A Crisis Of Competence

>> Friday, June 25, 2010

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." ~ Proverbs 16:18

Normally, I don't copy and paste articles into my blog form. I even put that in my blogger profile. I usually would rather offer my own thoughts, however disjointed and illogical they may be, and let the chips fall where they may.

That said, this article nailed Obama more accurately than anything I've ever read. Andrew Cline is dead on in his assessment of Barack Hussein Obama.

So, with the readers indulgence, here's a teaser for you offered in the hope it will entice you to read further:

"Patience, Obama repeatedly said. Patience. Fixing the enormous mistakes of the Bush years would take time. There would be no quick fix. Don't look for immediate results, keep gazing into the horizon. Here, I'll show you how, just tilt your head this way, slightly squint your eyes… there, now hold that position for the next three years.


Then, without warning, a pocket of methane gas exploded on an oil rig roughly 50 miles offshore. Suddenly we had a crisis that demanded a real-time solution, not a promise of rewards to be reaped after the next election."


I couldn't say it any better.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

Read more...

McChrystal Out, Patraeus In, Obama Wins

>> Wednesday, June 23, 2010

McChrystal did the right thing by tendering his resignation from his post.

Obama was right in accepting his resignation.

But Obama also made a great choice in enlisting Gen. Patraeus to take over the post.

The questions now are, will Obama continue to dither and mismanage the Afghan War? And will the senate who castigated and impugned Patreaus' honor during his first confirmation receive the same this time around, or, because he is OBAMA's choice receive swift confirmation?

Read more...

Descent of the Party

>> Tuesday, June 22, 2010

I was going to post this article as an update or addendum to my last post. But as I read it again, I believe it deserves notice of its own.

What got me interested in it at first was its initial focus on Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and the heat he took for speaking the truth. But as I read on, I could plainly see that it was referring to major problem with the Republican Party that, if left unattended, can cause our national suffering to continue unabated regardless of which party runs Congress or the White House.

There seems to be some fear on the part of established party people to confront full force the attacks on truth and facts. There is an acceptance on some level of liberal thought that is seen as necessary to aquire and maintain power. Few, it seems, are willing to be blatant in their attacks on failed liberal policies for fear that too many constituents, long plied with handouts and bribed with their very own grants of victimhood, might reject them as mean-spirited and "in the pocket of big business" and other BS liberal accusations.

One example is the case of Nevada senate candidate Sharon Angle. As mentioned in the article, she has come out in favor of phasing out Social Security. She has received no party support. Now, one might disagree with her position. I haven't heard enough details of her position on this issue to comment. But to treat her like the plague as a result of her honest opinion on one issue is hardly the stuff of loyalty, nor is it an example of a party truly more concerned with the state of the union than with merely getting majorities.

If that's all we want, there are plenty of established RINOs for the task. I would hope we'd want better. I would hope we'd want people who understand what leadership is, what American principles are and what it means to actually apply both of them toward reversing the damage done in so short a time by this current administration, and by the gradual decline since at least FDR. We need leaders who will say, "Enough!" to the trashing of true American values, traditions and characteristics that made us the great nation we still just barely are.

We've got some such people emerging these days to join existing Americans like Barton, Joe Wilson and a few others that are creating excitement amongst the electorate. We need to get the party to get behind the people that are exactly the type of people the party only pretends to give us. We've already got one Democratic Party. We damned well don't need two.

Read more...

Chicago Shakedown

>> Monday, June 21, 2010

Rep. Joe Barton was right. I don't know why he apologized. Well, yes I do. Too much heat from his own party. Michael Medved thought his apology to BP was bad politically. I don't understand how the truth can be bad politically, especially if other people with spine stand up and say, "You tell 'em, Joe!!" As this article points out, Obama's pressure on BP isn't exactly kosher.

I think it wouldn't bother me so much, that of Obama's "kickin' ass" attitude, if he truly gave a rat's patooty. I don't think he does. This is just another crisis he won't let go to waste. Can you say "cap and trade"?

But indeed, if he had announced that he had "requested" that BP create a fund for the purpose of reparations to those affected, there would be no apology from Barton to BP in the first place. But to demand it in any way is beyond his job description. It's a judicial matter, as the linked article points out. Who gets what from whom and how much is a matter of litigation, of the results of a trial between BP and the lawyers representing those who do not think an offered settlement is sufficient. Barry's way out of line to pretend he has the right or authority to demand anything from a private company (and a foreign one to boot).

No doubt, this is major posturing. He's failed to lead in this crisis and this is his way of pretending that he's a strong leader. Well, it's about two months too late for that, Bucky. No one's impressed. Not even your lap dogs at MSNBC.

On a side note, I heard a great call to Mark Levin tonight as I sallied forth to aquire my nightly treat after a hard day of workin' and workin' out. (MMmm, that King Cone went down REAL good.) This guy reminded us of the recent flap in the SCOTUS (I believe) regarding foreign nations contributing to political campaigns through their subsidiaries and such. For sure, we don't want foreigners skewing our political processes. Well, BP contributed about a million to Obama's campaign. I wonder if Barry is going to throw that million back to BP to get that fund going. Any wagers?

Read more...

Presidential Fail

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers

This is no joke. Obama has admitted to refusing to secure our borders.

These are the words to the oath of office that every president-elect is required to repeat upon his inauguration:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


The number one job of the President of the United States of America is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If the President of the United States of America refuses to defend the people of the United States, whom the Constitution was written to protect, shouldn't he be impeached, and removed from office?



If evidence is presented to the American people that the President of the United States is refusing to secure our borders for the sake of some pet legislation, shouldn't his impeachment and subsequent removal from office be demanded by the American people?

Is Barack Hussein Obama fit to be President of the United States?

In my opinion, he is not only unfit to hold the office of President of the United States of America, he should be tried for treason.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

Read more...

Question to Consider

>> Sunday, June 20, 2010



  • Were Obama to stage another Oval Office address to the American people during which he made a point of establishing once and for all that his faith is indeed Islam, would he, as a result, lose faith with, and support from the bulk of his supporters?


In comments elsewhere it is suggested that we do not understand Islam; at least not as a number of anecdotal missionaries in Morocco do. Across the media spectrum talking heads have led us to believe that Islam is a religion of peace; that it is radical Islam that has departed from the faith. But consider the source. We accept the 'truth' of Islam's suborning from people who know as little-- or less --about Islam than do we reading this post. The bulk of Americans naively accept whatever these talking heads tell them. Why? Because they accept these people as learned and educated on just about EVERY topic imaginable. They are professionals; they have researchers and legal teams verifying every word scripted and scrolled through the teleprompter.

Why do we believe this? Because they tell us things we don't know? Folk in south Alabama wouldn't know of a foiled terrorist plot in New York unless media told them. And even at that, the media merely relays information from other sources in law enforcement, and then analyze said information with the help of 'experts' and 'contributors', whose impartiality cannot be verified. We are told they are experts, or impartial, but Americans are too trusting. We believe what we are told. And media uses our naivete against us.

What religion claiming to be of peace, has its foundation in hatred, intolerance, murder, and war? Can any religion be considered holy with such a beginning? Perhaps the most dangerous people in this debate are not the Muslims themselves, but the 'Christians' who, out of a misguided and misinformed attempt to emulate the so-called 'tolerance' of Christ-- a tolerance expected of us as His followers. But what tolerance did Christ display toward unbelievers beside the iron-fisted tolerance of the Gospel; 'believe on me or die in your sins'? Was Jesus tolerant when he said repeatedly to the scribes and pharisees that they would die in the sins if they did not believe He was the one? Was He tolerant when He overturned the moneychanger's tables? Was he tolerant in His parables? Was He tolerant of the rich man who scorned Lazarus, to his own detriment? Was Jesus tolerant when He said, 'depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you'? Was He tolerant of the rich young ruler who went away sorrowful? Was Jesus tolerant of anyone or anything which was not in strict compliance with God's holy law? Please don't make the mistake of confusing forgiveness with tolerance. They are two wholly different animals.

Jesus said, 'Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.' This is not the picture of tolerance. And who says the Christian faith is a tolerant one? Sadly, far too many professing Christians do just that.

If Christianity therefore isn't a tolerant faith, why then do so many professing Christians insist Islam is? For a faith that declares lying to be an acceptable practice in the propagation of the faith; that declares Jews and Christians to be enemies should they not be willing to bend the knee to Allah; should be killed if opportunity presents itself... how can it then be said that strict adherents of Islam are in the extreme? That they are extremists? We do not call Catholics who spend every day in confession and prayer, extremists. We call them devout. So too are Muslims who accept the very Islamic tenets of killing, lying, subjugation, and demeaning of women. They are devout... not radical at all. We in the West have naively accepted the premise that no one who believes such things could ever be part of a mainstream, noble religion. Therefore, the 'peaceful' Muslims must be 'moderate' in their beliefs. And it's the extremists who take Islam's holy book out of context. But in truth, it the West that has taken the Quran out of context.

It's not 'radical' Islam. It is simply, ISLAM. And though Islam is very much an 'intolerant' religion, so too is Christianity-- just not to the extremes devout adherents of Islam exercise theirs.

  • Devout Christianity does not advocate deception if it advances the cause of Christianity.
  • Christianity doe not incite murder or genocide.
  • Christianity does not propagate a belief in war for the purpose of subjugation.
  • Nor does Christianity seek to demean and brutalize women.

It doesn't matter therefore whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. Whether he is or isn't misses the point that he does not know God, let alone Christ Jesus.

Reiterating: Jesus said, 'Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.' But how, you ask, has Barack Obama denied Christ before men?

Obama believes there are many paths to heaven. In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, Obama said, "I believe that there are many paths to the same place... All people of faith-— Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God."

By this statement alone Obama denies Christ. He is saying, in effect, that the blood of Christ is worthless because, apparently, Christ died for nothing if an Animist or Taoist-- who by such faith rejects the sacrifice of Christ --is getting into heaven without having to resort to His blood.



Obama Denies the Authority of the Bible. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus affirmed that every "jot and tittle' of the Law is true, including the parts that condemn homosexuality.

In an interview with the homosexual publication, The Advocate, Obama attacked faithful black pastors who faithfully proclaim what the Bible says about homosexuality, declaring, "...most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in the interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed."

However, Obama lavished praise on his controversial former pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, for being "very good on gay and lesbian issues." Obama’s former church, Trinity United Church of Christ voted recently to approve of homosexual marriage. And our president dismisses as "obscure," the clear and definitive teaching of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 that calls homosexual acts both "indecent" and "perverse."



Obama Supports Abortion. Appearing before a 2008 meeting of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, Obama proudly said, "I have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America." He said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." And at the infamous forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren said that to know when a baby ought to have human rights is "above his pay grade," but he is very clear that a baby can be killed anytime, even after it is born. On four separate occasions Obama has voted against bills that prevented the killing of infants that are born alive, having survived an attempted abortion.



Obama Affirmed Muslim Prayer. In a New York Times interview in 2007, entitled Obama, A man of the World, Obama fondly recalled the Islamic evening call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

According to the article, "Obama went on to recite its opening lines with a perfect Arabic accent: "Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet!" The article said this would "give any one living in Alabama a heart attack."

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God’s True Prophet, the full and final revelation of God. No true Christian can say the Muslim call to prayer is a "pretty sound" because it is a direct challenge to the truthfulness of Jesus Christ as the Word of God made flesh.



Obama is Associated with Black Liberation Theology through his long association with his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

According to Black Liberation Theologian, James Cone, racial identity trumps the fact that he is a Christian. "The fact that I am Black is my ultimate reality... it is impossible for me to surrender this basic reality for a 'higher, more universal' reality... Black theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in religious matters."

Black liberation theology declares that whites are essentially evil and are to be viewed as the enemy. "Whiteness as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity... the coming of Christ means... destroying the white devil in us... in white racist society, Christian obedience can only mean being obedient to blackness, it's glorification and exaltation... all white churches (are) anti-Christian in their essence."



By Obama's own account of his essential elements of true biblical conversion are lacking, namely, conviction of sin, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world. When asked if he believed in sin, Obama said "Yes." But when asked to define it, Obama said sin is, "Being out of alignment with my values."

Obama said he feels most aligned spiritually "when I’m being true to myself."

According to the Bible, when man sins, he sins against a Holy God in the violation of God’s holy law. Sin is not based on any man's standards. Righteousness is obedience to God and his word.

Obama is offended by the notion that all people need Christ in order to be saved.

"The difficult thing about... Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize... There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell." So, if Jesus is not a Savior who rescues from hell, then who is Jesus to Obama?

"Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher." This is not the testimony of a true Christian.

For Obama, Jesus is merely a historical figure not the risen and living Lord. For Obama, Jesus is merely "a" bridge in the "Christian faith," not the only bridge for all mankind. For Obama, Jesus is a means to some vague "higher" thing. To the Christian, knowing and experiencing Christ is the highest attainment of the Christian life.

Obama venerates doubt, which is contrary to the assurance of eternal salvation and truth which Christ gives his people. Asked if he was "born again," Obama answered, "Yeah... [but] I retain... a suspicion of dogma... I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt... I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die."

Asked to describe the day he was converted Obama denies that there was any kind of supernatural enlightenment or an epiphany or a specific moment when he finally "got it... I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me."

Obama's testimony does not have the marks of a bona fide biblical conversion.

Jesus gives his assurance that "He who believes on me has everlasting life," and "I go to prepare a place for you!"

When asked where he finds inspiration, Obama does not mention a relationship with Christ. He does mentions a lot of things church, but not Jesus.

When asked who was his role model he mentions Gandi. "Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man who acted and risked everything on behalf of those values but never slipped into intolerance or dogma. He seemed to always maintain an air of doubt about him." No mention of Christ.

Without the public admission that you are lost in sin and that you have turned from your sin and put your faith in Christ and his shed blood as the only remedy for sin, you are not truly converted.



The tenets of Christianity are every bit as strict as Islam, but only one faith can be true, and that faith is Christianity. Because only Christianity offers a solution to the problem of sin.

But it has been demonstrated over and over again, that Barack Obama is not a Christian. He...

  • believes there are many paths to heaven
  • denies the authority of the Bible
  • supports abortion
  • affirms Muslim prayer
  • is associated with Black Liberation Theology
  • has no bona fide Christian testimony

It doesn't matter whether Obama is a Muslim or not. The deeper issue here is the fact that he is not Christian. Yes, I'm concerned for this country, and Obama's coziness with Islam and demeanor toward and rejection of Israel is deeply troubling. But in light of eternity, Obama will burn like every other sinner not covered by the blood of Christ Jesus.

And THAT is the intolerance of Christianity. Not that Christianity excludes people from heaven. But that Christianity excludes everyone unwilling to accept the free gift of HIS grace, and HIS righteousness [and not trying to 'get there' on our own merit]. God is intolerant of sin. And unless the sinner accepts that good and perfect gift, he is doomed, for, as Peter put it...

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. --Acts 4:12

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst... All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. --John 6:35, 37-40

I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. --John 8:12

Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. --John 10:7-10

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. --John 10:11, 15-18

I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? --John 11:25-26

He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. --John 12:44-48

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
--John 3:18

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. --John 1:12-13


The intolerant faith of Christianity. There is no other way. Whatever Obama believes, whatever the talking heads tell you. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Nor is it radical. It merely is. If it seems radical at times that it is simply because the true face of Islam has emerged, from the hands of its more devout practitioners. And that we judge 'radical' by the standard of our own faith.

It doesn't matter if Obama is a closet Muslim. What matters is that he is NOT a Christian, and doesn't have the truth. If he had the truth he might have still failed his faith, his God, and this nation. No one is perfect. But Obama is NOT Christian. And that puts his very soul at risk.

And yes, his soul is worth more than the combined wealth of the universe itself. YOUR soul as well.


And so... I've considered this question as much as I have time for.

Read more...

Because it simply will not go away....

>> Thursday, June 17, 2010

Just who is Barack Hussein Obama?


Check this one out as well..


Why won't Obama release his school records? What do we really know about Barry Soetoro.

As to this second vid. Does anyone know about this court case OriginalSavagechick is speaking of? Here's another from her... Pay special attention from 25 seconds in...

Read more...

Sad if true... and I'm leaning toward 'True'



Reports say Obama admitted he's a Muslim


"[In] this latest report...Foreign Prime Minister Gheit on Nile Television...said that, in confidence, Obama told him that he was a Muslim," says Geller, "and that after he straightened out domestic issues would show the Muslim world how to handle Israel."

-Pamela Geller, author and publisher of AtlasShrugs.com
[Link added to sidebar]


Ms. Geller's article, Report: Obama said 'I Am a Muslim' can be read at AmericanThinker.com

Especially troubling is the list, toward the end, of Obama's track-record...

Read more...

Step back... take a breath... and have a good laugh





Or a good cry, as in this offering from the Cato Institute...

The Moocher Index
Make sure you follow the link for the accompanying text, and caveats.

[Click to Enlarge]

Read more...

Everything In Our Power

>> Wednesday, June 16, 2010

"We're going to do everything in our power to protect our natural resources, compensate those who have been harmed, rebuild what has been damaged and help this region persevere like it has done so many times before." - Barack Hussein Obama

Two months after the BP Deep Horizon oil disaster, the Obama administration is no closer to solving the problem than it was the day after.

And yet, Obama says, "We're going to do everything in our power."

Really? Everything?

Well, I suppose he's done everything if talk is everything.

To be fair, here's what Obama has done:

Talk.

"We're going to do everything in our power".


Make speeches. "We're going to do everything in our power".

Visit the coast four times.

"We're going to do everything in our power".


Call up 17,500 National Guard troops (he says).

Only 1600 of them are actually on the job so far. And, as Mark Levin points out, those 1600 can't work 24/7. So, there may be as many as 5-600 working the gulf coastline at any given time.

Here's a pop quiz for you:

How many miles long is the Gulf of Mexico's coastline?

But, "We're going to do everything in our power".

Here. Read this article.

Don't have the time or inclination to read the article? Well, here's an excerpt or two:

"According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it."

What did Obama say? Oh, yes: "We're going to do everything in our power".

"Separately, a Dutch news site 'De Standaard' also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Act Jones forbids them to work in the U.S."

What is the Jones Act? Simply put, the Jones act is a little piece of legislation enacted in 1920 which requires that "all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents." (source)

The Jones act can be waived in cases of national emergency. And, it has been in the past.

But, Obama hasn't waived the Jones Act.

But, Obama says, "We're going to do everything in our power".

This is more than Obama's Katrina.

This is Obama's Waterloo.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.

Read more...

OBAMA: AN INCOMPETENT EXECUTIVE

>> Tuesday, June 15, 2010

by Dick Morris

An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway.

But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.


Ouch!

But, better late than never, I say. Here's hoping our president's speech tonight reflects a sea-change of attitude from the executive branch toward the growing disaster in the gulf. What we need is for the president to step up and do his job-- the time for laying blame is weeks past. It's time now for action. And it remains to be seen whether or not Obama is in fact a man of action.

Read more...

This Is Painful

OH. MY. GOD! South Carolina's Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene in an interview...I just can't describe this:

RealClearPolitics - Video - SC-Sen: Alvin Greene Can't Immediately Name GOP Opponent Jim DeMint

But, it's not just the fact that he obviously has to consult his notes to come up with the name of his opponent in the upcoming election. He stammers and stumbles throughout the entire interview.

If this guy gets elected...well...like I said, I just can't describe this.

Read more...

"Who Are You?"

>> Monday, June 14, 2010



No, congressman, who the fuck are you!? (to quote Townshend and Daltrey)

Another asshole democrat hopefully on his way out the door in November. What gives this asshole the right to accost a student? Grip his arm with white knuckles? grap the back of his neck in a vice grip? Would this asshole have grabbed a man 6'3" and 250lbs? Not likely. What a coward!

Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC), I hope your ass gets waxed this November. You don't deserve your seat in congress. Who! The! FUCK! Do! You! Think! YOU! Are!

Read more...

Not Natural. Not Normal.

>> Sunday, June 13, 2010

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a thread at Marshall Art's blog, a post regarding the endangered "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in America's military, the comments drifted to the usual discussion over whether homosexuality and the oxy-moronic "gay" marriage is normal.

Before I get into my usual rant, I want to state my personal view on both gays in the military and gay marriage:

Don't ask, don't tell:

If, somehow, some homosexual in the military has managed to conceal his deviancy up until now, I have no objection to him/her continuing to serve. As long as none of his/her fellow soldiers know, keep it that way or leave. If, however, he/she has been outed, either by self-outing or by discovery of his peers, he/she should be discharged.

When a homosexual is outed, the other soldiers become self conscious, and will likely imagine they are being leered at, or they may possibly mistake some innocent friendliness as being an unwanted attempt at seduction. It would be an enormous distraction, and effect the cohesiveness of the unit. And that, in time of war, could cost lives.

Gay Marriage:

Personally, I don't care if two homosexuals want to get married to each other.

But don't expect me to give them wedding gifts, and they'd better not expect congratulations from me. I think homosexuality is disgusting. I don't want to know about their perversion.

Other than that, they can swish their tail feathers anywhere they want. As long as they leave me out of it, I really don't care.

Now. On to my rant:

A few years ago, an article was published in the New York Slimes, which reported scientists had genetically altered a female fruit fly by injecting it with a male gene. It naturally did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

From this, the scientists drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic.

The writer of the article did not mention if they had tried the same experiment with male fruit flies. The article also did not mention whether they had tried the same experiment with multiple fruit flies, or with other animals.

I suppose the New York Slimes assumed we would all just believe them, because they have been so trustworthy in the past. (sarcasm)

I can't link to it, because to do so, I would have to subscribe to the New York Slimes online, and I won't waste good money on that treasonous, lying, piece of filth.

But the research was fatally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

In the first place, they started out all wrong. Instead of attempting to find a reason why the hypothesis isn't true, which is the scientifically accepted method of testing a hypothesis, they set out to prove genetic homosexuality is true. When you do this, you are starting out prepared to dismiss any evidence that conflicts with your initial hypothesis, other than which is absolutely undeniable.

Next, frankly, the conclusion reached by these scientists simply doesn't make sense.

They said homosexuality must be genetic because fruit flies injected with the opposite sex gene responded as if they were homosexual.

But, remember. They injected the gene into the fly.

The fly's genetic make-up had to be altered for it to behave in a manner opposite of it's true nature.

The gene was not already present.

It is never present in nature.

The fruit fly does only what fruit flies do. They are born, they eat, they mate. And then, they die. That's all.

Fruit flies do not and cannot choose their sexual orientation. At least, not without outside influences.

Needless to say, fruit flies are not human.

Human beings are the only creatures on this earth who have the capacity of abstract reasoning. They are also the only creatures on earth who choose their sexual preferences.

Human beings are the only creatures who can choose to defy nature.

And, homosexual human beings defy nature.

They choose to be deviant. They choose to defy nature. They choose to deny their own sexuality.

Why?

The reasons are legion.

I believe it starts with a lack of self esteem.

In the last several years, homosexuality has become fashionable. Because of the efforts of homosexual activists, many people who otherwise wouldn't have considered being homosexual have "joined the movement", so to speak. Joining this club satisfies the need to belong.

I suspect many of the members of this particular club are not really homosexual at all, but they want to belong to some group so badly, they assume the stereotypical mannerisms that all people, straight or gay, easily recognize. Probably all of them, if they continue to affect the mannerisms of what they consider to be "gay", eventually engage in some sort of homosexual activity. Once they go that far, their self esteem reaches an all time low, and the homosexual lifestyle claims another victim.

I personally know a homosexual young man who tries so very hard to convince everyone around him that he is gay, I have become convinced he is not really gay at all.

He simply tries too hard.

If it were natural and normal to be homosexual, why would one try so hard to act that way?

If it's natural and normal, just be homosexual. Be yourself. Stop trying to prove your "gayness" to everyone else. Normal people only find that behavior disgusting, and don't want to know.

Even with the strong pull of inclusiveness mentioned above, I believe very few people enter the homosexual lifestyle in this manner.

For the most part, those who eventually choose an aberrant lifestyle do so because of some childhood trauma or influence, from extreme circumstances such as rape and molestation, to merely a lack of a strong role model in the child's home.

Homosexual enablers will often say something like, "Homosexuals are disdained and hated and treated badly. Why would they choose to be discriminated against if it's so much easier to be heterosexual?"

Well, the answer to that question is this: There are people who are affected with some sort of medical or neurological disorder. They crave attention.

Read up on Munchhausen's syndrome.

As I mentioned, in spite of what certain people, such as Dan T. , Geoffrey, and scores of others, will say, homosexuality never occurs in nature. It requires some alteration by an outside force, such as the injection of an unnatural gene, as we've seen, or a traumatic influence (or semi-traumatic. It's a relative term) from some sort of outside entity.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever turns you on. I don't really care. I won't hate you for that. I might dislike you for other reasons, but not your choice of sexual preferences.

But, don't flaunt your perversion in front of me, please. And, stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way.

You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas or outside influences instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

And, if you are normal and pretend you believe they are, too, despite what common sense tells you, keep it to yourself. You aren't convincing anyone.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.

Read more...

Two WOW Articles; Stinging Indictments of Liberalism

>> Friday, June 11, 2010



First up, George Will on Obama's economic failure, and the resultant economic uncertainty...

Jobs report a nightmare for Obama progressivism
--George F Will, June 10, 2010, Washington Post

Uncertainty is a consequence of hyperkinetic government, which is a consequence of the governmental confidence that is a consequence of progressivism. The premise of progressivism is that all will be well if enough power is concentrated in Washington, and enough Washington power is concentrated in the executive branch, and enough really clever experts are concentrated in the executive branch. This is why the government's perceived impotence concerning the gulf oil spill is subversive of the Obama administration's master narrative.


There's another line toward the end that beautifully illustrates the error of progressivism: "For a proper progressive, anything short of a "comprehensive" solution to, say, the problem of illegal immigration is unworthy of consideration."

And this in turn is beautifully illustrated in the DeepHorizon oil spill. This administration is bogged down, in part, because the president is either looking for a complete package deal to the problem, and strict adherence to procedure, never mind that adherence to procedure is killing the economies of the Gulf states, or myopically fixed on a single facet of a much larger problem-- sitting back and railing against the administrators of his government to "plug the damn hole" --while hindering or ignoring the other things that must get done along the way.

"Let's not talk about immigration unless we can talk about it comprehensively."
But while we argue over each others ideas of comprehensiveness, thousands cross the border, making the problem more and unnecessarily difficult.

---

Next up, Dan Henninger excoriates the myth of 'government omnipotence,' while simultaneously exposing governments' very real impotence when it mightily over-steps its constitutional mandate...

Obama Meets Toto
--Dan Henninger, JUne 10, 2010, Wall Street Journal

Whatever the validity, for most of the postwar period, many people bought into this Faustian bargain. Throw money, accept the inefficiencies, and hope the government does more good than harm.

Arguably, achieving certain public goods this way could have endured for the Democrats—but only if programs like Medicaid remained as modest as their originators promised. Or if government's advocates had made choices. We can do this (Medicare for the elderly), but not that (Medicare for all, now called ObamaCare). But any liberal suggesting judgment or restraint—a Sen. Pat Moynihan— was tossed off the magic bus.

Now government's inefficiency has become indefensible and its fantastic costs, its oceanic spending, a clear and present danger.


Progressive government has taken on too much! So much in fact that it can no longer balance all the promises its made and the expectations of its citizens. Our leaders have over sold and under delivered... To the detriment of us all.

Read more...

National Debt Now Tops American Fears

"As the world is currently seeing in Greece and across Europe, there are consequences to excessive debt levels. The American people understand the danger; the question is when our leaders will."

Read more...

Purpose, Drive, Mastery, Self-Direction...

>> Wednesday, June 9, 2010

do these concepts even exist in the Progressive Lexicon? Or are they considered 'myths'?



Great video illustrating the hidden truths behind what really motivates us at home and in the workplace. If only government would similarly get out of our way, and allow us the freedom to decide for ourselves what is in our best interest. Imagine what men, freed from the restraints of progressive government, could achieve!

Read more...

The Wussification Of America

>> Friday, June 4, 2010

"Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death." ~James F. Byrnes

Driving home for lunch a few days ago, in a hurry, I found myself driving behind an SUV that was evidently being driven by someone who thought their vehicle was made of glass. The driver came to almost a complete stop before crossing a railroad track, and then rolled across at approximately 1/2 mile an hour.

OK. I admit that in my frustration, I may have overreacted somewhat, because shouting, "Oh, my God! You're driving a tank!" went unheard and thus, unheeded.

But, born of such frustration, I had a small epiphany that expanded to a bigger epiphany, and that is what I am writing about now. Here's how my somewhat quirky thought processes go:

Because this was far from the first time I had noticed how overly cautious drivers of large, nearly indestructible vehicles are, I have proffered a theory (unscientifically, of course) that people who buy SUV's are either adventurous or wimps.

Some people buy them for the purpose of taking them off-road, grinding through tons of mud, uphill and down, swimming shallow creeks, four-wheeling across bone-jarring gullies and rocky landscapes, and bouncing up and down and around like the "Scrambler" ride at the amusement park.

But, alas, Most buy them because they fear being injured in a collision. They buy four wheel drive vehicles so they can maneuver easier in rain and snow, then drive in rain or snow as if they are driving on eggs and afraid they might break one.

It seems to me the latter far outnumbers the former. Most people buy SUV's because they are wimps.

And that epiphany led to a greater epiphany:

Our nation is becoming wussified.

It isn't only the purchasing of nearly indestructible vehicles that leads me to this conclusion. The evidence is in nearly every facet of American life.

A few examples:

The increasing obsession with eating healthy.

Our parents and grandparents never heard of such strange creatures as anti-oxidants, carbohydrates and cholesterol, yet most of our ancestors lived happy, healthy lives, many well into their eighties and ninety's.

My two great-grandmothers each lived to 92 years old. My paternal grandfather and grandmother lived to 84 and 92 respectively. My maternal grandmother lived into her 80's with Parkinson's syndrome. The only grandparent I had who died relatively young was my maternal grandfather, who only died young because he was struck by a bus.

My father passed away at 72. His doctor had him on a "healthy diet". My mother is still healthy and will soon celebrate her 90th birthday. She eats whatever she wants.

Did they live long because they didn't have the added stress from worrying constantly about their BFI or heart rate? Or maybe, just possibly, there is really nothing so unhealthy in our food that we need to radically change our diets.

Exercising.

Jim Fixx, the author of "The Complete Book of Running", a book extolling the benefits of physical exercise and how it considerably increased the average human being's life expectancy, suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack shortly after one of his regular morning jogs. He was 52.

Dr. James Rodale, a leading expert in health and healthy foods, taped an interview on the Dick Cavett show, during which he said, "I'm gonna live to be a 100", and promptly hit the floor to do 100 push-ups.

Minutes later, Dr. Rodale was dead, a victim of a heart attack, still sitting right there on Mr. Cavett's couch.

I have my own theory about exercise vs. health:

I believe there is only a finite number of beats in the human heart. Once the last beat is reached, you die. No amount of healthy eating or exercise can change that number. It is your number. When your number's up, your number's up.

Exercise increases the heart beat rate. The heart beats faster, thereby making the heart beat number increase more rapidly. Which results in a quicker death.

These examples deal with a fear of death. There are other examples dealing with sensitivity.

Our people have become so afraid of offending each other, that the best thing for us to do is never speak to anybody. About anything. You never know when you might be offending someone.

We can't pray at public events because of the off-chance we might offend some atheist.

We can't use the word, "Queer" because we might offend some homo.

We can no longer keep score at t-ball games because, God forbid, some 6 year-old players might feel bad if they lose.

Some school teachers can't mark test papers in red ink for fear of hurting some lazy student's feelings.

We can't give out awards to high achievers because by so doing we might inadvertently injure some low achiever's psyche. We must, instead, give all the participants an award regardless of the level of achievement.

We can't suspect young middle eastern appearing men might be terrorists for fear of offending Muslims, most of whom are either terrorists or at least, support Islamic jihadists.

Men must be sensitive, while, paradoxically, women must be strong and self sufficient. Stating the obvious fact that men are physically stronger than women and as such, can actually perform some tasks better than women is offensive to women. (and girly men)

Stating the obvious fact that some people have darker skins than others is tantamount to being a racist, and offensive to people with dark skins.

Normal ordinary thinking people know it's better to throw trash away in the proper receptacle than to carelessly toss it on the ground. Nature just looks more pristine that way.

But, only in massive doses can it do significant damage to the overall environment. (A fact seemingly lost on Liberals at their omnipresent rallies. Did you ever see pictures of the mess they leave in their wake?)

Mindless, unthinking, sheep minded people have created an entire global movement to convince people that littering and improper disposal of trash will destroy the earth in a matter of days, if not seconds if we don't start being more sensitive to our environment. (as long as we don't apply the same standards to them)

Somebody, a few years ago, walked out into their yard one unusually hot Spring or Autumn day and concluded that the earth must be warming up, and from that poorly thought out hypothesis, came the still unproven theory of Global Warming.

Now, AlGore and other equally clueless Liberals, are warning us that we will destroy the earth in the aforementioned same number of days or seconds, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Liberals are sounding the alarm every day about some new crisis that will ultimately destroy our planet, and the destruction is always imminent.

There are many, many other examples. Super-sensitivity abounds.

I could write a book on the subject, but suffice it to say...

America has become wussified.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

Read more...

Smells Like Economic Doom ?

>> Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Our national debt has just reached 13 Trillion, a figure determined from the Treasury Department's website and includes the figures for Debt Held by the Public (foreign governments & private investors holding Treasuries, etc.) as well as "Intragovernmental Holdings."

Even more alarming -- a president of the Federal Reserve is claiming the real debt figure to be $104 trillion if you count all our entitlement programs (like Social Security and Medicare) and obligations, including federal pensions.

Read more...

Memorial Day Weekend Opinion Roundup

>> Tuesday, June 1, 2010

He Was Supposed to Be Competent
--Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Jounal

I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.



A Stranger in Our Midst
--Robert Weissberg, American Thinker

As the Obama administration enters its second year, I -- and undoubtedly millions of others -- have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America's future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it's not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.



Will journalists wake up in time to save journalism from Obama's FTC?
--Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner

Release of the Federal Trade Commission's working paper on "reinventing journalism" makes it clear that there is no more time for diplomacy about this issue: President Obama is determined to federalize the news industry just as he has banking, autos, and health care.

Everybody who wants independent journalism had better wake up to these three facts about what is going:

* Journalists must understand that there is no way the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press will survive if the federal government regulates the news industry as envisioned by the FTC. Those who accept at face value protests to the contrary or the professions of pure intentions by advocates of government takeover of the news business are, at best, incredibly naive.

* Journalists who remain silent or apathetic about what is being prepared by the FTC for their profession become unintentional accessories in the strangulation of independent journalism.

* Journalists who support or assist, for any reason, the FTC process are accomplices in the strangulation of independent journalism.

Those in the administration who clearly view independent journalism as an obstacle to "change we can believe in" and their numerous allies in the old media, non-profit, and academic communities who either share a similar ideological vision or see the FTC process as their salvation against the Internet, will no doubt dismiss my assertions as extemism or alarmism.

Fine, call me whatever, but what they cannot deny is what is clearly written in the FTC document and what it reveals about the intention behind the initiative, which is to transform the news industry from an information product collected by private individuals and entrepreneurs as a service to private buyers, to a government-regulated public utility providing a "public good," as defined and regulated by government.



We’re too broke to be this stupid
-Mark Steyn

In any advanced society, there will be a certain number of dysfunctional citizens either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to support themselves and their dependents. What to do about such people? Ignore the problem? Attempt to fix it? The former nags at the liberal guilt complex, while the latter is way too much like hard work: the modern progressive has no urge to emulate those Victorian social reformers who tramped the streets of English provincial cities looking for fallen women to rescue. All he wants to do is ensure that the fallen women don’t fall anywhere near him.

So the easiest “solution” to the problem is to throw public money at it. You know how it is when you’re at the mall and someone rattles a collection box under your nose and you’re not sure where it’s going but it’s probably for Darfur or Rwanda or Hoogivsastan. Whatever. You’re dropping a buck or two in the tin for the privilege of not having to think about it. For the more ideologically committed, there’s always the awareness-raising rock concert: it’s something to do with Bono and debt forgiveness, whatever that means, but let’s face it, going to the park for eight hours of celebrity caterwauling beats having to wrap your head around Afro-Marxist economics. The modern welfare state operates on the same principle: since the Second World War, the hard-working middle classes have transferred historically unprecedented amounts of money to the unproductive sector in order not to have to think about it. But so what? We were rich enough that we could afford to be stupid.



Obama at the Bat

Read more...

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP