state of one of our best friends from a country in one of the most vital, strategic, and volatile regions of the world. Jimmy Carter was George Washington compared to this guy.
And an economic headline that explains why there has been no recovery under this administration: "Obama Adds 11,327 Pages of Regulations in Three Years...18 pages to define 'full-time employee' for Obamacare..."
"You didn't build that...." Well, nobody is going to build anything if Barack Obama remains President....
To the Democrats, Tyranny is a Success
Besides the killing of Osama bin Laden (which was accomplished by troops sent to the Middle East by George Bush), about the only "success" Obama is touting for his administration is "saving the auto industry"--the bailout of GM and Chrysler. "I saved the auto industry!" he champions. Only to Obama and liberals could tyranny be trumpeted as a success.
Why do I say this? Well, let's consider. Why did the auto industry (GM and Chrysler) need a "bailout" in the first place? Put aside for a moment the horribly destructive role of the unions and the increasing number of non-productive retirees who were supported lavishly by the productive workers. Anybody with an ounce of economic sense would be able to see that such was a recipe for eventual disaster. But, again, set that aside and let me ask another question.
Why did the auto industry almost go bankrupt? Basically, it was for the same reason any other company goes belly-up--it didn't provide consumers the products they wanted at prices they were willing to pay. The American people, by and large, didn't want GM products. A company like that should fail; if they don't provide what people want, they shouldn't be in business. It happens every day. But here comes Obama and forces the American people to support an industry they did not want to support on their own! Forcibly taking people's money (taxes) and giving it to an entity they would not/did not voluntarily support is not freedom, folks. It's tyranny. This is only a "success" if you believe, with Obama and the Democrats, that government knows better how to spend your money than you do. To Obama, tyranny is a success.
Actually, the bailout was for one reason--to save the unions, one of Obama's most slavish supporters. It certainly wasn't for the good of the American people; they had spoken, loudly and clearly, with their pocketbooks, on the future of GM and Chrysler. But, increasingly the federal government--and the Democratic Party almost absolutely--governs against the will of the people. I grant you, most people are stupid and do stupid things with their money. But freedom means people have that right, and often will learn from their mistakes if not "saved" from the consequences of those mistakes by those who think they know better, but more often than not don't, because...well, who put them in power in the first place?
Give Stupidity the vote, and it will elect Stupidity, Give Immorality the vote, and it will elect Immorality. And Stupidity and Immorality in power, Stupidity and Immorality with an army and a legislative pen, is a whole lot more dangerous than Stupidity and Immorality left to its own devices.
Why do I say this? Well, let's consider. Why did the auto industry (GM and Chrysler) need a "bailout" in the first place? Put aside for a moment the horribly destructive role of the unions and the increasing number of non-productive retirees who were supported lavishly by the productive workers. Anybody with an ounce of economic sense would be able to see that such was a recipe for eventual disaster. But, again, set that aside and let me ask another question.
Why did the auto industry almost go bankrupt? Basically, it was for the same reason any other company goes belly-up--it didn't provide consumers the products they wanted at prices they were willing to pay. The American people, by and large, didn't want GM products. A company like that should fail; if they don't provide what people want, they shouldn't be in business. It happens every day. But here comes Obama and forces the American people to support an industry they did not want to support on their own! Forcibly taking people's money (taxes) and giving it to an entity they would not/did not voluntarily support is not freedom, folks. It's tyranny. This is only a "success" if you believe, with Obama and the Democrats, that government knows better how to spend your money than you do. To Obama, tyranny is a success.
Actually, the bailout was for one reason--to save the unions, one of Obama's most slavish supporters. It certainly wasn't for the good of the American people; they had spoken, loudly and clearly, with their pocketbooks, on the future of GM and Chrysler. But, increasingly the federal government--and the Democratic Party almost absolutely--governs against the will of the people. I grant you, most people are stupid and do stupid things with their money. But freedom means people have that right, and often will learn from their mistakes if not "saved" from the consequences of those mistakes by those who think they know better, but more often than not don't, because...well, who put them in power in the first place?
Give Stupidity the vote, and it will elect Stupidity, Give Immorality the vote, and it will elect Immorality. And Stupidity and Immorality in power, Stupidity and Immorality with an army and a legislative pen, is a whole lot more dangerous than Stupidity and Immorality left to its own devices.
"The Loftiest of Hopes and The Greatest of Expectations"
Dana Milbank, a liberal Washington Post columnist, wrote an article, published September 7, entitled "Obama the demigod comes down to Earth." The first line was about the just-concluded Democratic National Convention: "It began, like the Obama presidency itself, with the loftiest of hopes and the
greatest of expectations." Alas, for so many, those hopes and expectations have been dashed. Sad, but far from astonishing.
No one, who truly understands the meaning of existence on this earth, is the least bit surprised that Barack Obama has been a wretched failure as President of the United States. The fact that there ever were such "hopes" and "expectations" is decisive evidence of how far men have drifted from God and the eternal principles of truth that flow from His very nature. There was no way, from the very beginning, that Barack Obama could succeed, because, not only was he totally unqualified for the position in the first place, but, more importantly, what he believes--and has tried to put into practice--is just wrong. More than ever, it is strikingly self-evident to the wise that the Bible is right, and that the principles and examples found in God's Word, and illustrated repeatedly throughout the history of mankind, are once again being confirmed. Verily, because God does not immediately punish men for their sins (Ecclesiastes 8:11), there are times when the "wicked prosper" (Job 21:7; Jeremiah 12:1). But men cannot mock God forever, and where evil might succeed, for a time, on a limited platform, it can only prove disastrous when attempted on a grander one. Democracies always fail, because they end up compromising the truth to please the ignorant, selfish, pleasure-seeking majorities who elect people just like themselves. And the farther a democracy moves away from the truth, the more rapidly it declines; the "left" will destroy a country more quickly and thoroughly than the "right." Barack Obama is the most radical leftist President the United States has ever had; the country will survive (I guess), but never recover from, four more years of his and the Democratic Pary's deliberate booing of God. The fact that Obama has a strong chance of re-election is, as I have written repeatedly, a full indication of how tragically far America has sunk into an immoral slime pit.
The only "hope" I had when Barack Obama was elected was that God would be patient enough with America to allow it to survive four years of rampant debauchery that was sure to come, but my "expectations" have been fully met--an insidious President who operates in direct denial of history, economic, and moral law. His failure was a given. Nor am I the least bit surprised that countless millions of people still do not see it. You cannot know what you have not been taught, and the greatest tragedy of all in America, and the world, is abysmal ignorance of God's Word. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). Written about 2800 years ago, yet that bells tolls as clearly today as it did in the 8th century B. C.
No one, who truly understands the meaning of existence on this earth, is the least bit surprised that Barack Obama has been a wretched failure as President of the United States. The fact that there ever were such "hopes" and "expectations" is decisive evidence of how far men have drifted from God and the eternal principles of truth that flow from His very nature. There was no way, from the very beginning, that Barack Obama could succeed, because, not only was he totally unqualified for the position in the first place, but, more importantly, what he believes--and has tried to put into practice--is just wrong. More than ever, it is strikingly self-evident to the wise that the Bible is right, and that the principles and examples found in God's Word, and illustrated repeatedly throughout the history of mankind, are once again being confirmed. Verily, because God does not immediately punish men for their sins (Ecclesiastes 8:11), there are times when the "wicked prosper" (Job 21:7; Jeremiah 12:1). But men cannot mock God forever, and where evil might succeed, for a time, on a limited platform, it can only prove disastrous when attempted on a grander one. Democracies always fail, because they end up compromising the truth to please the ignorant, selfish, pleasure-seeking majorities who elect people just like themselves. And the farther a democracy moves away from the truth, the more rapidly it declines; the "left" will destroy a country more quickly and thoroughly than the "right." Barack Obama is the most radical leftist President the United States has ever had; the country will survive (I guess), but never recover from, four more years of his and the Democratic Pary's deliberate booing of God. The fact that Obama has a strong chance of re-election is, as I have written repeatedly, a full indication of how tragically far America has sunk into an immoral slime pit.
The only "hope" I had when Barack Obama was elected was that God would be patient enough with America to allow it to survive four years of rampant debauchery that was sure to come, but my "expectations" have been fully met--an insidious President who operates in direct denial of history, economic, and moral law. His failure was a given. Nor am I the least bit surprised that countless millions of people still do not see it. You cannot know what you have not been taught, and the greatest tragedy of all in America, and the world, is abysmal ignorance of God's Word. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). Written about 2800 years ago, yet that bells tolls as clearly today as it did in the 8th century B. C.
The Democrats and God
Rush had a great line about the Democratic delegates at the convention: they booed God and cheered Bill Clinton. That pretty much describes the modern day Democratic Party. They hate righteousness and holiness, and they love adulterers and liars. Not to mention homosexuals, abortionists, law-breakers, sluts, and moochers.
The Republicans have put out an ad/video: "They booed God three times." How the mighty have fallen...
The Republicans have put out an ad/video: "They booed God three times." How the mighty have fallen...
Some More Interesting Headlines
The headlines keep telling us what is happening in the United States. Here's one that should surprise no one:
Headline #1: "Democrats Drop 'God' From Party Platform"
Well, at the least the Democrats are finally honest about something. Their party platform doesn't mention God at all, which given their policies, is exactly what should happen. No political party, no human being, who believes in abortion, homosexual marriage, feminism, etc. should use the word "God" in any context, except to say either, "I hate God," or "I don't believe in God." In this case--for once--the Democrats did exactly what they should have done.
No, actually, of course, they should return to God, but since they aren't going to do that, and since they insist on defending some of the most egregiously immoral activities human beings can engage in, they should indeed distance themselves, as far as possible, from their Creator. They can explain to Him why when they meet Him.
Headline # 2: "Convicted murderer gets taxpayer-funded sex change"
This certainly goes a long way to explain why the United States is now $16 trillion in debt. A federal judge claims this pervert, who killed his wife, is entitled to Americans paying for his perversion because he has "gender-identity disorder." How in the world any sensible, rational, thinking, even semi-intelligent human being can come to a conclusion like this is completely beyond my ability to comprehend. The United States government doesn't have the money, Judge Blithering Idiot, and to force decent human beings to pay for this is disgusting and tyrannical beyond description. Well, maybe Joe Biden could explain it if it wasn't so hot....
Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, it's right there in Article One, Section Eight, of the Constitution, the powers given to Congress: "Money shall be forcibly extracted from unwilling taxpayers to pay for sex changes for murderers." Clearly a power the Founders gave to Congress....
Headline #3: "DNC Video: 'The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To'"
This speaks volumes about the beliefs of the Democratic Party. I've got news for these tyrants: we are citizens of the United States, we don't "belong" to any government, the government belongs to us! Government isn't some kind of "club" we are all members of. Government exists for one reason, and one reason, only--to serve its citizens as efficiently, thriftly, and virtuously as possible, to protect their property (not redistribute it) from enemies, within and without, who would threaten it, and otherwise leave the people alone to pursue their own socially productive goals. Some Republicans (not many) know this; no Democrats do, as this headline testifies.
**********
And some interesting facts: Unemployment was 7.8% when Barack Obama took office. It's now 8.3%. Median household income was almost $55,000. It's now less than $51,000. Gas was at $1.85 a gallon when he took office. Now, it's $3.78, almost doubled. National debt was $10.6 trillion and it will go past $16 trillion this week.
And yet, in my opinion, Barack Obama still has a better-than-even chance to get re-elected. This just isn't the same United States as it was, even 32 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was elected over a bumbling incumbent who, frankly, wasn't nearly as radical or incompetent as Barack Obama. You just can't hold back the tide.
Headline #1: "Democrats Drop 'God' From Party Platform"
Well, at the least the Democrats are finally honest about something. Their party platform doesn't mention God at all, which given their policies, is exactly what should happen. No political party, no human being, who believes in abortion, homosexual marriage, feminism, etc. should use the word "God" in any context, except to say either, "I hate God," or "I don't believe in God." In this case--for once--the Democrats did exactly what they should have done.
No, actually, of course, they should return to God, but since they aren't going to do that, and since they insist on defending some of the most egregiously immoral activities human beings can engage in, they should indeed distance themselves, as far as possible, from their Creator. They can explain to Him why when they meet Him.
Headline # 2: "Convicted murderer gets taxpayer-funded sex change"
This certainly goes a long way to explain why the United States is now $16 trillion in debt. A federal judge claims this pervert, who killed his wife, is entitled to Americans paying for his perversion because he has "gender-identity disorder." How in the world any sensible, rational, thinking, even semi-intelligent human being can come to a conclusion like this is completely beyond my ability to comprehend. The United States government doesn't have the money, Judge Blithering Idiot, and to force decent human beings to pay for this is disgusting and tyrannical beyond description. Well, maybe Joe Biden could explain it if it wasn't so hot....
Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, it's right there in Article One, Section Eight, of the Constitution, the powers given to Congress: "Money shall be forcibly extracted from unwilling taxpayers to pay for sex changes for murderers." Clearly a power the Founders gave to Congress....
Headline #3: "DNC Video: 'The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To'"
This speaks volumes about the beliefs of the Democratic Party. I've got news for these tyrants: we are citizens of the United States, we don't "belong" to any government, the government belongs to us! Government isn't some kind of "club" we are all members of. Government exists for one reason, and one reason, only--to serve its citizens as efficiently, thriftly, and virtuously as possible, to protect their property (not redistribute it) from enemies, within and without, who would threaten it, and otherwise leave the people alone to pursue their own socially productive goals. Some Republicans (not many) know this; no Democrats do, as this headline testifies.
**********
And some interesting facts: Unemployment was 7.8% when Barack Obama took office. It's now 8.3%. Median household income was almost $55,000. It's now less than $51,000. Gas was at $1.85 a gallon when he took office. Now, it's $3.78, almost doubled. National debt was $10.6 trillion and it will go past $16 trillion this week.
And yet, in my opinion, Barack Obama still has a better-than-even chance to get re-elected. This just isn't the same United States as it was, even 32 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was elected over a bumbling incumbent who, frankly, wasn't nearly as radical or incompetent as Barack Obama. You just can't hold back the tide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
