Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective

>> Tuesday, May 31, 2011

"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." ~ Bethania McKenstry

I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.

First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.

It was a self defeating prediction.

If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?

Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.

Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."

It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".

I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.

Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.

I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.

Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:

In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.

Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.

At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.

Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.

Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:

96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.

Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.

But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.

So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.

They will vote according to race.

He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.

It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.

Enter Herman Cain. A black man.

If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.

They will have to choose between two black men for president.

And therefore, a dilemma.

The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:

1. A Democrat black candidate.

2. A Republican black candidate.

3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.

4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..

5. Vote for a third party candidate.

6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or

7. Don't vote at all.

Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.

This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.

However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.

If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.


Excited by power, Obama ignores legal restraints

>> Tuesday, May 24, 2011

(in other words, he's forsaken his oath as president; choosing to rule rather than govern)

--by Timothy P. Carney, May 22, 2011
The Washington Examiner


President Obama launched a U.S. war in Libya two months ago with no congressional approval. Under the Constitution and under the War Powers Act, which allows the president to wage defensive wars for up to 60 days without prior approval, Obama probably broke the law.

Now that 60 days have passed since the United States joined the hostilities, Obama's war is more clearly illegal. But nobody should expect this to matter to a president with a long record of disregarding legal and constitutional limits on presidential and federal power.
The same media that pulled out every stop to vilify President Bush, bends over contortionist-like to condone his every flouting and affront to the constitution.

Obama in 2009 threw out bankruptcy law and precedent when he handed ownership of Chrysler to his political patrons, the United Auto Workers, publicly and privately threatening the creditors who objected.

Obama's National Labor Relations Board has gotten in the game by blocking Boeing from making its jets at its new factory in South Carolina.

This administration regularly flouts and bends its own ethics rules. Lobbyists fresh from Google and Goldman Sachs came to the White House and helped craft policies directly affecting their former employers -- sometimes in concert with their old lobbyist colleagues. H&R Block's chief executive officer joined the administration and drafted tax-preparation regulations that help H&R Block.

More importantly, Obama seems to regard the Constitution's limits as quaint. We see it in his rhetoric and his actions.


Obamacare's linchpin -- a federal requirement that every person buy and hold health insurance -- is a fine example of Obama's disdain for the notion of enumerated powers. The administration's lawyers have their constitutional defenses in court, but those arguments are more semantical than sincere. The telltale is the blatant contradiction between the politicians' claims (it's not a tax!) and the lawyers' claims (it's only a tax!).
This list is just the tip of the iceberg. What's worse is the glaring hypocrisy of the Left...

It's not just the administration. Disdain for constitutional limits on federal power is widespread on the Left. The derogatory term "Tenther" was coined in 2009 (invoking the "birther" conspiracy theory that Obama is not an American citizen) to mock those conservatives and libertarians who want more deference to the 10th Amendment's declaration that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Advocating stricter adherence of the Constitution will get you called racist. Al Gore once said, in effect, that a "strict constructionist" is someone who sees blacks as three-fifths of a person.
This is the tool most often used by the Left; mock the opposition as being unreasonable or uncaring, and generate negative public opinion against it based on perception; in short, apply Alinksy Rule 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

The truth, however, is that the only way liberals can build themselves up (and their desire for a "just" society) is by tearing others down. See Liberal Truth #21.

A liberal can't consistently argue fact. A few will fall into his lap on occasion, but he will swiftly turn to personal attacks the moment his arguments give way beneath him. A liberal cannot see any truth that goes against his ideological grain. Such truths are swiftly absorbed, focus-grouped, polled, and reshaped to their own vision, design, and purpose.

Which is why the media, the Left, and Liberals in general can't see the truth of Obama. To repudiate Obama, on even so small a thing as the War Powers Act, would be to admit they are not the paragons of virtue they'd have us believe. They would have to admit that they are tainted. And no liberal can tolerate his ersatz halo to be seen as anything other than the real deal.

Obama is the worst president in modern history. Period. The most brazenly anti-constitutional, the most unapologetically anti-America.

No true-blue liberal will ever admit the truth of this. Say hello to Liberal Truth #2.


Afterthought... Reconsideration

>> Friday, May 20, 2011

For Obama to say Israel must retreat to pre-67 borders... it's the same as supporting the Palestinians' stated goal of destroying Israel. If Obama wants Israel to retreat to such an indefensible position then Obama desires the destruction of Israel. Either that, or Obama is the most naive commander in chief this nation has ever seated.


Obama's Imbecilic Foray Into Middle East Peace

>> Thursday, May 19, 2011

I went to Drudge just now. In the top left corner was a picture of Obama making kissy-face with who appears to be Hillary. Beneath the pic were the following headlines:

Without bothering to quote the articles, here's my say:

One. Obama should be smart enough to see that any return to pre-1967 borders would spell the end of Israel.

Two. Obama said today that it is the US's position to promote reform, and to support transitions to democracy in the middle east. Great! Israel is at present the only real democracy, yet Obama seeks to give a regime with NO democratic credentials, with stated and demonstrated antipathy toward this Israel's real democracy, a toe-hold in the destruction of said real democracy. In short, Obama supports the wrong side, and defining the US's policy goals as he did shows him to be clueless. It is the Palestinian Authority that's in need of democratic reforms.

Three. Netanyahu is correct in stating that the 1967 lines are indefensible. More than 300,000 Israelis would be left, essentially, behind enemy lines. And why the 1967 lines? What's so special about those lines? How about the lines that were promised Israel in 1920 via the British Mandate (1920-1946)? Why ask the only democratic nation in the middle east to surrender large swaths of land that make the defense of it's resultant borders indefensible? If Israel were given what they were promised, they possess ALL of Jordan as well as the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza. Obama is not concerned with Israeli security. He is only concerned with enabling the terrorists.

Four. Mahmoud Abbas, for his part, appears to want to continue the peace process, while Hamas is distrustful of Obama's motives. Be that as it may, Abbas still insists Jerusalem must be the capital of any Palestinian state, and this is an untenable demand for Israelis. The biblical implication of dividing Jerusalem is one thing, but the reality on the ground is another; Israel will not... en, oh, tee, NOT surrender any part of Jerusalem-- it would be too great a psychological blow to their national identity. How do I know this? Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple. Why would they make the staggering amount of preparation they already have if giving up Jerusalem were even a remote possibility?

Five. Obama cares more about his own ideological positions than any real stated foreign policy. He says he wants to support reforms in the middle east and establish democracies, but his insistence upon surrendering (or even dividing) Jerusalem, as well as an impractical return to previous lines belies his stated goals. Bush was criticized for his support of Israel; some criticism going so far as to brand his policy as overtly Christian. On the flip-side, Obama claims to be Christian but bends over backward in insisting the Jewish state sacrifice its very existence for the illusory promise of a democratic Palestinian state.


Proof: San Franciso Populated by Nut Cases

Circumcision Ban to Appear on San Francisco Ballot

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.

"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.

That's right, Schofield said, "It's his body. It's his choice."

Since circumcision is performed on the eighth day of life (Jewish Law), the child has a choice because... why? He's eight days beyond the birth canal. According to a certain segment of liberal bastion San Francisco's population any male child on the eighth day of his life has the right of choice because it is his body. It's a shame they don't afford the same "choice" on the other side of the birth canal.

What hypocrites!

So what does this prove? To my mind it proves that "Freedom" is a concept that only encompasses their ideological brand; they're unconcerned with the constitutional rights of others, namely, those with whom they disagree. In fact, it appears they're not entirely concerned with anyone's constitutional rights but their own! Some they like, others they don't. And since San Francisco lies within the boundaries of the United States of America, these people feel they have the right to choose which rights others should have, and not have.

From where I sit-- 2,100 miles away --I can't imagine this ballot initiative ever passing. But this is California we're talking about; worse yet, San Francisco!


More Proof That Obamacare is a Very Bad Idea

>> Monday, May 16, 2011

HHS approves 200 more new healthcare reform waivers

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats' healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves. Still, Republicans have assailed the waivers as a sign of both favoritism and of major problems with the law.

"The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in March. Upton is one of three House committee chairmen who has used new oversight powers to investigate the annual limit waivers.

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

"A transparent process..." they say. Well, it is transparently clear that the process sucks, and needs to be done away with. We can reform healthcare in this country without Obamacare.


If Government Employees Aren't Safe... No One Is

If government can steal from the pension funds of government employees, how long before it decides to "borrow" from private retirement funds?

Treasury To Tap Pensions To Help Fund Government
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post, May 15, 2011

The Obama administration will begin to tap federal retiree programs to help fund operations after the government loses its ability Monday to borrow more money from the public, adding urgency to efforts in Washington to fashion a compromise over the debt.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has warned for months that the government would soon hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling — a legal limit on how much it can borrow. With the government poised to reach that limit Monday, Geithner is undertaking special measures in an effort to postpone the day when he will no longer have enough funds to pay all of the government’s bills.

Geithner, who has already suspended a program that helps state and local government manage their finances, will begin to borrow from retirement funds for federal workers.

Apparently neither Obama nor Geithner understand that many recipients (if not most), present and future, either were or are members of government unions. Does he think he can do this and still retain their votes?

Will current recipients not receive their benefits? Not hardly. The administration is not that stupid. But what about the recipients? What will they think? Will they think the administration capable of taking more if it chooses? Will Obama plant in their minds a fear of government? If government can, at any time, dip into your pension fund, do you mean to tell me you wouldn't feel the slightest bit frightened, or concerned... even offended?

If Washington can do this, dip into pension funds to fund their irresponsibility, how soon before it believes it has the right to do the same with private pension funds? There were talks of doing just that in 2008... doing away with the 401k in favor of a government plan (which they could then tap). Who's to say such an idea cannot resurface (if it has ever truly died)? Who's to say such an idea cannot be implemented?

If Washington would simply bite the bullet and take SERIOUS steps toward balancing this nations budget and paying off our ever increasing debt. If government would simply stop spending beyond its obligations... perhaps we could save this country.

It appears our leaders can't stand to see a single dollar unspent. Every idle dollar is a token to be offered for more personal power and influence. Those idle dollars belong to us, the taxpayers. Not government. Our pensions belong to us. Not government.

If these assholes would simply stop spending.


This "Paper Tiger" Has Teeth

>> Tuesday, May 3, 2011

"America is a paper tiger" ~ Osama bin Laden

I've been too busy to comment on the termination of Osama bin Laden, and, as it turns out, that may have been a blessing.

Now that further information has surfaced, I can make a more informed comment.

Stop! Don't shoot!

Upon first hearing that Osama was dead, my first thought was, "Big deal. Someone else will just step in and take his place. It's not over." I still think that, except, his death is a big deal.

Then, I heard that Obama "authorized" the operation. He gave the "Kill" order.

Now, I admit I have little to no knowledge of military operations, and certainly less knowledge of covert military operations, but I seem to remember President George W. Bush authorized the military to capture and kill bin Laden a decade ago.

Was this authorization ever rescinded?

If not, Obama did not need to authorize the operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Taking out bin Laden was the armed forces' mission, and has been their mission for the last ten years.

Mission accomplished.

Now, Obama is taking credit for this victory. This is the same man who campaigned on getting the U.S. out of the war by surrendering. He is also the same man who promised to close GITMO, and aggressively pushed for the prosecution of the CIA operatives who interrogated the Muslim terrorist detainees, calling our techniques "torture".

And yet, it was those very "techniques" that gave us the information that, in turn, led to Osama bin Laden's demise.

So, apparently, Obama gets the credit in spite of himself.

Two things bother me about the subsequent burial of Osama at sea:

I understand the stated reasons for burying him at sea, but they don't pass muster with me.

1. The first reason stated was they buried him at sea to prevent Osama's rabid followers from building a shrine at the site of Osama's grave. OK. So they have prevented Muslim extremists from creating a shrine to Osama on his gravesite. But, nevertheless, shrines can, and likely will, be created at his place of birth, place of death, and any of thousands of sites scattered in between.

So, what, if anything, did burial at sea accomplish, other than generate speculation that Osama might not really be dead? You know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

Remember the theories that Hitler was still alive somewhere and plotting his revenge?

At least there was never any doubt that Mussolini was dead.

2. The second stated reason for burial at sea was because Obama (apparently, since he had the responsibility of making such decisions) insisted we give bin Laden a proper Muslim send-off out of respect for the Islamic traditions and customs.

This offends me. How does this vermin deserve respect from us? From anyone? In my opinion, his body should have been placed in some very public place and left there with 24 hour video surveillance until his body decays into dust.

To hell with respect for Muslim tradition and customs. They are a false religion in the first place.

In my opinion, he shouldn't have been killed at all. Rather, he should have been captured and incarcerated for the rest of his life in a prison with no other inmates and no outside contact at all, ala Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison. No newspapers. No TV. No DVD's, No computers. No visitors. At all. Until his lonely, anonymous death.

In this way, he becomes virtually ineffective as a leader of terrorists. He cannot be a martyr because he has not died a martyr's death. He becomes his own worst nightmare:

He becomes insignificant.

Osama bin Laden once famously said, "America is a paper tiger".

Evidently, this "paper tiger" has some pretty sharp teeth.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine


Congratulations President Obama

>> Monday, May 2, 2011

  And to President Bush as well.


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


"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 2009

Back to TOP