Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The White House announced Monday that Obama would arrive in Copenhagen on Friday, just before Chicago makes its formal presentation to Olympics officials who are also considering Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro. A decision is expected later that day, within hours of Obama's appearance. (This sounds like a barely justifiable political junket. Could it be driven by the fact that Obama presently owns a home within walking distance of the proposed Olympic Stadium?)
No previous U.S. president has made such a trip on behalf of a city vying to host the Olympics. (The USA has hosted 8 modern Olympic Games since 1900, all without the intervention of a Pimp-Daddy President.)
The visit is a gamble for Obama. He will be leaving Washington with thorny foreign and domestic issues unresolved, and risks looking diminished if Chicago's bid falls short." (Gee... while he's in Denmark he won't even be able to vote "present" in the USA.)
What happened to the dignity that has always been associated with the Office of the President of the United States of America? Or perhaps this is payback for the support of all the corrupt politicians and political supporters in Illinois? Where is the benefit for the nation-at-large (as opposed to simply benefiting Obama's cronies in/around Chicago)? Anybody care for a PLUM?
Monday, September 28, 2009
As I matured, and - hopefully - gained in wisdom, I have come to appreciate that which I learned under the tutelage of Miss Pease (my 1st grade teacher and first love), Mr. Robert Twitty (my 7th grade science teacher and assistant principal), and Ms. Clark (my 9th grade speech and drama teacher). After completing elementary school I was not a particularly responsive student during the rest of my basic education. (As I recall, I attended 5 different schools, and at the time took some satisfaction in "holding out" on the system. It was undoubtedly true that the only person I was hurting by coasting was myself... but, like most teenagers, I was the smartest person I knew. Also like most teenagers, I lacked sound judgment, which I demonstrated by "cheating the system" out of being dazzled by my genius.)
In the mid-1960's there developed an educational philosophy of augmenting (which immediately became replacing) increase of student knowledge with increasing feelings of self-worth... and this was before anybody had even heard of Dr. Phil. For a child to be labeled a failure was damaging to his/her ego, and was to be avoided at all costs!
TO THE AGE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
As a result, the United States has slipped from world leadership in education, to somewhere around number three or four in science and mathematics. We have even dropped in our functional literacy rate... we have young people graduating from high school who can't read their diploma easily! What do we excel in? Texting, cell phone usage, XBox, PSP, long-boarding and substance abuse! These "abilities" are all absolutely worthless in the workplace.
CORRECTING A FAILING SYSTEM
On the other hand, students do need some free time to recharge. Sitting in a classroom all year long, for eight to ten hours a day, and then having homework would not be conducive to the good mental health of students. Children need some time to interact with their family members and peers to develop social skills. An eight hour class day, six days a week, for forty-six weeks with limited homework during the school year would probably be sufficient for us to recover the human resources we have crippled during the past fifty years... by 2040.
We do not need to be Draconian in educating our children, but we do need to return to the basics, restore a higher standard, and require our system to provide more student motivation.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
(to the tune of "Teddy Bears Picnic")
If you go down to D.C. today
You’re sure of a big surprise.
If you go down to D.C. today
You’d better go in disguise.
For ev’ry nut that ever there was
Will gather there for certain, because
Today’s the day the socialists have their picnic.
Ev’ry socialist who’s been good
Is sure of a treat today.
There’s lots of marvelous stimulus
And bailout games to play.
Beneath the dome where nobody sees,
They’ll plead and beg as long as they please
That’s the way the liberals get their health care.
Picnic time for socialists
The little socialists are having a lovely time today
Watch them, catch them unawares
And see them legislate your job away.
See them gaily gad about
They'll throw our borders out;
They never have any cares;
At six o’clock the unions and lob’yists
Will buy their ev’ry vote,
Because they’re good little socialists.
If you go down to D.C. today
You’d better not go alone.
The left is running D.C. today
You may as well stay at home.
Don’t read that bill just sign it instead
It’s dark and stinks where they have their head,
Today’s the day the liberals have their picnic.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
- You oppose "abortion on demand"
- You are a returning veteran
- You oppose same-sex "marriage"
- You oppose unreasonable restrictions on the legitimate ownership of firearms
- You oppose lax (or eliminating) immigration laws
- You oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
- You oppose continuation of "free trade" agreements
- You are suspect of foreign regimes (you know - like those people who want us DEAD)
- You fear communist regimes (or fear that our country is being converted to one)
- You oppose a "One World" government (or a gigantic global dictatorship)
- You bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world (should it be a cause for celebration?)
- You are upset over the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China, India and others (isn't outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries, while we have 15,000,000 unemployed U.S. citizens, something worth being a bit "upset" over? Perhaps we need to outsource our government in order to get their attention!) and...
- You will be labeled a "domestic terrorist" if you disagree with the left-wing, socialist-"progressives" on any issue. Dissent, by anyone other than themselves, is not permitted in their world.
Remember a few months ago, when the Department of Homeland Security issued its now infamous report "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists?
It warned of potential terrorism threats from those who:
Oppose abortion (and why should we support abortion on demand?)
Are returning veterans (how many acts of domestic terrorism have they committed?)
Oppose same-sex marriage (as has more than 2,000 years of worldwide tradition)
Oppose restrictions on firearms (unreasonable restrictions must be opposed)
Oppose lax immigration laws (rigid enforcement of existing immigration laws would be good)
Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs (the Chief Domestic Terrorist's policies are socialistic, and therefore should be opposed)
Oppose continuation of free trade agreements (how are we benefiting from those agreements?)
Are suspect of foreign regimes (well, DUH! Many foreign regimes wish the USA harm in some fashion - economic, political or physical. Envy and jealousy come in many forms.)
Fear Communist regimes (again... DUH! We have spent decades defending against the deleterious effects of communism! We do not need communism in our government.)
Oppose a "one world" government (Give me ten objective, non-socialistic reasons why we should accept a "one world government". Sounds extremely Orwellian to me!
Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world (and we should be joyful about that?)
Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and others (with 15 million unemployed workers in this country - who have been forced to transition from taxpayer to tax burden - why shouldn't we be upset with the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to foreign countries? Perhaps if we outsourced the jobs of the House of Representatives and Senate the legislative branch of our government might see the situation with the same seriousness that John Q. Public sees it!)
The list seems to include anyone whose memories of a better America are in direct conflict with the Chief Domestic Terrorist's vision of a "better America". Their definitions of what constitutes a "better America" could not be further apart, nor could they be less reconcilable.
Only the new warning, not issued by the DHS, was delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, and is now lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers.
The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center - a politically-based, radical left-wing organization - where officials stated it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC is a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization), which has no more legitimate standing than any individual citizen to issue such a document warning law enforcement agencies about anything! But, the SPLC does fear the conservative silent majority... as do all left-wing organizations and movements. Their only hope for success in the destruction of the Republic is to demonize conservative thought - which is understandable coming from those who support the concept of "Thought Police".
Conservative actor Chuck Norris addressed the issue in a discussion of the 9/12 rally in Washington, where hundreds of thousands of people assembled to protest uncontrolled spending by government and its interference in individual lives.
"On Sept. 12, 2002, we sought to protect our nation against terrorists from without. Beginning on Sept. 12, 2009, we are seeking to protect our nation against enemies of our republic from within. Many of us are protesting the present political direction of Washington. Outrageous borrowing, excessive bailouts, massive spending, speedball stimulus plans … swings toward socialism are just a few of things that were protested that day. Of course, economics is far from America's only problem, as large as it appears to loom," Norris wrote.
"I want to emphasize: this revolutionary movement is not solely an independent, Republican or Democrat fight. It represents patriots fed up against modernists who seek to overturn almost every principle and tenet laid down by our country's founders at the inception of our republic. From the East Coast to the 'Left Coast,' America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government," he said.
"Conservative" and "actor" are terms that I usually find to be mutually exclusive, so Chuck stands within a relatively small circle within a very large group of otherwise radical, left-wing socialists. For that reason, and that reason alone, I generally take little note of anything emanating from the mouths of socialistic Hollywood (who, by the way, are the major beneficiaries of our capitalistic system as it now exists! Where, other than in a free-market, capitalist society could the likes of Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand and George Clooney demand - and get - millions of dollars for a few weeks of "work"?) Norris, on the other hand, has a good grasp of what our Constitution means to the freedoms we all enjoy - including those who wish so desperately to change it!
Although I cannot find any specific number for retired military and ex-military personnel, I feel safe in estimating their numbers to be several millions. Several millions who took the following "Oath of Office":
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Nowhere in that oath is an expiration date, and those who took the oath are honor-bound to it. "Support and defend the Constitution" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" makes no exceptions for a government gone astray. The oath is to "support and defend the Constitution,"... not the President, Congress, Judiciary or government-at-large! It is the Constitution which guarantees us our God-given rights and freedoms, NOT the government.
Keep your eyes and ears open for the arrival of the "Spirit of '76" in your city. They already made their presence peacefully known in Washington D.C. on September 12th, 2009. The question now is - "Did our present misdirected government even take notice?"
I do not possess the gift of prophecy, but I do possess the power of observation. That which I have recently been observing is very disturbing, and I am resolved that when the time for observation is supplanted by the call to action, others will find it even more disturbing.
Friday, September 25, 2009
A Jordanian youth accused of plotting to commit jihad by blowing up a 60-story Dallas landmark was polite, soft-spoken and stoic Friday as he appeared before a federal magistrate.
Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19, waived his right to a detention hearing and was assigned a court-appointed attorney during the 20-minute hearing before U.S. Magistrate Irma C. Ramirez.
This is fresh news, as of today - September 25th 2009.
You can find the complete story at (copy-n-paste):
Perhaps if ICE had been more motivated, rather than demotivated by the Campeon-Ramos fiasco (Border Patrol agents imprisoned for doing their job), this would not have happened. If the left-wing, bleeding-heart liberals get their way, our borders will be dissolved, and everybody - including terrorists - will be allowed unchecked entry into our country. What is wrong with those lefties? Open borders will have the U.S. looking like Baghdad... only with less security!
The better-known of the two songs being taught to these children is the one sung to the tune of "Jesus Loves the Little Children", where Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama." The lesser-known song follows this paragraph, with my comments in parentheses. (Such glorification/deification of a human being reminds me of something that takes place daily in Communist China and Communist North Korea... enforced leader-worship.) Here's song number two...
"Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!" (Great accomplishments? Name ten... or five............ three?)
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one! (And your job performance is number two!)
The first black American to lead this great nation! (Black? Did he only have ONE parent? As I recall from art and science classes, a mixture of black and white produces gray.)
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again! (By nationalizing health care and the automotive industry, increasing the national debt, and devaluing the U.S. dollar? I can't wait to see him pull the rabbit out of the hat...)
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you! (A few are... for some obscure and unknown reason)
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue! (No... you only stand for those Americans who can't see what's happening right under their collective nose!)
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick (Now we're back to the "rabbit out of the hat" thing, and the Grand Finale will be to make the Democratic Republic of the United States of America disappear.)
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!"
In a statement, New Jersey Education Department spokeswoman Beth Auerswald said the commissioner has directed the school's superintendent to review the matter. Auerswald said the commissioner wants to ensure that students can celebrate Black History Month without "inappropriate partisan politics in the classroom."
That sounds appropriate to me! But, just out of curiosity, how does one celebrate "Black History Month" without the inclusion of references to Little Black Sambo, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the slave trade, and the formation of the KKK. All are primarily depictions of negative experiences in black history, but they are, nonetheless, a part of black history. I guess liberal revisionist history will have to suffice...
I could be wrong about the way I see this whole thing, but not at this point in time.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
These words were uttered by none other than B.O. himself, at the annual U.N. General Assembly gathering, to the representatives of 190 nations of the world. The same Barack Obama who recently finished his "Blame America First/Apology World Tour". Perhaps others in the world would be less inclined toward criticizing the United States, if our own president hadn't taken every opportunity since his inauguration to enthusiastically point the finger of blame at us!
The bought-and-paid-for world media obviously lacks the courage to use the word hypocrite when describing our "leader". Perhaps in the eyes of the media, "hypocrite" is too direct, too blunt, or too honest to describe the words of a man who says a certain thing and then chastises and cautions the rest of the world not to say those same things? How can we be more PC in our description of this "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy? Where did the president "misspeak"? Was it during his personal criticisms of the United States of America, as he traveled the globe osculating the derrieres of other national leaders... or, was it at the U.N. General Assembly meeting, where he found fault with others who may have pointed out areas in which they thought we needed some improvement? It really makes no difference, the concept is the same.
To blame others, for that which you yourself have done, is the epitome of hypocrisy! Did Obama say what he initially said during his world tour simply to impress other leaders with how understanding he is of their animosity/hatred/jealously toward the U.S. without believing it himself? Or, did he caution the 190 member states of the United Nations against finding fault with the U.S. without believing it himself? A hypocrite is a hypocrite! It's also very difficult to vote "present" as the President of the United States of America. The president cannot be seen as vacillating on the issues - domestic or international. He is expected to be decisive. Obama's administration is - just as he promised - transparent. I can see right through it and evaluate it for what it truly is... and I don't like it!
You can put lipstick on a political appointee, or a tax supported NGO like ACORN, but it's still POLITICAL PORK!
If you think I could be wrong about this, you have either forgotten how to think, or you have been so mesmerized, so brainwashed by Obama's oratorical skills, that he now tells you what to think. As Euripides said, "A man is known by the company he keeps." Open your eyes and look at Obama's cabinet and Czar appointments. The vast majority of those presidential appointees are, unsurprisingly, left-wing, socialist-progressive, death-to-America radicals.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
For some inexplicable reason, while still in college he began pursuing a career in politics (I must have erred in my assumption that his parents were married when he was born), serving first as an intern for Congressman Glenn Browder. Having mastered the art of osculating the gluteus maximus, he enjoyed upward mobility as a campaign worker, and progressed through a series of little known Congressmen and lesser Senators before joining, in 2003, John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign as press secretary. Gibbs joined Barack Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign as communications director in mid-April 2004, and remained with the senator through the first two years of Obama's term. Gibbs is credited with guiding Obama through those first years and molding his rise on the national scene. According to the New York Times, Gibbs advised Obama on politics, strategy and messaging, and spent more time with Obama than any other adviser.
Has it struck anybody (besides me) that, when it comes to public speaking, Gibbs is the verbal antithesis of Obama? Gibbs "talent" as a communicator apparently lies in his ability to create written documents, since his demonstrated verbal skills are second only to Mel Tillis! He has hemmed, hawed, mumbled and stumbled his way through every briefing he has held when questions were allowed. The boy has a mind like a steel trap... that was left out in the rain too long. Luckily for him it is easy to get to and from work each day... the short bus stops right in front of his house, and the White House. If he has a sliver tongue, it is unfortunately connected to a lead brain.
Obama does nothing without a reason... perhaps he appointed little Bobby Gibbs as the White House Press Secretary because he makes Obama's explanations of weak-minded policies look just that much better! Another political plum presented as repayment for loyalty rather than as recognition of talent and ability (Idiots, morons and boobs - OH MY!).
Of course, this is just the way I see things, and that doesn't necessarily make the preceding right... or wrong.
First of all "I think" is an overstatement. Jimmy rarely thought when he was occupying the White House, and now that he's 85 years old he probably he likes to think he's thinking. As for his statement that there is "intensely demonstrated animosity toward Barack Obama"... the old man has apparently forgotten what the word "intensely" means. Jimmy needs to look back at the Democrats constant attacks on President George W. Bush during Gee Dubbya's last term to get the true meaning of "intensely demonstrated animosity". The only part Carter got right was that Barack Obama is President (Rosalynn Carter probably had to remind him of that). Obama is not "a black man", he is a gray man. Obama is an equal mix of the black and white races - who has elected to identify with - and emphasize - only with that portion of his genetic makeup which is black. (Being black, combined with his ability to say nothing meaningful better than most people, is, after all, the thing which got him elected. It was his "hook", his gimmick, which he played very well against the guilt many white people have been carrying around for decades. His campaign was essentially saying to the country, "Prove to the world that you aren't racists - elect Barack Hussein Obama - a totally unqualified black man - as the next President of the United States of America!") And, finally, there's the "African American" claim. His father was an African national, and his mother was an American national. I will concede the "African" part, but it takes more than simply being born in the USA to be an American. Part of being an American is having pride in America, its history, its culture, its constitution, and its singularly unique accomplishment of having gone - in a scant 200 years - from l'enfant terrible (a rebellious infant) to world leadership. This is an achievement that heretofore had taken other nations a thousand years - or more - to accomplish... an achievement that most nations failed to accomplish even with a thousand year head start. One does not show pride in their country by traveling the globe apologizing for that country. One does not demonstrate pride in their country by rejecting its culture. And, one does not show pride in one's country by diverting it from the path of success, or by belittling, ignoring, or attempting to change it's Constitution! There are not enough voters of color in the USA to have elected Barack Obama as president if every one of them voted several times. It was those "racist" white Americans who carried Obama into the White House.
Can we not dislike Obama simply because his only qualification for office of President is that he carried the majority of the popular vote (many of whom are now regretting that decision)? Obama is a professional politician with less than 180 days in the U.S. Senate, who voted "present" over 90 percent of the time (thereby avoiding any real commitment to anything), and spent twice as many taxpayer paid days campaigning for president as he did fulfilling his duties in the Senate! Can we not demonstrate animosity toward any man (or any Congress) whose policies would destroy our financial system? Is it wrong that we feel uncomfortable with a President who has a documented history of association with terrorists, and intentionally surrounds himself with tax cheats, avowed Communists, Marxists, Maoists and other assorted socialists and revolutionaries in an effort to change our system of governance from a Democratic Republic to a dictatorship? Is it wrong that patriotic Americans are both embarrassed and angered by a President who displays a general disdain for the people and the nation over which he presides? If the best plan he can come up with is, "We will spend our way out of bankruptcy!", do we not have the right to voice our displeasure at such arrogant ignorance? America may need a few little "tweaks" to correct some minor flaws... but it does not need to be re-engineered from the ground up!
If you think there's any chance I could be wrong about this... think again! Your brain is probably as atrophied as Jimmy Carters...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The dictionary defines freedom as: "1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the capacity to exercise choice; free will". Freedom is an intrinsic value in that it does have worth in and of itself, and there can be no price tag upon a philosophical construct. I believe that - from infancy - human beings have a desire to exercise freedom. I also believe that from the moment of birth, our social environment does everything it can to prevent us from being truly free. We are "free" only so long as we function within certain, written and unwritten social guidelines, unless we live alone... on an otherwise deserted island. Living within a society requires that we learn the culture and customs of that society, and our indoctrination begins shortly after birth. Many of these customs have become rules, which our society calls laws. For breaking a written rule/law there are prescribed punishments which vary depending upon the socially perceived seriousness of the offense. How free do you feel?
Independence is defined as - "The state or quality of being independent; freedom from dependence; exemption from reliance on, or control by, others; self-subsistence or maintenance; direction of one's own affairs without interference." Once upon a time, Americans were highly independent, both individually and as a national body. There was a certain, limited amount of interdependence - from the time of the pilgrims until the mid-20th century. During colonial era, time were hard and resources were limited. Settlements were small and necessarily close-knit, and the need for interdependence was high in the areas of food production and settlement security. Neighbors helped neighbors... not because of some mandate from the King or some appointed Governor, but because they "were all in it together", and individual successes were the keystone to group successes, and there was safety in numbers. This social kinship continued through the American Revolution, the American Civil War (naturally restricted to being kept within the geographical boundaries of the land areas [North-South]occupied by the combatants). As the country expanded westward during the 1800's and western territories were populated by pioneers, the established eastern states were considered the production centers of the U.S.A., a distinction they maintained until the 20th century. Unfortunately, the latter half of the 20th century was when things began to change. For the most-part, through the 1950's neighbors still watched out for neighbors, although some deterioration of this cultural trait was beginning to be felt in the major metropolitan areas, like New York, Atlanta, Detroit Dallas and Chicago. If the Jones kid was being a little jerk, Mister or Missus Smith would "give him what for", and then insure that his parents were informed at the earliest possible time. People still went to town and left the windows of their home open in the summer, and didn't make a habit of locking their doors at any time of the day or night. Rarely would an automobile be found locked. Why? Because they knew that somebody in the neighborhood was paying attention to what went on, and that person wasn't the least worried about "getting involved". The moral and social decay within the US began in the 1960's with the "drug culture". Suddenly many people either didn't know their neighbors, or knew them too well and opted not to associate with them. The trust was lost - only to be replaced by suspicion and fear. And, with the loss of trust, the neighborly bond was also broken. What was good, and had worked so well for the neighborhood, was replaced by the "ME generation". The question went from "What can I do to help you?" to "What's in it for me if I help you?" Nonetheless, I still believe that human beings are born with a desire for independence, but in many cases that person is ridiculed by their peers - "Whatchoo mean you wanna J.O.B.? Fool, you can be supported by the gubmint and not have to hit a lick!". In many other
instances people are born into a "welfare family" and lose whatever ambitions they may have had to become independent. Today, the welfare community grows by leaps and bounds, as the tax base supported by those who are employed - and actually work for a living - shrinks. Can you understand how eventually we will wind up with many more "grasshoppers" than the "ants" can support? Yet our government continues to spend tax money supporting the indolent, thereby forcing us ever closer to becoming a socialist country. Socialism works... until you run out of other people's money. Are you truly independent... or are you a part of the problem?
We cannot call ourselves "independent" when we desire, request and expect the government to take care of all our needs.
Our freedoms and our independence are being leeched away, and the general population doesn't even seem to notice... or perhaps they just don't care. Either condition is deplorable.
(I shortened this posting substantially, so I could turn my attention to a more serious issue facing America. Don't touch your dial... )
Sunday, September 13, 2009
There is an email currently being circulated (again?) claiming, among other things:
This is UNTRUE!
First of all, there is no such group as "Americans For Freedom of Information".
Second - contrary to what this email claims, Obama's scholarship wasn't a Fulbright. It's true that many foreign students come to the U.S. under the Fulbright program, sponsored by the United States Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. But Fulbrights for foreign students are primarily intended for graduate students studying for masters' degrees or Ph.D. degrees, not for college freshmen and sophomores.
The college's Director of Communications Jim Tranquada says there's no record of that:
Occidental spokesman Tranquada: Contemporary public documents, such as the 1979-80 freshman 'Lookbook' published at the beginning of President Obama's first year at Occidental, list him as Barack Obama. All of the Occidental alumni I have spoken to from that era (1979-81) who knew him, knew him as Barry.
(No Records: It's not even true that Occidental has released Obama's student records, as claimed in the message.)
Occidental spokesman Tranquada: To date, all of the litigation filed regarding President Obama's student records at Occidental has been rejected by the courts. Occidental has not released his transcripts or his student file.
Third - the 1974 federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (34 CFR Part 99) protects the privacy of student education records. Therefore Occidental College could not release Obama's transcripts - even if they were so inclined - without a court order.
So... there has been NO DISCLOSURE of any of Obama's birth, travel, or educational records as of yet... which still leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions about your President, nor have the courts ordered any such records to be made public.
As many of you are led blithely down the path toward Marxism and Socialism by the Pied Piper Of Chicago, the rest of us look on in incredulous amazement, wondering when - or IF - you will ever regain your senses.
With thanks to the folks at www.factcheck.org, there is little chance that I could be wrong in posting this information. There are enough things wrong with this administration - things that should be obvious to folks - without people creating and disseminating spurious "facts". Those who fail to perform due diligence prior to forwarding emails of that type simply perpetuate the lies. When there is one glaring error in the "facts", the entire email becomes suspect, as are the motives of the person who initiated it. Those who forward such emails without checking the "facts" are guilty only of complicity by ignorance and slothfulness.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Why in the world would the SCOTUS even entertain the thought of such a plan, much less consider hearing a case proposing the existing law be stricken from the books?
Could it be that in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. elitists, with their personal security being provided by the United States Marshals Service, and their $200,000+ jobs, "The Supremes" have lost contact with John Q. Public. Money and power are attracted to one another, and when they combine into a single entity they frequently create a third entity - a revised, all-consuming, monstrous, political behemoth which devours any who dare stand in its way.
At what point does that which is best for "We the People" get taken into consideration? Do we desire, or deserve, "the best government that money can buy", or do we demand that government consider the rights and needs of the people first, and those of corporations and unions after the fact?
Personally, I believe that corporations, unions, or any entity with more than 10 people involved should be limited by law to contributions totaling no more than $5,000 for any single campaign at any level of government (city, county, state - and, at the Federal level, the House and Senate. Relatively insignificant sums would not place our elected officials in the hip pocket of corporate America, the unions, or other big money entities. It would tend to keep them in the service of "We the People" - which is exactly where our Constitution says they must be.
I suppose there's a slight chance I could be wrong about how I see this. With the sinister left-wing direction our current government is taking, it appears that we don't care if the desires of the moneyed few take precedence over the needs and desires of "We the People".
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Which, in my mind anyway, immediately raises the question, "WHY? WHY? and WHY?" The first WHY - Why does the White House need a presence anywhere on the Internet other than at www.whitehouse.gov? The only answer I can come up with is to impose the collection of data by its "technology vendor" (which vendor, I am certain, is tasked to provide all such information to a review and analysis team, so that they may determine who's naughty [disagrees with Obama] and who's nice [agrees with The Messiah), justifying it thusly -
"The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence."
The White House will then begin harvesting information about Americans from its pages on popular social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.
The second WHY is -Why is paranoia suddenly running rampant in the White House? George W. Bush apparently never felt the need to circumvent/violate the First Amendment by spying on our citizens social correspondence. Nor did Bill Clinton (he was too busy violating his marriage vows to violate anything else).
And the third WHY is - WHY has nobody in the Legislative Branch or Judicial Branch of our government challenged Obama's intrusive and illegal act?
The Presidential Records Act is being abused as an excuse to marginalize our rights under the First and Fourth Amendments! Knowing that our government is spying upon you by harvesting your Internet communications should make you very wary of this administration. It's also an excellent way to intimidate those who might choose this venue to voice their disagreement on certain issues with the current administration.
Even if our communications are highly critical of the administration, it does not make those comments the property of the White House. This makes about as much sense as lug nuts on a cake! There is no acceptable rationale for such an action on the part of the White House. It is plainly an attempt to "do an end-run" around the Constitution, stifle dissent, and to reduce the overwhelming numbers of persons who do not agree with the direction Obama is taking our country, under the guise of keeping Presidential records.
The Legislative and Judicial Branches of government are the guardians of the Constitution. Where is their hue and cry? Where is the public outrage? (Where is Carmen Sandiego... and Waldo?)
There's a very remote possibility that I could be wrong about this situation... we'll just have to see what the future holds.