Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
McCain Calls Pentagon Study on Gays Flawed
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank (especially Barney) and the rest of the left-wing, liberal-progressive, Marxist-socialists in the House and Senate have high hopes of repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" act. They will support any effort to weaken our national security and self-defense efforts. They have been further emboldened by a recent "Pentagon Study", stating that 70% of those serving in our military believe that repealing the Act would have little noticeable impact upon the performance of our troops.
Senator John McCain, (R)AZ suggests that the study is flawed, and those of us who have served in the military can understand such a suggestion. McCain's statement was directly challenged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
For those of you who haven't had the honor of serving in our military, understand this - the Chairman of the JCS is appointed by the president (with Senate confirmation) as a 4-star general or admiral, and serves at the pleasure of the president. One does not advance into the ranks of general officers - not even a 1-star) without some serious political connections. The Defense Secretary is also a presidential appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president.
My point is simple - unless one wishes to end their military career, or forfeit a cabinet position which pays almost $200,000 (plus perks) annually - they will support the agenda of he to whom they are indebted for their prestigious and prosperous position. As the Chairman of the JCS, Admiral Mullen is compensated at the rate of $216,734.40 (O-10 over 38 yrs service = $18,061.20 per month x12 [PLUS allowances and perks]). Granted, both these men were appointed by President George W. Bush, but they still serve at the pleasure of the current president, and technically, both Mullen and the Pentagon work for Gates... and Gates works for Obama. And Obama is the Head Lefty. Would a Pentagon Study dare be released if the results were other than supportive of the president' desires? If you believe it would, you'll be deeply disappointed on December 25th... while you're waiting up for the fat guy in the red suit to come down the chimney!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
HERE'S HOW I SEE THE SITUATION IN... ALMOST EVERYWHERE!
The recent shelling of South Korea by their northern neighbors, reminded me of a bully in junior high school ("middle school" to some of you).
What would the United States do if we were attacked by... let's say the Mexican Army (instead of just an army of Mexicans sneaking across our southern border)? Imagine that Felipe Calderon lost his mind (just like North Korea's Kim), and began lobbing artillery shells into Arizona, California or Texas. What would our response be? Would our "president" issue a statement condemning such an action, and threaten that a strongly worded letter will follow? Obama probably would do just exactly that.
What should the response be to an attack by a bully? You can either submit and accept the beating, in the hope that someday the bully will weary of beating you up, or... you could (and should) respond quickly and surely, with all the strength you can muster. To accept the beating simply encourages the continuation of such behavior! A strong defensive response, on the other hand, has just the opposite effect - it discourages such displays of such aggressive behaviors. A swift and powerful response is what is demanded.
However......... there's another factor in the South Korea-DPRK situation. Apparently the "bully" from the North has the (thus far) unwavering backing of the Giant of the North - China - whose standing army is estimated at 2.5 MILLION (and, if you include paramilitary organizations the estimate jumps to 7.5 MILLION). To complicate matters even more, China has - primarily through lopsided international trade agreements - gained de facto control of the world economy.
Now you have to ask yourself, "If I defend myself against this little piss-ant, tin-horn dictator, will I also be fighting the hordes of Chinese military? How much affection does Hu Jintao of China really have for Kim Jong Il of the DPRK? Will we have any true allies if we respond and are faced with China? Will WalMart still be in business if China gets distracted for a few days?"
But, one thing is certain - taking no action is admitting you are powerless, and you will submit to the whims of your personal "bully". It escalates from bully to gang to army. International politics is a bitch... take the odds and kick Kim's butt!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Islam - The "Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along" Religion
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s "enhanced pat down" policy that went into effect in late October.
CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck. (And the Muslim woman should then be escorted to the nearest jail for violating established security procedures)
In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.” (And then the Muslim woman should be shown to the street-side exit from the airport.)
It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers per form a chemical swipe of your hands.” (REQUEST DENIED!! There is no constitutional guarantee of a "right to fly"; comply, stay home, or return to your Sandbox of Origin.)
The new TSA pat-downs involving “head-to-toe” screening techniques follow recent airliner bombing attempts. Passengers who reject a full-body scan or who are selected for secondary screening may be searched using the enhanced pat-down.
“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.” (And we don't do "profiling" because of what? Oh, yeah... it might hurt somebody's feelings - instead of killing a couple of hundred innocent bystanders.)
Posted on its Web site under “TSA’s Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency said how people are dressed may lead to closer inspection, including baggy or loose clothing. Those policies also include individuals being searched by a “professional” of the same sex. “It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.
In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law. (Another fatwa? Islam definitely seems to be a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" religion... I'd bet money that nowhere in the Qu'ran is the term "full-body scanner" seen. Is there something in the USA that inconveniences a Muslim? If so, they can go Figh themselves, and issue a fatwa incorporating that inconvenience into their religious "rulings".)
“It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.” (If they are clothed, they have met the requirement "to cover their private parts." It's not their fault technology have circumvented their efforts. But, it IS the fault of the Muslims that such security precautions are necessary. If you can't live under the laws of the United States... GO BACK TO YOUR SANDBOX OF ORIGIN, and STAY THERE!)
CAIR endorsed the fatwa, according to a Feb. 21 article in the Detroit Free Press. (I don't CARE about CAIR and their fatwas - assimilate and live by the laws of your host country... or return to camel country!)
CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck. (And the Muslim woman should then be escorted to the nearest jail for violating established security procedures)
In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.” (And then the Muslim woman should be shown to the street-side exit from the airport.)
It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers per form a chemical swipe of your hands.” (REQUEST DENIED!! There is no constitutional guarantee of a "right to fly"; comply, stay home, or return to your Sandbox of Origin.)
The new TSA pat-downs involving “head-to-toe” screening techniques follow recent airliner bombing attempts. Passengers who reject a full-body scan or who are selected for secondary screening may be searched using the enhanced pat-down.
“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.” (And we don't do "profiling" because of what? Oh, yeah... it might hurt somebody's feelings - instead of killing a couple of hundred innocent bystanders.)
Posted on its Web site under “TSA’s Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency said how people are dressed may lead to closer inspection, including baggy or loose clothing. Those policies also include individuals being searched by a “professional” of the same sex. “It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.
In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law. (Another fatwa? Islam definitely seems to be a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" religion... I'd bet money that nowhere in the Qu'ran is the term "full-body scanner" seen. Is there something in the USA that inconveniences a Muslim? If so, they can go Figh themselves, and issue a fatwa incorporating that inconvenience into their religious "rulings".)
“It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.” (If they are clothed, they have met the requirement "to cover their private parts." It's not their fault technology have circumvented their efforts. But, it IS the fault of the Muslims that such security precautions are necessary. If you can't live under the laws of the United States... GO BACK TO YOUR SANDBOX OF ORIGIN, and STAY THERE!)
CAIR endorsed the fatwa, according to a Feb. 21 article in the Detroit Free Press. (I don't CARE about CAIR and their fatwas - assimilate and live by the laws of your host country... or return to camel country!)
Sunday, November 14, 2010
If I Ran The United States, How Would I Attempt To Modify It?
Suppose you awakened one morning to discover that you had been appointed imperial leader of the United States while you slept. What would you do with that ultimate human power? Would you rule or would you govern? Would you dictate or negotiate? Would you desire to be reasonably benevolent, or would you rule with an iron hand? Would you have personal advisers or boot-licking lackeys? If you chose to have advisers, would you actually listen to their advice and carefully consider it, or would they simply be "window dressing"?
The world of politics is treacherously labyrinthine, as evidenced by the almost annual coups d'état (the sudden, illegal deposition of a government) somewhere on this planet. For centuries a ruler's worst enemies were his closest relatives (it was a matter of "succession to the throne")! Second place on the "enemies list" seems to have been held by the general(s) in charge of a ruler's military forces, and Julius Caesar was stabbed twenty-three times - unto death - from dagger wounds inflicted by members of his own Senate.
Today, total strangers are also assassins of leaders. In 1950 an attempt was made on President Harry Truman's life by two Puerto Rican nationalists. Lee Harvey Oswald, with no known relationship to President John F. Kennedy, took that President's life. A lone Turk attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The Pope was shot and severely wounded as he entered St. Peter's Square in the Vatican. The would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, was a member of a Turkish terrorist organization known as the Gray Wolves. The list goes on and on, showing perhaps hundreds of attempts we have never heard of.
Politics and large scale leadership positions can be a very dangerous place for those who have the strength of their convictions, but a safe-haven for the cowards of the world. Someone once said that "The United States of America has the best politicians money can buy", and money apparently does buy them. Who - enjoying good mental health - would spend millions of dollars running for an office that only pays in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars? An altruist? If you can show me an altruist in national politics, I'll show you a nun in a brothel!
If I became the Grand Poo-bah of the USA, there would definitely be some changes made. Let's begin with the most hotly debated issue affecting primarily the southwestern United States - "Immigration Reform": We have federal laws in-place forbidding entry into our country without the proper authorization, but the feds choose not to enthusiastically enforce those laws. Illegal immigrants have demonstrated their disregard for our laws simply by their unauthorized presence within our borders. Our government, disregarding the will of the people, has chosen to reward the illegal aliens by allowing them to not only remain in the country, but to provide them with benefits that average American citizens are denied. What's wrong with this picture?
In my world here's what undocumented visitors to our country would get... NOTHING!
1. It would be a violation of the law for illegal aliens to be given bank loans and, if they were given, the loan officer, the bank manager and the president of the bank issuing such loan would be arrested and prosecuted.
2. Housing would not be available to anybody unable to prove citizenship or government authorization. Anyone providing housing in violation of that law would be subject to arrest and prosecution.
3. Medical care - for anything other than life saving procedures - would not be available to illegal aliens. Hospitals would be required to report anyone without documentation - who requested a life saving procedure - to Homeland Security/I.C.E. Division. Failure to do so would make the offending medical personnel subject to arrest and prosecution.
4. Illegals would not be eligible for welfare, unemployment insurance or Social Security benefits. Any agent of a municipal, county, state or federal agency permitting illegal aliens to apply for such benefits would be subject to arrest and prosecution.
5. Any child born to an illegal immigrant would not receive automatic citizenship status upon birth. The child is determined to be as illegal as the parent(s) inasmuch as it was transported into the USA in violation of our immigration laws.
6. There would be no amnesty for reasons other than political persecution, and even then amnesty would be on a case-by-case basis. There would be no automatic amnesty.
7. Border enforcement would be the responsibility of the "National Guard". What is the purpose of a "National Guard" if not to guard the nation? The Governor of each state has the right and responsibility to activate that state's National Guard in times of emergency. What's the emergency? A subtle, silent "invasion" of our country - primarily across our southern borders.
(The presence of a foreigner in Mexico without proper authorization is classified as a felony. The penalty for the first offense is imprisonment, not to exceed 2 years. The penalty for the second offense is imprisonment, not to exceed 10 years. The Mexican government seems to take its sovereignty much more seriously than the US government takes ours.)
My second objective would be the elimination of Obamacare - the mandatory national health care program. The people don't want it... but the left-wing, bleeding-heart, Marxist, liberal-"progressives" in charge do. It's just another way for the government to increase citizen dependency upon the "Nanny State".
The world of politics is treacherously labyrinthine, as evidenced by the almost annual coups d'état (the sudden, illegal deposition of a government) somewhere on this planet. For centuries a ruler's worst enemies were his closest relatives (it was a matter of "succession to the throne")! Second place on the "enemies list" seems to have been held by the general(s) in charge of a ruler's military forces, and Julius Caesar was stabbed twenty-three times - unto death - from dagger wounds inflicted by members of his own Senate.
Today, total strangers are also assassins of leaders. In 1950 an attempt was made on President Harry Truman's life by two Puerto Rican nationalists. Lee Harvey Oswald, with no known relationship to President John F. Kennedy, took that President's life. A lone Turk attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The Pope was shot and severely wounded as he entered St. Peter's Square in the Vatican. The would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, was a member of a Turkish terrorist organization known as the Gray Wolves. The list goes on and on, showing perhaps hundreds of attempts we have never heard of.
Politics and large scale leadership positions can be a very dangerous place for those who have the strength of their convictions, but a safe-haven for the cowards of the world. Someone once said that "The United States of America has the best politicians money can buy", and money apparently does buy them. Who - enjoying good mental health - would spend millions of dollars running for an office that only pays in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars? An altruist? If you can show me an altruist in national politics, I'll show you a nun in a brothel!
If I became the Grand Poo-bah of the USA, there would definitely be some changes made. Let's begin with the most hotly debated issue affecting primarily the southwestern United States - "Immigration Reform": We have federal laws in-place forbidding entry into our country without the proper authorization, but the feds choose not to enthusiastically enforce those laws. Illegal immigrants have demonstrated their disregard for our laws simply by their unauthorized presence within our borders. Our government, disregarding the will of the people, has chosen to reward the illegal aliens by allowing them to not only remain in the country, but to provide them with benefits that average American citizens are denied. What's wrong with this picture?
In my world here's what undocumented visitors to our country would get... NOTHING!
1. It would be a violation of the law for illegal aliens to be given bank loans and, if they were given, the loan officer, the bank manager and the president of the bank issuing such loan would be arrested and prosecuted.
2. Housing would not be available to anybody unable to prove citizenship or government authorization. Anyone providing housing in violation of that law would be subject to arrest and prosecution.
3. Medical care - for anything other than life saving procedures - would not be available to illegal aliens. Hospitals would be required to report anyone without documentation - who requested a life saving procedure - to Homeland Security/I.C.E. Division. Failure to do so would make the offending medical personnel subject to arrest and prosecution.
4. Illegals would not be eligible for welfare, unemployment insurance or Social Security benefits. Any agent of a municipal, county, state or federal agency permitting illegal aliens to apply for such benefits would be subject to arrest and prosecution.
5. Any child born to an illegal immigrant would not receive automatic citizenship status upon birth. The child is determined to be as illegal as the parent(s) inasmuch as it was transported into the USA in violation of our immigration laws.
6. There would be no amnesty for reasons other than political persecution, and even then amnesty would be on a case-by-case basis. There would be no automatic amnesty.
7. Border enforcement would be the responsibility of the "National Guard". What is the purpose of a "National Guard" if not to guard the nation? The Governor of each state has the right and responsibility to activate that state's National Guard in times of emergency. What's the emergency? A subtle, silent "invasion" of our country - primarily across our southern borders.
(The presence of a foreigner in Mexico without proper authorization is classified as a felony. The penalty for the first offense is imprisonment, not to exceed 2 years. The penalty for the second offense is imprisonment, not to exceed 10 years. The Mexican government seems to take its sovereignty much more seriously than the US government takes ours.)
My second objective would be the elimination of Obamacare - the mandatory national health care program. The people don't want it... but the left-wing, bleeding-heart, Marxist, liberal-"progressives" in charge do. It's just another way for the government to increase citizen dependency upon the "Nanny State".
1. The government does not have the Constitutional authority to require citizens to buy a non-competitive government product or service, nor do they have the authority to monopolize any industry by legislating its competitors out of business. On the other hand, the current administration doesn't seem to be aware that we even have that pesky document call the Constitution.
2.Healthcare for all U.S. citizens is desirable, but those of us who have our own health insurance should not be forced to purchase that demanded by the government. Again, life-saving procedures should be available to all, regardless of their ability to pay. Colds, sprains and other sources of discomfort not being seen as "life-threatening" should not be treated on the public dime. Deal with it - as responsible people have for centuries.
3. No single "class" of people (i.e. - illegal residents) should be free from any taxation imposed upon the majority of citizens. Nor should our elected officials be free from the same healthcare system that would be forced upon the general population.
4. Healthcare should be available nationwide, and at reasonable rates in a competitive environment. Competitors should not be restricted to providing coverage only in a particular state or region as they are now.
1. Eliminate labor unions. (I can hear almost the screams of outrage from the brotherhoods now!) I can understand why they love their union-supported "job". Union members are at the very top of the labor pay scale - stopping just short of junior corporate executives. In closed-shop states (union membership required in order to work) the cost of living is based upon union-scale wages, which is fine for the workers of that state. However, the increased cost of that which they produce, and consume, is felt nation-wide.
2. Collective bargaining between the employees and the corporation/company for which they work would be allowed in order to establish a fair wage and benefit package for the workers. There will be no outside involvement other than independent arbitrators
3. Any American corporation outsourcing jobs outside the 50 United States and its Trust Territories would be required to do the following:
a. Pay normal import taxes upon any product produced either by their overseas corporation, or any foreign subcontractor.
b. Pay complete unemployment compensation, including medical insurance, for each American job or product outsourced to a foreign location.
c. Any American business entity establishing its headquarters overseas will be treated as a foreign corporation and subject to all tariffs imposed upon a foreign corporation, plus be subject to a tax equal to the cost of providing American workers - equal to the total number of foreign employees of that corporation - with unemployment insurance, including medical benefits.
And THAT'S just for openers!
YOU ARE OWED NOTHING EXCEPT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FAIL ON YOUR OWN!
(and if you don't... CONGRATULATIONS!)
Monday, October 25, 2010
HAVE WE FINALLY HAD ENOUGH?
We shall see on November 2nd. Will it be a day of retribution or reward? Will we send the message to Washington that we are fed up with what they've been feeding us for years (more likely decades), or will it be praising their ability to feed us odor-free BS?
For all you liberals suffering from anosmia out there, the odor is overwhelming! The current House and Senate have approved more "pork" than Sarah Lee's "Jimmy Dean" division! Our Congress has so many hogs satiating themselves at the public trough, that it is overrun with weenies! As Senator Everett M. Dirksen once opined, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." If you can't smell the stench of corruption emanating from Washington D.C. then your olfactory has probably been nationalized by the administration.
I laugh every time I hear the phrase "House (or Senate) Ethics Committee". The Congress, as a whole, is totally unethical! Selling their votes to support Obama's national health care fiasco for a few million dollars in pork. What kind of people vote in support of anything in which they don't believe? "Sheeple". People without convictions - people who don't stand up so they won't stand out. Who sells their vote for some down home pork? Political whores. Who sees the bigger picture and supports only that which is good for the United States and it's citizens? The smallest of political minorities. Who voted to provide Welfare recipients with FREE CELL PHONES AND AIR TIME EACH MONTH? The same people who voted against a Cost Of Living Allowance increase for senior citizens (who worked all their lives providing the government with tax dollars to waste on Freebies for Freeloaders). You can verify that claim for yourself at - https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/Home.aspx
The Obama Administration is all about tax, borrow, and spend. And they spend like the proverbial "drunken sailor". Are they spending money they have earned themselves? NO - of course not! They're spending money you and I have earned, but the government has claimed as their "due" through taxation. Have they shown any responsibility to the taxpayer through judicious use of our hard-earned tax dollars? Not just no, but Hell no! It's a continuous round of "I'll buy into your pork, if you'll buy into mine". Have they forgotten that they are charged with the protection of the United States of America and not just their little piece of it? Apparently so. But, that is the liberal socialist-progressive, Marxist approach to governing.. as opposed to governance. Governing is a process of controlling the people. Castro "governs". Saddam Hussein "governed". Robert Mugabe "governs" Zimbabwe, just as Kim Jong-Il "governs" North Korea, and as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "govern" Iran. Governance is the act of governing the process of government.
The USA has never had a less competent President than Barack Obama. His lack of ability has become obvious to all but the most entrenched Demobots. He is bankrupting our nation, and he has - in effect - nationalized two-thirds of the U.S. automobile industry, the entire financial industry, and has purchased enough Congressional votes to pass an unwanted national health care bill. He is buying the right to socialize our nation, and he is doing so without much opposition from the House and Senate. He has stacked the deck against the citizenry, by putting liberal-progressive Marxists, and avowed Communists in power positions in every branch of our government, including the recent appointment of two Muslims to directorships in the Office of Homeland Security!!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, AMERICA!! The Republic is being hijacked by those who would convert us from a Democratic Republic into a socialist-Marxist state, and they are doing so following the guidelines of the Fabian Society (aka "the Socialist Society") - "The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. ...the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century." The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.(http://www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society) Keep in mind that the term "progressive", as applied to politics, is nothing more than a euphemism for "socialist".
November 2nd provides those of us who truly care about the course our government has taken during the last 19 months with an opportunity to stop the progressives "progress". Those of us who have served in the US armed forces, did not serve in order that the principles of our founders could be circumvented by the socialist-progressives. Our oath was "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not to any other cause or individual. Will we, as a nation, continue to support the undermining of our Constitution by one man and his appointed political cronies? I certainly hope not. But then, I didn't believe that we as a people would have been stupid enough to elect a freshman Senator - with less than 6 months experience - to the highest office in the land, either. There is only one way Congress will get the message...
For all you liberals suffering from anosmia out there, the odor is overwhelming! The current House and Senate have approved more "pork" than Sarah Lee's "Jimmy Dean" division! Our Congress has so many hogs satiating themselves at the public trough, that it is overrun with weenies! As Senator Everett M. Dirksen once opined, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." If you can't smell the stench of corruption emanating from Washington D.C. then your olfactory has probably been nationalized by the administration.
I laugh every time I hear the phrase "House (or Senate) Ethics Committee". The Congress, as a whole, is totally unethical! Selling their votes to support Obama's national health care fiasco for a few million dollars in pork. What kind of people vote in support of anything in which they don't believe? "Sheeple". People without convictions - people who don't stand up so they won't stand out. Who sells their vote for some down home pork? Political whores. Who sees the bigger picture and supports only that which is good for the United States and it's citizens? The smallest of political minorities. Who voted to provide Welfare recipients with FREE CELL PHONES AND AIR TIME EACH MONTH? The same people who voted against a Cost Of Living Allowance increase for senior citizens (who worked all their lives providing the government with tax dollars to waste on Freebies for Freeloaders). You can verify that claim for yourself at - https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/Home.aspx
The Obama Administration is all about tax, borrow, and spend. And they spend like the proverbial "drunken sailor". Are they spending money they have earned themselves? NO - of course not! They're spending money you and I have earned, but the government has claimed as their "due" through taxation. Have they shown any responsibility to the taxpayer through judicious use of our hard-earned tax dollars? Not just no, but Hell no! It's a continuous round of "I'll buy into your pork, if you'll buy into mine". Have they forgotten that they are charged with the protection of the United States of America and not just their little piece of it? Apparently so. But, that is the liberal socialist-progressive, Marxist approach to governing.. as opposed to governance. Governing is a process of controlling the people. Castro "governs". Saddam Hussein "governed". Robert Mugabe "governs" Zimbabwe, just as Kim Jong-Il "governs" North Korea, and as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "govern" Iran. Governance is the act of governing the process of government.The USA has never had a less competent President than Barack Obama. His lack of ability has become obvious to all but the most entrenched Demobots. He is bankrupting our nation, and he has - in effect - nationalized two-thirds of the U.S. automobile industry, the entire financial industry, and has purchased enough Congressional votes to pass an unwanted national health care bill. He is buying the right to socialize our nation, and he is doing so without much opposition from the House and Senate. He has stacked the deck against the citizenry, by putting liberal-progressive Marxists, and avowed Communists in power positions in every branch of our government, including the recent appointment of two Muslims to directorships in the Office of Homeland Security!!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, AMERICA!! The Republic is being hijacked by those who would convert us from a Democratic Republic into a socialist-Marxist state, and they are doing so following the guidelines of the Fabian Society (aka "the Socialist Society") - "The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. ...the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century." The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.(http://www.fabians.org.uk/about-the-fabian-society) Keep in mind that the term "progressive", as applied to politics, is nothing more than a euphemism for "socialist".
November 2nd provides those of us who truly care about the course our government has taken during the last 19 months with an opportunity to stop the progressives "progress". Those of us who have served in the US armed forces, did not serve in order that the principles of our founders could be circumvented by the socialist-progressives. Our oath was "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not to any other cause or individual. Will we, as a nation, continue to support the undermining of our Constitution by one man and his appointed political cronies? I certainly hope not. But then, I didn't believe that we as a people would have been stupid enough to elect a freshman Senator - with less than 6 months experience - to the highest office in the land, either. There is only one way Congress will get the message...
ON NOVEMBER 2ND DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENT THAT VOTED IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!
Replace them with the candidate of your choice - Democrat, Republican, Constitutionalist or Libertarian - affiliation makes little difference, but do vote for somebody who truly CARES about the fate of our once-great nation! The message we are sending is one of, "We the People will no longer support those who do not support the Constitution as written!"
Replace them with the candidate of your choice - Democrat, Republican, Constitutionalist or Libertarian - affiliation makes little difference, but do vote for somebody who truly CARES about the fate of our once-great nation! The message we are sending is one of, "We the People will no longer support those who do not support the Constitution as written!"Friday, October 15, 2010
Come November 2nd, WE have THE HAMMER!!
This song was written by a 26 year old middle school football coach in Tennessee. He was terminated by the principal for alleged "political incorrectness" after writing this song and sending out on an e-mail list which included students and parents. Some think an apology and suspension would seem more appropriate. Personally, I think it is a First Amendment issue! He should be reinstated with all back pay, and the principal that fired him should be censured by the school board. Hopefully the parents will rally around this young teacher and get him his job back. In the meantime he is becoming famous thanks to the internet. Don't be surprised if the Tea Party groups start using this song at their meetings.
The First Amendment seems to protect only the lefties that have permeated our educational system. Why does it not protect everybody? If Ward Churchill, who not only lied about his credentials, but plagiarized much of "his" academic work, can speak out against conservative values with impunity, why can't this man speak out against what he sees as the fantasies and lies of the current administration?
THERE IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING ROTTEN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA!
THERE IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING ROTTEN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA!
Let's rid ourselves of the stench of government
directed socialism this November 2nd!
directed socialism this November 2nd!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Some People May Think I Am Anti-Obama...
and those people would be absolutely correct! But let's not stop there... I am anti-anybody who would take steps to destroy our Republic and change it into a European-style socialist state. I stand against anyone who would introduce economic policies that will reduce the United States of America economically to the status of some Third World Banana-Republic Dictatorship!
I am absolutely against anybody who spends our tax dollars frivolously - by supporting those who wish us nothing but harm; who bows to a Muslim king while failing to observe the same courtesy when granted an audience with a Christian queen; and also who snubs - and tries to dictate foreign policy to - our enduring allies.
During these hard economic times I am totally UNsupportive of anyone who spends $73,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money for a "date night" in New York City, who rents a 28 acre Martha's Vineyard summer vacation estate for $50,000 a week, and who then hypocritically condemns "lavish lifestyles" and "saddling the rich with higher taxes".
Obama's motto seems to be, "There are some things money can't buy... and for everything else, there are taxpayers!
NOVEMBER 2ND IS LESS THAN SIX WEEKS AWAY! CHANGING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAY SAVE OUR COUNTRY! WITHOUT THE RUBBER-STAMP SUPPORT OF A PREDOMINANTLY LEFT-WING CONGRESS, OBAMA CAN DO NO FURTHER HARM. REPLACE ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA'S POLICIES WITH CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES AND RESTORE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES TO OUR GOVERNMENT!
PERHAPS THE NEW CROP OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL GET THE MESSAGE -
"WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD!"
I am absolutely against anybody who spends our tax dollars frivolously - by supporting those who wish us nothing but harm; who bows to a Muslim king while failing to observe the same courtesy when granted an audience with a Christian queen; and also who snubs - and tries to dictate foreign policy to - our enduring allies.
During these hard economic times I am totally UNsupportive of anyone who spends $73,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money for a "date night" in New York City, who rents a 28 acre Martha's Vineyard summer vacation estate for $50,000 a week, and who then hypocritically condemns "lavish lifestyles" and "saddling the rich with higher taxes".Obama's motto seems to be, "There are some things money can't buy... and for everything else, there are taxpayers!
NOVEMBER 2ND IS LESS THAN SIX WEEKS AWAY! CHANGING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAY SAVE OUR COUNTRY! WITHOUT THE RUBBER-STAMP SUPPORT OF A PREDOMINANTLY LEFT-WING CONGRESS, OBAMA CAN DO NO FURTHER HARM. REPLACE ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA'S POLICIES WITH CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES AND RESTORE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES TO OUR GOVERNMENT!PERHAPS THE NEW CROP OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL GET THE MESSAGE -
"WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD!"
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Obama's Aunt says U.S. OBLIGATED to make her a citizen
Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, came to the U.S. from Kenya in 2000 and was denied asylum by an immigration judge in 2004. She was granted asylum earlier this year by the same judge who said she could be in danger if she returned to her homeland. Isn't it interesting how political events in a host nation, such as the United States, can impact a particular person's security if they are returned to their homeland after being found ineligible for asylum 6 years earlier?
Of course, we all know that politics never enters into any governmental entity's impartial decisions on any matter... don't we? The fact that Zeituni's nephew, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president of the United States in 2008 had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the administrative judge in 2010. What a fine example of "equal treatment under the law" this is!
Of course, we all know that politics never enters into any governmental entity's impartial decisions on any matter... don't we? The fact that Zeituni's nephew, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president of the United States in 2008 had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the administrative judge in 2010. What a fine example of "equal treatment under the law" this is!
D.C. Just Gets "Curiouser and Curiouser"
Lesbos and Marxists and fags... OH MY! Has anybody else noticed that the Obama administration seems to be loading the federal government with radicals of various and sundry bents, or am I the only one paying attention? In his efforts to destroy the American Republic as we knew it, he has done everything in his power to create irreparable harm within the federal infrastructure. There is at least one Hispanic/gender radical on the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan), an "I'm here and I'm queer" (Kevin Jennings) "Safe Schools" czar, and Obama's latest federal appointee, (Amanda Simpson, Obama’s Transgender Appointee) who proudly proclaims "...as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds". Now there's something to which we can all look forward, eh?
Okay... time to play "Did you know?" Did you know that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition), underwent a "text revision" (known as the DSM-IV TR), in the year 2000? Granted, the DSM-IV (and all of it's predecessors) is a relatively obscure publication to most (99.999%) of us - not nearly as well-known in the general public as any of Stephen King's works - it is, nonetheless, the premier volume relied upon by mental health professionals around the world. You may be muttering to yourself, "Get back on point, Gil... what did the text revision do?" What DSM-IV TR did was remove from homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, trans-gender, and virtually all sexual lifestyle choices, the heading of "Sexual Deviations". Suddenly, after 47 years of documented case studies, indulging in aberrant sexual behavior is no longer "deviant". What happened to cause this reversal? It is not that the behavior is no longer deviant... it is that it is not officially classified as such - thanks to pressure from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender alliance. (Enter the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank - who probably spends more time on his knees than the Pope. Not praying... playing!)
Barney Frank, the Flaming Fag From the Fourth (Congressional District, MA), sponsor of the "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009" (HR2981 ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of ENDA. Everybody should be allowed an opportunity to work in their chosen field. HOWEVER - it is the employer who should determine what is or is not appropriate dress and behavior while on the job, not the applicant or the government. The employer is, after all, the sole entity responsible for production and marketing, establishing and maintaining a harmonious working environment, and providing appropriate compensation/benefit packages for their employees. What would be the outcome if say 65% of the sworn officers of the San Francisco Police Department decided they should be able to wear colorful dresses to work instead of those boring blue uniforms with badges on them. And, although those 4" heels would be a bit more difficult to run in while pursuing a fleeing suspect, the more fashion conscious officers may feel compelled to wear them. Should they be denied that "right"? At the risk of repeating myself from earlier blog postings - DAMN RIGHT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED! Employers must have the right to determine what type of person can best represent their company's interests in an appropriate manner - but only during working hours. When the employee is on his/her own time "he" can dress like the Queen of Sheba, and "she" can dress like a lumberjack if they so desire. But, at work... if you take the man's money, you must play by the man's rules.
"Equal protection under the law" is the main thrust of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for special protections for any individual or group, yet the Obama administration is working hard to establish special protections for radicals of any and all stripes, and he (and/or his minions) are unceasingly chipping away at the foundations of our Republic. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!
Okay... time to play "Did you know?" Did you know that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition), underwent a "text revision" (known as the DSM-IV TR), in the year 2000? Granted, the DSM-IV (and all of it's predecessors) is a relatively obscure publication to most (99.999%) of us - not nearly as well-known in the general public as any of Stephen King's works - it is, nonetheless, the premier volume relied upon by mental health professionals around the world. You may be muttering to yourself, "Get back on point, Gil... what did the text revision do?" What DSM-IV TR did was remove from homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, trans-gender, and virtually all sexual lifestyle choices, the heading of "Sexual Deviations". Suddenly, after 47 years of documented case studies, indulging in aberrant sexual behavior is no longer "deviant". What happened to cause this reversal? It is not that the behavior is no longer deviant... it is that it is not officially classified as such - thanks to pressure from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender alliance. (Enter the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank - who probably spends more time on his knees than the Pope. Not praying... playing!)
Barney Frank, the Flaming Fag From the Fourth (Congressional District, MA), sponsor of the "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009" (HR2981 ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of ENDA. Everybody should be allowed an opportunity to work in their chosen field. HOWEVER - it is the employer who should determine what is or is not appropriate dress and behavior while on the job, not the applicant or the government. The employer is, after all, the sole entity responsible for production and marketing, establishing and maintaining a harmonious working environment, and providing appropriate compensation/benefit packages for their employees. What would be the outcome if say 65% of the sworn officers of the San Francisco Police Department decided they should be able to wear colorful dresses to work instead of those boring blue uniforms with badges on them. And, although those 4" heels would be a bit more difficult to run in while pursuing a fleeing suspect, the more fashion conscious officers may feel compelled to wear them. Should they be denied that "right"? At the risk of repeating myself from earlier blog postings - DAMN RIGHT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED! Employers must have the right to determine what type of person can best represent their company's interests in an appropriate manner - but only during working hours. When the employee is on his/her own time "he" can dress like the Queen of Sheba, and "she" can dress like a lumberjack if they so desire. But, at work... if you take the man's money, you must play by the man's rules.
"Equal protection under the law" is the main thrust of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for special protections for any individual or group, yet the Obama administration is working hard to establish special protections for radicals of any and all stripes, and he (and/or his minions) are unceasingly chipping away at the foundations of our Republic. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)