Obama is not going to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, which is a tradition for Presidents. Not surprisingly, many in the military are irked by the shunning. Instead, he is going to the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery outside Chicago. Vice-President Biden is going to Arlington. It's not surprising Obama is skipping Arlington. He hates the U.S. military; all liberals do. It's been one of the major tools of American "oppression" throughout the world. Obama fancies himself another Abraham Lincoln so he'd rather show up there, I guess. He isn't winning any more friends in the American military by doing this. He doesn't have very many to begin with.
A Zogby poll which came out yesterday indicates that only 16% of Americans approve of the way Obama has handled the BP oil spill. I don't approve, either, but if you'll read my "Ramble" of a couple days ago, you'll find out one reason why he's been so incompetent in the matter. It's not really his fault. He is simply at the head of a machine that is inherently incapable of handling such matters effectively. But, again, I've heard no one--outside this blog, though I haven't read every blog, of course--mention that the Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the right to intervene in disasters, natural or man-made. Conservatives are too happy with the government's incompetence to ask the question. Yet, they'll screech about "limited Constitutional" government. Methinks most conservatives have never read the Constitution, either.
While BP is given much of the blame for the oil spill, a huge portion of culpability also resides in the federal government for allowing wacko environmentalists to dictate environment policy. That oil spill begins 5,000 feet under the sea, which is why it has been almost impossible to cap it. But the fruitcake environmentalists won't let us drill on dry land or close to the coast where such disasters could be minimized. And, again, the liberals in Congress, who are in the lap of the leftist enviornmentalists, have much to answer for in this matter. Don't expect CNN to mention that.
In 1887, President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill that would have provided money for drought-stricken farmers in Texas. He said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit...The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Grover Cleveland is one of my favorite Presidents. Abraham Lincoln, to whose cemetery Obama is going on Memorial Day, is my least favorite and our worst President. If somebody had buried him four years earlier, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. Lincoln is the reason we have Obama, and I don't mean because of the ending of slavery. I mean that it was Lincoln who gave the federal government sovereignty over the states (something the Founders did NOT do), and left the states with no way to control the entity (the national government) which they created. When the feds run roughshod over the states nowadays, what can the latter do? The South tried to prevent that, and Lincoln killed and wounded 1,000,000 Americans to stop them. The South was right, folks. Slavery was dying anyway, but the federal government is alive and well, thank you, and about the destroy this country.
If Not For Slavery...
Here's an excellent article by Pat Buchanan. It's about time somebody said all this.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation.. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.... This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. ["Reverend" Jeremiah] Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks--with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas--to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances.
Where is the gratitude??
Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona. And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids. Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation.. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.... This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. ["Reverend" Jeremiah] Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks--with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas--to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances.
Where is the gratitude??
Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona. And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids. Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Current Event Ramblings, May 26
Did the Obama administration offer Joe Sestak a job not to run against Arlen Specter in the recent Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary? Probably. He said they did, and he has no reason to lie about it. If the Obama people did offer Sestak a job, it's a criminal offense. Obama certainly would have known about it, but rumors are floating that he may throw Rahm Emanuel under the bus to save his own hide. The story will get hot, however, only if the liberal media smells some Pulitzers in it, so don't expect much action on the matter. Democrats will certainly rally around their Messiah.
The BP oil spill. Even the liberal press is beginning to question the Obama administration's incompetence in the matter. Nobody, of course, is pointing out that the Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the right or authority to intervene in such disasters. Our Founders knew that such was not the purpose or nature of government and that, if such involvement took place, government would only screw things up and almost assuredly make things worse. You don't break eggs with a sledge hammer, folks, that's not what its for. And you don't use the federal government to solve catastrophes. Government is the nationalization of force, and force is not benevolence or repair. The only thing government can do in this situation is tell BP they will blow up the oil company if they don't get the leak fixed--and government could do that very well, because the one thing government is VERY good at is destroying things (people, economies, countries, etc.). Don't criticize Obama for something government isn't given the authority to do (in our Constitution) and is constitutionally incapable of doing. We should have learned that lesson with Katrina (government caused the disaster in the first place), but very few people ever learn anything from history.
The Houston Astros are in last place and have the worst record in the National League. I'm probably the only person who cares. I don't even think the players do. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I do, either.
The BP oil spill. Even the liberal press is beginning to question the Obama administration's incompetence in the matter. Nobody, of course, is pointing out that the Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the right or authority to intervene in such disasters. Our Founders knew that such was not the purpose or nature of government and that, if such involvement took place, government would only screw things up and almost assuredly make things worse. You don't break eggs with a sledge hammer, folks, that's not what its for. And you don't use the federal government to solve catastrophes. Government is the nationalization of force, and force is not benevolence or repair. The only thing government can do in this situation is tell BP they will blow up the oil company if they don't get the leak fixed--and government could do that very well, because the one thing government is VERY good at is destroying things (people, economies, countries, etc.). Don't criticize Obama for something government isn't given the authority to do (in our Constitution) and is constitutionally incapable of doing. We should have learned that lesson with Katrina (government caused the disaster in the first place), but very few people ever learn anything from history.
The Houston Astros are in last place and have the worst record in the National League. I'm probably the only person who cares. I don't even think the players do. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I do, either.
Current Event Ramblings, May 25
I haven't done a lot on this blog recently, mainly because I've been working mostly on my Bible blogs. But this is, by far, my most popular blog (check the numbers at the bottom), so I reckon I'll bless my readers with more of my wisdom and less of others.
A few thoughts on today's news:
--The Dow is down (as I write this) by almost 120 points, below 10,000. This is either a correction to a too-rapid rise over the past year or so, or more than likely, fear that the failed socialist economies of Europe might drag the U.S. down with them, especially if Obama and Congress keep spending like a drunken sailor. This spending, folks, is NOT by accident; it is completely deliberate and designed to destroy the American capitalistic economy so that we'll have to turn to government for our salvation. It's what Obama, Pelosi, et al believe, and they are doing it on purpose.
--Report is that Obama is going to send 1,200 troops to the border. Finally he does something the Constitution authorizes him to do.
--North Korea and South Korea are threatening to go to war. Won't happen. We won't let it. We'll kiss North Korea's feet and tell the southerners to cool it. Some day, the South Koreans are liable to tell us to go fly a kite and decide to try to unite their country by themselves. I wonder if anybody will care.
--Oops, Dow just shot up to over 10,000. Maybe I ought to wait till it closes before I write this. Well, you can check it out yourself. The Euro is dropping again, Newsweek said we did a good thing in bailing out Greece (I mean, we've got all kinds of money to waste, don't we), and apparently Obama is going to let the queers take over the military. What a country. And before I finished this paragraph, the Dow dropped under 10,000 again. This yo-yo act is not good...
A few thoughts on today's news:
--The Dow is down (as I write this) by almost 120 points, below 10,000. This is either a correction to a too-rapid rise over the past year or so, or more than likely, fear that the failed socialist economies of Europe might drag the U.S. down with them, especially if Obama and Congress keep spending like a drunken sailor. This spending, folks, is NOT by accident; it is completely deliberate and designed to destroy the American capitalistic economy so that we'll have to turn to government for our salvation. It's what Obama, Pelosi, et al believe, and they are doing it on purpose.
--Report is that Obama is going to send 1,200 troops to the border. Finally he does something the Constitution authorizes him to do.
--North Korea and South Korea are threatening to go to war. Won't happen. We won't let it. We'll kiss North Korea's feet and tell the southerners to cool it. Some day, the South Koreans are liable to tell us to go fly a kite and decide to try to unite their country by themselves. I wonder if anybody will care.
--Oops, Dow just shot up to over 10,000. Maybe I ought to wait till it closes before I write this. Well, you can check it out yourself. The Euro is dropping again, Newsweek said we did a good thing in bailing out Greece (I mean, we've got all kinds of money to waste, don't we), and apparently Obama is going to let the queers take over the military. What a country. And before I finished this paragraph, the Dow dropped under 10,000 again. This yo-yo act is not good...
This Isn't Difficult To Understand
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
More Chuckles From The Liberal Media
A news flash from MSNBC on the Arizona anti-immigration law:
"Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."
"Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."
The Arizona Anti-Immigration Law
It’s a good law. It isn’t perfect, but then, nothing man does is. The point is, something needed to be done and the state of Arizona did it. Americans, in overwhelming numbers, support the law. Not surprisingly, the major media and “intellectuals” don’t. And we have another example of the polar divisions that have become the United States of America.
Arizona acted because the federal government—which, Constitutionally, has the responsibility to protect this country from illegal foreign invasion--wouldn’t. And the federal government wouldn’t do anything because it is, and has been for many years, controlled by liberals, who, by and large, reproach this country and blame it for all the earth’s ills. In the liberal’s fairy land existence, the United States has ruthlessly exploited the planet, plundered the rest of the world, and gotten wealthy by making other people poor. Thus, we owe mankind repayment for what we have so callously snitched from them. This means that when immigrants come into America, even illegally, we should take care of them, provide for them, educate their children, give them free health care, etc., etc., etc., because we got rich by taking all of those things away from them in the first place. How dare we try to run them off? Such is simply more evidence of the cold-hearted, selfish, capitalistic pigs who dominate this country and want to keep all of the world’s wealth for ourselves. Pro-illegal immigration is simply one more way that liberals want to “spread the wealth.” It’s welfare for the world, or for anybody who can get here, whether legally or not.
This doesn’t sell to most Americans who are tired of paying taxes to support people who are breaking our laws. That’s just common sense to anyone who has any, so we simply have one more evidence of the vapid, empty philosophy that is modern liberalism.
Just keeep in mind that, for the liberal elite, the Arizona law has nothing to do with "racial profiling" and everything to do with keeping that law (and federal laws on immigration) from being enforced. The "sheep" that follow them--Lenin's "useful idiots--aren't wise enough to perceive that, but that's all the better for the elites.
But, except for understanding the above about liberalism, I really wonder what the stink is. Giving the police the right to check suspicious-looking people who might be breaking our laws doesn’t seem outrageous to me. Indeed, if I were a legal immigrant—paying taxes that supported illegal immigrants—I wouldn’t mind at all if the police checked my ID; if I’m here legally, I’d have nothing to worry about. Let’s just suppose that I was living and working—legally—in the country of Ghana. The vast majority of people in that country are black, of course. And let’s further suppose that, for whatever reason, there began to be a mass immigration of white Americans into Ghana, millions of them illegally. And these white Americans took jobs from native Ghanans, soaked up tax dollars through various social services that they weren’t legally qualified for, committed numerous heinous crimes, and began to be a serious drain on the economy of that country. And let’s further suppose that Ghana decided to crack down on “illegal white immigration,” and gave their police the authority to stop any suspicious-looking white person to see if they were breaking the law by being in the country unlawfully. Well, I’m not a terribly suspicious-looking fellow, but what would I care if I was stopped and checked? I have legal papers and there is nothing they could do to me. Indeed, if I were paying taxes to Ghana that were being used to support white law-breakers, I would want Ghana to boot the parasitic, criminal, teat-suckers out of the country. Am I really a psycho for thinking that way?
Perhaps the Hispanics who are legally in the United States—and I have no problem with those who are, especially those who are trying to assimilate by learning our language and working for a living—could help the state of Arizona, and the rest of the country out, by directing authorized personnel to those Hispanics who aren’t here legally. Hey, La Raza (“The Race,” for those of you who don’t speak Spanish, but it’s not a racist organization, oh, no, of course not, only whites can be racists), if you don’t like the Arizona law, help get the illegals out of the country and there won’t be any need for the law.
But Al Gore will be right about something—anything!—before that happens.
Arizona acted because the federal government—which, Constitutionally, has the responsibility to protect this country from illegal foreign invasion--wouldn’t. And the federal government wouldn’t do anything because it is, and has been for many years, controlled by liberals, who, by and large, reproach this country and blame it for all the earth’s ills. In the liberal’s fairy land existence, the United States has ruthlessly exploited the planet, plundered the rest of the world, and gotten wealthy by making other people poor. Thus, we owe mankind repayment for what we have so callously snitched from them. This means that when immigrants come into America, even illegally, we should take care of them, provide for them, educate their children, give them free health care, etc., etc., etc., because we got rich by taking all of those things away from them in the first place. How dare we try to run them off? Such is simply more evidence of the cold-hearted, selfish, capitalistic pigs who dominate this country and want to keep all of the world’s wealth for ourselves. Pro-illegal immigration is simply one more way that liberals want to “spread the wealth.” It’s welfare for the world, or for anybody who can get here, whether legally or not.
This doesn’t sell to most Americans who are tired of paying taxes to support people who are breaking our laws. That’s just common sense to anyone who has any, so we simply have one more evidence of the vapid, empty philosophy that is modern liberalism.
Just keeep in mind that, for the liberal elite, the Arizona law has nothing to do with "racial profiling" and everything to do with keeping that law (and federal laws on immigration) from being enforced. The "sheep" that follow them--Lenin's "useful idiots--aren't wise enough to perceive that, but that's all the better for the elites.
But, except for understanding the above about liberalism, I really wonder what the stink is. Giving the police the right to check suspicious-looking people who might be breaking our laws doesn’t seem outrageous to me. Indeed, if I were a legal immigrant—paying taxes that supported illegal immigrants—I wouldn’t mind at all if the police checked my ID; if I’m here legally, I’d have nothing to worry about. Let’s just suppose that I was living and working—legally—in the country of Ghana. The vast majority of people in that country are black, of course. And let’s further suppose that, for whatever reason, there began to be a mass immigration of white Americans into Ghana, millions of them illegally. And these white Americans took jobs from native Ghanans, soaked up tax dollars through various social services that they weren’t legally qualified for, committed numerous heinous crimes, and began to be a serious drain on the economy of that country. And let’s further suppose that Ghana decided to crack down on “illegal white immigration,” and gave their police the authority to stop any suspicious-looking white person to see if they were breaking the law by being in the country unlawfully. Well, I’m not a terribly suspicious-looking fellow, but what would I care if I was stopped and checked? I have legal papers and there is nothing they could do to me. Indeed, if I were paying taxes to Ghana that were being used to support white law-breakers, I would want Ghana to boot the parasitic, criminal, teat-suckers out of the country. Am I really a psycho for thinking that way?
Perhaps the Hispanics who are legally in the United States—and I have no problem with those who are, especially those who are trying to assimilate by learning our language and working for a living—could help the state of Arizona, and the rest of the country out, by directing authorized personnel to those Hispanics who aren’t here legally. Hey, La Raza (“The Race,” for those of you who don’t speak Spanish, but it’s not a racist organization, oh, no, of course not, only whites can be racists), if you don’t like the Arizona law, help get the illegals out of the country and there won’t be any need for the law.
But Al Gore will be right about something—anything!—before that happens.
Poverty in Our Cities
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI.....32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY.....29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH.....27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH.....27.0%
5. Miami, FL.....26.9%
6. St. Louis, MO.....26.8%
7. El Paso, TX.....26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI.....26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA.....25.1%
10. Newark, NJ.....24.2%
(From the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007)
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still.....POOR.
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."--Abraham Lincoln
1. Detroit, MI.....32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY.....29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH.....27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH.....27.0%
5. Miami, FL.....26.9%
6. St. Louis, MO.....26.8%
7. El Paso, TX.....26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI.....26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA.....25.1%
10. Newark, NJ.....24.2%
(From the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007)
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th)...since 1907.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still.....POOR.
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."--Abraham Lincoln
The Racist, Bigoted, Homophobic, Terrorist Tea Party Movement
Folks, when you can’t answer somebody’s arguments, you have two options. One, scream as loud as you can so that you can (hopefully) drown out your opponents so that nobody can hear them, or two—and most effective—attack their character. Both of these methods are as old as man, but the second one is the most commonly used. The idea is that if you can find some imperfection or character flaw in the messenger, that (somehow) frees the listener from any obligation to believe or do what the messenger is teaching. Read the New Testament and see how often the Jews attacked Jesus’ character; they certainly couldn’t defeat His arguments.
This second tactic is the one being used—with limited effect, it seems to me—against the current “tea party movement” in America. Even that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton, (pardon my sarcasm) has recently spoken out, fearing that the tea party folks, or those who endorse and support them, might incite violence among the more extreme elements of that movement. There are indeed some kooks and nuts among the tea party protesters; after all, some people from California have joined in, and maybe even some Yankees. But there are kooks and nuts that grab hold of any popular idea, hoping to gain some attention for themselves. But the suggestion that the tea party people, as a whole, are racist, bigoted, homophobic, and terrorists is absurd to the nth degree. These are normal Americans who are sick and tired of what is happening in Washington, D.C. And their name is Legion.
Barack Obama, not surprisingly to anyone who knows a smattering of history and understands liberalism as a political philosophy, is, by far, the most radical president this country has ever had. And he, along with fellow radicals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, are determined to take this country down a road to greater government control and intervention in the lives of the American people (I will suggest, however, that Pelosi and Reed, neither of whom has indicated that they have the least bit of intelligence or common sense, might simply be what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots”). Vast numbers of American people still believe that this country should be what it started out to be—a nation of limited government, individual rights and responsibilities, low taxation, and conscientious, honorable, virtuous leaders. That’s the debate that is going in the United States right now—are we going to have a European-style, cradle-to-grave social system where the government controls virtually all aspects of our lives—which is what Obama wants—or are we going to stay as faithful to our roots as possible—which is what the “tea party” people (and conservatives) desire? The tea party folks are winning the debate; Obama and his policies are increasingly unpopular, and even the Democrats expect to take a shellacking in the upcoming November elections. So, since they cannot answer the arguments against an all-powerful government that they desire, the Obama administration and their lap dogs in the major media are attacking the character of the tea party dissenters—they are racist, bigoted, homophobes, and especially, the fear that they are going to encourage violence to break out among the more extreme elements of the movement. These charges are utterly ridiculous, and it simply shows the desperation Obama and his lackeys feel. It’s nice to see.
But let’s take a look at the “incite violence” argument. Is it possible that the ideals and opposition that the tea party movement stand for will encourage some to acts of aggression and destruction? It isn’t impossible; again, there are fringe element psychos among every political ideology, and the more the leftist “intelligentsia” succeeds in undermining Christian morality and the foundations of human decency in this country, the more these psychos will appear. But let’s keep in mind that, over the past century, the vast, vast majority of political violence has come from the left; there have never been greater murderers in human society than the socialistic communist and Nazi movements. The death toll in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, and other communist dictatorships is staggering—well over 100 million people, who were massacred, not for what they had done, but simply because of who they were and what they believed. And, of course, there were the Nazis who threw 25 or 30 million other bodies onto the pile. The left has long tried to peg Hitler and the Nazi as a “right wing” movement, but the term “Nazi” stands for “National Socialism,” and socialism has never been considered “right wing”—except by leftists who control the academia and media and don’t want their socialistic ideals tainted by Hitler and his equivalent economic views.
It is the left, folks—Obama cronies like Bill Ayers—and not grandma and grandpa in the tea party movement—that scares me. Conservative people tend to be more religious and restrained by the morality of their religion. The left has no religion but victory at any cost—and again, the 20th century is the consummate example of that. There are indeed right-wing nuts like Timothy McVeigh and they are dangerous. But they are nuts and their chances of gaining power are microscopic to less-than-none. But Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pol, Kim Il-Sung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh—the greatest mass murderers in human history—were all leftists, socialists, non-believers who had no moral restraints. Thankfully, those kind of men could not come to power in America—yet.
And the reason they couldn’t gain power yet in the United States is…the decent Americans like those who are involved in the tea party movement.
The left demagogues—it has, too, because it has history, logic, decency, and morality against it. When one of your leading spokesmen is Bill Clinton, you have scraped the bottom of human depravity. Adolf Hitler once said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." Let’s only hope that, in America, Hitler is wrong. Otherwise, we may end up like Nazi Germany—with dead bodies piles up by the millions. And it won’t be the tea partyers doing the piling.
This second tactic is the one being used—with limited effect, it seems to me—against the current “tea party movement” in America. Even that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton, (pardon my sarcasm) has recently spoken out, fearing that the tea party folks, or those who endorse and support them, might incite violence among the more extreme elements of that movement. There are indeed some kooks and nuts among the tea party protesters; after all, some people from California have joined in, and maybe even some Yankees. But there are kooks and nuts that grab hold of any popular idea, hoping to gain some attention for themselves. But the suggestion that the tea party people, as a whole, are racist, bigoted, homophobic, and terrorists is absurd to the nth degree. These are normal Americans who are sick and tired of what is happening in Washington, D.C. And their name is Legion.
Barack Obama, not surprisingly to anyone who knows a smattering of history and understands liberalism as a political philosophy, is, by far, the most radical president this country has ever had. And he, along with fellow radicals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, are determined to take this country down a road to greater government control and intervention in the lives of the American people (I will suggest, however, that Pelosi and Reed, neither of whom has indicated that they have the least bit of intelligence or common sense, might simply be what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots”). Vast numbers of American people still believe that this country should be what it started out to be—a nation of limited government, individual rights and responsibilities, low taxation, and conscientious, honorable, virtuous leaders. That’s the debate that is going in the United States right now—are we going to have a European-style, cradle-to-grave social system where the government controls virtually all aspects of our lives—which is what Obama wants—or are we going to stay as faithful to our roots as possible—which is what the “tea party” people (and conservatives) desire? The tea party folks are winning the debate; Obama and his policies are increasingly unpopular, and even the Democrats expect to take a shellacking in the upcoming November elections. So, since they cannot answer the arguments against an all-powerful government that they desire, the Obama administration and their lap dogs in the major media are attacking the character of the tea party dissenters—they are racist, bigoted, homophobes, and especially, the fear that they are going to encourage violence to break out among the more extreme elements of the movement. These charges are utterly ridiculous, and it simply shows the desperation Obama and his lackeys feel. It’s nice to see.
But let’s take a look at the “incite violence” argument. Is it possible that the ideals and opposition that the tea party movement stand for will encourage some to acts of aggression and destruction? It isn’t impossible; again, there are fringe element psychos among every political ideology, and the more the leftist “intelligentsia” succeeds in undermining Christian morality and the foundations of human decency in this country, the more these psychos will appear. But let’s keep in mind that, over the past century, the vast, vast majority of political violence has come from the left; there have never been greater murderers in human society than the socialistic communist and Nazi movements. The death toll in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, and other communist dictatorships is staggering—well over 100 million people, who were massacred, not for what they had done, but simply because of who they were and what they believed. And, of course, there were the Nazis who threw 25 or 30 million other bodies onto the pile. The left has long tried to peg Hitler and the Nazi as a “right wing” movement, but the term “Nazi” stands for “National Socialism,” and socialism has never been considered “right wing”—except by leftists who control the academia and media and don’t want their socialistic ideals tainted by Hitler and his equivalent economic views.
It is the left, folks—Obama cronies like Bill Ayers—and not grandma and grandpa in the tea party movement—that scares me. Conservative people tend to be more religious and restrained by the morality of their religion. The left has no religion but victory at any cost—and again, the 20th century is the consummate example of that. There are indeed right-wing nuts like Timothy McVeigh and they are dangerous. But they are nuts and their chances of gaining power are microscopic to less-than-none. But Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pol, Kim Il-Sung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh—the greatest mass murderers in human history—were all leftists, socialists, non-believers who had no moral restraints. Thankfully, those kind of men could not come to power in America—yet.
And the reason they couldn’t gain power yet in the United States is…the decent Americans like those who are involved in the tea party movement.
The left demagogues—it has, too, because it has history, logic, decency, and morality against it. When one of your leading spokesmen is Bill Clinton, you have scraped the bottom of human depravity. Adolf Hitler once said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." Let’s only hope that, in America, Hitler is wrong. Otherwise, we may end up like Nazi Germany—with dead bodies piles up by the millions. And it won’t be the tea partyers doing the piling.
Little Johnny Meets Barack Obama
Obama was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy." So our illustrious president asked the classfor an example of a "tragedy."
One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him,that would be a tragedy."
"No," said Obama, "that would be an accident."
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained Obama. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Obama searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Obama. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss...and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."
Thanks, Comer...
One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him,that would be a tragedy."
"No," said Obama, "that would be an accident."
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained Obama. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Obama searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Obama. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss...and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."
Thanks, Comer...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
