Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Love Fox, But Ticks me Off, Too

I call it wienie-ville.

Mychal Massie, my latest wonderful discovery in the blogosphere (how in heavens did I miss him out there for so long???), states an issue against which I have spent innumerable hours yelling at the TV screen extremely well.

We tend to have Fox on the tube pretty much every day in our household, when we're not watching NCIS marathons, or Jeopardy or HGTV, or ID-TV, but very often, I find their intensity in trying to present a "balanced" view of things quite tiresome.  At those times, I find myself screaming at the screen, telling them to "get a grip," and "don't you see what they're doing??"   Mr. Massie makes an excellent case about how Fox's intent to be "balanced" seems to give so much (too much?) leeway to the worst type of liberal talking heads.

Sure, I get what they're trying to do: theoretically show both sides of the issues "equally," . . . but there are times (especially on Shep's and Megyn's shows) they appear to be looking more for the sensationalistic action piece rather than the truly newsworthy segments they tend to tease.

Even though Megyn's is not really and truly a "news" program (as far as I'm concerned), say in the same vein as Brett's 6pm slot, there are often stories about "breaking news" and supposed important issues that must be reported during her time slot. I like Megyn, in general, as a broadcaster: easy on the eyes, engaging, self-deprecating, funny, and pretty smart. Actually, she and Shepard Smith both remind me of that great ole song "Dirty Laundry" which wonderfully epitomizes broadcast news in general.

A personal aside:  I happened to be working as the secretary in the news department of a major network affiliate in Miami at the time the song came out.  It typifies the reasons I quit the job before having a new one waiting -- it was a matter of self-preservation to get out of that atmosphere.  That experience also represented that last period of my life during which I "believed" what was "reported" without question on "the news."

One would hope, regardless, that a station of the level of Fox (at least of the level most of their programs attempt to maintain) would try harder to keep a better quality in those they choose to interview to represent "the other side."

My husband's theory is that they select folks like Jehmu Greene and Bob Beckel certainly not only to show the "other side," but to also liven things up.  True, imagine how completely boring the shows would be overall if all we had were folks who agreed with each other non-stop? (Even though that's the kind of Kumbaya-esque nirvana liberals claim to hope for.)  On a certain level, maybe that would not be all that bad (everyone agreeing with the Conservative perspective); on another level, I think it is quite important to keep showing both sides right from the horses' mouths.

If one was just merely told of the level of ugliness and disgusting commentary to which so many liberals do not hesitate to sink just to try to make a point, most logical, honest people would never believe it. When we see and hear the examples, however, it is undeniable.

One must be a liberal -- at least unthinking -- one's self in order to find anything stated by most liberal talking heads to be in the least acceptable.

However, it does get pretty difficult to accept when the disgusting blather is not only given a very wide audience and encouraged by the very hosts who are supposed to maintain a modicum of decorum and "balance."

O'Reilly’s another one who sometimes appears to go overboard with the so-called "even-handedness" of FNC. There are countless opportunities to respond strongly to outrageous comments made by liberals he interviews which he seems to let "pass" in the name of "fairness."

Personally, I call it wienie-ness. If one holds to certain beliefs, they must be defended, no matter where or by whom those beliefs are attacked. Megyn should respond as strongly to Greene as Hannity responds to Bob Beckel, even though Hannity makes no bones as to his friendship with the man. (I guess personal knowledge provides an aspect of the man's personality unseen on TV.) Even O'Reilly has been known to get "strong-voiced" when the liberal blather goes over the line. I just wish he would do it more often and not let so many inappropriate, ugly, inaccurate and just plain lies go unchallenged.

As far as Mr. Massie's perspective, however, I would not say Megyn's lack of demand for accountability from the likes of Greene is really "racist." (That's one word that has been drained of all meaning and intensity from overuse these past 5+ years!)

I sincerely think Megyn and Shepard (even though I think he's perfect example of the so-called "undecideds") are really just trying to make an effect and keep their ratings going . . . playing to their audience demographic, I would expect, pretty much as described by Mr. Henley in that really, really good ole song.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Will Wonders Never Cease??

I was recently asked to provide my opinions on several issues by a fellow blogger who, strangely enough (!), was impressed by my blog.  :)  With gratitude for the compliments to Sergio Veskovic, for even reading my blog, and then asking for more of my opinions (!!), it feels good to share the following questions posed by Mr. Veskovic and my responses presented in an "interview" format.

Sergio Veskovic, What are your thoughts about Mitt Romney as a GOP candidate?
Romney was not my first choice; I was disappointed that my preference did not make it through to the nomination. As in all political life issues, however, the choice goes to the people . . . and we have to live with that choice. The part that bothers me more than anything else, is that we all have to live with the choice of the majority . . . as we are now with Obama.

On the night of that infamous election, I told my husband, “We are f*ed.” Because I had not only seen, heard and understood Obama's response to Joe Wurzelbacher, I knew my instinctive reaction to Obama from the start of his campaign was right on the money. It had been so clear to me and to many, many other foreign-born, naturalized American citizens (not to mention hundreds of thousands of very smart Americans) that the mantra we had heard from Obama throughout his almost 3 years-long campaign was nothing less than socialist propaganda.

Romney, at least, does not create that violent, fear-filled reaction in anyone. (Mrs. Pelosi's overheated rhetoric does not count.) I do not think Mr. Romney is as Conservative politically as I would prefer: I think it will take the equivalent of a very hard right turn in our politics to get our Country even slightly headed in the direction we should be, if guided by the Constitution. I am not entirely confident that Mr. Romney is capable of that much of a hard right at the helm of our Country.

Regardless, I believe that Mr. Romney's cabinet choices will engender more confidence in his strong desire and ability to bring the Country around, stand up to the many detractors, the many discordant, ugly, and contrary voices that will doubtless continue maniacally trying to tear our country down.

Mr. Romney is not my favorite choice, but as far as it goes now, he is the only choice and has my vote and confidence.

Sergio Veskovic,  What do you think about Obama and his chances for re-election?
If more people start speaking out as fearlessly as many have recently, the chances of Obama's re-election are quite slim, possibly getting slimmer. Those who were able to convince themselves they were choosing correctly in 2008 have now, to a great extent, come to their senses. Their shock at what has been happening to their country in front of their eyes – aided by their own votes has doubtlessly shown them their error in judgment.

I find it quite encouraging to hear so many Republicans and so-called “Independents,” and even some Democrats, start to regret their vote . . . “buyer's remorse,” as it has been deemed. I call it allowing one's self to look for an excuse for one's own gullibility, sense of imposed guilt, and intense need to be “politically correct” to the extreme, resulting in voting for a man who had no business being a state legislator, much less be elected to the highest office of this country.

Reality tells me this man should not have the least possible chance of re-election. Regrettably, when I listen to an unfortunately significant number of my fellow citizens, I fear the chances may be slightly higher. Considering the fact that I would never have expected this man to have been elected in first place, yet he was, I have to hesitate, considering the mentality of a great number of our fellow citizens, to state definitively that he has little chance.

In essence, I do not think he would have been elected had two essential issues not converged in 2008: what I consider the complete betrayal of the American public by the “main stream” media, and the unfortunate weakness of the Republican candidate. I've never been a believer that only the economic crash of 2008 was the only trigger, though it was, of course part of it.

The economic crash was used in a politically masterful, even Machiavellian manner not seen since the machinations of the '60s between Kennedy and LBJ. (Anyone notice a correlation, there?)

In sum, if people remain stupid and gullible, Obama may well be re-elected; if not, the country has more chance to survive.

Sergio Veskovic,  What do you think will be the main issue in November election?

That will entirely depend on which side has the better grasp of the use of propaganda, pabulum, and bromides . . . and how many more of the electorate have educated themselves in politics, economics, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
It should, of course, be “the economy, stupid,” but with today's populace, one never knows.
To me, it is an atrophied brain that is capable of listening to the nonsense spewed by the White House mouthpieces and not run screaming in complete frustration and anger. The Left has made inroads already in public thinking, engendering a seemingly complete lack of interest in the realities of life, even if those realities are hitting them square between the eyes.
Based on the mentality, laziness, and apathy of a great number of our voting public, it is almost a fact – as unfortunate as it may be – that the main issue will devolve to one of the most inane aspects of today's life: which candidate is more “personally popular” instead of which candidate is most qualified.
As pessimistic as that may appear, however, I retain my personal hope that the main issue will be reflected in President Reagan's question: “Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”
Any self-sufficient, individual will have a strong, resounding “No!” in response, thereby making the economy the main issue, as it should be.

Sergio Veskovic,  How do you think Social Media will play a role in this campaign? and can you compare it to Obama's campaign of 2008?

Social media's role in the 2008 election was primarily focused by the Obama campaign to their primary constituents: the young, high school and college age youngsters who were swept away by the “Obama Aura” . . . an absolute reflection of “style over substance” which has clearly been more important to young people these past several generations. Because the young are not much known for critical thinking, discernment, and logic, social media was the perfect medium for getting them corralled and moving in the direction demanded by the campaign.

Four years later, I think there has been enough awakening, realization, and economic and political changes to perhaps significantly lessen the effect of social media. Facebook, for example has suffered a major setback quite recently. I have canceled my subscription; my last communication was a detailed explanation of exactly why I canceled. The reasons included what I called my “last straws” . . . actions on the site, accepted by the site, the hypocrisy of the site and the creators. I have encouraged many of my friends to cancel as well. That leaves (among others, of course) Twitter, blogs, websites, each of which have their own limitations.

The most important factor this year in the battle of social media is that Conservatives have acquired the technology and have become just as adept in using the various media to disseminate their ideas, ideology, and premises. At this point, it's a matter of which side will better express themselves in the “language” easiest for the masses to comprehend.

Sergio Veskovic,  What is your opinion of Super PACs and its influence in this race?

I have to admit, I'm not too knowledgeable about what this issue is all about, primarily because I have ignored it for the most part. I do not see anything wrong with groups of citizens to gather, pool resources and funds to work for the election of a preferred candidate.

The Citizens United lawsuit and the ultimate Supreme Court Decision supporting it, I feel, shows that “Super PACs” do have their place (in spite of Mr. Obama's selective description) – as they have always had in all elections to this point. If a candidate engenders such support as to encourage citizens with the funds to come together in support of that candidate, then I feel the only ones complaining about “Super PACs” will be the candidate whose support does not include that level of support.

As an individual citizen, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a group of citizens gathering funding and support for one candidate or another. In a truly fair world, the outcome would reflect the triumph of the one whose PACs were the most successful . . . sort of as in the 2008 election outcome.

Hopefully, Conservatives will not only have acquired more ability in the use of “social” media to spread the word, but also better use of PACs to purchase air time for better prepared commercials and broadcast presentations.

Sergio Veskovic,  If you have some other thought you would like to share please feel free.

I have two additional thoughts to share here and a prayer, really, that the electorate that participated in the election of Obama in November 2008 will have come to their senses and not commit the same grievous error in November 2012.

It is imperative that Romney's campaign and that of the Super PACs continue to focus on the economy as it is Obama's major “Achilles' Heel." Both Romney and the Super PACs should be following Karl Rove's Super PAC example. They are almost entire tuned to highlighting the state of the economy today and giving the specific facts of what caused those issues. They put the questions out there, requiring that any thinking person determine for themselves whether the current economic policies will alleviate any of the problems.

I want to again thank Sergio for his interview and interest in actually giving me more time and a new forum in which to "share" my opinions.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The "Islamification" of America

It sure as heck has been a while since I visited my own forum!  I've been all over the countryside of posters, though, from Facebook, to Twitter, to any web page using Disqus (however that's spelled!), though mostly Facebook. 

I recently cancelled my Facebook account, though, for political, moral, and ideological reasons.  More about that soon.

What brings me back today is an extraordinary e-mail I received that synthesizes one of the most dangerous and ignored problems our country faces today: the "Islamification" of America.

Though I can already hear the liberal howls of "racist," etc., my response is immediate:  Not hardly so don't even start!  I am not in the least intimidated by those howls -- I wasn't in 2006-2007-2008 (during the current incumbent's campaign) and I certainly will not be in 2012 -- especially when all the concerns we expressed then have proven themselves true.

I consider myself quite knowledgeable in the history of Muslims, their take over of different countries' areas, their take over of cities' neighborhoods, councils, and the insidious imposition of their control.  As always, the future is clear to those who can read the past clearly and in an unvarnished light.  Unfortunately, due to the complete liberal bent of those in control of education, "news" papers and broadcasters, the unvarnished truth is almost a completely unknown animal these days.

I admittedly have neither the time nor the energy these days to conduct the necessary research to substantiate the claim of this piece's title, but fortunately others do.  The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book:  Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat and pretty much says it straight.

The following is a fairly short, though highly informative read, sent by a VFW Member in upstate New York where there are already "Muslim" compounds owned and restricted by Muslims.  This is spelled out in the Muslim "system," not "religion" but system.  It is mathematically accurate and defines the reasons why "co-existence" isn't possible -- simply because it is not allowed. My intent is not to inflame, but to inform; as the old saying says, "to be forewarned is to be forearmed."   
THIS, not the Chinese or the Russians, represents the greatest threat to the United States, specififcally, and to the world in general, and might be the fulfillment of the book of Revelation in the Holy Bible. 

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

"Islamization" begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal ("clean" by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Muhammad cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53..1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, "peace"
is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims [and all non-Muslims] for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, The Haj

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.  [Emphasis added.]  There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population.  But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.  Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
A few items of note:
  • Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. 
  • NASA's mission has been revised from space exploration to building relationships with the Muslim world.
  • Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
  • DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
 A few items to think about:
  • Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant?
  • Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
  • Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago?
  • Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?
Can a good, devout Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a someone who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no.  Because his allegiance is to Allah
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
 Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression... Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation ... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.  They obviously cannot be both "good Muslims" and good Americans.  Call it what you  will, it's still the truth.  The more Americans who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.  Our country is at war, has been for longer than most Americand understand.  And even in these many post 09-11-2001 years, most Americans do not understan the extent of the religious war gathering against America:  it is bigger than most know or even understand.

Food for thought:  Given the above specifications, can a Muslim be a good American soldier?

Example:  Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 innocent people who happened to be, in his context, "infidels."  He is a "good Muslim."

The above is an extremely clear, and frighteningly thorough description of exactly what has occurred historically throughout the world when Muslims take over neighborhoods, cities, towns, countries.  We see it now, in various localities throughout our country.  We hear it in the decision of the circuit judge who declares that he will take Sharia into consideration when making his decisions -- in an American court of law. 

We should all be shocked, horrified, and pulling out the Constitution of the United States of America to emphatically wave in that man's and all similar people's faces.

As the liberal howls of "racist," "discriminatory," and other blather grow louder and more strident, I will ask only this:
  • Will Americans start to finally stand up for our own heritage, history, customs and ideals in 2012?
  • Why is it "discriminatory" and "racist" for Americans to want to maintain, sustain, and live our lives under our Constitution and not "racist" or "discriminatory" for those who detest our way of life to want to eradicate that way of life from within our own country?
This last is not specifically targeted to Muslims, but also to the encroachment from Mexican and other "latino" citizens who want us to make our American way of life subservient to theirs.

As a former legal resident of the United States, originally born in another country, and now proudly an American citizen, I would ask them: why not go back to your own country, if that way of life was so wonderful?  

Those of us who came to America to escape terrible ways of life in our native countries do not think is necessary for Muslims, Cubans, Mexicans to "share" -- rather, in truth, try to impose -- their ways of life on those of us who wish to be Americans.

Simple fact is, if we as Americans wanted to live your way of life, be it Muslim ot "latino," we would go to your countries.

Not happening, much, though is it.  Wonder why?