Thursday, April 30, 2009

Obama's first 100 days.

I've been listening to the media's praise of BO's first 100 days making comparisons of him to FDR, Kennedy, Lincoln, and the most that makes me want to barf, Ronald Reagan. I say let's take an objective look, something the media is completely unable to do now that they have been completely invested into BO and their credibility is completely on whether he's successful or not, and see how he really compares to the above presidents.



First, FDR. FDR was a socialist that used manipulation and control of the media to entrenched his power and moved the US from an individual based economy to a more centralist government. He tried, somewhat successfully, to move the base of power from the states, which is where the individual rights were by our founding fathers, to the federal government. He tried to nationalized the banks and industries, which, fortunately, was struck down by the supreme court. FDR responded to this obstacle by threatening to place judges that would rule in his favor which he did over the years, but by the time he got his majority in the court, we were already in the middle of World War II and no longer was able to push his socialized agenda because bigger problems were now looming. As for BO, he's on the verge of nationalizing the banks as well as other "non-banking" industries like the insurance companies. There he's more successful than FDR. FDR would never be photographed by a black man, well, on that front, BO will fail miserably because he can't escape that about himself. BO has nationalized the auto industry, with the exception of Ford. Yea, he's manage to make himself a bigger, better FDR.



Kennedy, I don't know what he wants to compare himself to as far as this man's accomplishments? JFK's biggest accomplishments are the forward of the civil rights moment, the drive to get to the moon. BO like to eliminate NASA and wages class warfare among the races, not moving forward. JFK did got us started in Vietnam, something that's overlooked. JFK was ready to go to war against Russia when we were being threaten with missiles 90 miles from our shores. Compared that to the pathetic fight that BO is waging in Afghanistan and his capitulation to our Muslim enemies, especially Iran which can have the bomb by the end of the year, I say BO fails miserably on his comparison to JFK. He's no JFK.



Lincoln, I'm not going there since there is no civil war other than the one he's declaring on the returning vets and those that disagree with him on the right. He's fighting a war against patriot Americans that want to preserve our sovereignty, borders, language, and culture that are now being totally melted down. Americans, WHITE AMERICANS, fought against the truly racism citizens in the South who were fighting mainly to not just secede, but to preserve the slave state that they relied on for their industrial output: agriculture. BO has done more race baiting than all the Imperial Wizards of the KKK. After all, if you didn't vote for him or oppose his policies, you're a racist. So on this front, BO is really the anti-thesis of Lincoln who was for preserving the union (even if he was willing to compromise on the slavery issue) and for the destruction of the union.

As for Ronald Reagan, this one just plain makes me sick. He's being compared to the grate orator. BO can't speak a complete sentence clearly without his teleprompter. Mainly, because, this man doesn't believe a word of what he's saying as well they're not his thoughts. Reagan mainly did his speeches live and without any aides. He believed his message and gave them with passion and articulation. BO gives a boring remedial read out. I don't understand people's fascination of his speeches as they toe the same ole arguments, class warfare, and racist overtones that I can hear in 30 seconds of a rap song. The only "talented" thing he does, is have his writers do it without the aid of profanity. If one was to take the position of the communist manifesto and put them on a teleprompter, you have Obama's speeches. He's really communicated nothing. Does anyone have a clue what his plan is? Or what it is he's even promising? The banks are learning this lesson the hard way because they took government money without having the fine print even written up. Once it was with most of the congress not even reading it (it's over 600 pages for crying out loud) and now they're left bewildered. It's not like he DIDN'T promise not to nationalize them. He's been very artful at dodging, or what I call circumlocution, the issues. He never takes a solid stance. He's just good at making it appears as if he's taking a voter's side. Reagan, you knew what he stood for and why. He's plan for retaliating against the Libyans when they did their terrorist act was no surprise (though the left thought he never have the canjohnas to actually go through with it). The Libyanan's got the message and never assaulted us again. BO is as great of orator as Beethoven is a poet. Completely out of his element.

BO first 100 days have been a disaster, but the media spin and the ignorance or racism of the American public have him as the height of popularity. Our debt has been quadrupled and he's just started, liberties are going down faster than Zero's did in the pacific war, and our progress to Socialism and tyranny has been accelerated to a frightening pace. This is the first 100 days. I just hope people wake up before it's too late. After all, Lincoln said it best, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Only question, will we wake up before it's too late.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Welcome to the new Banana Republic.

As my wife is from a 3rd world country, she still has her faith and pride in the spirit of her nationality. Often making me wonder what is the difference between a 3rd world country and a so called 1st or 2nd world country. I've made some observation that have been made by both of us as we share our experiences and relate them to the current political landscape that is shaping the US today. Seems that there are some citeria that we've agreed on as follows.

First, the corruption level. Yes, I know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but how does one get this power and how can one tell that they're crossing over the line. First, how much of the power is "diversified". Do I mean equal representation by all the races? You only wish. No, it's how much of the power is divided up from the populace in general. Is it divided up so that anyone and everyone has an equal portion of the power pie or is it held to a few tight knitted families. In her home country basically 5 families are fighting out for a majority of the power. Any threat to that power and they send out the goons. Take a look at the despots of the world, you'll find a handful of people or mainly a family control a vast majority of the power. Cuba is a prime example. Many African countries and the Muslim despots have such a structure by their royal traditions.

So, control by a handful of people or families is a tale tale sign. Take a look at the body politics for the last 20 years here in the states. First it was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush against, and now we got Bush and Clinton on steroids with BO. How often does the congress have a turnover of the politicians? 5% at most until the recent election when the turnover was 12% because of the complete incompetence of the Republican party. Now BO is taking control the Census as well as making a lot of Executive Orders. ACORN is entrenching to assure the same group gets elected year after year or worse, to have a one party system and become a totalitarian state. Taking a look at the power struggle going on, the Democrats are passing bill after bill to entrench their power base and neuter any opposition. This doesn't bore well for our republic.

The next thing we seem to agree on is the control of the money supply. 3rd world countries have micro-economic control of the money supply. One way they keep the power is that they see to it that any opposition groups are denied the capital and funding they need to function or survive. They have complete control of the banks and write the policies as they see fit. Sounds familiar, doesn't it. BO and the administration are seeking to nationalize the bank. Many of the banks that have taken the bail out money have found themselves being controlled by the bureaucrats and many that want out and pay the money back are finding they have made a pack with the devil and the devil wants his soul. Like Faust, they have learned too late what the real price they are to pay and what they got wasn't all that valuable with an insufficient return in comparison. Now, they're under complete mercy of the government and they have shown that they have no other interest but to rein in control of the money supply.

The next is the control of information. Many debated about what brought down the iron certain the breakup of the Soviet Union. I've heard many, the fear of Star Wars, our superior strength through superior firepower, our superior economic and political might. The one that the Russians and mainly Ukrainians had told me was a bit of a surprise: the Fax Machine. The Soviets were able to maintain control during the cold war because the citizens had limited information. They never knew what was going on in the west other than what the state was releasing and how, if anything, any chinks in the armor of the Soviet Empire. Once the fax was created, the Soviet couldn't control that information. The truth would eventually get out and eventually the government was unable to maintain the control and everything came apart. Here in the state, the government doesn't even have to use their iron fist to control information. The media, that's suppose to be a watchdog industry is now a lapdog industry. The Government Media Complex has taken root for so long, that the media doesn't even question the government anymore if a Democrat is in office. BO has done at least 3 acts of treason and the media either has sided as the right thing or just plain doesn't report on it. His comforting of the Islamic enemy, the take over of the banks, and the release of the CIA memos and threat of prosecuting those involved are acts of treason. Any other President had been doing this, there would be riots in the streets. Now, everyone is behind him. Either the populace wants to see their country die (which is their right. Nothing in the constitution doesn't say we can't vote our freedoms away) or they're ignorant because of the media lack of reporting. Anyway, our government, other than talk radio and the Internet, have control of the information that is distributed to the populace and they're targeting the Internet and the talk radio next. Soon, this blog may be illegal and those that defend them, you call this a free society?

Lastly, in a 3rd world country, there's is a complete lack of law and order. Government main function is to protect life and property, but in 3rd world countries, it seems like a suggestion than a prime directive. Their, they're promised the moon and that the government's job is to provide everything for them only to have everyone just as improvised (except those few families that have the bulk of the power). Criminal elements have a great deal of control or have their way at will. Take a look at 3rd world countries and the biggest problem they have is crime. People have no way to protect what little they have and the criminal empires have so much money, power, and firepower that they are their own government in themselves. Take a look at the criminal behavior that has been going on the last 20 years. Has anyone been held accountable. A few political opposition, but otherwise no. And, it's getting worse. Who now feels anything of their is safe from the criminal element? Our money isn't safe in the banks anymore because it can be lost by a bank failure or the dark cloud of inflation that hovers over our heads. The threat of higher taxes, lost of benefits. Try calling 911 lately? How long does it take to get help, especially if you live in a high risk area as I do. Too often we're on our own, and with the latest economic crisis and the cuts local governments are making, are things going to get any better soon?

The last 20 years have been a disaster to the republic. Abe Lincoln went to war to preserve this republic and now it's on the verge of collapse. All the elements are in place, it's a matter of the spark that will have the entire system to finally fall apart from the strain. I pray that I'm wrong and hope I don't make that statement I never like to say: I hate it when I'm right.

QED

Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Socialization of America.

So anyone remember those bailouts that were needed to save the economy? That original $700 billion that was going to keep us out the financial meltdown and the destruction of our economy. That was Bush's big blunder. Then we got BO which in addition to Bush's policy of bailouts and giving money to that that squandered or were just too stupid with it, gave out even MORE money. For the second time those that were stupid with their money and bought houses they couldn't afford (or even had jobs to pay back the loans) have defaulted again. So much for shame on me. When they couldn't pay the first two times, what was the government's clue they could the third time. Heck, even I at that point would wonder why pay. Seems responsible people are the dopes.

Now what's coming out from this administration is what their real objective have been from day one and I mean during the campaign: The nationalization of our banks. Many banks, under threat that we would all pay if they didn't get their tax payer subsidized checks are finding themselves under a hostile takeover from the government. Many banks that got the stimulus money that didn't need it or don't want it are not being allowed to pay the government back and get back their ownership. Seems the government whole objective was to gain ownership of the industry and take control of it. There's a word for that. It's called communism. Now that the banks are going to be nationalized, we thought the threat that the bank's were warning about was bad, this is going to be worse. Now the government will determine who's worthy for getting money and loans and who's not. What does that mean for the markets? It means the markets are no longer going to be in control of who gets money. This will be under complete control of the state (federal government). Now if the government doesn't like what you're producing, you're denied. If you're not politically correct, loan denied. If you'll be profitable, loan denied. This gang can give money away to their cronies, produce nothing, and deplete the nation's wealth. This will be a start in the government becoming so big, it can give you everything you need as well as take everything you own.

If that's not enough for you, look at the attempt of the hostile takeover the insurance industries. After all, if the government doesn't feel you're going to feasible, then they can take over. What's going to be their definition of feasible? Given the abusive nature of government when they get too big, it's going to be anything they deemed able to get their hands on the industry. Look at the auto industry. They have their hands in their as well and they companies are going to go bankrupt anyways. They have labeled anyone opposing these nationalization of our economy as potential terrorist now. Think what the consequences are going to be if they get their hands on the biggest prize of them all: health care. I'm sure the democrats are drooling at how close they are to finally getting the big prize. With the other industries they're nationalizing, that will give them control of at least 25% of the economy, and that's just the private sector. Add the 23% of the GDP before all this and they're getting close to that majority. All they will need is to find one more industry that needs rescuing, like the construction industries, and they'll have enough control of the economy to make us a totally communist state. God help us then because only God knows what they'll do after that. Given some of the hate crime laws they're writing up, the silencing of their political opposition it seems.

QED

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

The assault on Christians.

I'm not of a fan of beauty contests or any other contest that are based on "judges" decisions. Judges are often bias and basing a winner on something subjective are often speculative at best as to who was really the best at something. Look at what happened in the last Winter Olympics where the Canadians were judged the best only to find out two of the judges were bribed and the title was shared with the runner up Americans. Beauty pageants are basically based on the opinion of about 8 judges, so the winner is based on what 8 people think. Hardly grounds for what a population as a whole would find appealing. However, even I can't escape the escapades of the latest Miss USA contest. This contest is showing how dangerous times are becoming in the US and how we, especially Christians, have a lot to fear and better start waking up and fighting back before we find ourselves second class citizens like those in Muslim countries. Only it won't be the religious fanatics that will be persecuting us.

Miss California, who finished first runner up in the contest, has stirred up a hornet nest by her response to the finalist question "Do you support homosexual marriages? Why or why not?" Basically she stood by her Christian beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman and all hell has broken loose. A "man" by the stage name of Perez Hilton an open homosexual has blasted her for her response. So much as to make a YouTube video saying she lost not because of her answer but because she's a stupid b*tch. Yea, way to show your love and impartiality. This man's vulgar and hatred being displayed for all of us to see you would think would be condemned by well meaning and thinking people. After all, a beauty contest is suppose to be about beauty from within and without but this man is showing us ugly hatred and intolerance towards those that have a different view than he does. Everything that a contest like this is suppose to be against. This man had no right to be judging this contest.

Now her views, being viewed as bigot, ignorant, and homophobic (whatever that is suppose to mean) is constantly being harassed now. Though she is getting some support, it mainly in the negative against her. This is most worrisome. Seems the media, as well as the radicals that control our school, have done a good job of giving the public its opinion on this subject. Intelligent discord is out the window and prejudice and hatred are the norms of those that think otherwise for homosexual marriage that my gay uncle thinks is an oxymoron. I guess that makes him a bigot as well? It's a sad day a woman can give her opinion and a militant homosexually not only demonize her which is his right, but to do so with such vulgarity and hatred. I thought hate speech was a crime. I guess it depends who you hate and hating Christians is the in thing right now. Just ask that stupid talentless moron Mirey Cyrus, aka Hanna Montana. She thinks Miss California was wrong and a hypocrite for opposing gay marriage. It's unchristian like to make judgements. What a stupid answer from a stupid moron. My daughter used to be a fan of her til Twilight came out. Thank God for that because vampires make a better role model than this hedonist dope who makes a living by duping teens with dumb parents to listen to her crappy music at $300 a ticket. Never mind that she made a judgement that about Miss California about how wrong it is to make judgement. Miss Cyrus (and I use the term miss loosely) it's easy to pick on Christian because we don't chop heads off when we're offended. It's not against the bible to make judgements about right and wrong. It's wrong to make judgements about how God will judgement people for enternity. Typical (il)logic of the left.

This debacle is a prime example how free speech is dead. A person can give an opinion, get crucified for it, and then be branded as a hate monger. With the hate speech legislation being written in the congress right now about giving homosexuals hate crime protections, well, we're on our way to becoming like the Middle East where you can be prosecuted (there, you can be executed if found guilty) for insulting Islam or in Brazil you can go to jail if you save a voodoo worshipper to Christ (discrimination about Voodoo, but nothing about when it's the other way around). The latest hate crime laws that are being written are design for one thing and one thing only: to destroy the free speech and religion of Christians. If this law passes, Christians can be jailed for what Miss California just did. If you don't hire a homosexual because you run a Christian bookstore and it would be bad for business. Jail. If you preach homosexuality is an act against God. Jail. If you state that sex outside marriage is wrong (since most homosexuals don't like marriage and wouldn't do it anyways). Jail. Starting to get the gist of this. What's to keep such legislation from going even further. Say anything against the President or congressional policies? Want to get even with Whites? Make anything supporting white Americans as hate speech or hate thought. Don't like Amish, outlaw horses. I mean this is the path to tyranny and we saw a great deal of it on Stage Sunday night. We better start taking the fight against the real hate mongers in this country. Otherwise, by the end of the year, we won't even recognize America any more and Christians have will lose their rights to worship God. After all, according to Homeland Security, Miss California is a greater terrorist threat than Bin Laden. Those of you who support Hilton, remember one thing. After the Christians are gone, they can and will come after you. Then who will speak up for your rights?

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Strength in capitulation.

Seems BO has been schmoozing a lot with the worse of humanities ilk lately. Bowing to Islamic patriarch, having a cigar with Castro, shaking hands with Chavez. Heck, let's dig up Hussein while were at it. Don't forget the meeting come up with Adminijad, the Hilter of our time. 10 years ago, had Bill Clinton done this, he surely would had been impeached and removed from office. This would be too radical and would had been exposed as a traitor to the principal of our constitution and American values since these evil dictators represent everything America opposes. Not with BO. His argument for these "friendships" just makes me scratch my head. By befriending our enemies, America becomes stronger. Huh?

Perhaps in those ultra-leftist schools that BO went to, they forgot to teach him history. Better yet, deliberately omit a few facts like the militant Japanese do by excluding the years 1931 to 1945 in their history books. See that stupid and insane argument BO is using is the same as another nortious politician of the 20th century because he used the very same argument. 3 years later, that went out the window in a hand basket. That politician was Chamberlain. As Britain, still reeling from the horrific losses during World War I, are still in the mind set of avoiding another catastrophic conflict at all costs, was making peace with Herr Hilter. Appeasing in hopes of strafing off another costly war was giving concession after concession to the Nazis. It's no coincident that the holocaust started after that meeting. Hitler knew that he had Chamberlain in his pocket and could do what ever he wanted which he did til September of 1939 and only because Parliament had the power to declare war, not the Prime Minister. If not, World War II would have had a different outcome. What's forgotten is he was still Prime Minister til August of 1940. It wasn't til he was secretly trying to sue for peace by an offer little known in the western world. Hitler though Britain was a part of the Assyrian race and had the right to rule the world as the German people. He was willing to share that power with Chamberlain, but when the Parliament found out, they removed him and replaced him, finally, with Churchill.

BO is making the same claim. By being friends with these murderous dictators, we'll be strengthening America. Against whom? Where exactly will be gaining this strength? How are Cuba and Venezuela a threat? Unless those missiles are back in Cuba, no matter if they're Russian or North Korean, there is no threat and the only thing Chavez has is oil, but that would be cutting off his nose to smite his face to use that weapon. Then again, dictators aren't usually rational either. This can only lead to disaster as often appeasement does. The more an enemy gets, the more they'll want. It didn't stop World War II, and it won't stop the conflicts of freedom loving people against those that would like to oppress us. The bigger question that should be ask is why does BO seem so happy to make deals with these guys? We have no after effect of any horrific war (Iraq doesn't come close to counting) of the like of World War I. Yet, he's all for getting in bed with these animals. There's nothing to gain? This President has catered to every enemy of the US and thumb his nose at every ally. Even the socialist ones like France and Germany. After all, he didn't want to go to the war memorial in Normandy because he didn't want to offend the Germans. Say what? No, it's because he hates Americans and American interests. Terrorist are freedom fighters, marines are terrorist, and allies are worthless, and our enemies are our friends. I don't know about you, but I need an aspirin because this logic is giving me a headache.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat history. Seems like multiple facuet of history is playing out here and the endgame isn't going to be pretty. Especially if the Islamics get their way because if history is any idication, we will have a blood bath all over the world like never seen before. I rather we avoid those mistake and get back on the right track. Otherwise, we'll be like Anikin Skywalker. We'll end up joining the dark side instead of destory (or at least minumizing) it.

QED

The DHS has targeted America.

By now, most of us had heard this stupid and some what insane report from the Department of Homeland Security and it's memo "Right wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment". Much of the response on those on the right has been appalling and shock. I agree this report is appalling. After all, those that are pro-life, gun owners, the military, supporter of third parties, conservative, or Christians have just been branded as being a bigger threat to the security of America than Islamic terrorist. I like to see the evidence personally because I don't recall the last time any of the above groups bomb anything (Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Christian contrary to media's reports, he was a Pagan that was anti-government). It's appalling because BO and his administration has laid down the gauntlet and has declared war on his enemies. The part I'm having trouble with is the shock. Why are those in the above list shocked? After all, he never hid his hatred for America, especially white America and just read his books to see how bad his racism is, and those that fight and defend it.

It shouldn't be shocking at all. In fact, I had expected it. I just didn't expect it in just 3 months. I'll give the President credit. He doesn't waste time. The first thing a dictator does to gain absolute power is to eliminate the competition. To eliminate the treat to that acquisition of power. When there's nobody left to oppose his/her, then they go in and seize power. BO is a stone cold communist. Always have been. All those in the above memo are those that will oppose his power grab, and it wasn't a coincidence that it came on the eve of the tea parties (April 13 on the memo, Parties on the 15th). It's not atypical for tyrants that know of certain "protest" to stage a "warning" that radical will be out and behave in a certain way (like protesting against his spending when it's for the little people) when they know darn will what will happen. Just look how the media spun those tea party reports. They made them look all white, Christian, conservative, etc. This report comes out, then the reporters made them look like the threats that was in the memo. Frankly, this was a clever ploy by the BO administration and conservative Americans walked right into the trap. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. After all, the chief of Homeland Security gave an apology. An apology that we're offend but the statements after basically said that we fit the profile so shut the heck up.

Freedom of speech had just died folks. Now anyone that poses a threat to BO's and the Democrat's power is now seen as a terrorist threat. Our Islamic enemies are celebrating and dancing with delight (if they didn't believe dancing is an act by the devil they would). If you don't believe it, just get the video clips of his speech in Turkey. They were shouting "YES YES YES" and giving a standing ovation. People here don't realize the Islamics were praising that they won the war against America on terror. They know now they will be able to make their move against us using terrorism because BO will not fight back. We're not at war with Islam, but Islam is at war against us. Now all they need to assure their victory here in the states is to disarm and make defenseless those that will fight for America. It's no coincidence that it's everyone listed on that evil memo. Right the Michael Savage is filing a lawsuit against DHS on violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. Since the Constitution don't mean anything to these Communists, and they have the courts on their side with maybe the Supreme Court, but that can take years and by then, it can be all over. There's no guarantee they'll rule in favor of the constitution as well.

By this memo and the priorities the DHS, we that believe in America and willing to die and fight for her protection are now targets by our enemies from both within and outside our borders. We are now totally at a disadvantage as is the intent of this Administration. If we lose this fight against this woman as well as the rest of the Administration, then treasure you next vote because it could be your last. Than and only then, will we learn how great of a country we had and what we lost. Only then will people be awake, because with those of us on the list gone, there will be nobody left to defend America, do the work and produce the goods and services need here and fall into complete turmoil making us into another banana republic 3rd world country. Those leftist who feel they're finally going to be protected and be rid of the evil that you've scorned for decades. Remember, the Islamics are the most ungrateful people on the planet. They will not have any appreciation for you once you eliminate your enemies which are you enemies too. However, an enemy of your enemy doesn't make them your friend. They will turn their fight against you and there will be nobody left to speak out for you or even fight back. There won't even be anyone left to even say "I told you so". We're taking a dark path that can only end with disaster. I pray that Americans will wake up before it's too late, but the clock is ticking and this administration is spreading the cancer quicker than anyone ever anticipated.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

The bias against the tea parties.

I've been watching over the news coverage of the tea parties that have been going on all over the country. What I see should out right scare you. Is it because of the radical right wing terrorist that the media and BO is claiming to be behind these protests? No. What should scare us is the bias and downright compitulation of the media. This is a pathway to tyranny and other than the few that were out there protesting, nobody, especially the media, doesn't get it.

The protest are mainly about the obscene spending that our government is doing. It's not so much taxes per say, but how much we need for the spending that our government is doing. What are we spending it on? Transsexual beauty pageant's, Jazz museums, ACORN. I mean what will the 9000 earmarks that BO said he would never sign into law have to do with the growth or prosperity of our country? How will it benefit the economy or American citizens in general? BO has nearly quadruple the national debt and in only 3 months and that's for starters. It doesn't take a math or economic major to figure out that this kind of spending and the taxes needed to pay for and maintain this level of spending. And contrary to what you're being told by CNN, it's not because of racism either. Both parties are being criticized and for good reason. Our country for all intent and purposes is bankrupt and nothing the congress and the President for the last 16 years had done nothing to curtail it and that is what the people are protesting against. The quadrupling of the debt is the wake up call that was needed to finally get people to speak up.

What should scare us all now is how the major media, other than Fox News, is spinning the protests. All right wingers, all anti government, all white, all racist. The racist angle is what got my attention. The bias I expected, but the angle I didn't. It was clear that BO used the race card to get himself elected. Anyone against me is against me because I'm black. Now that he's spending us into beyond 3rd world poverty, the media is going to use his race as defense of his policies and to circumvent the issues that are trying to be brought up. Beware of this line of reasoning because that what was used in Zimbabwe and look at how that turned out. It isn't about race, and from those individual that sent in their video of the events, it's just not true. There were people of many races. Whites were predominate, but think who it is that pays most of the taxes. The issue they're not getting is eventually they will be taxed to death to pay for all this as well and then they'll ask why didn't anyone say anything (and most likely say racism was why). Enough of this spin. Nobody is buying it anymore.

The media was suppose to be set up as a watch dog of the government, not their legal defenders. They are to enlighten what they do and give us the facts of what is going on and let us make our own rational and intelligent decisions about it. Instead, they push the leftist agenda, that BO is surely supportive of, and give half truths and down right lies and manipulate the masses that if they believe against the government, they're racist, unpatriotic, or downright evil. Freedom of the press wasn't put in for this. In fact, it was suppose to keep this from happening.

What this leads to is that we're being spent into slavery to foreign interests, to financial ruin, and incompetence to defend ourselves. The left, and BO as well, hate this country, hate what it stands for and represents, and are in league in her destruction. Many of the policies and now spending and taxes that are to come are indicative of this leftist agenda. The media and the President knew these protest were coming and given a few of the propaganda that was instilled just before the events, I fear the protesters have fallen for an old Communist trick. When you can see the opposition coming, make a study showing the evils that such protests and policies of the opposition are, and when they do verbatim, you can say see I told you so. Remember the report 2 days earlier about the biggest threat to America isn't radical Islam, but the right wing militias and the returning soldiers. Especially during a recession. They made the enemies sound like our friends and supporters of freedom, democracy, and life while the patriots are the terrorists. Then the protest happen with the cry that they said would come from the true terrorists. Now I fear with the media's compitulation, the protesters just played into their hands.

So those of you on the left supporting everything BO is doing and having disdain for these protesters. First they'll come for the right wingers, you'll say nothing. Then the Christians, you'll say nothing. The Jews and productive business owners, you'll say nothing. Then all the whites, you'll say nothing. Then the minority conservative supporters, you'll say nothing. Then when there's nothing left of the economy and they go after you, there'll be nobody left to say anything for you.

QED

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The assault on Assault Weapons.

I've been thinking over the 60 Minutes segment on the gun shows and the ease with people can get any weapons with the focus being on assult weapons. Given this was a 60 Minutes, it comes as no surprise their bias against these weapons and those that desire to own and have access to them. How brazen those biases were a bit of a surprise, and so many myths and downright lies in the segment was just down right disgusting. If you're going to a smear job, at least get some facts rights and tell some truth instead of a complete fantasy of your bias. Allow me to ellaberate.



First of all, they used the recent shootings mainly in Oakland, Philidelphia (so much for brotherly love), and the residence facility. The only problem is other than Oakland and that was after the initial barrage, none of them use an assult rifle which what they mainly were critequting. They were using Virgina because of the ease of the state laws there for gun show for anyone without ID to get a weapon while doing a minmal background check (they're not required in Virginia at all). Well, before you get on the wagon and start shouting terrorist and right wing extreamist at me, I thought the Virginia 's law was completely insane. It's only a matter of public safety, as we have seen, that we find out if the person getting such a device isn't going to have malevelent intentions. After all, do we want Bin Laden to waltz right in and do the chain gun cha cha? Ok, Islamics don't dance, but you get the point. Everyone isn't entitled to a gun just as I can't go out and shout fire in a crowded theater. So first lets get into the intention of the founding fathers and why this admendment is so polarizing.



When the founding father were trying to get the states to radify the Constitution, many states were concerned with getting overridden by the larger states or should we centralized our states with a federal government, it may become too big and intridge on the rights of the individuals. One of the compromises they added was the second admendment to give the rights to individuals so they can maintain a miltia against an over reaching governement. Could they foreseen the advances today? No, of course not. However, their reasoning is still valid. They believed the individual is trusted more then the government to protect their own interests and thus should have the means to be able to maintain against tryanny. As well as, they saw how the militias were a major pain in the butt to the British during the Revolutionary war. Had it not been for these militias, the Brits would had been able to occupy the countrysides that fed the colonist and starve them out which was their war plan. When the militas hammered them too badly in the rural areas, they settled in holding the main ports and cities and thought they could wear out the fight by cutting off the manufactoring and supplying of war materials to the rebels. What they didn't count on to maintain those militas: Ben Franklin. Ben was so good as embassador to France, they literally supplied the Colonist with the war materials needed to maintain the gurrela warfare that eventually led to the forming of our own army and eventually the Cornwell Wallace defeat. It was with this mindset the 2nd Amendement was written.



Now the first problem with the gun banner's argument as stated by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is that assult weapons are the weapons of choice by drug cartels, criminals, crazy people. Well, first of all, she doesn't give a definition of an assult weapon. Her presence on 60 Minutes was an assult to me, does that make the TV an assult weapon? The definition as given by the NRA is a weapon that's designed and manufactured to fire continuously without paused when the trigger is held. The example they gave doesn't fit that. The weapon of choice by most of what she quoted are hand guns because of their concealment ability. Try hiding an assult rifle. Until these crimes were committed, in fact, an assult rifle hadn't been used in a crime since 1986 when a nut job shot up a school yard with an AK-47. Now, if you're going to define semi-automatic, then the statement rings true, but since there's no definition given, there's no way to tell what they're actually argument for unless it's a complete gun ban. The very thing they they're saying they not for while many are buying guns now at record numbers because they fear BO is coming after them and given his record and these arguments, they're have every right because he is. The question is how they'll make it fly with the American people. The first thing a totaltarian government goes for first is the guns.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Dr. Laura's Facsist Remark.

I'm often at ends with Dr. Laura. She's the only person that speaks up for family, children and men for the most part. The biggest beef I had with her is her hatred of divorced men who are often dealt a terrible hand by the sexist courts and then bashed for it. The other issue is how she tells women how when they neglect and are belligerent with their men that will lead them to having affairs and when a man does so because of the reason she states, she rips the man as an immoral jerk for destroying his family by his infidelity. Too much of trying to have it both ways, but I often read and listen because she is the only ray of positive reinforcement of men who do try to do the right things with their wives and families as well as supporting the family in general.

However, her latest blog require an outcry because she's not only down and right wrong, but fascist in her statement. As I've written, the government lately is going hog wild with taxes. I'm still waiting for the air tax where we're taxed for just breathing and if we stop breathing, we'll be assessed a death tax. Oh wait, we have that already. Dr. Laura was reporting how non-profits dealing with quitting smoking have seen their enrollments go up because of the increase in cigarette taxes. Using that antadolal evidence, she thinks it would be a great idea to legislate morality by taxing what she sees as immoral. Though I'm all for discouraging and eliminating those items she like to see tax the crap out of, she's not careful of what she's wishing for. The government is overextending their greedy hands out and taxing the crap out of anything they don't like. So taxing divorce, abortion (never will happen by the way because the Democrats are already getting a bundle of money from her most bitter rivalry: Planned Parenthood.), infidelity, shacking up, etc. This will lead to one of two things, and perhaps both, and they're both bad.

One, who's morals is the government going to base their taxes on? We live in a moral relative society and that is why we have the troubles we have in the first place. With the government we have now, this is paramount of having the moral taxed by the immoral and that would lead to taxes on Bible's, marriage (which was finally appealed in 2006, but efforts are being made to bring back the marriage penalty). The problem of any overreaching government is to tax the people into poverty allowing them to have all the political and economic power. That's how despots work. While she's at it, why end at taxes? Let's get on with imprisonment. Since she doesn't like child care, divorce, infidelity as I don't, but placing a punitive tax on them, that's a slope you don't want to get started because the government may go to taxing talk show hosts 110% of their income or advertising revenue.

The other, when you give the government money, you give them power. The more money, the more power the government gains. Just look at the power the federal government has gained just over the last century. Especially after the great depression when FDR started his socialist programs. Actually the abuse all started in 1919 when the income tax was enacted by Wilson's pleading. America as an economic power, except when Ike was President, has declined while governmental power has skyrocket. Now we can't even financially support our self. We rely on China and Muslim oil barons to support our economy and they're starting to tire. We have little influence in our own politics any more because of the massive power our government has over us and taxes is the government biggest weapon. To have more punitive taxes over what one finds immoral or wrong will lead to a theocracy like they have in the Middle East. After all, they enact a punitive tax on non-Muslim to support the mosque and their agenda. By her standards, taxing Christians so Islam can continue their war against the West and Israel is justified. We don't need to give any more power to our government and I sure don't find it wise to have the government deciding what's moral and what's not and how to tax those that they find immoral. After all, she will be the first one government would tax out of business and the fact she would support such a tax code not only scares me and I find to be fascist, but down right immoral. Something she claims to preach for.

QED

Monday, April 6, 2009

Obama isn't at war with Islam. Too bad Islam is at war with the West.

I remember what was the most powerful, fearful, and destructive enemy in the Star Trek series (the New Generation, not the one with Kirk). They were called the Borg and their objective was clear: you are to be assimilated. They add the ever well known line and one of the top one liners in Science Fiction history: Resistance is futile. The Borg are a collective of cyberborgenic organism that are removed of their free will and connected to the machine that joins them all in the collective. All of an race's humanity (though many are aliens that aren't humans, but that's besides the point) is taken from them and they become automatons to this massive, bloated collective. Those that resist, are destroyed. Sounds like the mantra of a certain religion of pieces.

The most baffling lines ever in the movie is the Federation barely escaped intact after their first encounter with the Borg. A small group crashed on a planet with one survivor. One of the crew comes up with a plan to destroy the Borg and one person dares to say it was unethical because no formal declaration of war had been made by the Federation. The retort was classic. Not by us but definitely by them. We are to be assimilated. This meeting can basically typify the mentality the left has in fighting anything that's determined to destroy them. We're not at war with them, so it's wrong for us to fight back against them. They rather surrender and made little work of the Borg and be assimilated.

BO's statement about how we're not at war with Islam, and those with him, border on insane or like that idiot in the room that didn't want to fight back at a most ruthless and vicious enemy, capitulate. You see, the mantra of the Islamic enemy we have is that we are to convert or die. Not much different than you will be assimilated and have your humanity removed. Islam is all about submission and BO's bowing and kissing the hand of that so called dignitary was a complete act of submission to a superior in the Muslim world. If this doesn't show his true colors to you, then nothing will. Not even a complete confession. Then he goes to Turkey and makes the statement the US is not at war with Islam. He never addresses the fact that Islam is at war with the West. To state it in Turkey isn't even a brave act. Turkey maybe a Muslim country, but it has a secular government. The only one in the Middle East to have a secular government. So making such a statement didn't take any courage. Try making one like that in Iran or Pakistan. I doubt he would last two minutes before everyone riots as they show their true colors.

Denying you're at war so you shouldn't fight will not protect you against an determined, ruthless, immoral enemy as the radicals of Islam are. They will proclaim peace while tearing you to pieces. Lying is a divine commandment. Worse, they are so submitted to the Imams and radical elements of their faith, especially to the predestination concept that means their fate is already decided and nothing they do can change it. We're all puppets of God (which confuses why they get angry when they're killed during their Divine work. After all, it's God's will). We have no free will. Freedom is irrelevant because only Allah has freedom, we are to be his slaves. Slaves that whose religious leaders determined to be chosen by Allah to be free beings and who's will is reflected by Him. Talk about tyrants subduing the populace. That's all this is. The main goal of Islam is to take away your humanity and replace it by what some leader says is God's will. To completely submit. To be assimilated for be destroy. Thankfully, in this world, resistance isn't futile, but our leader sure doesn't believe it. Otherwise, he would be asking for them to show that they are not at war with us. Unfortunately, he thinks resistance is futile and wants us to capitulate.

BO wants to disarm our nukes. IS HE NUTS!!!

During the latest summit, BO is considering the need that we need to disarm and eliminate, or at the very least, drastically reduce the US nuclear arsenal. It's bad enough he wants to disarm, but not shocking because he's anti-American and anyone that read his books would had known this, but since most of us votes by 5 seconds sound bites, the people either don't know, or just don't care or believe it. However, his reasoning just shows his complete ignorant of history and hatred, until he became our leader (and I use that term loosely). He feels that since we're the only country to had used a nuclear weapon, we have a moral responsibility to disarm them.

First, his ignorant of history should scare us all. He's right, we're the only country that used a nuclear weapon, let's go over the history behind that. Though Truman dropped the bomb on Japan, it was conserversial, but it's the reason why. Japan was pretty much defeated. Her navy had been completely destroyed. Her air force was reduced to a few hundred planes. Her army was cut off from supplies. Industries in ruins. Yes, Japan was completely defeated. The problem is something we just don't get to this day: their faith. They were completely dedicated, both civilian and military, to the Samurai code. The only honorable end to a conflict in war time was either victory or death. This country wasn't going to go down without a fight and were willing to lose a million lives in the futile defense of the homeland. Truman had to choose to hold the weapon and have a million Japanese and Allies lives killed in the invasion. Also, and this is hardly ever mention, Russia has just gotten into the war in the Pacific and would had been part of the invasion force. This was going to lead, like in Europe, a split in the country after the war's end. The prospect of a North and South Japan was going to create a cold war nightmare. With this in mind, Truman decided that the war needed to be ended ASAP and keeping Russia out was of the up most importance because of what was going on in Europe. So he figured that he should used the weapon to put the war to an end because once civilian are no longer be able to be protected, under the Samurai code, the honorable action is to protect them and surrender.

When the bombs were dropped, three things happened, two were definitely good, and one will depend on how you look at the situation. The first, the war finally ended. The second, we won. The third, though the horror and destruction of the bomb did so much damage and death, in the end, with over 300,000 dead, there would had been at least 700,000 more dead had we not and the million of Allies soldiers as well as the Russians would had been occupying their northern half. I'm not going to go into the ethics of this decision. In war, one makes decision that delivers death. That's what war is. It's why it needs to be avoided by everyone on both sides. To make it nice and civilized is just morally and intellectually wrong. We basically had the lesser of two evils because in this war, there were no good results or decision. Only death and destruction and Truman wanted to take the one of least destruction.

Now, BO wants to disarm US. Iran is going to pursue them, North Korea has got them, Pakistan is fighting to keep them from jihadist, India won't give them up with their Islamic enemy, as well as others. These countries aren't going to give them up because it would be suicide to do so. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has to be one of the most completely insane political strategy in history. However, when the Russians had to choose between their ideals vs. their lives, they choose their lives. We now face enemies that would rather die and will not hesitate to murder by the millions of civilians while taking their own lives to promote their evil agendas. Keeping us armed won't necessary will bring peace or prevent an attack against these insane lunatics. One thing for sure, disarming ourselves definably will not. Using moral relativism isn't going to change the fact that many of our enemies are just plain evil and would gladly murder us by the masses and deem themselves righteous.

To make us immoral because of this terrible chapter of human history distorts the facts and circumstances. It's the height of arrogance to state otherwise. It shows a complete disregards of history and it lessons. Now because we ended this terrible war by using this weapon, and don't forget we were at war against a fanatical enemy that was willing to fight us to the bitter end, and ended up, ironically, saving lives on both side just show the complete hatred of America and will use any method to smear her. It's bad enough to fail to learn from history. It's worse to distort it a liberal moral relative agenda and commit societal suicide.

BO can go and disarm the US. It won't make us look more moral, in fact, we'll appear more immoral because we won't fight for our principles. It won't make the enemy think we're righteous, in fact, they think we're weak and worthy of our our destruction. It won't make us more loved in the world, in fact, we'll be more disdained because we won't be trusted to protect them or be vulnerable. It won't make BO look like a moral leader. It will make him look like what he is: a weak, miserable, pathetic excuse of a leader that knows nothing of history.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Welfare for the World.

I'm don't normally care for when our leader go to these stupid summits. Seems to me to be just an exercise in nations trying to exert their own national self interest upon others that really don't go anywhere because no side will yeild. Well, now welcome the movement of hope and change that we can believe in. After one incrediblely stupid common by our so called leader of the free world, the change is nothing I can believe in anymore (nor ever really did) and all hope is going out the window (not that I had much left).

BO, showing his African roots since he's really from Kenya, not the US, show a trait that's often in native Africans because they understand something all to well something we should be grateful we don't, but soon will: tribal hatred. In his country, people will kill you because you're a decendent of the wrong tribe. Look at the Middle East, and you can be killed because you're in the wrong sect. However, what's often seens as the catalyst in all these dispute is proverty. They state proverty created the violence in people and that's what triggers them to inhumane acts against their fellow man. Hence, BO wants to give welfare to the world because we can't over look the proverty of those in other countries and that proverty will eventually lead to violence that will topple the world polictica climate that will drag us into an unnecessary war.

Boy, I don't know what he's smoking (I've been told generic cigarettes, but I could be wrong) but man, I want some. My life is in the tank, and if what he's smoking makes him THAT delusional, then let me escape from New York (I live in California) and call me Snake Pliscan. If what he says is true, then India, China, Philippines, Poland, and a sorted of other countries should be engaged in World War 3 because they're as inprovish as can be. Ok, India and China are rising as a economic power, but still, they still have great amount of proverty. Proverty doesn't cause criminal behavior. There are millions, perhaps billions, of people that are improvish that don't out on killing sprees and blame a lack of Ipods or Blackberries for their crimes. Explain Madloff or Wall Street as far as violent crimes are concern (and thef is violent crime folks). If you study things closely, criminal behavoir causes proverty far more than any link deomonstrating proverty causing criminal behavior.

BO doesn't see what's really creating most of the violence and societal ills in today's world. The biggest is Islam. 15 of the 16 major conflicts in the world are caused by Muslim that can't get along with their neighbors. Sudan, racist Arabs who think they're superior to the Black Muslims. Somalia, Muslim pirates that think they're entitled to the richer countries bounties. The Philippines, Muslim that want Sharia Law, Sri Lanka, Muslims wanting complete control and wanting Shari Law, not Secular law. Let's not go over the Hamas and those groups and their griefs and it's nothing to do with the plight of the Palestinians. The only real exception is the IRA and Britain which has been going on for nearly 900 years now. However, these are not poor countries by any stretch of the imagination and they're shooting at each other now. The other is tribal prejudices. Most of the fighting in Africa is over tribes that just plain hate each other. This can change, but stating that the violence that spreading in the world is over poverty is just plain wrong.

However, this man lives in his own world and so do their supporters. They want to blame the US and her riches as the reason why other are suffering while not looking at the religious and tribal prejudices that infest the body politics. After all, why go at the root of the cause when you're part of that cause? Now we're going to pay up the rear in taxes like we're not tax and indebted enough already to give welfare to the world? Seems BO isn't satisfied with being president of the US, but the world as well. As long as we're the only one paying, the world will gladly take it, and thing out, on us. This is not the change we need and this isn't going to resolve a thing or make us any better respected or loved in the world. In fact, it will have the opposite effect because to executed this welfare, we're going to have to takes sides eventually because the governments we give this money to definitely will. And then, we'll be sucked into these clashes with no stake or interest to our national interest what so ever. I would had thought we learned our lesson with Iraq, but I guess not.

QED

Thursday, April 2, 2009

TAX MAN!

Now that we're into April, taxes are just around the corner. I usually have mind done by late January, early February, but this year I have been dragging it because, like too many now a days, I just plain fear my tax bill. Turns out I won't owe, but just barely. This year will prove to be the highest tax liability and lowest return since 1985 when I gained all my income from independent contract work and owed because of self employment social security taxes. With the entire country in dire straits and government doing everything they can to squeeze every spare cent we have into their coffer so they can waste it or pay off their special interest groups, I thought I go over one of the taxes that has me scratching my head and why I think it's setting up down a slippery slope that we won't be able to get out of.



The federal government, as well as the state of California, have just raised the cigarette taxes beyond belief. Now for every carton of cigarettes, a dollar will go to the federal government, and, here in California, $3.00. Every state have their own regulations and taxes on such products, but this borders on complete extortion. $5.00 a pack here in California and $4.00 of that goes into government coffers and $1.00 to the cigarette company that makes a profit of about 10 cents. You tell we who makes the money with cigarettes. Don't get me wrong, I don't care for smoking or smokers in general. My ex girl friend before I met my current wife was one and she was by far one of the worse and most vile women I've ever known (why I stayed with her is for another blog, but the gist was because I thought I didn't deserve better). The government is using two arguments for this extorted policy and both are wrong.



The first, the one that seems to be selling, is that by making it so costly to consumers, people will be force by economic necessity to quit. If things were so simple. First, smokers are drug addicts. They're addicted to the nicotine. Remember all those hearing about the cigarette companies lying about how they thought cigarettes weren't additive? Well, we now know they were lying through their teeth. Worse, they not only knew, but made them even more addictive by adding more nicotine. So getting a smoker to quit is much akin as getting a heroin or crack user to quit. The addiction is just too strong and it can't be done without medical interventions that have the highest rate of success because they can treat the addiction. Desire alone will not be enough. From my experience with my smoker, they love their nicotine. More than their significant other, their children, even their own lives. Making it more expensive will not make them quit. They'll just give up other things, like food, than to give up their drug. They Democrats that promoted this are claiming to doing it for the little people to get them to quit just isn't going to hold water and will make things more punitive as they're giving up food, gas, or even rent to get those overpriced cigarettes. This argument is the same as trying to get heroin or crack user off by making the prices go up which we did during our defunct drug war. It only escalated the poverty of the user, not get them to quit and the same is going to happen here.



The other is that they're obligated to protect the public health and safety. Well, glad they know about this provision in the Constitution, but I just wish that they would take that more seriously because this excuse is far from the truth. They don't care about the health and safety of the smoker, they just want their money. As we already know, it's not going to get them to quit, so saying these tax increases are going to promote public health and so they're obligated to do so by taxing the crap out of it is spacious at best. The true meaning here is that they can pick on this group of our society and have the expectation that no significant outcry will result from it because most of us aren't smokers. Since it doesn't effect us, we won't care. That kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. If they can use this argument, then what's next? A tax on meat? Fast food? Cheese? A dog because he pissed in your yard? We already have one for gas. While we're at it, lets have taxes for not exercising, for exercising too much, up the alcohol tax (that one would get an outcry right now). Heck, they're not taxing the brothels in Nevada. You see, soon, they'll use this to promote any radical agenda and make it so that anyone opposing their ideology will just be tax out from their opposition and we must all conformed or be economically ruined. This the way socialist and tyrants work. Start small so the people don't noticed their freedoms are being taken away. Then you go for the big one when the people are too weak to resist. Smokers have been the cannon fodder for this economic warfare by the left and now we must rise up before they start coming after all of us piece by piece.

The other fact is as our government gets more tax revenue, they increase their spending by two fold for every dollar rise. We're already beyond bankrupt. We need to get our government to reverse their thinking. Reduce spending over trying to find new revenue. The current administration hasn't been in office for 3 months and already has triple the national debt. Giving them more money to throw at who knows what won't make our economic situation improve. In fact, the opposite is going to be true. After all, many of these taxes and programs are suppose to be temporary til we get out of the quagmire that we're in. However, nothing is more permanent in government than a temporary program. These programs will be here to stay, they will bankrupt us faster, and the temporary taxes will never go away, but will indeed go up. Don't believe it, just look at Social Security and Medical. They were designed to be a temporary shield during their time. SS started at 1% for the first $3,000.00 and Medicaid was .5% for the first $10,000. Now it's 6.6% for the first $85,000 and 1.5% for every dollar made indefinitely. BO wants to make SS go indefinitely as well and raise them 1 to 3%. So much for temporary relief. That means, no matter how much you make or how well you create jobs and provide for the welfare of your common man, the government will tax, if it goes by the max, 18% weather you're rich, poor or in between and that doesn't even include the income tax. With the cigarette tax now, it may became the biggest new revenue source in history if the sales by numbers stay the same in American history. Bigger than the largest tax increase by today dollars of the taxes in 1863 and we didn't have income taxes then. So remember, as the government gets so big that they take everything we own there are those that think having the government be able to give us everything we need is beneficial. Well, if they're able to give us everything we need, they also have the power to take everything we have as well.

QED