By now, I imagine most of us have seen the disturbing videos of people basically worshiping Obama. There are videos of kids from two different schools singing songs about him, and there is another video of a group of people literally praying to him. Praying to Obama. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
But what is the origin of this insanity? Well, there are two culprits. Firstly, if you were paying any attention at all during the campaign, you know that Obama's people did an excellent job of playing up his image, and it all started with that famous blue and red "HOPE" poster. You know, the one that seems eerily similar to the cult-like propaganda posters that featured Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Che Guevara. We've all seen it. Heck, when Kylee and I were in Scotland, we even saw people over there wearing that t-shirt, even though the election had nothing to do with them.
On most issues, I think Obama is weak, naive, and incompetent. However, when it comes to marketing himself, the man is absolutely brilliant. He did such a good job that during the election, a lot of Americans voted for an image rather than a man. He was protrayed by his campaign and the media as an almost messianic figure, a light in the darkness, and the one and only hope for not just America, but the world. It didn't matter if it was true or not. He just had to make the people BELIEVE it was true. He did. And that's how he won the election...
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
- Barack Obama
"Barack Obama is the Platonic philosopher king we've been looking for for the past 2,400 years."
- Michelle Obama
Riiiiight. But the cult-like worship of Obama cannot be fully blamed on him and his campaign. In fact, we can't even give him the majority of the blame. All he did was shrewdly tap into something that has been steadily growing in American society for the past fifty years or so. The American people want a savior, and unfortunatelty, they're no longer looking to Jesus.
I was listening to a radio show the other day, and a man called in who said his father grew up in Cuba while Castro was taking power. He said that when his father was in school as a young boy, the teacher said, "Okay, class, let's all pray to God to bring us all a bunch of candy!" So they prayed, and of course nothing happened. Then she said, "Now class, I want you all to pray to Castro to bring us candy." So they prayed to Castro, and immediately a bunch of his men came through the door and passed out candy to the children. Sound creepy? Well, it's basically happening here too. These Cuban kids were explicitly taught that God either couldn't or wouldn't help them, but Castro would. Castro could make them happy.
Now, obviously there isn't anything this overt going on in America today. But we're close...
"In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of GOD. He's going to bring all different sides together."
- Newsweek editor Evan Thomas
"Who is our hero? Barack Obama. Who is going to lead us out of poverty? Barack Obama. Who is going to save the United States of America? Barack Obama. Who is going to save the entire world? Barack Obama. And who do we love? Barack Obama."
- Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY
"The event itself [Obama's nomination] is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance."
- Rev. Jesse Jackson
"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra."
- The Chicago Sun Times
"No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a manger."
- Lawrence Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel
"This is bigger than Kennedy. Obama comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the new testament."
- Chris Matthews, MSNBC pundit
And now we hear school kids singing his praises. One song says, "Red, yellow, black, and white, all are equal in his sight. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama." In case you can't tell, those are lyrics from "Jesus Loves the Little Children." And the other song they performed used the tune from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." You know, it's that song that talks about how Christ died to make men holy, and we should live to make men free, while God is marching on. This is something that has been steadily fading from American society. Here's what we used to believe...
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
- John Adams
"It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
- Patrick Henry
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."
- George Washington
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
- James Madison
That final quote is the most important. Madison said that we should place our hope in God and not in the government. So in conclusion, I don't blame Obama for this crazy cult-worship stuff. Well, at least not fully. He obviously helped push the American people in that direction; however, the real blame falls on us. When we stop looking to God for hope and salvation, we inevitably look somewhere else. Sometimes we look to fill that hole inside us with money, or sex, or drugs and alcohol. And sometimes we look to a charismatic figure, like David Koresh, or Charles Manson, or in this case, Barack Obama, for hope and salvation. If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. We have to wake up.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Qaddafi & Obama's UN Insanity
So the other day at the UN, Ali Abdussalam Treki, the Libyan diplomat, introduced Muammar Qaddafi as the "leader of the revolution, president of the African Union, King of Kings of Africa." Then, even though he was only supposed to speak for 15 minutes, Qaddafi rambled on for an hour and a half.
In his speech, he suggested that those who caused "mass murder" in Iraq be tried, he defended the right of the Taliban to establish an Islamic emirate, he claimed that swine flu was cooked up in a laboratory as a weapon, and he (randomly) demanded a thorough investigation of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. You know, the ones that happened 40 years ago. He claimed these political killings were Jewish conspiracies, saying, "We know that the Israeli Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who had killed the president, and then this Israeli died. We have to know how and why this happened, so such things will not be repeated."
He later offered to move the United Nations headquarters to Libya because leaders coming to New York had to endure jet lag. Yeah, that sounds rational. There's no jet leg when you fly to Libya. He also repeated his longstanding proposal that Israel and the Palestinian territories be combined into one state called "Isratine."
Qaddafi also urged the world to welcome and accept Obama and referred to him as "our son." He praised Obama saying, "We are happy and proud that a son of Africa is president of the US in a place where blacks could not go in a bus where whites go.... Obama is a glimpse in the dark, and I am afraid that we may go back to square one. Can you guarantee how America will governed after Obama? As far as I’m concerned he can stay president of America forever." Yes, you always want your president to be supported by an insane terrorist dictator.
Of course, it makes sense that this nutjob would support Obama. Minutes earlier, Barack Hussein had made a speech in which he basically said that no nation is better than any other (so, the US is no better than...Burma?), once again apologized for America's various crimes against humanity and the environment, and threw Israel under the bus in an attempt to appease terrorists and dictators. He said, "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" and said that they should end "the occupation that began in 1967."
Okay, time for a history lesson. Israel was legally created (restored, really) in 1948 by the UN, and in its constitution, it offered "full and equal citizenship and due representation" to eveyrone in its borders, including Arabs. Apparently, the Arabs didn't care. In May 1948, the Arab League countries sent approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops to invade Israel. The Israelis managed to fight off their attackers, and in the ensuing treaty, Israel widened its borders, Jordan annexed the West Bank, and Egypt took the Gaza strip. In other words, Palestine, as a distinct territory, ceased to exist. There was only Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.
Egypt expelled UN forces from the Sinai Peninsula in 1967, allowing Egypt to amass 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border. This military buildup sparked a pre-emptive strike by Israel, leading to the Six Day War. During the war, Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank, which included East Jerusalem.
So what's the point? The point is that there has never, in the history of the world, been a sovereign state or nation called "Palestine." Ever. There are no Palestinian people, per se. Rather, these are Arabs living in a region that historically has been called many things, including "Palestine" (which is a derivative of "Philistines," the enemies of the Israelites in ancient times). Israel did not invade and occupy Palestinian land. Rather, Israel went to war with Egypt and Jordan in order to defend itself from attack, and then won those territories fair and square. That's kind of how war works. It would be like Mexico claiming that the US needs to end its "occupation" of California that began in 1848.
So anyway, Obama and his Arab buddies are all full of crap. Heck, why are guys like Quaddafi even allowed to speak at the UN? I swear, the UN is the most pointless thing in the history of ever. We do not all share common goals or interests. It's a room populated by a minority of powerful democracies and a big crowd of Islamic terrorists and Marxist dictators from banana republics. And Obama decided to stand in front of all of them and essentially say, "Hi, I'm weak and naive. Enjoy walking all over the US for the next four to eight years!"
In his speech, he suggested that those who caused "mass murder" in Iraq be tried, he defended the right of the Taliban to establish an Islamic emirate, he claimed that swine flu was cooked up in a laboratory as a weapon, and he (randomly) demanded a thorough investigation of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. You know, the ones that happened 40 years ago. He claimed these political killings were Jewish conspiracies, saying, "We know that the Israeli Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who had killed the president, and then this Israeli died. We have to know how and why this happened, so such things will not be repeated."
He later offered to move the United Nations headquarters to Libya because leaders coming to New York had to endure jet lag. Yeah, that sounds rational. There's no jet leg when you fly to Libya. He also repeated his longstanding proposal that Israel and the Palestinian territories be combined into one state called "Isratine."
Qaddafi also urged the world to welcome and accept Obama and referred to him as "our son." He praised Obama saying, "We are happy and proud that a son of Africa is president of the US in a place where blacks could not go in a bus where whites go.... Obama is a glimpse in the dark, and I am afraid that we may go back to square one. Can you guarantee how America will governed after Obama? As far as I’m concerned he can stay president of America forever." Yes, you always want your president to be supported by an insane terrorist dictator.
Of course, it makes sense that this nutjob would support Obama. Minutes earlier, Barack Hussein had made a speech in which he basically said that no nation is better than any other (so, the US is no better than...Burma?), once again apologized for America's various crimes against humanity and the environment, and threw Israel under the bus in an attempt to appease terrorists and dictators. He said, "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" and said that they should end "the occupation that began in 1967."
Okay, time for a history lesson. Israel was legally created (restored, really) in 1948 by the UN, and in its constitution, it offered "full and equal citizenship and due representation" to eveyrone in its borders, including Arabs. Apparently, the Arabs didn't care. In May 1948, the Arab League countries sent approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops to invade Israel. The Israelis managed to fight off their attackers, and in the ensuing treaty, Israel widened its borders, Jordan annexed the West Bank, and Egypt took the Gaza strip. In other words, Palestine, as a distinct territory, ceased to exist. There was only Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.
Egypt expelled UN forces from the Sinai Peninsula in 1967, allowing Egypt to amass 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border. This military buildup sparked a pre-emptive strike by Israel, leading to the Six Day War. During the war, Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank, which included East Jerusalem.
So what's the point? The point is that there has never, in the history of the world, been a sovereign state or nation called "Palestine." Ever. There are no Palestinian people, per se. Rather, these are Arabs living in a region that historically has been called many things, including "Palestine" (which is a derivative of "Philistines," the enemies of the Israelites in ancient times). Israel did not invade and occupy Palestinian land. Rather, Israel went to war with Egypt and Jordan in order to defend itself from attack, and then won those territories fair and square. That's kind of how war works. It would be like Mexico claiming that the US needs to end its "occupation" of California that began in 1848.
So anyway, Obama and his Arab buddies are all full of crap. Heck, why are guys like Quaddafi even allowed to speak at the UN? I swear, the UN is the most pointless thing in the history of ever. We do not all share common goals or interests. It's a room populated by a minority of powerful democracies and a big crowd of Islamic terrorists and Marxist dictators from banana republics. And Obama decided to stand in front of all of them and essentially say, "Hi, I'm weak and naive. Enjoy walking all over the US for the next four to eight years!"
Exposing ACORN (Part 2)
Oh, hey! Recently, videos were released by filmmaker James O'Keefe and freelance journalist Hannah Giles, which exposed ACORN workers in four different cities for advising the two (undercover as a "pimp" and "prostitute") on how they can cheat on their taxes, launder their illegal income, get a home loan to start a brothel, and claim dependant status for underage sex-slaves being kidnapped from El Salvador.
When this story broke, FOX News naturally picked it up right away, but most of the mainstream media ignored it until Congress started getting involved. Heck, even ABC anchor Charles Gibson claimed he had never even heard about the scandal, even though the story was about a week old at the time. At NBC, they made excuses for ACORN and instead accused the filmmaker of entrapment. In the past two years, FOX News has done more than 300 reports on ACORN, during which time NBC and ABC News did two and CBS News did only one. Clearly, most of the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama and his cronies. They ignored the 9/12 March on Washington, they ignored the Van Jones scandal, and they ignored ACORN until a couple of days ago. Some have even claimed that FOX and conservative Americans are targeting ACORN because of (what else?) racism. Pathetic. What ever happened to journalistic integrity?
Either way, ACORN workers are now being fired, both houses of Congress have overwhelmingly voted to strip ACORN of all federal funding, and the Census Bureau is cutting ties with the group as well. Heck, 20 states are now doing further investigations into voter fraud by ACORN workers. Finally something is happening with these criminals, and it's all because of two average citizens who decided to dig deeper. They remembered the role that Woodward and Bernstein cut out for the press as the last line of defense for the American people. And I say bravo.
Now it's time to see how Obama responds. Remember, Obama worked closely with these guys as a "community organizer" in Chicago, he represented them in a lawsuit, and he even taught "leadership training sessions" for them back in the 1990s. They endorsed his campaign from the beginning, and he sent them $800,000 for their voter registration services. Oh, and don't forget these quotes from Obama regarding ACORN:
"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it."
"But let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda."
Also, if you're interested, go to the ACORN website and read "The ACORN People's Platform." Basically, you could rename it "The ACORN Communist Manifesto" and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Oh, and Wade Rathke, their former director who embezzled $1 million and was never prosecuted, recently published a book that essentially promotes social change by overloading welfare rolls and causing capitalism to collapse. Just sayin'.
When this story broke, FOX News naturally picked it up right away, but most of the mainstream media ignored it until Congress started getting involved. Heck, even ABC anchor Charles Gibson claimed he had never even heard about the scandal, even though the story was about a week old at the time. At NBC, they made excuses for ACORN and instead accused the filmmaker of entrapment. In the past two years, FOX News has done more than 300 reports on ACORN, during which time NBC and ABC News did two and CBS News did only one. Clearly, most of the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama and his cronies. They ignored the 9/12 March on Washington, they ignored the Van Jones scandal, and they ignored ACORN until a couple of days ago. Some have even claimed that FOX and conservative Americans are targeting ACORN because of (what else?) racism. Pathetic. What ever happened to journalistic integrity?
Either way, ACORN workers are now being fired, both houses of Congress have overwhelmingly voted to strip ACORN of all federal funding, and the Census Bureau is cutting ties with the group as well. Heck, 20 states are now doing further investigations into voter fraud by ACORN workers. Finally something is happening with these criminals, and it's all because of two average citizens who decided to dig deeper. They remembered the role that Woodward and Bernstein cut out for the press as the last line of defense for the American people. And I say bravo.
Now it's time to see how Obama responds. Remember, Obama worked closely with these guys as a "community organizer" in Chicago, he represented them in a lawsuit, and he even taught "leadership training sessions" for them back in the 1990s. They endorsed his campaign from the beginning, and he sent them $800,000 for their voter registration services. Oh, and don't forget these quotes from Obama regarding ACORN:
"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it."
"But let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda."
Also, if you're interested, go to the ACORN website and read "The ACORN People's Platform." Basically, you could rename it "The ACORN Communist Manifesto" and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Oh, and Wade Rathke, their former director who embezzled $1 million and was never prosecuted, recently published a book that essentially promotes social change by overloading welfare rolls and causing capitalism to collapse. Just sayin'.
Exposing ACORN (Part 1)
Back in 1972, some burglars robbed the Watergate building in Washington DC, and the five men directly involved were arrested, tried, and convicted in January 1973. End of story, right? Well, as everyone knows, the story didn't end there. A couple of curious reporters from the Washington Post named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deep into the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and even the White House. Their investigation eventually led to convictions of high-level members of the Nixon administration as well as the impeachment of the president himself.
Woodward and Bernstein were viewed as heroes. A lot of reporters were inspired by their story, and many entered the media with the belief that they were really the last line of defense for the American people against scandal and corruption. Sounds pretty noble, huh?
Well, fast forward to present day. Now we have ACORN, a shady, left-wing activist organization that has received millions in federal tax money and millions more in state and local grants. The group is tax-exempt. ACORN is supposedly set up to help poor people buy homes, and it also registers folks to vote (for Democrats). The group has been at the center of numerous cases of voter fraud, with ACORN employees registering people multiple times, as well as registering the names of dead people and fictional characters.
They also contributed to the subprime crisis by protesting, boycotting, and storming bank offices, trying to force lenders to make more home loans to poor people with bad credit. Heck, I work for a loan servicing company, and several months back ACORN went to the house of our CEO and protested on his lawn. Our office building now has security guards and employee-only access doors, since ACORN activists stormed our lobby a while back also. Classy.
ACORN employees have been charged with crimes in nine different states, and there have already been at least 30 convictions. But for some reason, ACORN has been largely ignored by the press and the federal government. President Bush didn't lift a finger to check them out during his tenure, and Obama used to work for them, so he's not likely to help either. So who is left to root out the corruption? Heroic investigative journalists like Woodward and Bernstein? Hmm...
Woodward and Bernstein were viewed as heroes. A lot of reporters were inspired by their story, and many entered the media with the belief that they were really the last line of defense for the American people against scandal and corruption. Sounds pretty noble, huh?
Well, fast forward to present day. Now we have ACORN, a shady, left-wing activist organization that has received millions in federal tax money and millions more in state and local grants. The group is tax-exempt. ACORN is supposedly set up to help poor people buy homes, and it also registers folks to vote (for Democrats). The group has been at the center of numerous cases of voter fraud, with ACORN employees registering people multiple times, as well as registering the names of dead people and fictional characters.
They also contributed to the subprime crisis by protesting, boycotting, and storming bank offices, trying to force lenders to make more home loans to poor people with bad credit. Heck, I work for a loan servicing company, and several months back ACORN went to the house of our CEO and protested on his lawn. Our office building now has security guards and employee-only access doors, since ACORN activists stormed our lobby a while back also. Classy.
ACORN employees have been charged with crimes in nine different states, and there have already been at least 30 convictions. But for some reason, ACORN has been largely ignored by the press and the federal government. President Bush didn't lift a finger to check them out during his tenure, and Obama used to work for them, so he's not likely to help either. So who is left to root out the corruption? Heroic investigative journalists like Woodward and Bernstein? Hmm...
Obama's Ramadan Speech
Ah yes, more blatant pandering by our sorry excuse for a president. In a recent speech, Obama said, "The contributions of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country." He wanted to pay truibute to "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Umm...yeah. I challenge anyone to name a list of Muslim contributions to the USA that are "too long to catalog." Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, you couldn't think of any? Well, that's probably because Muslims only make up less than 1% of our entire population, and the USA was founded almost entirely by a bunch of white, European protestants. Seriously, do you remember reading anything at all about Muslims in America during history class? That's what I thought.
Actually, the first "contributions" Muslims made to America involved terrorism. After independence, the first war the USA ever fought as a soverign nation was against Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast. At the time, Thomas Jefferson had no idea why the Muslims wanted to attack our ships since we hadn't provoked them. So he asked their ambassador about it, and the guy told Jefferson that "it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise." That was back in 1786, people. Not much has changed in 200 years, huh? I'm sure the victims of the World Trade Center, United 93, the USS Cole, and countless bombed embassies would love to discuss all the wonderful contributions Muslims have made to our country.
Additionally, Obama's claim that Islam is "interwoven into the fabric of our communities and country" is so ridiculous that it's laughable. In fact, most parts of American culture are entirely antithetical to Islam, including democracy, women's rights, secular government, and individual liberty. We have legal access to alcohol. We don't give adulterers and homosexuals the death penalty. We don't allow polygamy. We don't encourage or permit honor killings. We certainly don't recognize Sharia Law like some countries do (I'm looking at you, France). And as for the claim about "justice and progress," that seems kind of innacurate since most Islamic countries don't allow free elections and are still basically living in the Middle Ages.
In other words, the "fabric of our country" has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and was not influenced by it in any way. But thanks for playing, Barack. You're always good for a laugh.
Umm...yeah. I challenge anyone to name a list of Muslim contributions to the USA that are "too long to catalog." Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, you couldn't think of any? Well, that's probably because Muslims only make up less than 1% of our entire population, and the USA was founded almost entirely by a bunch of white, European protestants. Seriously, do you remember reading anything at all about Muslims in America during history class? That's what I thought.
Actually, the first "contributions" Muslims made to America involved terrorism. After independence, the first war the USA ever fought as a soverign nation was against Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast. At the time, Thomas Jefferson had no idea why the Muslims wanted to attack our ships since we hadn't provoked them. So he asked their ambassador about it, and the guy told Jefferson that "it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise." That was back in 1786, people. Not much has changed in 200 years, huh? I'm sure the victims of the World Trade Center, United 93, the USS Cole, and countless bombed embassies would love to discuss all the wonderful contributions Muslims have made to our country.
Additionally, Obama's claim that Islam is "interwoven into the fabric of our communities and country" is so ridiculous that it's laughable. In fact, most parts of American culture are entirely antithetical to Islam, including democracy, women's rights, secular government, and individual liberty. We have legal access to alcohol. We don't give adulterers and homosexuals the death penalty. We don't allow polygamy. We don't encourage or permit honor killings. We certainly don't recognize Sharia Law like some countries do (I'm looking at you, France). And as for the claim about "justice and progress," that seems kind of innacurate since most Islamic countries don't allow free elections and are still basically living in the Middle Ages.
In other words, the "fabric of our country" has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and was not influenced by it in any way. But thanks for playing, Barack. You're always good for a laugh.
Our Two Presidents
No, this post will not make claims about Obama being two-faced or something of that nature. I'm speaking much more literally. I've read a few things about this issue recently, and it's really piqued my interest. Right now, it almost seems like we have two presidents running our country: Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Think about it. Obama won the election. He campaigned on a vast, far-reaching domestic agenda. He prattled on and on about the vague ideas of "hope" and "change" for months on end. He was supposed to be the magical Chosen One who transforms America. Then he gets elected, and what does he do? Well, nothing of substance really. Obama makes speeches. He holds town hall meetings. He runs around the world embarrassing our country by apologizing to terrorists and dictators. He interrupts television broadcasts to run informercials for his policies. Basically, he just keeps on campaigning. That's all he's really good at anyway. After all, he's never really run anything in his life.
So who's running the country while Obama campaigns? Well, it's our old friend Nancy Pelosi. That arrogant, partisan, botoxed harpy. She's running the show! Obama made speeches about the necessity of a "stimulus" package and made tons of promises about it. He promised there would be no pork barrel spending in it. But Pelosi wrote it and filled it with useless pork and payoffs to special interests. Pelosi crafted the cap-and-trade policy. Pelosi put together the gargantuan budget. Pelosi wrote the insane health care bill that's in Congress now. Yes, I know it's the job of Congress to write bills, but since these are Obama's policies and promises, it kinda seems like he should know what's actually in the legislation.
A recent article (addressed to Obama) in the Wall Street Journal said, "[Lyndon] Johnson's initiatives were framed in the White House by his administration. Your strategy, by contrast, has been to advocate forcefully for health care and energy reform but to leave the details to Democratic congressional committee chairs. You did the same thing with your initial $787 billion stimulus package. Now, you're stuck with a plan that provides little stimulus until 2010. A president should never cede control of his main agenda to others."
But that is just what he's done. Obama makes speeches about this new health care plan. He makes promises. He tells the press and his supporters what's in the health care plan and how it works. But he had absolutely no hand in cobbling it together, he certainly hasn't read it (heck, most of Congress hasn't read it) and he has no idea what's actually in it! The Associated Press (who is usually pretty non-partisan) did a fact check on his claims about the health care plan, and basically, he is full of horse crap. Heck, even the liberal rag New York Times called BS on some of his statements! He is either lying or ignorant. Either one makes me nervous.
The point is, Obama is nothing but the face of this administration. He has no clue how to run anything. Why do you think he keeps nominating so many random Czars? Since being elected, he's nominated nearly three dozen various "Czars" to run every aspect of his government. And at least one of them, a man named Van Jones, was a self-proclaimed Communist! These people are accountable to no one, and in my opinion, are largely unconstitutional. Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized this! I don't know which president nominated the first Czar of whatever, but these guys need to go. Either way, Obama isn't in charge. He already told ACORN that they would get to shape his agenda. Plus, these Czars oversee everything, Co-President Pelosi forms all the domestic policies, Hillary roams around the world being useless and irrelevant, and Obama...well, he makes speeches.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" exclaimed a certain humbug from the Emerald City.
Think about it. Obama won the election. He campaigned on a vast, far-reaching domestic agenda. He prattled on and on about the vague ideas of "hope" and "change" for months on end. He was supposed to be the magical Chosen One who transforms America. Then he gets elected, and what does he do? Well, nothing of substance really. Obama makes speeches. He holds town hall meetings. He runs around the world embarrassing our country by apologizing to terrorists and dictators. He interrupts television broadcasts to run informercials for his policies. Basically, he just keeps on campaigning. That's all he's really good at anyway. After all, he's never really run anything in his life.
So who's running the country while Obama campaigns? Well, it's our old friend Nancy Pelosi. That arrogant, partisan, botoxed harpy. She's running the show! Obama made speeches about the necessity of a "stimulus" package and made tons of promises about it. He promised there would be no pork barrel spending in it. But Pelosi wrote it and filled it with useless pork and payoffs to special interests. Pelosi crafted the cap-and-trade policy. Pelosi put together the gargantuan budget. Pelosi wrote the insane health care bill that's in Congress now. Yes, I know it's the job of Congress to write bills, but since these are Obama's policies and promises, it kinda seems like he should know what's actually in the legislation.
A recent article (addressed to Obama) in the Wall Street Journal said, "[Lyndon] Johnson's initiatives were framed in the White House by his administration. Your strategy, by contrast, has been to advocate forcefully for health care and energy reform but to leave the details to Democratic congressional committee chairs. You did the same thing with your initial $787 billion stimulus package. Now, you're stuck with a plan that provides little stimulus until 2010. A president should never cede control of his main agenda to others."
But that is just what he's done. Obama makes speeches about this new health care plan. He makes promises. He tells the press and his supporters what's in the health care plan and how it works. But he had absolutely no hand in cobbling it together, he certainly hasn't read it (heck, most of Congress hasn't read it) and he has no idea what's actually in it! The Associated Press (who is usually pretty non-partisan) did a fact check on his claims about the health care plan, and basically, he is full of horse crap. Heck, even the liberal rag New York Times called BS on some of his statements! He is either lying or ignorant. Either one makes me nervous.
The point is, Obama is nothing but the face of this administration. He has no clue how to run anything. Why do you think he keeps nominating so many random Czars? Since being elected, he's nominated nearly three dozen various "Czars" to run every aspect of his government. And at least one of them, a man named Van Jones, was a self-proclaimed Communist! These people are accountable to no one, and in my opinion, are largely unconstitutional. Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized this! I don't know which president nominated the first Czar of whatever, but these guys need to go. Either way, Obama isn't in charge. He already told ACORN that they would get to shape his agenda. Plus, these Czars oversee everything, Co-President Pelosi forms all the domestic policies, Hillary roams around the world being useless and irrelevant, and Obama...well, he makes speeches.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" exclaimed a certain humbug from the Emerald City.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Presidential Pandering and Bold-Faced Lies
As Barack Obama continues his Worldwide United States Apology Tour, he's spending this week in the Middle East (probably claiming that terrorism is all our fault or something like that). Anyway, during an interview, he made the following idiotic statement: "One of the points I want to make is if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
Okay, we all know that this is blatant pandering. He's just trying to pacify all the Islamofascist terrorist dictators that lead most of these countries, so I'm not really surprised at all. However, this statement is a complete and obvious lie.
During the campaign, Obama said, "We are no longer a Christian nation." First of all, somewhere between 75-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so that statement is a load of crap. Second of all, there are about 2.3 million Muslims in the United States, which is less than 1% of the population. And finally, Indonesia has 200 million Muslims, India has 156 million Muslims, Pakistan has 150 million Muslims, and so forth. He actually thinks that our comparatively tiny population of 2.3 million would make us "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"? That's just retarded. How could anyone not know that his statement was a complete lie? Why isn't the mainstream media jumping on this? Oh wait, I know why. Because they're too busy getting tingles up their legs to be real reporters.
So let's recap. Our president, whose parents were either Muslim or atheist, who went to an Islamic school in Indonesia, whose Kenyan grandmother will soon be going on a Hajj pilgrimage, and whose only real exposure to "Christianity" is the racist hatemonger Jeremiah Wright, has said not only that the United States is no longer a Christian nation, but that we could be considered one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Yeah, that makes me pretty uncomfortable.
Oh, and by the way, Sarah Obama, the same grandmother who is going on the Hajj, is also the person who testified to being present at Barack Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya. Just sayin'.
Okay, we all know that this is blatant pandering. He's just trying to pacify all the Islamofascist terrorist dictators that lead most of these countries, so I'm not really surprised at all. However, this statement is a complete and obvious lie.
During the campaign, Obama said, "We are no longer a Christian nation." First of all, somewhere between 75-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so that statement is a load of crap. Second of all, there are about 2.3 million Muslims in the United States, which is less than 1% of the population. And finally, Indonesia has 200 million Muslims, India has 156 million Muslims, Pakistan has 150 million Muslims, and so forth. He actually thinks that our comparatively tiny population of 2.3 million would make us "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"? That's just retarded. How could anyone not know that his statement was a complete lie? Why isn't the mainstream media jumping on this? Oh wait, I know why. Because they're too busy getting tingles up their legs to be real reporters.
So let's recap. Our president, whose parents were either Muslim or atheist, who went to an Islamic school in Indonesia, whose Kenyan grandmother will soon be going on a Hajj pilgrimage, and whose only real exposure to "Christianity" is the racist hatemonger Jeremiah Wright, has said not only that the United States is no longer a Christian nation, but that we could be considered one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Yeah, that makes me pretty uncomfortable.
Oh, and by the way, Sarah Obama, the same grandmother who is going on the Hajj, is also the person who testified to being present at Barack Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya. Just sayin'.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Hey, Another Activist Judge!
Well, it has now become official. The nominee for the new Supreme Court Justice is Sonia Sotomayor. Let's try to check off the "qualifications" she needed to get the nomination, none of which have anything to do with being a good judge. Woman? Check. Minority? Check. Thinks personal experience and "empathy" have a place in a court of law? Check.
Look, I don't care that she's a Hispanic woman. I do care that she was chosen BECAUSE she is a Hispanic woman (oh, and because she has "empathy"). Race and gender should be completely irrelevant. Why are we still obsessed with affirmative action? Now that we have a black president, isn't it clear that institutionalized racism no longer exists in the Unites States? I mean, a black man with Muslim/atheist parents just became the most powerful man in the world! We know that Sotomayor supports affirmative action, because she has voted to uphold blatant racial discrimination. Remember this story? A city in Connecticut denied promotions to the firefighters who did best on a test of job-related skills because none of them were black. She upheld the decision.
Is she even qualified? Well, she's been in the courts for a long time, but almost all of her rulings that went to the Supreme Court (80%) were overturned, a couple of them unanimously.
She has already admitted that she is incapable of being impartial: "Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
People are going to read this and say, "Oh, come on, she's just being realistic." Um, no she's not. The Law doesn't change based on how she feels about it. In fact, The Law is the only thing for which a judge should have any partiality. I don't care what your life experiences are. As a Supreme Court Justice, your job is to uphold the Constitution. Period. But no, she is an activist. We already know that she said the courts are "where policy is made," and then laughed and admitted she shouldn't have said that on tape.
I think Mike Huckabee said it best on his blog: "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the 'feelings' of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."
Here is a link to a great article about this pick, which features a few more frightening quotes from Sotomayor about why a Hispanic woman is inherently a better judge than a white man.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Political Insanity of Harry Reid
Here is a doozy of a quote from Harry Reid on the Today Show:
"Well, I personally would like to see us get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. I think we could get a governor or a senator or a former senator - people with some real life experiences for a while, rather than these people who walk around in black robes all the time."
Yeah, that would be ridiculous. Why would you want a person with actual judicial experience to get a job as one of the most important and powerful judges in the country? Seriously, Harry. You're a retard. Here's why...
1) Judges tend to know the law better than anyone else. A Supreme Court justice is a judge in the highest court in the country. Personally, I think someone with experience as a judge (who, ya know, knows the law) would kind of be an ideal choice. Call me crazy.
2) He said he wants us to "get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice." In my opinion, that's like saying the Attorney General should not have a law degree. Or that the Surgeon General should have no medical experience. Or that the president should not have any experience in executive leadership. Oh, wait...
3) He thinks that senators have more "life experience" than judges? Really? Does he think that sitting around in Congress for 25 years gives someone a diverse set of life experiences? (Hint: it doesn't) Also, it's not like judges walk around all day long in their robes and sleep in the courthouse. I'm pretty sure they have lives too.
Oh, and good ol' Harry ended his interview with this little gem about choosing the justice:
"I feel comfortable that [Obama's] choice will be as good as his cabinet selection."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"Well, I personally would like to see us get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. I think we could get a governor or a senator or a former senator - people with some real life experiences for a while, rather than these people who walk around in black robes all the time."
Yeah, that would be ridiculous. Why would you want a person with actual judicial experience to get a job as one of the most important and powerful judges in the country? Seriously, Harry. You're a retard. Here's why...
1) Judges tend to know the law better than anyone else. A Supreme Court justice is a judge in the highest court in the country. Personally, I think someone with experience as a judge (who, ya know, knows the law) would kind of be an ideal choice. Call me crazy.
2) He said he wants us to "get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice." In my opinion, that's like saying the Attorney General should not have a law degree. Or that the Surgeon General should have no medical experience. Or that the president should not have any experience in executive leadership. Oh, wait...
3) He thinks that senators have more "life experience" than judges? Really? Does he think that sitting around in Congress for 25 years gives someone a diverse set of life experiences? (Hint: it doesn't) Also, it's not like judges walk around all day long in their robes and sleep in the courthouse. I'm pretty sure they have lives too.
Oh, and good ol' Harry ended his interview with this little gem about choosing the justice:
"I feel comfortable that [Obama's] choice will be as good as his cabinet selection."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Yes, maybe the new justice will also be a tax cheat.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Supreme Court (of Social Justice)
Supreme Court justice David Souter is retiring. He was never really much of a conservative anyway, so I don't really care that he's leaving. However, his exit gives Obama the opportunity to make a nomination, and that is troublesome. Most of the media has been hoping for him to nominate Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic appellate court judge. Why do they want her, you ask? Well, they want her because she's a woman. And because she's Hispanic, and she would be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. See for yourself...
"President Obama has said that he wants to add another woman to the court. I would say the leading candidate is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She would be not only a woman but the first Hispanic." - George Stephanopoulos (ABC)
"...the pressure to appoint a woman. But the Hispanic community really would like to see the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice." - Chuck Todd (NBC)
"A lot of pressure to appoint a woman, lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the first Hispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor, you know, an appeals court judge and Hispanic woman. You heard it here first." - Chris Wallace (Fox)
Clearly I'm not just making this up. They want her because she is a Hispanic woman. Of course, my question is this: Who freaking cares if she is a Hispanic woman? Does that make her a better judge? Does her race or gender have anything to do whatsoever with her knowledge of law or the Constitution? No! Just like Obama being black has absolutely nothing to do with his ability (or inability) to govern! It's all meaningless. Liberals always pretend to be so big on racial and gender equality. Well, how does picking someone based on race and gender promote equality? Attitudes like this are what prevent our society from finally becoming colorblind.
The fact is, this opportunity has nothing to do with supporting the law or the Constitution. It has to do with Obama pushing his leftist ideology. He's even admitted that much. Check out these quotes...
"Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." - Obama in 2007
"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled." - Obama in 2008
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society." - Obama in 2001, listing the "failures" of the civil rights movement
I don't mean to sound callous, but the law should be blind, cold, and emotionless. The law isn't about feelings and empathy. I can empathize with a guy whose wife left him. But if that same guy bought a gun and murdered his wife in retaliation, he'd still be guilty. Obama doesn't care about the law. He wants the courts to redistribute wealth and delve into the liberal views of economic and social justice. And as I said before, that is troublesome.
"President Obama has said that he wants to add another woman to the court. I would say the leading candidate is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She would be not only a woman but the first Hispanic." - George Stephanopoulos (ABC)
"...the pressure to appoint a woman. But the Hispanic community really would like to see the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice." - Chuck Todd (NBC)
"A lot of pressure to appoint a woman, lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the first Hispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor, you know, an appeals court judge and Hispanic woman. You heard it here first." - Chris Wallace (Fox)
Clearly I'm not just making this up. They want her because she is a Hispanic woman. Of course, my question is this: Who freaking cares if she is a Hispanic woman? Does that make her a better judge? Does her race or gender have anything to do whatsoever with her knowledge of law or the Constitution? No! Just like Obama being black has absolutely nothing to do with his ability (or inability) to govern! It's all meaningless. Liberals always pretend to be so big on racial and gender equality. Well, how does picking someone based on race and gender promote equality? Attitudes like this are what prevent our society from finally becoming colorblind.
The fact is, this opportunity has nothing to do with supporting the law or the Constitution. It has to do with Obama pushing his leftist ideology. He's even admitted that much. Check out these quotes...
"Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." - Obama in 2007
"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled." - Obama in 2008
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society." - Obama in 2001, listing the "failures" of the civil rights movement
I don't mean to sound callous, but the law should be blind, cold, and emotionless. The law isn't about feelings and empathy. I can empathize with a guy whose wife left him. But if that same guy bought a gun and murdered his wife in retaliation, he'd still be guilty. Obama doesn't care about the law. He wants the courts to redistribute wealth and delve into the liberal views of economic and social justice. And as I said before, that is troublesome.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
A Lesson From King Arthur
I recently finished writing a paper about heroism in Arthurian literature. The last portion of my paper was about The Once and Future King by T.H. White, and if you haven't read it, I recommend it. Anyway, as we hear about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorists at Guantanamo, and the controversy over waterboarding, I started thinking about this book.
You see, throughout the entire novel, King Arthur tries to put an end to war and the barbaric idea that "only Might makes Right." He struggles with this his entire life, then ultimately fails as his kingdom collapses around him.
In the last chapter, as Arthur is about to enter the final battle with the traitor Mordred, he looks back and ponders his kingdom. He wonders why his dream failed and why war was inevitable:
"He had been taught by Merlyn to believe that man was perfectible: that he was on the whole more decent than beastly: that good was worth trying: that there was no such thing as original sin. He had been forged as a weapon for the aid of man, on the assumption that men were good...His Table, his idea of Chivalry, his Holy Grail, his devotion to Justice: these had been progressive steps in the effort for which he had been bred...but the whole structure depended on the first premise: that man was decent."
The tragedy of "The Once and Future King" is Arthur's final realization: that man is NOT decent. On the whole, man is selfish, greedy, and violent. It's been this way since the Fall, and it won't change until the Second Coming. It's easy to be idealistic when it comes to war and violence. It's easy to say things like, "Give peace a chance!" and "Make love, not war!" But the sad reality is that, like Arthur realized, sometimes war is necessary. There is Evil in this world, and it must be opposed. Don't get me wrong, I think war is a terrible thing. I don't like seeing innocent people die, and I think we should avoid war whenever we can. However, we have to look through the lens of reality.
Is it wrong to make an imprisoned terrorist think he's drowning in order to extract information? Or is it more wrong to treat the same terrorist respectfully, thereby allowing thousands of innocents to die in an attack that would have otherwise been prevented? Is it wrong to invade a nation run by a tyrannical dictator? Or is it more wrong to allow the dictator to continue murdering and oppressing his own people? Is it wrong for soldiers to shoot and kill a bunch of pirates who have kidnapped an innocent ship captain? Maybe there is no right answer to any of this. We live in a world beset by Evil - a world of men who rape, steal, and kill for stupid reasons (or sometimes no reason at all). Most of them can't be bought or reasoned with. These monsters don't capture combatants; they kidnap innocent people and cut off their heads on video for the world to see.
Would you allow waterboarding to save your child's life? I imagine most people would do so in a heartbeat. How about the life of another child? How about the lives of thousands? There is a reason why the show 24 is so popular. Despite what some may say, despite the "holier than thou" idealism some adhere to, deep down everyone knows that we need men like Jack Bauer to protect us. Just as Arthur realized, man is not decent, and until this world is changed and perfected, we have to be able to survive it.
You see, throughout the entire novel, King Arthur tries to put an end to war and the barbaric idea that "only Might makes Right." He struggles with this his entire life, then ultimately fails as his kingdom collapses around him.
In the last chapter, as Arthur is about to enter the final battle with the traitor Mordred, he looks back and ponders his kingdom. He wonders why his dream failed and why war was inevitable:
"He had been taught by Merlyn to believe that man was perfectible: that he was on the whole more decent than beastly: that good was worth trying: that there was no such thing as original sin. He had been forged as a weapon for the aid of man, on the assumption that men were good...His Table, his idea of Chivalry, his Holy Grail, his devotion to Justice: these had been progressive steps in the effort for which he had been bred...but the whole structure depended on the first premise: that man was decent."
The tragedy of "The Once and Future King" is Arthur's final realization: that man is NOT decent. On the whole, man is selfish, greedy, and violent. It's been this way since the Fall, and it won't change until the Second Coming. It's easy to be idealistic when it comes to war and violence. It's easy to say things like, "Give peace a chance!" and "Make love, not war!" But the sad reality is that, like Arthur realized, sometimes war is necessary. There is Evil in this world, and it must be opposed. Don't get me wrong, I think war is a terrible thing. I don't like seeing innocent people die, and I think we should avoid war whenever we can. However, we have to look through the lens of reality.
Is it wrong to make an imprisoned terrorist think he's drowning in order to extract information? Or is it more wrong to treat the same terrorist respectfully, thereby allowing thousands of innocents to die in an attack that would have otherwise been prevented? Is it wrong to invade a nation run by a tyrannical dictator? Or is it more wrong to allow the dictator to continue murdering and oppressing his own people? Is it wrong for soldiers to shoot and kill a bunch of pirates who have kidnapped an innocent ship captain? Maybe there is no right answer to any of this. We live in a world beset by Evil - a world of men who rape, steal, and kill for stupid reasons (or sometimes no reason at all). Most of them can't be bought or reasoned with. These monsters don't capture combatants; they kidnap innocent people and cut off their heads on video for the world to see.
Would you allow waterboarding to save your child's life? I imagine most people would do so in a heartbeat. How about the life of another child? How about the lives of thousands? There is a reason why the show 24 is so popular. Despite what some may say, despite the "holier than thou" idealism some adhere to, deep down everyone knows that we need men like Jack Bauer to protect us. Just as Arthur realized, man is not decent, and until this world is changed and perfected, we have to be able to survive it.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Why Obama Is Bad For America
This is a list that I could easily make much longer, but these are the basic points. This post doesn't include any speculation about what might happen in the future, no statistics on what has and hasn't worked economically, none of that. Just facts, quotes, and lies...
Obama supports affirmative action, despite the fact that it is clearly no longer necessary. I mean, the fact that we now have a black president (the most powerful man in the world) should prove that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America.
Obama wants to turn the 12 million illegal immigrants in America into citizens. He supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. He voted against making English our official language.
Obama campaigned strongly against lobbyists and said he wouldn't appoint them to his administration, and then he appointed lobbyists to his administration.
Obama ludicrously claimed to be ignorant of the hatred spewed by his own pastor of 20 years and said he "could no more abandon" that pastor than he could his "white grandmother," only to abandon him just a few months later. When confronted with Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist worldview, Obama just said he didn't know about it. This is after 20 years in that church, people.
Obama claimed to have little to do with ACORN but actually taught yearly seminars for them.
Obama's website says he will make sure no one pays higher income tax rates "than they paid in the 1990s." Well, just for reference purposes, taxes were higher in the 1990s than they are now.
Obama has specifically said that he wants to implement high carbon taxes that will bankrupt the coal industry. Isn't it nice to hear a president say he wants to make an American business go bankrupt?
Obama opposes private school vouchers, claiming that they would undermine American public schools. Wait, you mean the public schools that produce test scores far below those of most other developed nations? Yeah, we'd hate to undermine that. I guess that's why he sends his own kids to private school.
Obama doesn't think that homosexuality is immoral.
Obama said that Washington needs to start "taking responsibility for every dime that it spends" so as to avoid leaving our children with a mountain of debt. He also said he doesn't "believe in bigger government." Then he spent more money than any president in history on a "stimulus" program and a $3.66 trillion budget, which are both absolutely filled with pork spending.
Obama supported the Global Poverty Act, which is basically worldwide welfare. We don't even have enough money for our own people, but he wants us to send a bunch of it to other countries. Nice.
Obama said, "Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned" and "having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy." Then he went out and essentially begged China to give us more money for his spending programs.
Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Bill, which protects babies who survive botched late-term abortions. Several members of his administration were former board members of Emily's List, a pro-abortion group who supports taxpayer-funded abortions and partial-birth abortion. He has forced taxpayers to fund groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. He is also in the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections put in place to make sure medical staff are not forced to do abortions.
Since being elected, Obama has basically been running around the world and apologizing to everyone for everything. He seems to think that America is at fault for every world problem, so he just bows, apologizes, and gets friendly with fascist dictators like Hugo Chavez (who wants to "be his friend").
Lastly, the Obama administration recently released a report warning people of the dangers of domestic terrorism from "right-wing extremists." According to the report, these extremists include people who are pro-life, people who want low taxes and a small government, people who support the right to bear arms, and military veterans. That's right, if you are a conservative, you just may be a terrorist. This comes from the people who refuse to use the word "terrorist" in association with actual Islamic terrorists! This comes from the man who started his political career in the home of a left-wing radical who bombed government buildings! And now, WE are the ones being investigated by the FBI.
Obama supports affirmative action, despite the fact that it is clearly no longer necessary. I mean, the fact that we now have a black president (the most powerful man in the world) should prove that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America.
Obama wants to turn the 12 million illegal immigrants in America into citizens. He supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. He voted against making English our official language.
Obama campaigned strongly against lobbyists and said he wouldn't appoint them to his administration, and then he appointed lobbyists to his administration.
Obama ludicrously claimed to be ignorant of the hatred spewed by his own pastor of 20 years and said he "could no more abandon" that pastor than he could his "white grandmother," only to abandon him just a few months later. When confronted with Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist worldview, Obama just said he didn't know about it. This is after 20 years in that church, people.
Obama claimed to have little to do with ACORN but actually taught yearly seminars for them.
Obama's website says he will make sure no one pays higher income tax rates "than they paid in the 1990s." Well, just for reference purposes, taxes were higher in the 1990s than they are now.
Obama has specifically said that he wants to implement high carbon taxes that will bankrupt the coal industry. Isn't it nice to hear a president say he wants to make an American business go bankrupt?
Obama opposes private school vouchers, claiming that they would undermine American public schools. Wait, you mean the public schools that produce test scores far below those of most other developed nations? Yeah, we'd hate to undermine that. I guess that's why he sends his own kids to private school.
Obama doesn't think that homosexuality is immoral.
Obama said that Washington needs to start "taking responsibility for every dime that it spends" so as to avoid leaving our children with a mountain of debt. He also said he doesn't "believe in bigger government." Then he spent more money than any president in history on a "stimulus" program and a $3.66 trillion budget, which are both absolutely filled with pork spending.
Obama supported the Global Poverty Act, which is basically worldwide welfare. We don't even have enough money for our own people, but he wants us to send a bunch of it to other countries. Nice.
Obama said, "Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned" and "having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy." Then he went out and essentially begged China to give us more money for his spending programs.
Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Bill, which protects babies who survive botched late-term abortions. Several members of his administration were former board members of Emily's List, a pro-abortion group who supports taxpayer-funded abortions and partial-birth abortion. He has forced taxpayers to fund groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. He is also in the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections put in place to make sure medical staff are not forced to do abortions.
Since being elected, Obama has basically been running around the world and apologizing to everyone for everything. He seems to think that America is at fault for every world problem, so he just bows, apologizes, and gets friendly with fascist dictators like Hugo Chavez (who wants to "be his friend").
Lastly, the Obama administration recently released a report warning people of the dangers of domestic terrorism from "right-wing extremists." According to the report, these extremists include people who are pro-life, people who want low taxes and a small government, people who support the right to bear arms, and military veterans. That's right, if you are a conservative, you just may be a terrorist. This comes from the people who refuse to use the word "terrorist" in association with actual Islamic terrorists! This comes from the man who started his political career in the home of a left-wing radical who bombed government buildings! And now, WE are the ones being investigated by the FBI.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Someone PLEASE explain this to me...
Okay, so the Tea Party Protests went pretty well on April 15th. I didn't hear any reports of ACORN or their lackeys trying to start fights or whatever, and the rallies all seemed to be good, peaceful displays of patriotism. The news coverage was just as I expected. Fox News went out and covered the protests, and big conservative guys like Glenn Beck joined in and enjoyed themselves. No big surprise there.
And then, of course, there were the OTHER news networks. Everyone always accuses Fox of being biased toward conservatism (aka "biased toward truth"), but do CNN and the others not see how ridiculously left-wing they are? I watched videos of anchors reporting on the protests. They didn't say, "Tell me sir, why are you here? What do you believe is the problem?" No. Instead, they ambushed people and said stuff like, "Sir, how on earth can you protest taxes when President Obama has given 95% of America a tax cut? You don't make any sense, you nut-job."
That was basically the sentiment. I saw tons of news anchors calling the protesters "tea baggers" (and if you don't know what that means in slang, look it up on Urban Dictionary). I saw CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, RollingStone, ABC News, and everyone else just making fun of the protests and the people who attended. I saw the head of the DHS basically telling everyone that the people who attend these rallies (who support low taxes, pro-life, gun rights, veterans, etc.) could be domestic terrorists. Basically, it was sickening.
But here is the main question. All these anchors keep saying, "But Obama gave 95% of America a tax cut!" NO HE DIDN'T. Obama did NOT cut taxes. The tax rates have not changed one iota. In fact, once he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, everyone who makes at least $28,400 per year will see their taxes go UP! Oh, and by the way, the average income in the US is somewhere between $35K and $40K per year. So yeah, that's a tax increase on the majority.
Aside from the end of the Bush tax cuts, we'll also pay more because Obama plans to pass that retarded cap-and-trade program, which will raise energy prices for everyone. Plus, he'll have to further raise taxes at some point to pay for his insane, runaway spending programs. More spending than any president in history, and in less time! Hooray!
If you send me back $400 of the money I paid last year in taxes, than that's a tax REFUND. If you send a check for $400 to someone from the 40% of the population who pays no income taxes, then that's WELFARE. It's SOCIALISM. It's certainly not a tax cut.
So someone please explain this to me! How is it that our news media runs around saying that Obama cut taxes even though he has done nothing of the sort? I know he promised a tax cut for 95% of the population during the campaign, but he hasn't done it. Promise does not equal Reality. What is wrong with everyone? Doesn't anyone THINK anymore? Or has the cult of the glorious lord Obama made them too blind too see anything else? Ugh, I just don't get it.
And then, of course, there were the OTHER news networks. Everyone always accuses Fox of being biased toward conservatism (aka "biased toward truth"), but do CNN and the others not see how ridiculously left-wing they are? I watched videos of anchors reporting on the protests. They didn't say, "Tell me sir, why are you here? What do you believe is the problem?" No. Instead, they ambushed people and said stuff like, "Sir, how on earth can you protest taxes when President Obama has given 95% of America a tax cut? You don't make any sense, you nut-job."
That was basically the sentiment. I saw tons of news anchors calling the protesters "tea baggers" (and if you don't know what that means in slang, look it up on Urban Dictionary). I saw CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, RollingStone, ABC News, and everyone else just making fun of the protests and the people who attended. I saw the head of the DHS basically telling everyone that the people who attend these rallies (who support low taxes, pro-life, gun rights, veterans, etc.) could be domestic terrorists. Basically, it was sickening.
But here is the main question. All these anchors keep saying, "But Obama gave 95% of America a tax cut!" NO HE DIDN'T. Obama did NOT cut taxes. The tax rates have not changed one iota. In fact, once he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, everyone who makes at least $28,400 per year will see their taxes go UP! Oh, and by the way, the average income in the US is somewhere between $35K and $40K per year. So yeah, that's a tax increase on the majority.
Aside from the end of the Bush tax cuts, we'll also pay more because Obama plans to pass that retarded cap-and-trade program, which will raise energy prices for everyone. Plus, he'll have to further raise taxes at some point to pay for his insane, runaway spending programs. More spending than any president in history, and in less time! Hooray!
If you send me back $400 of the money I paid last year in taxes, than that's a tax REFUND. If you send a check for $400 to someone from the 40% of the population who pays no income taxes, then that's WELFARE. It's SOCIALISM. It's certainly not a tax cut.
So someone please explain this to me! How is it that our news media runs around saying that Obama cut taxes even though he has done nothing of the sort? I know he promised a tax cut for 95% of the population during the campaign, but he hasn't done it. Promise does not equal Reality. What is wrong with everyone? Doesn't anyone THINK anymore? Or has the cult of the glorious lord Obama made them too blind too see anything else? Ugh, I just don't get it.
Jesus Christ is the ONLY True Messiah
We are a world crying out for a savior, but we have placed our faith in the wrong place. We are fools. We are die-hard members of the cult of personality. If you voted for Obama because you like his policies, fine. But if you're one of the deluded masses who sees him as the second coming of Christ, then prepare to be gravely disappointed. The following quotations need no explanation:"I have thrown myself into a new world—one in which fluffy chatter and frivolous praise are replaced by a get-to-the-point directness and disciple-like devotion. It’s intense and intoxicating." - Samantha Fennell, associate publisher for Elle Magazine
"When [the election] happens, it will change everything. You'll have to measure time by 'Before Obama' and 'After Obama.'" - Spike Lee, film director
"Lord, we have again come to you in prayer, and you have heard our cries from heaven, and you have sent us again from the state called Illinois, a man called Barack to heal our land." - prayer by Larry Younginer in an Atlanta church
"No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a manger." - Lawrence Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel
"To God be the glory, great things he has done. Obama, thy kingdom come, thy will be done." - poster at Obama's campaign headquarters in Lake City, FL
"This is bigger than Kennedy. Obama comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the new testament." - Chris Matthews
"No wonder we so desperately need of this shot of ethical morphine. No wonder we invest in this messianic figure. Confronted with evidence of the mass horror we permit, we better find a way back to self love. Cue, Barak Obama, our saving grace." - Sarah Gillespie, singer-songwriter
"Now, the greatest of all political acts in the world is the election of Senator Barack Obama from Illinois as President of the United States of America...Barack Obama is not only president of U.S.A., but president of mankind." - from the article "The Messiah Has Come As Barrack Obama" by Morikeh Fofana
"Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings of who we are as a people, and as a country." - Eve Konstantine, Huffington Post
"He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves." - from "Obama's Gift" by Ezra Klein
"When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking." - Louis Farrakhan on Obama
What Freedom Means to Me...
I recently read a news story that really upset me. Two girls at a California community college were with their teacher, in her office, praying for her because she's sick. The girls are suing because the school is now threatening to suspend them. The school actually said that "faculty offices were 'places for teaching and learning and working' not 'protests, demonstrations, prayer' or other disruptive activities." Personally, I had no idea that praying for a sick teacher could be considered disruptive.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I believe is the single most important part of the Bill of Rights, says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, let's put a few things to the test. I will list some examples, and you ask yourself, "In any of these instances, is Congress making a law? Or is Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
Liberals and atheists like to throw around the phrase "separation of church and state," but actually, it is found nowhere in the Constitution. It was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, and it is frequently taken out of context (basically, the church group wanted him to get involved in a dispute, and he said it was none of his business). Now, what did Jefferson really think about God's role in American government?
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
See that? Jefferson basically said that it is essential for us to remember that God is the source of our rights and our liberty. He said that our freedoms can no longer be thought secure if we remove God as their only firm basis. By the way, Jefferson was also the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence, which says that we are all endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights. It's pretty straightforward, really.
Today is Good Friday, and we're coming up on Easter. Today we remember the incredible sacrifice Jesus made for us on a Roman cross 2,000 years ago. And on Easter Sunday, we remember how He truly set us free. We remember the real meaning behind those words written in the Declaration of Independence: that God gave us freedom and liberty and life forever and ever. I know I rant and rave a lot about our government and other terrible things I see every day in the news, but this weekend, I pray that we all (myself included) would remember that real freedom doesn't come from the government or an old piece of parchment. One of my favorite bands, Five Iron Frenzy, said it best. Their song "Anthem" ends with the phrase, "Jesus Christ, the only thing that freedom means to me."
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I believe is the single most important part of the Bill of Rights, says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, let's put a few things to the test. I will list some examples, and you ask yourself, "In any of these instances, is Congress making a law? Or is Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
- Two girls pray for their sick teacher in her office.
- A Christian student opens his graduation speech with a prayer.
- The post office displays a nativity scene at Christmas time.
- A group of high school athletes pray together before a game.
- A judge displays the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.
Liberals and atheists like to throw around the phrase "separation of church and state," but actually, it is found nowhere in the Constitution. It was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, and it is frequently taken out of context (basically, the church group wanted him to get involved in a dispute, and he said it was none of his business). Now, what did Jefferson really think about God's role in American government?
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
See that? Jefferson basically said that it is essential for us to remember that God is the source of our rights and our liberty. He said that our freedoms can no longer be thought secure if we remove God as their only firm basis. By the way, Jefferson was also the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence, which says that we are all endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights. It's pretty straightforward, really.
Today is Good Friday, and we're coming up on Easter. Today we remember the incredible sacrifice Jesus made for us on a Roman cross 2,000 years ago. And on Easter Sunday, we remember how He truly set us free. We remember the real meaning behind those words written in the Declaration of Independence: that God gave us freedom and liberty and life forever and ever. I know I rant and rave a lot about our government and other terrible things I see every day in the news, but this weekend, I pray that we all (myself included) would remember that real freedom doesn't come from the government or an old piece of parchment. One of my favorite bands, Five Iron Frenzy, said it best. Their song "Anthem" ends with the phrase, "Jesus Christ, the only thing that freedom means to me."
Comparison: Bush vs. Kennedy
I was doing a little reading recently, and I noticed something interesting. The presidency of George W. Bush and the presidency of John F. Kennedy were extremely similar (except for the assassination, of course). The weird thing is, most people (especially Democrats) love JFK and look at him as a great role model. However, the same people who love JFK spent the past eight years calling for Bush's head on a platter. I'm not trying to be pro-Bush or anti-JFK or anything, I just thought I would point out the striking similarities:
- Kennedy was born into a wealthy, politically connected family.
- Bush was born into a wealthy, politically connected family.
- Kennedy increased the size of the US military.
- Bush increased the size of the US military.
- The minimum wage increased under Kennedy.
- The minimum wage increased under Bush.
- In 1963, Kennedy proposed income tax cuts to help revive the economy. The tax cuts were passed in 1964.
- In 2003, Bush proposed and passed tax cuts to help reverse the post-9/11 economic downturn.
- In 1961, Kennedy got the USA into a very unpopular war (Vietnam).
- In 2003, Bush got the USA into a very unpopular war (Iraq).
- In the fight against communism in Latin America, Kennedy backed the School of the Americas, whose training manuals included techniques of torture.
- In the fight against terrorism, Bush permitted waterboarding of terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, an act which many consider to be torture.
- Although it was voted down by Congress, Kennedy proposed the Medical Health Bill for the Aged (eventually known as Medicare).
- The Bush administration pushed through legislation to help the elderly get cheaper prescription drugs under Medicare.
- In 1963, Kennedy backed a coup against the Iraq government to oppose the spread of communism.
- In 2003, Bush backed an overthrow of the Iraq government to oppose the spread of terrorism.
- The Kennedy administration agreed to let the FBI wiretap private individuals, generally suspected communists.
- The Bush administration agreed to let the FBI wiretap private individuals, generally suspected terrorists.
The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming
The winter of 2008-2009 sure was been cold, wasn’t it? According to the data published by IARC-JAXA, October 2008 saw the fastest Arctic sea ice extent growth ever recorded. Additionally, this winter has given us record low temperatures, with cold spells often breaking records previously set fifteen or twenty years ago. It snowed in Houston and New Orleans, and if you’re a native of either city, you know how rare that is. In late January 2009, terribly icy winter storms left more than a million homes and businesses without power in New England. Ironically, Al Gore was forced to brave this rough and frigid weather, so he could get to Congress to talk about global warming.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and eminent Meteorologist, recently said, "There is no significant man-made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces."
He went on to discuss the actual cause of climate change, saying, "Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years."
This has been happening throughout the history of the world. In fact, back in the 1970's, there was similar climate change alarmism going around - except they claimed a new Ice Age was coming within decades. Actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate show no man-made warming trend. In fact, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels increased, average temperatures in the US were actually decreasing. Additionally, there are hundreds of research papers available from a wide variety of sources confirming the existence of a period warmer than today just a thousand years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period.
Dr. John Theon, the retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a skeptic as well. Dr. Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, who is the leading global warming alarmist in the country (except for maybe Al Gore). Dr. Theon has stated that "some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy." Please, someone tell this to Congress.
The arguments for man-made global warming are tenuous at best. A small data calculation error of 0.8 degrees centigrade was discovered in findings by NASA, and the recalculations showed an overall decrease in U.S. temperatures since 2000 by 0.15 degrees centigrade. Furthermore, the sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago. The rate of increase has averaged four feet per century. Yet in the 20th century, when we are told that "global warming" began to have a major impact on the sea level, it rose by just eight inches.
Fraudulent "hockey stick" data published in 1998, which showed massive global warming during the 20th Century, turned out to have been cherry-picked from a small sample of tree rings. When challenged on this, one dendroclimatologist justified himself by saying, "You have to pick cherries if you're going to make cherry pie." The whole thing was proven to be a sham when not one other scientist could reproduce the results.
Finally, US Meteorologist Anthony Watts discovered that a large portion of the nation's 1,200 weather stations have been wrongly sited, because they are situated in man-made heat-absorbing centers. These include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat-absorbing concrete, and next to air conditioners, diesel generators, and asphalt parking lots.
Many facts have also been ignored by global warming alarmists. For instance, the periods of warmer temperatures on Earth have resulted in warmer and longer growing seasons and more areas available for crops. Increases in CO2 levels also cause an increase in plant growth. Based on the data, it's clear that CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it. In reality, solar activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. Especially since similar temperature changes can be measured on Mars, which has no power plants or SUVs.
In summary, it is abundantly clear that the manmade global warming madness that has swept our nation is nothing but a hoax. It has been perpetuated by environmentalist wackos like Al Gore for two reasons, one good and one bad. Firstly, they want to lower pollution. I have no problem with lowering pollution, because I don't want to breathe smog or swim in a dirty lake. However, encouraging conservation should not be done with scare tactics and false data. Their second reason is much more insidious: They want power. The more liberals can regulate, the more than can control, the more they can own you. As liberals are allowed to keep regulating more and more of our lives, America grows closer to the Socialist, government-controlled society that they desire.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and eminent Meteorologist, recently said, "There is no significant man-made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces."
He went on to discuss the actual cause of climate change, saying, "Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years."
This has been happening throughout the history of the world. In fact, back in the 1970's, there was similar climate change alarmism going around - except they claimed a new Ice Age was coming within decades. Actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate show no man-made warming trend. In fact, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels increased, average temperatures in the US were actually decreasing. Additionally, there are hundreds of research papers available from a wide variety of sources confirming the existence of a period warmer than today just a thousand years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period.
Dr. John Theon, the retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a skeptic as well. Dr. Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, who is the leading global warming alarmist in the country (except for maybe Al Gore). Dr. Theon has stated that "some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy." Please, someone tell this to Congress.
The arguments for man-made global warming are tenuous at best. A small data calculation error of 0.8 degrees centigrade was discovered in findings by NASA, and the recalculations showed an overall decrease in U.S. temperatures since 2000 by 0.15 degrees centigrade. Furthermore, the sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago. The rate of increase has averaged four feet per century. Yet in the 20th century, when we are told that "global warming" began to have a major impact on the sea level, it rose by just eight inches.
Fraudulent "hockey stick" data published in 1998, which showed massive global warming during the 20th Century, turned out to have been cherry-picked from a small sample of tree rings. When challenged on this, one dendroclimatologist justified himself by saying, "You have to pick cherries if you're going to make cherry pie." The whole thing was proven to be a sham when not one other scientist could reproduce the results.
Finally, US Meteorologist Anthony Watts discovered that a large portion of the nation's 1,200 weather stations have been wrongly sited, because they are situated in man-made heat-absorbing centers. These include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat-absorbing concrete, and next to air conditioners, diesel generators, and asphalt parking lots.
Many facts have also been ignored by global warming alarmists. For instance, the periods of warmer temperatures on Earth have resulted in warmer and longer growing seasons and more areas available for crops. Increases in CO2 levels also cause an increase in plant growth. Based on the data, it's clear that CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it. In reality, solar activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. Especially since similar temperature changes can be measured on Mars, which has no power plants or SUVs.
In summary, it is abundantly clear that the manmade global warming madness that has swept our nation is nothing but a hoax. It has been perpetuated by environmentalist wackos like Al Gore for two reasons, one good and one bad. Firstly, they want to lower pollution. I have no problem with lowering pollution, because I don't want to breathe smog or swim in a dirty lake. However, encouraging conservation should not be done with scare tactics and false data. Their second reason is much more insidious: They want power. The more liberals can regulate, the more than can control, the more they can own you. As liberals are allowed to keep regulating more and more of our lives, America grows closer to the Socialist, government-controlled society that they desire.
Queston D3: A Conservative Wake-Up Call
Here is a link to an article that I read recently, and it talks about a poll question known as "Question D3." The question asks voters if they consider themselves to be conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, or liberal. In August 2008, 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; 40% considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; 2% considered themselves to be moderate; 27% considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; 9% considered themselves to be very liberal; and 3% did not know or refused to answer.
Look at those numbers! A staggering 60% of Americans call themselves either conservative or somewhat conservative! Only 36% of people fell into the liberal category. These numbers have remained consistent in 13 separate polls taken since 2002. Yes, even when Bush's approval ratings went from some of the highest ever to some of the lowest ever, these poll numbers remained constant.
So what has happened to us? If such a large percentage of Americans are conservative, why aren't we winning elections by a landslide? Since polls show that 92% of American's believe in God, why is the idea of removing the words "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge even mentioned? Since 87% of Americans say nativity scenes should be allowed on public property, why are they constantly removed? Since 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas (and 62% celebrate Christmas specifically as the birth of Christ), why do our schools call the break in December "Winter Holiday"?
There could be many answers to these questions. Voter fraud, activist judges, pressure and bias by the media, etc. However, I think the biggest reason is that we don't think we can win, and so we refuse to try. As stated in the article, "Hollywood regularly excoriates the image of conservatives; the mainstream media demonizes conservatives; schools teach that conservatives are narrow minded bigots; academia tries to hound independent conservative newspapers and organizations off campus. It requires much more courage to define yourself as a conservative than any other label, particularly when the banal 'moderate' answer is so easily grasped."
I remember taking a conservative, Christian position in a class discussion in high school, and I really got hammered for it by the liberals in my class. I felt belittled and alone, but I stuck to my guns. Then after I got blasted, the class ended, and several people came up to me and said, "Hey, I'm glad you said that. I agree with you." So NOW they speak up?!?!? But in the classroom - in the public forum - they said nothing.
We have become afraid to be who we are. Afraid to speak up, to be called a racist or a bigot or a Bible-thumper or a homophobe or one of the zillions of stupid labels liberals place on conservatives. We have to stop being afraid. According to the polls I mentioned, conservatives are NOT a dying race. We are the majority! It's high time we stopped listening to what Hollywood and the media says about us. It's high time we stopped letting the little things slide. It's high time we took back this nation of ours. But we must not be afraid to speak up. We must not be afraid to fight.
Look at those numbers! A staggering 60% of Americans call themselves either conservative or somewhat conservative! Only 36% of people fell into the liberal category. These numbers have remained consistent in 13 separate polls taken since 2002. Yes, even when Bush's approval ratings went from some of the highest ever to some of the lowest ever, these poll numbers remained constant.
So what has happened to us? If such a large percentage of Americans are conservative, why aren't we winning elections by a landslide? Since polls show that 92% of American's believe in God, why is the idea of removing the words "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge even mentioned? Since 87% of Americans say nativity scenes should be allowed on public property, why are they constantly removed? Since 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas (and 62% celebrate Christmas specifically as the birth of Christ), why do our schools call the break in December "Winter Holiday"?
There could be many answers to these questions. Voter fraud, activist judges, pressure and bias by the media, etc. However, I think the biggest reason is that we don't think we can win, and so we refuse to try. As stated in the article, "Hollywood regularly excoriates the image of conservatives; the mainstream media demonizes conservatives; schools teach that conservatives are narrow minded bigots; academia tries to hound independent conservative newspapers and organizations off campus. It requires much more courage to define yourself as a conservative than any other label, particularly when the banal 'moderate' answer is so easily grasped."
I remember taking a conservative, Christian position in a class discussion in high school, and I really got hammered for it by the liberals in my class. I felt belittled and alone, but I stuck to my guns. Then after I got blasted, the class ended, and several people came up to me and said, "Hey, I'm glad you said that. I agree with you." So NOW they speak up?!?!? But in the classroom - in the public forum - they said nothing.
We have become afraid to be who we are. Afraid to speak up, to be called a racist or a bigot or a Bible-thumper or a homophobe or one of the zillions of stupid labels liberals place on conservatives. We have to stop being afraid. According to the polls I mentioned, conservatives are NOT a dying race. We are the majority! It's high time we stopped listening to what Hollywood and the media says about us. It's high time we stopped letting the little things slide. It's high time we took back this nation of ours. But we must not be afraid to speak up. We must not be afraid to fight.
Down With Socialism
Let's talk about the real cause of the economic crisis (we'll work backwards). The crisis right now was directly caused by the fact that there has been a massive amount of foreclosures, and home values have gone down so much that all these investment firms can't get any value for their properties. So why are the values down? Well, home values are down because the housing bubble burst (remember, the same thing happened in the 1990's with internet companies).
So then, what caused the housing bubble? Well, usually home prices increase over time proportionally to inflation. However, over the past ten years or so, home prices were skyrocketing, and the rate of increase was no longer proportional to inflation. Hence, a bubble. So why did home prices increase so much? It's all about supply and demand. Tons more people were buying homes, so the supply went down and the demand went up. By the laws of economics, this causes prices to increase.
Okay, so why were so many more people buying homes? It's because the banks were giving out more and more home loans. And they gave out more loans because of federal regulation.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA required banks to offer more credit to "under-served populations" (read: minorities, lower-income borrowers), and not just people in "wealthy neighborhoods" (read: people who can actually afford mortgages). The mainstream banking community opposed the CRA, but fortunately for them, it wasn't really enforced until 1995.
In 1993, Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA that would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995, placing more requirements on the banks, and encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specific neighborhood, income group, or race. A September 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal argued that this law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed to the subprime crisis.
You see, because banks were being forced to loan to people with low incomes and bad credit, they had to start getting creative. They starting making interest-only or ARM loans to keep the payments low (at least initially). They started letting more people use "stated income" on their loan applications (and the income they state is usually a lie. I know. I worked at a subprime servicer for 2 1/2 years and read these loan applications). They started letting people buy homes with no down payment. All of these things allowed people who really could not afford to buy homes to obtain mortgages.
In order to protect themselves for these bad loans, banks started selling them. They bundled up subprime loans in groups called securities, and sold these bundles to investors. However, after a few years, the people with interest-only loans were unable to pay their mortgages because the interest-only period had ended, and the payment amount increased. The people with ARM loans were unable to pay their mortgages because the interest rate increased, causing the payments to increase. The people who couldn't afford their payments in the first place stopped paying, because they are poor (duh). There were millions of foreclosures, home values went down, and the securities became worthless. This is where we stand today.
So it's fairly clear. This did not happen because (as the liberals/socialists say) the government needs to regulate the banking industry more. No! In fact, government regulation is a big part of what caused this in the first place! It was the wrong kind of regulation. Even those lenders not governed by the CRA were issuing more subprime loans due to pressure from lobbyists and community groups, and for fear of being sued or called racists. I mean, come on. A loan is an investment. No one really wants to make an investment unless they believe they can get a good return. These bad investments were made because of liberal/socialist lobbyists, community groups, regulations, and restrictions.
If the government wants to fix the economy, they should leave it alone and stop trying to redistribute wealth through social engineering. Down with the bailouts. We need a purging. Let the bad systems fail, and let better systems rise in their place. That is capitalism.
So then, what caused the housing bubble? Well, usually home prices increase over time proportionally to inflation. However, over the past ten years or so, home prices were skyrocketing, and the rate of increase was no longer proportional to inflation. Hence, a bubble. So why did home prices increase so much? It's all about supply and demand. Tons more people were buying homes, so the supply went down and the demand went up. By the laws of economics, this causes prices to increase.
Okay, so why were so many more people buying homes? It's because the banks were giving out more and more home loans. And they gave out more loans because of federal regulation.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA required banks to offer more credit to "under-served populations" (read: minorities, lower-income borrowers), and not just people in "wealthy neighborhoods" (read: people who can actually afford mortgages). The mainstream banking community opposed the CRA, but fortunately for them, it wasn't really enforced until 1995.
In 1993, Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA that would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995, placing more requirements on the banks, and encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specific neighborhood, income group, or race. A September 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal argued that this law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed to the subprime crisis.
You see, because banks were being forced to loan to people with low incomes and bad credit, they had to start getting creative. They starting making interest-only or ARM loans to keep the payments low (at least initially). They started letting more people use "stated income" on their loan applications (and the income they state is usually a lie. I know. I worked at a subprime servicer for 2 1/2 years and read these loan applications). They started letting people buy homes with no down payment. All of these things allowed people who really could not afford to buy homes to obtain mortgages.
In order to protect themselves for these bad loans, banks started selling them. They bundled up subprime loans in groups called securities, and sold these bundles to investors. However, after a few years, the people with interest-only loans were unable to pay their mortgages because the interest-only period had ended, and the payment amount increased. The people with ARM loans were unable to pay their mortgages because the interest rate increased, causing the payments to increase. The people who couldn't afford their payments in the first place stopped paying, because they are poor (duh). There were millions of foreclosures, home values went down, and the securities became worthless. This is where we stand today.
So it's fairly clear. This did not happen because (as the liberals/socialists say) the government needs to regulate the banking industry more. No! In fact, government regulation is a big part of what caused this in the first place! It was the wrong kind of regulation. Even those lenders not governed by the CRA were issuing more subprime loans due to pressure from lobbyists and community groups, and for fear of being sued or called racists. I mean, come on. A loan is an investment. No one really wants to make an investment unless they believe they can get a good return. These bad investments were made because of liberal/socialist lobbyists, community groups, regulations, and restrictions.
If the government wants to fix the economy, they should leave it alone and stop trying to redistribute wealth through social engineering. Down with the bailouts. We need a purging. Let the bad systems fail, and let better systems rise in their place. That is capitalism.
Welcome to my blog...
For a long time now, I have been sending out mass e-mails about political and religious issues in America today. My friends and family have been forwarding my e-mails to others, and now people I have never met keep asking to be on my list. Therefore, I have decided to start a blog. I'm going to post several articles I wrote previously to get things up to date, and from then on, I'll just take things as they go. Thanks for visiting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
