Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Voter Intimidation Okay As Long As You Do It For The Favorite

According to the May 29,2009 issue of the Washington Times, the Obama "Department of Justice", headed by Eric Holder, has directed it's legal staff to drop the civil charges against three members of the "New Black Panther Party". If you recall, on November 3rd, 2008, there were complaints about one polling place in Philadelphia, where it was reported that the entrance to the building was being blocked by members of the NBPP.

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15, at the direction of "unnamed political appointees". The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. (And what's with Jerry Jackson - how come he didn't get one of those really cool names? Or, was Shabbigg Shaddummy already taken?) Prosecutors also say Shabazz "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews." Sounds like a thug to me!

My first question would be - why was this a "civil action" in the first place? Voter intimidation is civil rights violation, and a criminal act under federal law. Maybe that particular section of the United States Code is only enforced if you "encourage" people to vote for the wrong candidate.

I realize that it's not PC to imply that anyone outside the white race could possibly be a racist, but that is precisely my point. It's just that the media and others have an unwritten, informal, handshake agreement to ignore the fact that there are racists of all creeds, colors and ethnicities. Yes, folks, there are black, brown, red and yellow racists. "Whitey" does not have a corner on ignorance or prejudice. There are people who will hate you just for your skin color... or because you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist... or because you are a Liberal, Conservative, or politically non-affilliated. You can be hated for having a better job than somebody else - like it's your fault! And, if they can't find a better reason to hate you, they will hate you just because you are. You may rest comfortably in the knowledge that somewhere in the world there is somebody to hate everybody for any ridiculous reason.

Apparently though, racism is only bad when white individuals and private white organizations (KKK, Aryan Nation, Skinheads, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) practice it. When the government practices racism (and yes, reverse racism and preferential racism is still racism), or minorities indulge in racist behaviors, it's expected to be acceptable. Racism is primarily a philosophy and practice of the ignorant. Nobody likes to look down the ladder of success, and see there are no lower rungs than the one upon which they are standing. Seeing oneself as being powerless (and perhaps, in reality, just too lazy) to do anything about improving their position, it prompts many people to create - if only in their mind - their own verison of "nigger". They do this using any/all of the preceding criteria, or perhaps additional/unmentioned criteria. Some people cannot stand being on that bottom rung - they then have to create what they see as an "inferior being" to look down upon. Their "nigger" isn't necessarily black, either - this "nigger" is an ego-saving concept, not a skin color or race. It could easily be folks that some people refer to as "white trash". And you don't necessarily have to be poor to be "white trash".

That's the truth as I see it. However, I could be completely wrong about this whole thing. What's your truth?

Friday, May 29, 2009

AP Article :"Oklahoma Druggist Arrested For Killing Holdup Man"

"OKLAHOMA CITY – Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away." Okay - so far, so good. Facing two armed robbers, Ersland defended his life, and the lives of fellow employees and customers, as he has every right to do. This is the serious down side of choosing a criminal lifestyle - you point a deadly weapon at somebody and they're just likely to kill you where you stand. The article continues...

"Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor." Oooops! Now we've violated the basic rule of self defense - the threat had already been neutralized (according to the report). Also, five more rounds seems a bit excessive... unless the robber was moving as if to retrieve his weapon (which we don't know). We also have the physical issue of adrenaline still flooding through Ersland's body after the experience, and possible PTSD (Ersland is a disabled Gulf War Veteran), or a "combat flashback". Nobody knows what was going on inside Ersland's head but Ersland. The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head.

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

The AP goes on to say, "Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail thanks to an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters and become the darling of conservative talk radio."

"Many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved." I haven't seen this video, but I tend to agree with those folks. When a person puts on a ski mask and pulls out a pistol, then threatens somebody with it, the intended victim can reasonably assume you are capable of (and perhaps intent upon) taking somebody's life. You cannot tell a teenager from an adult when they have hidden their face under a mask - besides, a teenager with a gun can kill you just as dead as a 40 year old with a gun! By virtue of threatening to take the life of an innocent person - implied when brandishing a firearm - the criminal puts his own life in a position for potential forfeiture. Even a teenager should understand that!

Unfortunately for Ersland, the robbers weren't just teenagers... they were black teenagers. Okalhoma City should be getting a visit from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton any day now, claiming that Ersland shot the kid only because he was black - certainly not because he presented a lethal threat. Everybody knows that no self-respecting white man would ever shoot a white robber that was pointing a gun at him!

I suppose I could be wrong about all this, but, based on the information available at this time, I seriously doubt it. (If I was on the Ok City Grand Jury, I wouldn't even vote to indict Ersland, much less put him through a criminal trial.)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Rewarding Failure - The Other Side of The Same Coin

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination by His Holiness, Barack Hussein Obama, to be the first female Hispanic justice of the Supreme Court of The United States has created quite a bit of controversy.

Sotomayor apparently agreed more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied earned promotions by the city on the basis of their race. The New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased.

But after the tests were administered, and the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions. So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one!

Here we have a case of punishing the successful, which although not exactly the same as rewarding failure, provides essentially the same end result. Those applicants who had excellent service records - and were diligent in their studies for the promotion examination(s) - were denied that which they rightfully deserved. Why? Because black firefighters failed to achieve qualifying scores for whatever reason. Is this the fault of the successful candidates? NO! Why should those who did exercise due diligence be penalized because others either didn't, or lacked the ability to understand or retain that which they studied?

Consider this - if you were a firefighter dispatched to a four-alarm, fully-engulfed inferno, would you rather be given your instructions by somebody who was guessing at the risks involved, or by somebody who had demonstrated the required experience and knowledge to minimize the risks to his/her subordinates while still getting the job done. How would the FD fair if they should - God forbid - have a 9-11-type situation in New Haven without fully qualified front line leadership?

Discrimination in the workplace should be avoided at all reasonable costs. However, whenever lives are at stake - and a firefighters' life is at stake any time he/she enters a burning structure - they deserve to have the best qualified people directing lifesaving operations. New Haven city officials demonstrated due diligence when they hired an outside consulting firm to design the test(s) in such a way that they were not "racially biased". The failure is not in the test itself, nor in those who successfully completed the test - the failure was in the lack of proper preparation on the part of those who did not generate passing scores. Preparation (studying) for any test is a personal responsibility. Obviously many assumed that personal responsibility... and many did not.

In the subsequent lawsuit (Ricci v. DeStefano), seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race. The case, now 5 years old, is to be heard by "The Supremes" (SCOTUS) this month, and Sotomayor's decision vindicated the City of New Haven. She essentially said "reverse discrimination is acceptable" - a legal decision which should bury her chances of becoming one of "The Supremes". But it won't... because Sotomayor is a philosphical doppelganger for Obama. On the plus side, Sotomayor's decisions have been overturned by SCOTUS 83% of the time. Does her appointment to SCOTUS sound like a "good fit" to you?

Suddenly our culture is not simply rewarding failure (re: GM, AIG, et al)... they are now punishing success! This attitude will result in "the system" extinguishing the motivation of the best qualified personnel to seek leadership positions within the New Haven FD, and perhaps even drive them to leave such an inequitable organization, and seek recognition (and the attendant financial compensation) elsewhere. SHAME ON NEW HAVEN!

This is a race in which I, personally, have no horse. I live on the other side of the country, where we can still have a reasonable level of confidence when we need to call the fire department. I just hate to see blatant violations of any citizen's civil rights - including whites, Hispanics, blacks, Chinese, Lithuanians, Martians, etc.. If the prevailing rules say, "Take the test, pass the test, get promoted", then the successful candidates should be promoted - based upon their scores - into however many available positions New Haven FD has! If they only have fifteen available positions, then the top fifteen scorers should get those jobs. The other successful candidates should have to wait for additional vacancies.

I could be completely wrong about this.. but my 14 years of experience as a USAF training manager and training superintendent tells me I'm not. You don't have to be an attorney to know when something stinks!

VAT - One More Step Toward Converting The USA To European-style Socialism

Value Added Tax! This is a concept that most of western Europe implemented decades ago, to bolster failing economies. We can see how well that worked for them... inasmuch as their economies are now in the same dumper as ours. Granted it does raise more money for the government - but it is at the expense of the people! We do not, as a people, benefit from VAT. I mention VAT today only because it appears to have been revived by our Black/White Messiah.

After a bit of investigation, it appears that the average European Union VAT is roughly 20%. Three European nations (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have a 25% VAT! Inflicting a VAT has been a dream of His Royal Highness Barack Hussein Obama since God only knows when. Grade school? The first documentation I have been able to find on his VAT position was in June of 2008, but that's just documentation of his socialistic desires.

Now add your State, County and local sales taxes to that VAT, and you'll see that it will cost you a bundle at the point of sale. Some EU countries even have VAT on basic necessities, like food, clothing, and shelter. No people have ever been taxed into personal prosperity - but they have been taxed until the government was enjoying prosperity.

At the risk of repeating myself from an earlier posting, we are not Europe! The United States had surpassed all of Europe in only 200 years, by functioning as a free-market, independent republic. The USA had no permanent income tax prior to 1913, and, prior to 1913, personal income was taxed only when our nation was embroiled in a war. What has put us in this financial predicament? Primarily it is the result of poor judgment in our Congress, following the exhortations of Barney Franks, and his League of Financial Morons, for the banks to lend mortgage money to people who didn't meet the minimum requirements established to ensure the loans could be repaid.

Actions such as that remind me of the almost continuous increases in the "minimum wage". Who among us does not understand that the minimum wage is the bellwether (leading indicator) for the cost of goods and services? When the minimum wage is forced upwards, manufacturers and service providers are equally forced to increase the costs of their goods and services in order to maintain (reasonable?) profit margins. There is no gain in personal income - workers just move into a higher tax bracket. Now, couple that cost with labor unions gouging corporations for what is basically unskilled labor (don't try to convince me that working on an assembly line requires more skills than the average chimpanzee possesses - been there, done that - if you have vision and hands, and any connection at all between the two, you can produce assembly line products.) Is it any wonder that 2/3 of our "Big 3" automotive corporations are facing extinction when their average blue collar worker's wage and benefit package costs them an outrageous $81 per hour? Thank you United Auto Workers! I hope those tens of thousands of soon-to-be-unemployed UAW members put some of their money under their mattresses -there's a long period of unemployment ahead for most of them in this economy. Oh yes, and don't forget to keep paying those union dues to the people who helped you become unemployed - while you're out of work! I also hope that the State of Michigan (and several other states) has some serious unemployment benefit money set aside for them.

VAT is not even an American concept, much less a tradition. AVOID THE "EVERYTHING IS FREE" TRAP OF SOCIALISM! It is only free as long as most people are working to support it! And who is dumb enough to keep working to support people they don't even know?

Write, phone, email your elected representatives and demand that they not support any VAT proposal in the USA. What happens if we are given no choice, and VAT is forced upon us? The American Revolution was begun because of unfair and unwanted taxation... ask King George III how that worked out for him.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Being The First Choice Does Not Necessarily Make One The BEST Choice

"President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday." Thus read the headline... isn't that an oddly worded sentence from a "professional journalist". Will Sotomayor ultimately be appointed to the (apparently) newly-established "Hispanic Supreme Court"? And will this Hispanic Supreme Court only hear Hispanic cases? (History recorded the last Hispanic Supreme Court in the 1400's. It was led by a man named Tomas de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition.) Will the oral arguments before this court be presented in Hisp, instead of English?

Commenting upon her official nomination this morning, "My heart today is bursting with gratitude," Sotomayor said from the White House podium moments after being introduced by Obama.

Personally, I would have said something more like "My heart is bursting with pride." I checked Wal-Mart and Safeway to see what the per pound cost of Political Plums was today. Everlasting "gratitude" (and implied support) seemed to be the going price. The less competent the recipient of the Political Plum, the more gratitude was expected as payment. And we should certainly focus that political "blind eye" on the fact that Sotomayor is one of, if not the, most overturned federal judges by the Supreme Court.

As for the impartiality that one would expect from a justice of SCOTUS, here's what Sotomayor had to say about that a few years go: “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Sometimes it's a shame that we are a "nation of laws" instead of a nation of JUSTICE, as we once were... before the laws were made horrifically more complex by "learned and scholarly men". Men whose primary objective was to insure that, in time of legal difficulties, it would be necessary to retain the services of their associates!

Yeah... I could be wrong about this, but I seriously doubt it.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Iran's President Mahmoud I'manutjob Rejects Western Nuclear Proposal

That's real close to the way the Reuters headline read. What's going on in the world? Did somebody accidentally leave the doors unlocked at some of the world's larger Laughing Academies, and now the lunatics are running those countries? Mahmoud I'manutjob, Kim Jong-il, and Robert Mugabe... how's that for a trifecta? Luckily, North Korea (Kim) and Zimbabwe (Mugabe) are so broke they can't even pay attention.

The people of North Korea - other than the ruling party - are dependent upon foreign aid for their basic subsistence. The DPRK can't feed their own people, but they apparently have LOTS of money to spend on missile development programs. What's wrong with that picture?

Zimbabwe's rate of inflation surged to 3,731.9%, driven by higher energy and food costs, and amplified by a drop in its currency, official figures show. That is according to their own Central Statistical Office. The Cato Institute reports that as of November 2008, Zimbabwe’s monthy inflation rate was 79,600,000,000.00% percent. Their annual inflation rate was calculated to be 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000% - that's 89.7 Sextillion (1021) percent! It increases by 98.4% every 27 hours! The difference between them and the DPRK, is that the Zimbabwean government isn't a threat to anybody... except their own people. What has put them in this position? According to the BBC it was "driven by higher energy and food costs, and amplified by a drop in its currency, official figures show." What's concerns me about that is that it's the same path Obama is taking the USA down!

The last nutter, and quite possibly the most dangerous of the three, is the government of Iran. Iran's (public) leadership comes from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the real power is wielded from behind the scenes by the head religious fanatic - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The only "silver lining" I can find in that particular dark cloud, is my personal belief that Israel will not live in fear of one of their neighbors, and they will eliminate the Iranian's ablility to produce intermediate-range missiles and nuclear technology through preemptive military strikes.

There's an outside chance that I could be absolutely wrong about this... outside the realm of believability.

Gimme A Large Order of FREEDOM, And A Side of INDPENDENCE... TO STAY!

I was checking my email this morning when I noticed somebody had sent me a link to a YouTube video. My curiosity bested me, and I clicked on the link. The production was made in 1948, but it is SO TODAY! I thought to myself, "Everybody in the country should see this!" It impressed me enough to post the link here: (you will probably have to copy & paste the URL into your browser, since the link is not underlined or in blue)

There are some things in this world which appear to be timeless. This little video is one of those timeless things, and it's still appropriate 61 years later. Even more appropriate on our U.S. Memorial Day than most other days.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

REALITY BYTES! - aka: Things I've Thought About Recently

Or, reality BITES! Take your choice. It's your call, because it's your reality. I am aware that, more often than not, I tend to sound like the voice of doom in my blog. But, that's my reality, and it's the only reference point I have for my world. I do, from time-to-time, post the realities that others have shared with me, either directly (conversations, email, etc.) or indirectly (media reports, etc.). But, even then, what you see is my reality's take on their reality.

Although reality is an individual concept, nobody's reality is absolutely theirs... not if they live with or around other human beings. Our "personal realities" are colored by the society/culture in which we live, and begin at a chronological age that predates understanding. Those influences are parents, teachers, religious leaders, peers, tribal leaders/politicians, celebrities, media, and personal observations.

In a very general sense, the people of a given culture tend to share probably 85% (I just pulled that statistic out of my butt... hence the "probably") of a very similar personal reality. How widely and deeply the remaining 15% of their reality varies from the norm, determines how the individual is classified within that society. In some instances - people such as Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Rasputin, Adolf Hitler, and Mother Teresa - the individual deviation from the norm is so great that there is an historical record of it, and their accomplishments are known around the world.

In an attempt to ensure a homogeneous society, cultures establish centers of social indoctrination which we refer to as the "educational system". The purpose of the "educational system" is to indoctrinate the students in the expectations of the culture through modification of whatever "personal blueprint" the student may have been born with. For example, in the "educational" system of the USA, the indoctrination has been noticeably moving to the left for at least four decades. Prior to that, the shift to the left was more insidious - more clandestine. The result of that shift in indoctrination became most obvious with the election of an inexperienced, unvetted, junior senator from the corrupt Illinois political machine as the POTUS. The man who can say nothing better than anybody, easily mesmerized the majority of voters between the ages of 18 and 45 because they had been conditioned to accept empty promises from the left, and to believe that socialism is a good thing. (But, I must remind you once again - that is the perception from MY reality.)

Remember, that which we perceive as real is a function of how our mind processes information. Processing which has been influenced by those whose opinions and attitudes we respect, and our own previous life experiences. (Also, the mind is not a physical attribute - it is, itself, a function of electrical responses traveling through the circuitry of our synapses. What we call the "mind" is simply information processed, evaluated, and stored in compartments of the physical brain. A mind cannot exist independently of the brain. That would take an entire separate blog for me to discuss in detail.)

As I usually say... I could be completely wrong in my perception of reality... but then, so could you.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Where's The Birth Certificate?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again bring up the absence of an acceptable certificate of birth for Barak Hussein Obama. The following actions have been initiated, and most also resolved in some fashion, regarding this situation. The US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (Taken at face value, a candidate would have to be at least 222 years old to satisfy this particular requirement.)

  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

  • Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
As you can see, the only actions taken by federal courts thus far is to deny the plaintiffs their "day in court". This does not necessarily mean that these suits are groundless, it means that the federal court system, and the Congress of the United States, have "circled the wagons" in order to protect His Holiness the Democratic Socialist Messiah. The corrupt court system could easily be bypassed if Congress simply demanded irrefutable proof of citizenship. However, corruption runs both wide and deep in our government, and the likelihood of such an action being taken by our Democratically-controlled Congress is somewhere up there with pigs flying.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

"May You Live In Interesting Times" - ancient Chinese curse

Interesting times, indeed! Any point in time is "interesting" for somebody... whether they are struggling for their life, or fly fishing in a quiet stream. Interesting is a relative term - relative to humdrum or boring. Our present time is one I find quite interesting.

Among those things of interest to me are the troubles in the middle East, the world-wide recession, the election of a socialist as the President of the United States and his appointment of various incompetents to Cabinet posts, "swine flu"/H1N1 virus, what is essentially the nationalization of two-thirds of the US automotive industry and many of our financial institutions, and the preference a 2" long fish is given over the jobs of 80,000 farm workers - causing an immediate and critical shortage of American grown vegetables from California. Let's look at them one-by-one.

The middle East of which I write consists primarily of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and all the other, relatively calm, "flyover" countries in between.

Afghanistan has its own unique set of problems. For decades (perhaps centuries) Afghanistan's main cash crop has been heroin, and the leadership had been primarily Islamic fundamentalists. The paradox is that, even in a major narcotic producing country such as Afghanistan, drug abuse is illegal. And punishments for breaking their drug laws are much more Draconian than our own. Death is about as severe as a penalty can... get short of perhaps death by torture. Add to that problem a heavy influx of Western military personnel, bringing with them a perception (real or not) of invasion, and a reactive, militant Taliban, and you have a fine recipe for chaos! The intelligent thing for the Taliban to do? Sit quietly and do nothing. Sooner than later, the Western forces will depart, and then Aghanistan can go back to business as usual. Turn that blind eye toward the heroin poppy crops and drug "smuggling" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink), reinstate Sharia law, subjugate females again ... all the fun things of Islam.

Iraq gets the same recommendation: cool your heels until the West leaves, then complete your struggle for control against the democratically elected government. They will quickly fold, and you win! Why fight against a multinational force with superior technology, weaponry, and training. You have something they don't... the desire to be there! Leave them alone and they will get bored and go back to wherever they came from. They are not there to take over your country. Besides... who but you would want it? I see it as nothing more than a gigantic litter box!

Pakistan... what can I say about Pakistan? They're having some internal strife, caused by the Taliban in the Swat valley. They also seem to have the motivation, and the forces and necessary logistics ability, to deal with that strife. The West should just sit back and watch from afar, as the situation there develops. Let the Pakistanis decide their own destiny. If the government asks for assistance perhaps provide logistical support, but no "boots on the ground".

The real problem in the middle East is Iran. Perhaps not the people of Iran, but the mentally deranged leadership of Iran. Their "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and their religous leader - who is the actual power in Iran - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are two nuts from the same tree. First of all, they believe that Israel should be "wiped from the face of the Earth", which is a position that sounds pretty much non-negotiable right now. It's almost as if "Kill the Jews, and Death to The Great Satan (that's the USA)" has become their national motto. Add to that attitude, the fact that today, May 20th 2009, Iran announced the successful launch of a Sajjil-2 missile with approximately a 1,200-1,550 mile (2000-2500km) range, which can easily reach into Israel. Now, throw in Iran's unmonitored, super-secret nuclear program, and Israel has a genuine reason for concern. In the past, the surrounding Arab nations have discovered that Israel does not like surprises from outside their country. In fact, when it comes time for somebody to jump up and yell, "SURPRISE!!", it's the Israelis who prefer that role. It is not outside the realm of belief that, for some time, Israel has been busying themselves developing strategies to deal with just that type of situation before it becomes a problem for them. Can you say preemptive strike? History has shown that the Israelis don't start trouble where there is none - they specialize in ending those troubles!

And, speaking of surprises... did the world-wide recession come as a surprise to you? It caught me off-guard, for sure. Luckily, I have no personal investments, or at least no direct personal investments to watch evaporate. I'm sure my credit union has some going with my money, but I still feel that it's relatively safe, even though my money may be inflated more than the Goodyear blimp. For decades, The USA has been the world's largest consumer of those things we call "consumables". We have done our part! Our consuming of consumables made consumption by lesser consumers look miserly. So what happened? Unfortunately, I do not have even a tenuous grasp of international economics, so I can't make an educated guess. What I can do is provide this quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help small men up by tearing big men down.
4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
5. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish sound social security on borrowed money.
9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Since the 1940s these “Ten Points” attributed to Lincoln have been widely reprinted. They have appeared in such places as magazines, Christmas cards, and the Congressional Record. However, the Library of Congress and Lincoln scholars believe that any connection made between Lincoln and the “Ten Points” is spurious. On the other hand, they are "good ol' homespun, common sense" statements - the type for which Lincoln was known.

As for the President and his Cabinet appointments - what is, is! Sadly, the American people must now live (hopefully) with it. I find Obama's apparent lack of birth certification interesting...

"Swine flu"... SCARY! Well worth being aware of, but not worth putting oneself into panic-overdrive. It's interesting that there have been relatively few fatalities from the H1N1.

Nationalizing private industry and financial institutions is socialism at its finest! Next will be the unsuccessful attempts at firearms confiscation, control of food supplies by banning home gardens, rationing of fuels, national health care, etc. It will be interesting to see just how all that plays out.

Eliminating the critical irrigation system to the largest single produce-growing area of our country - California - to save a 2" long freshwater smelt! However, smelt are not naturally freshwater fish, but were introduced into the freshwater ecosystem by man! Isn't that interesting? Somebody needs to start a "SAVE THE HUMANS" campaign!

There is always a chance I could be wrong about this, but we certainly do live in "interesting times".

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Republican Named U.S. Ambassador to China

Barack Obama has picked Republican Jon Huntsman to serve as his China ambassador, in a move perceived by the GOP as 'smart'... and probably seen by the Democrats as 'absolutely brilliant'!

The grapevine has it that Huntsman is one of the front runners for the Republican nomination in 2012! What a great place to send your potential opposition - CHINA. Are you familiar with the old saying, "Out of sight, out of mind."? Royalty (and various other assorted Potentates) - such as HRH Barack Hussein Obama - have been exiling those who were threats to their power for thousands of years. True! If they couldn't have them killed, either by "unknown blackguards" (no pun intended), or accuse another politically dangerous foe of the crime, then they would simply dispatch them to a far off land... like CHINA.

I never said Obama wasn't smart... just that he's a post turtle, and that he doesn't have a clue about the depth of the water in which he is swimming. The problem is, that as he drowns in his own socialist ignorance, he will not let go of the country... and the USA will be drowned by him.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Obama At ASU Graduation

As you may already know, I am not a fan of Barack Obama. My personal belief is that he is not a proper leader for our republic - Obama's desired destination is socialism. He is a fine orator, and he has the ability to mesmerize his audience... as long as his teleprompter is functioning. But, an empty drum makes the most noise. He is our first black President, which is a singular achievement thus far in our nation's history. How he got to be so is another question entirely. There are unanswered questions about his true place of birth. There are questions about how many dead people voted for him in Illinois - and other states - through the fine efforts of ACORN. There are questions about his lack of demonstrated respect for Queen Elizabth II, of the United Kingdom, versus his overt display of great respect for leaders of Islamic and Arab nations.

Oddly enough, the thrust of this posting will be to defend Barack Hussein Obama. People had told me (and I found corroboration in several blogs) that Obama had said, "America sucks, capitalism sucks, and our military sucks." I listened to his entire speech online, and I did not hear anything even vaguely resembling those statements. It would take a high degree of listener inference to come away with those impressions. He even gave slightly glowing credit to those who serve in our military.

However, there was an undertone of socialist indoctrination throughout his speech. I quote:
"Graduates, it is now abundantly clear that we need to start doing things a little differently," he said, bedecked in graduate robes. "As a nation, we'll need a fundamental change of perspective and attitude. It is clear that we need to build a new foundation – a stronger foundation – for our economy and our prosperity, rethinking how we grow our economy, how we use our energy, how we educate our children, and care for our sick, and treat our environment." I can find nothing in that paragraph that is arguable. We do need to change all of those things. The real question is, in what direction?

Socialism does not work! This has been proven repeatedly throughout history. Our nation was not founded under socialism, nor did socialism transform the USA from a rebellious colony into a world leader in less than 200 years. Sooner or later you do "run out of other people's money". Socialism is anathema to everything this country was built upon and stood for... prior to January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day).

There are enough things obviously wrong with Barack Hussein Obama as President, that we do not need to concoct others through inference and innuendo. He is leading the USA to the destruction of our Constitutional Republic, instead of strengthening it.

I suppose I could be completely wrong about this... anybody got the weather report for Hell?

Friday, May 15, 2009

"Work" Is A Four Letter Word... For Some People

For others work is something they thrive upon, and for the vast majority it is something they do because it allows them to acquire those things upon which they put the label of "important". Work is what built our country. We didn't become the most advanced country in the world by sitting around doing nothing!

Those who thrive upon work put in extremely long hours - ten, twelve or more hours comprise their average workday - and many even take work home so they can continue to be productive on their days off. We call these people "workaholics". Some do it in hopes of getting a raise, a bonus, or a promotion. Some do it simply because they love what they do. They don't consider it work, per se... for them it's more of a paid hobby or a compensated entertainment.

However, the majority of working people hold down jobs. A job is more like something that one has to do (and most people are in jobs they can barely tolerate, much less enjoy) in order to do other things which they do enjoy. Among these enjoyable activities are things like eating, living indoors, providing for one's family, owning reliable transportation, meeting one's financial obligations, and being able to acquire the occasional "nice to have" item that does nothing more than please the owner. Although it may be drudgery to most, those who work jobs are the backbone of our country. There are a very limited number of executive positions in industry, and significantly more positions in various levels of management. But, for every executive and management position there are probably 100 or more jobs. Jobs are our economy!

The third category is what I lovingly refer to as the entitlement whores. These are the 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients, who do nothing except breed (to increase the size of their welfare check), and take up space on our planet. Prior to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and 1930s there was no such thing in the United States as "welfare". Everybody was entitled to the fruits of their labors - that, and nothing more. If you were down on your luck, relatives, friends and neighbors would do what they could to assist you in righting yourself again. Not by showering you with money... but by helping you to get productive and back on your feet again. Since the 1950s AFDC (Aid For Dependent Children) has become a family business for many Americans, passed on from one generation to the next. When money gets tight, just pop out a couple of more kids and you'll get a nice raise! That Gubmint housing doesn't cost much, and the Gubmint cheese is free. And you can trade most of those food stamps for liquor, cigarettes, and drugs. How sweet it is to live on somebody else's money!

How would I change the welfare system?
1. The first thing I would do would be to place limits on welfare for anybody who was physically and mentally capable of holding a job in a competitive working environment - much like unemployment compensation. Welfare would last no longer than 18 months, during which time job training and job placement assistance would be provided. Failure to complete training, or to accept a job offer would result in immediate termination of all welfare benefits. If living off the system isn't beneath you, then neither is a job shoveling manure.

2. Welfare would only be available once in a lifetime - unless, as verified by a state contracted physician, an incapacitating physical or mental injury developed. If they quit their job or get fired, they need to find another job before they get too hungry.

3. Arrest and conviction for any felony-level crime, posession or use of narcotics, DUII, or public intoxication would result in immediate termination of all welfare benefits.

4. Breeding is not considered a career. The first child may be on the system, but the second child would reduce the AFDC benefit by 33%, the third child would result in Child Protective Services removing all the children from the home and placing them in Foster Care. Parental rights would be terminated until such time as the parent finds employment suitable for sustaining a family of that size. The parent will be ineligible for further welfare benefits for life - unless, as verified by a state contracted physician, an incapacitating physical or mental injury developed.

My position is this: if you are capable of working and aren't working, then get a job! Don't expect the taxes, paid by those who work for a living, to support you! You aren't entitled to anything, except an opportunity to earn your way. I've been a taxpayer since I was 14 years old.

If you think I'm wrong about this, feel free to tell me why - but don't bother me with a bunch of whiny, emotional crap.

Expectations And Disappointments

For those of you visiting my blog for the first time, and for those of you who may not have figured it out yet, I offer the following caveats:

1. I do not create the news of the world. I do, however, live in the world.
2. I try not to repeat unsubstantiated rumors I may have stumbled upon.
3. As a sentient being, I do observe and analyze many of those things that happen in the world which I inhabit.
4. Through this blog, I do offer my analysis and opinions freely, and without reservation or apology.
5. As a rule, I try to present what I see as both sides of a given situation... whenever I can see a reasonably believable second side. And when I can't see one, I'll probably tell you why also.
6. Unfortunately, probably 95% of our mass media is slanted to present the publishers' political views ("You work for me, and you'll report what I tell you to report and how I want it reported."), and that's where our news comes from.
7. I do tend to be conservative, because I'm a product of a conservative culture... which was the USA of 60+ years ago.
8. I do not rewrite history - that which was, was. I accept history as mostly factual.
9. If you find my observations interesting and/or thought provoking, please leave a comment. If you don't find them interesting, remember this - nobody forced you to come here. Have a chuckle at what you may see as my naiveté (or even blind stupidity) as you leave.

I hope you enjoy your visit!

Monday, May 11, 2009

"U.S. Soldier In Iraq Shoots Dead Five Comrades"

A headline from today's Reuters News Service online edition, broadcasts that an Army Sergeant killed five other U.S soldiers at Camp Liberty, "a sprawling military base northeast of Baghdad airport that houses thousands of U.S. troops." The article goes on to say, "The soldier walked into a center for soldiers who are experiencing stress and opened fire, killing the five." A later television news report said that the Sergeant had his weapon taken away from him earlier in the day after an argument, but that he apparently found another one. Exactly where is the surprise in that accomplishment? A soldier in a combat zone, with thousands of other armed personnel around him, managed to access a weapon other than his own... SURPRISE! (As I continue, I will use the term "soldier" as all-inclusive - embracing Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force personnel.)

Where did the soldier do this? "A center for soldiers who are experiencing stress." The initial "guesses" are that he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. Ya THINK? Am I the first person to realize that not everybody, no matter how big and macho they seem, can wrap their mind around the stresses of prolonged combat. I think this is especially true of those who serve multiple tours in a war zone. Many members of our military services have literally "dodged the bullet", and many have also done it more than once.

Would it not be "normal" for a soldier to have a significant increase in apprehension each time he was reassigned to Iraq or Afghanistan? Some soldiers have served three or more tours in those areas of armed confrontation, and they can force themselves to perform the routine physical tasks required of them because those tasks are necessary to their survival. The body continues to function, even as the mind suffers - and in some cases the mind cracks - under the psychological weight of the things that soldier has had to do to protect himself and his friends. A normal person will reconcile those acts under the intellectual heading of "it was him or me", but how and where do those acts get reconciled emotionally... or do they?

Existing in a war zone is something that has to be experienced to be fully understood. The first thing a soldier has to come to grips with is that there is a very distinct possibility that he could be killed at any given instant 24 hours a day. Your first thought now is, "That's true everywhere, not just in a combat zone! I could get hit by a car crossing the street, or slip and fall in the bath, or an elephant could fall out of a tree and come crashing through my roof and kill me." The difference is that the car wasn't aimed at you, your bathtub didn't have a landmine in it, and the elephant was a ridiculous example you just made up to try to put me off my game. Violent, intentional, man-made death - the inhumanity of one person toward another, wantonly extinguishing the life of another human being that you don't even know - is not something we "civilized" folks easily accept on an emotional level, therefore we have to intellectualize it. Seeing human beings reduced to pieces and parts on a routine, day-to-day basis will eventually effect most psyches, the only difference is to what degree.

The other things a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan must deal with are blisteringly hot 140º summer days, spiders the size of a Frisbee, erratic mail from home, concerns about family, and all the other normal concerns that most people have. To the American soldier serving in that part of the world, sleeping in a tent is often considered a luxury. And, any day nobody that you knew was killed, is a better than average day.

Today at Camp Liberty, there were six victims. Five are dead, and one is at least temporarily lost... even to himself. The stressors were more powerful than was his ability to resist and reconcile them. Tonight six families grieve the result of an unexpected, unreasonable, and totally incomprehensible act, perpetrated by an American soldier against his brothers in arms.

In war there are no winners... the victor simply loses less than the vanquished... and second place doesn't get a red ribbon.

If It Waddles Like A Duck, And Quacks Like A Duck....

Here's our fearless leaders' latest plan to eliminate the elderly. From Reuters News Service, 5/11/09:

"By focusing on delivering more efficient care, Obama is weighing in on one of the least controversial aspects of his healthcare proposal rather than the much more heated topic of whether to establish a new public insurance plan.

A more efficient healthcare system would save the government money by reducing spending on the huge Medicare system, an existing program for older Americans." FOR WHICH WE PAY almost $100 per month, every month!

Reducing spending on Medicare results in reduced levels of care, which results in reduced life expectancy. I'm expecting to hear the announcement on TV and radio, requiring all persons over the age of 60 to report to the Soylent Green Biscuit Company for final processing!

My own doctor, who had been scheduling me to be seen by his office every 3 months, suddenly stopped scheduling me at all as soon as I reached 65 and became eligible for Medicare. This is our government saying, "Thank you for a lifetime of supporting your government... now, just go somewhere and DIE! Your continued existence is no longer producing significant income for the government."


If you want to cut back on medical costs, how about eliminating Medicaid for the entitlement whore adults. These freeloaders are less than uproductive, they are THE MAIN DRAIN on our tax base.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Ohio Teen Expects To Be Suspended For Trip To Prom

Thus reads the Associated Press headline, followed by:
"Sun May 10, 11:46 am ET

FINDLAY, Ohio – An Ohio teenager says he expects to be suspended from a Christian school for attending a public school prom with his girlfriend. Officials at Heritage Christian School in Findlay had warned 17-year-old Tyler Frost that he would be suspended and prohibited from attending graduation if he went to the Saturday dance. The fundamentalist Baptist school in northwest Ohio forbids dancing, rock music and hand holding..."

If Tyler has met the academic requirements for graduation, then there is no reasonable argument to deny him the graduation ceremony. The school can only deny him the activities of "dancing, rock music and hand holding" upon school grounds, as that is the limit of their authority over their students. In the real world, Tyler's rights are protected by our Constitution.

The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fouteenth Amendments. The First Amendment protects his right to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. If he chose to associate with somebody who did not follow his school's doctrinal teachings, it is his choice, and his right to do so. (The doctrine of most "Fundamentalist" religions - and, there are several besides Baptist fundamentalists - tends to be quite restrictive, in the belief that sacrificing certain "worldy ways" gets one closer to what Jesus the Christ desires of us, were he physically here to ask it of us. Which may explain the growth of the less demanding Evangelical Christian movement in the United States.) I am not a "Bible thumper", nor do I claim to be a theologian or a lawyer. I'm just a normal person trying to understand why things are the way they are. But, as best I can recall , nowhere in the Christian Bible is there a passage that reads; "Thou shalt not dance, listen to rock music, or hold hands."

Dancing, since time immemorial, has been an expression of joy and exhilaration. Are Christians not directed to express joy at the coming of their Savior and thanks for His sacrifice for them? Is music not a means to "make a joyful noise unto the Lord"? Where is it written that the only acceptable music is psalms? And, music inspires one to dance, thereby doubling the expression of joy! Holding hands is a physical expression of fellowship with another person or persons. Are Christians not encouraged by the Lord to join in fellowship?

However... (I hate it when I have to do this) the school has it's rules and requirements, but they are only enforceable by the school within the boundaries of the school. The boy has apparently met all the Ohio State academic requirements for graduation - let him graduate with his class. If the school has a doctrinal grievance against him, then let them - through the church - disfellowship Tyler. Or, perhaps Tyler could ask for dispensation and Christian forgiveness for being a young American exercising his God-given rights.

This is an excellent example of where, when and how, Church and State should definitely be separated. A church supported school, teaching state approved curricula for secondary education, has one overriding, principal function: to provide sufficient education to allow their students to meet the minimum state requirements for graduation. Doctrinal issues should not be a consideration in education unless the student is attending a theological seminary.

There is a distinct possibility I could be wrong about this... does my personal position seem extreme in either direction to you?

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Student Wins Suit Against Anti-Creationist Teacher

I just heard on Fox News that a California student has won a lawsuit against one of his teachers for violating the students First Amendment rights. This is a court decision about which I have mixed feelings.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech, thought, and expression, as the founders of our nation obviously were - that's why they made it the First Amendment! I don't know that there's anything in the First Amendment that could be interpreted to mean that one would never have to hear opinions with which they disagreed. However, as an individual, the teacher supposedly has the same First Amendment protections guaranteeing freedom of speech, thought, and expression.

In this case though, the teacher, in his official work capacity, is an authority figure representing the school district in which he teaches. The school district generally establishes curricula, and they normally require lesson plans to reflect those educational goals. I don't believe that our primary and secondary educational institutions are the proper venue for teachers to express their personal opinions, unless they preface their remarks with a statement similar to, "This is my personal opinion, and...", and then encourage discussion during and/or after they present their point of view. They must be ready to logically defend their position without ridiculing their students opinions.

The purpose of a lesson plan is to ensure, as best we can, that information is imparted to the student in a consistent manner within the state educational system. Without strict guidelines, the learning (or indoctrination) process would be even more chaotic than it is currently! The expression of the authority figure's (the teacher) personal viewpoint, without inviting ridicule-free discussion, is where the unauthorized indoctrination takes place (as opposed to the officially sanctioned indoctrination).

I don't believe in bashing anybody's Judeo-Christian belief system, as it has a history of over 2,000 years of world wide support. And, the last place to attack any individual's belief system - or even their choice not to believe - is in the public school classrooms! Our tax dollars are ostensibly spent for education, not indoctrination!

On the other hand, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed more... the student or the teacher? As I see things, neither is more guaranteed or more protected under the First Amendment, but one is more appropriate. So, my question to those few intrepids who actually read my blog is this, "Which one, and why?" Think about it.

You never know, I could be entirely wrong about this... and Obama could ocassionally publicly acknowledge that equal part of him which is white. The odds of either of these being realistic possibilities are about the same.................

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

An Objective, Unemotional Look At "Hate Crimes"

Another attempt was made today, by our Congress, to expand protections for a specific minority group. A bill was presented to extend these "special protections" to include PEDOPHILES. Now, of all the categories of persons gaining the "special protections" of hate crimes legislation, pedophiles are probably the least deserving. But, that's not really my point tonight.

As I have said before, there are already laws in place for the identification, apprehension, prosecution, and punishment for all crimes against persons, property, and humanity. And these are the true crimes. Crimes in which something physically palpable occurred. There is a provable fact involved in all those crimes and, usually, an identifiable loss of some kind.

"Hate Crimes", in most cases are currently connected to another provable crime, but they try to punish the miscreants state of mind, or attitude toward a specific minority group to which the victim may belong. Crimes involving physical aggression against persons are seldom committed out of a sense of love, or even mild fondness. The criminals thoughts regarding the victim's race, religion, sexual preference, how he parts his hair, or what color shoes she was wearing are now punishable.

Inasmuch as our government seems determined to codify "hate crimes", I would suggest the term "hate crime" be restricted to actions which cause neither physical injury nor loss of/damage to private or public property. Those are crimes for which we already have remedies at law.

"Hate crimes" would be actions, which because of their intensity, are readily perceived as designed to cause severe emotional distress or fear of injury or death. These types of "hate crimes" could be classified into three progressively punitive categories (i.e. - infraction, misdemeanor, or felony) to identify the severity of the violation. For example:

1. First offense racial/ethnic slurs would be considered infractions, with minimal sentences (public service, fines and/or work release confinement [spending all hours other than employment hours in jail] not to exceed 5 days). Subsequent offenses would increase punishments or move them up to the next higher tier (infraction to misdemeanor, or misdemeanor to felony). Records would be expunged after 5 years if there were no subsequent arrests for any "hate crime".

2. First offense spitting upon or throwing of non-injurious matter (tomatoes, marshmallows, Nerf balls, etc.), without direct physical contact, or racial, ethnic, religious or sexual graffiti could be classified as a misdemeanor "hate crime", if combined with qualifying epithets. (Punishments to be decided by smarter people than I.) Subsequent offenses would increase punishments or move them up to the next higher tier.

3. First offense cross burning, effigy hanging, burning of the AMERICAN FLAG, etc. would be classified as a felony "hate crime". Subsequent offenses would increase punishments.

Also, anyone assaulted during the commission of any "hate crime" should have no legal recourse against the intended "victim". If ones goal is to anger or install fear in other people, and it works to the extent they come after him/her, the hater brought it upon himself. At the worst it should be classified as "mutual combat", which is generally punished by a severe butt-chewing form the judge, with the admonition of "Don't do that again!"

These are just examples of how I think "hate crimes" should be managed by law enforcement and the judiciary, since it appears that we are being forced to have laws against "hate crimes", and providing special protections (as opposed to equal protection) under the law. But, let's not piggyback a "hate crime" onto a real crime! (Punishments to be decided by smarter people than I.)

I suppose I could be wrong about this... or I could be wrong in that supposition!

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Dissent Not Permitted: The Assault on Our First Amendment Rights

A quick review of Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America reveals the intent of our Nation's founders was very straightforward:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphases added for clarification)

Now, let's play the Bill Clinton game... "it depends on what abridge means". Here we go:

transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
abridged; abridg·ing
Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at
14th century
1 archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish 2: to shorten abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense
synonyms see shorten

Now that we all know the human definition of "abridged" (as opposed to the expectedly complex and mind-boggling legalese definition) we can proceed.

The abridging of our "freedom of speech" began ever-so-innocently with what was humorously referred to as "political correctness", or PC. To be politically correct meant that certain long established phrases were now considered insensitive, and we could no longer use honest, straightforward language to express our thoughts. We could no longer "call a spade a spade", as it was now more PC to call it a manually operated entrenchment device. While we're on that subject, let's look at the etymology, or origins, of that particular phrase - to "call a spade a spade":
spade (1)
"tool for digging," O.E. spadu, from P.Gmc. *spadon (cf. O.Fris. spada, M.Du. spade, O.S. spado, M.L.G. spade, Ger. Spaten), from PIE *spe- "long, flat piece of wood" (cf. Gk. spathe "wooden blade, paddle," O.E. spon "chip of wood, splinter," O.N. spann "shingle, chip"). To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans)
It means to use blunt language - a definition that was established over 450 years ago! The racially charged, derogatory use of the word didn't come about until 1928, and today, most people still understand the phrase to mean use blunt language. As laughable as we may find the implied necessity to use idiotic euphemisms to express honest thoughts, it was the beginning of the assault on free speech. However, that assault is only in effect toward those who disagree with positions of the radical left-wing liberals.

Speaking of radical left-wing liberals... Supreme Court Justice Souter has announced his plans to retire from "The Bench", and B. Hussein Obama is considering about eight frothing-at-the-mouth radical lefties as Souter's replacement. Among these are Hillary Clinton (no additional comment necessary), four actual sitting judges at various levels of the judiciary, and the lesser-known Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's claim to fame is that he's an "old friend" of Obama's, and a notoriously left-wing but "brilliant constitutional law professor".

There's an old saying, "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach." This brilliant constitutional law professor is considered "brilliant" primarily because he's far left politically, and has an unusual view of the First and Second Amendments. Sunstein has been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership, a ban on hunting, animal rights and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet! According to Sunstein "the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing." Excuse me, but where is it written that the Internet is supposed to be "democratic"? You can link all the opposing opinion sites "until the cows come home", that doesn't mean anybody would click on them... or would that be mandatory surfing behavior also? The word is FREEDOM! Freedom of speech, of expression, of thought, and of action (within the law) even if others believe the manner in which you choose to exercise those freedoms to be insensitive, or otherwise wrong (i.e. - not PC). That's what "freedom" IS - the right of the individual to CHOOSE!

Here's another example of Sunstein's brilliant wisdom - "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Apparently he has redefined the word "democratic" to exclude any and all thought outside the left-wing box. If it weren't FOR those freedom's he so cavalierly discredits, there would be NO democratic process in our REPUBLIC!

Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views. Here are a few more examples of Sunstein's "brilliance":
  • In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

  • In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."

  • In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"

  • In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."
The radical left has long desired to silence those with opposing viewpoints. They present themselves as "the tolerant ones", but they only tolerate that with which they agree! What exactly have they attacked? Anything in conflict with their world view. Religion, via "hate speech" legislation, which equates the quoting of the Scriptural detestation of homosexuality as "hate speech" - which is a matter they should take up with God instead of the Legislature. They attack "freedom of the press" when that freedom is extended to include all media reportage. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or any media reflecting the expression of conservative thoughts, principals, or ideals. They attack freedom of expression by attempting to marginalize activities such as the recent nationwide Tax Day Tea Party - with well over one million participants - as "Republican backed", and "radical extremists that bear close watching", and "the uneducated masses blindly serving the interests of big money". These are descriptive phrases denoting their FEAR! The left FEARS opposition, simply because their emotional arguments have no basis in a realistic world view, and are too weak to withstand intelligent, objective scrutiny.

I still support freedom of the press, regardless of the fact that 95% of the media are biased toward the left. The news is no longer reported. It's manufactured, or otherwise modified, by the left-wing publishers who require their "reporters" to insure that any story with political implications has the proper "I own this company, and you work for me" slant. I hope (against hope) that someday they will see the error of their ways, but it is not likely.

The thirst for power is the great motivator. Gaining personal power through the use of increasingly powerful connections. Personal, political and business connections that are untiringly networked toward the goal of high degrees of personal influence within a society. That "society" can be anything from a small commune to an international society - the level at which the leaderships of nations ostensibly operate.

The media has power over what information, and in which manner, it is delivered to the people. The leaderships of churches, synagogues, and mosques have power over influencing how people think about questions of morality, and their beliefs in obedience to whatever deity that particular entity supports. The public school boards have power over the primary and secondary "education" (read: social indoctrination) of the vast majority our children. Power feeds their greed. Yes, greed is a strong word, but it exists in most of us. Almost all people, of almost all modern societies, are acquisition oriented. For many, it is simply the acquisition of the basic necessities for sustaining life. For others it is how they gain the respect - and in some cases the adulation - of their peers, and the confused fear of those significantly "beneath them" in the social hierarchy. And for still others, power is reflected in big homes, fancy cars, expensive designer clothing, television appearances, magazine interviews - anything which that person feels is an outward sign of significant success, and may attract other like-minded people to their side, is power.

If we sit silently as our Constitution is marginalized, minimized, ignored and obstructed, we deserve whatever the outcome may be... and it won't be the least bit enjoyable!

There is a remote chance that I could be wrong about this ... any thoughts?