Who would have thought that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion would be synonymous with "EAT MOR CHIKIN"?
That is what we are looking at now.
Freedom of Speech -- a Constitutionally protected right, and Freedom of Religion -- another Constitutionally protected right are being attacked, insulted, denigrated, and almost destroyed to the point that the average American is supposed to be afraid to express his or her own strongly held, personal views.
I say "supposed to be" because I believe it is the goal of the "other side" to shut down expression of speech, opinions, thoughts, and ideas from any who are different from themselves; we are not to dare to speak our minds . . . in the "Utopian" world desired by the liberals, we are all to be a collective of one mind, one thought, one purpose . . . and therefore, at "peace" because we would all be subject to the control of one source of "guidance:" the liberals'.
Trouble is, this idea of "peace" means nothing more than one side (the conservatives and republicans) shutting down completely, becoming passive, giving up in abject submission to the view of those who scream the loudest, threaten the fiercest, and impose the most fear.
Remember, that's the only way liberals operate: they threaten, they attack, they insult, they denigrate . . . while the rest of us are supposed to just agree and acquiesce to their "suggestions" . . . regardless of our own personal feelings, perspectives, and opinions. In their world none of that matters; only what we are allowed to have by their graciousness matters.
When is this disgusting mentality going to stop? Never, it appears, because they do not know any other way.
When are we, who do not subscribe to those views, going to stop allowing ourselves to be browbeaten, threatened, and cowed into silence?
NOW. Today. This year. TODAY. Now is when we will be even more outspoken in our beliefs.
At one of our local Chik-Fil-A restaurants this afternoon, my 70 year old husband, my 84 year old Mom, and I stood in line for more than a half hour to eat "MOR CHIKIN" just because what had been done to that private company during the past week was not only unconscionable but just plain evil.
The CEO merely expressed his personal opinion in response to a question during an interview with a Biblically based magazine. The question was Biblically based, the response was Biblically based. The man did nothing more than express his personal, individual beliefs. He expressed the specifics of what he holds dear to his personal spirituality.
What, in any sensible world, could be "wrong" with that? Nothing, in a sensible, honest, and truly sincere world.
But in an Upside Down World, nothing can be expected to be sensible. In the type of world in which we currently find ourselves, we almost have to take for granted that whatever a conservative says, does or even just thinks will be distorted, misrepresented, lied about.
The typical liberal response to most things conservative usually reflects those characteristics.
The CEO of Chik-Fil-A's responses were nothing more than an honest response representative of the man's personal beliefs. Regardless, these howling mobs are ready to do exactly what they are so quick to accuse everyone else of doing: discriminate, misjudge, falsely accuse, all mixed in with hypocritical bigotry . . . the very same horrors that make up their own characters!
Since the election season of 2007-2008, the liberals have used every possible method to try to shut down conservative speech, using those very same tactics described above, and many more not worthy of discussion. The main weapon in their arsenal, during that election period, just as it is now, is to accuse anyone who dares express the least disagreement with this administration's activities of being "racist."
Because of that era of our country's history, which the liberals make sure is never -- ever -- forgotten or even left behind, (as if this were the only country in the history of the world with slavery in its history!) they have taken this false accusation to an absolute level of absurdity.
Unfortunately, the incomprehensible level of self-imposed guilt taken on by a large percentage of our countrymen has made this accusation a very powerful weapon . . . in the past. Thank God perceptions change, and people realize that allowing one's self to be controlled by a long-past guilt is ridiculous at best and self-destructive to the extreme at worst.
Our countrymen's collective self-imposed guilt has taken our country a long way to the self-destruct point.
I do not believe we will get there, however. All is not lost. At least not yet, and not if millions of us have anything to say about it.
Thank God, most especially, for outspoken, strong leaders like Governor Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and the millions of "regular" Americans who went out in the proverbial droves all day today, all over the country, who have the courage of their convictions, have had their fill of being threatened, insulted and destroyed just because they are sincere in their beliefs. We all need to have had our fill of the methodology utilized by the left to shut us down, shut us up and hopefully make us all go away, somehow.
Strength of character such as that shown by Chik-Fil-A's Chief Executive Officer is one to be held up as an example for all Americans who believe in the true American Dream as described in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
That's the recipe that our Country needs more of, and the mix is getting stronger and stronger every day.
The Conservative refusal to be cowed any longer started in 2009 with the rise of the "T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already!) Party" in protest of the liberal/progressive rise to power of Obama and his supporters, their goal to control every single American through heavy taxation, legislation, rule-making, and their clearly destructive intent to destroy our heritage.
I sincerely believe the only reason this administration came to power is because Americans put their brains on hold in the 2008 election, in addition to allowing themselves to be cowed by "historical guilt" but it encouragingly appears that, as has been so originally said before, "The Sleeper" has awakened -- at last!
By the end of 2010, the Liberal/Progressives were wishfully thinking out loud -- stridently so, as they tend to do -- that the "Tea Party is dead."
Today should show any rational, honest, sincere thinking person that the "reports of [our] death were premature," to say the least!
Being active, non-stop "T.E.A. Party" members since 2009 ourselves, going to Chik-Fil-A this afternoon was very much like going to any other gathering we've attended during the past three years in various areas of our region.
It was yet one more opportunity to express our beliefs in, and support for, the Constitution, long-held American values and standards, and to support an American who is not "relative" in his beliefs.
The unrestrained, vociferous and hate-filled reaction of the "other side" should clearly show to anyone the danger we all face should this administration and its supporters be given four more years to impose and complete their destructive agenda.
Conservatives must emulate the courage of Chick-fil-A Chief Executive Dan Cathy, speak our minds honestly, sincerely, and clearly while we hold fast to our own values, even in the face of the very bigotry, hatred, extreme insensitivity and dishonesty of which we are constantly accused ourselves.
We know the truth. We must hold fast . . . November 6, 2012 is not that far away.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Here's "Fairness" Again!
These people just do not give up! No matter how often their claims, theories, suppositions and declarations are proven to be nothing more than lies, they will not give up their claims.
OK, fine . . . we do have this little thingie in our country called "Freedom of Speech," right? So that means that they -- along with everyone else, supposedly, have the freedom to express their opinions, whether pro or con, on any issue, right?
Well . . . wrong.
Not when we live in what may soon be the Socialist States of America. Apparently, according to the Liberal Left, the only voices that have that constitutionally protected right - Freedom of Speech - is . . . guess who? The Left, of course, and only the left.
No other voices have the same rights . . . because, of course (!) only they are "right," "know better," and "mean well." No one else. So, based on this oh-so-sincere, honest, and "fair" premise, no one else has the right to the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Speech.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/rush-hannity-savage-face-death-by-obama
They tried to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" earlier in this administration, but, due to the immediate outcry, could not. Not the types to give up, though, they're bringing it up again. (After all, they've been trying to impose their "utopia" for over 50 years!)
True, they claim the targets of the "doctrine" are "only" the media: TV, radio, print. If anyone believes that, I've got a really cool bridge to sell. (Call me!)
Anyone gullible enough (like most liberals) who believes that this "fairness" doctrine is anywhere near the definition of the word "fair" is even more gullible than the folks who shut their brains down in 2008 and voted for this administration in the first place.
As we have heard in recent months, this administration's definition of the word always seems to involve taking [stealing, to be more accurate] something from one person or group to "give" to another person or group . . . as in Mr. Obama's exhortation to Joe Wurzelbacher.
We are supposed to accept that this type of mentality really is "fair" in any universe, not just in the topsy-turvy, upside-down, inside-out, black is white, and white is black "Brave New World" in which we now find ourselves.
The attempt to reinstate this so-called "doctrine" is just a follow up, I believe, to the horrendous, revolting and disgusting recent attempts by Leftists to intimidate and silence practicing Christians under the sordid reasoning that comments made by the CEO of a private enterprise, Chick-fil-A, about his own personal, individual beliefs -- in response to an interview question from a biblically-based interviewer, are supposedly "hate-speech."
Such atrociousness should not even be acknowledged, much less discussed in any manner at all -- must be given short shrift -- when we have the rabid reactions of the liberal left insisting now that one's personal religion, and one's expression thereof, is now "hate."
I can't believe anything can be more revolting or disgusting than the combination of those excellent examples of "American standards," Chicagoans Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino; let's not forget Boston's mayor and the several others who climbed out of the woodwork to spew their venom and threats.
In response to Emanuel, I say, "Thank the Good Lord that Chicago standards are not my standards!"
And, with this as the background, we are to accept that the "Fairness Doctrine" is a sincere attempt to be "fair" to "all" points of view in the media industry?
Uh-huh. Right. Sure.
OK, fine . . . we do have this little thingie in our country called "Freedom of Speech," right? So that means that they -- along with everyone else, supposedly, have the freedom to express their opinions, whether pro or con, on any issue, right?
Well . . . wrong.
Not when we live in what may soon be the Socialist States of America. Apparently, according to the Liberal Left, the only voices that have that constitutionally protected right - Freedom of Speech - is . . . guess who? The Left, of course, and only the left.
No other voices have the same rights . . . because, of course (!) only they are "right," "know better," and "mean well." No one else. So, based on this oh-so-sincere, honest, and "fair" premise, no one else has the right to the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Speech.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/rush-hannity-savage-face-death-by-obama
They tried to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" earlier in this administration, but, due to the immediate outcry, could not. Not the types to give up, though, they're bringing it up again. (After all, they've been trying to impose their "utopia" for over 50 years!)
True, they claim the targets of the "doctrine" are "only" the media: TV, radio, print. If anyone believes that, I've got a really cool bridge to sell. (Call me!)
Anyone gullible enough (like most liberals) who believes that this "fairness" doctrine is anywhere near the definition of the word "fair" is even more gullible than the folks who shut their brains down in 2008 and voted for this administration in the first place.
As we have heard in recent months, this administration's definition of the word always seems to involve taking [stealing, to be more accurate] something from one person or group to "give" to another person or group . . . as in Mr. Obama's exhortation to Joe Wurzelbacher.
We are supposed to accept that this type of mentality really is "fair" in any universe, not just in the topsy-turvy, upside-down, inside-out, black is white, and white is black "Brave New World" in which we now find ourselves.
The attempt to reinstate this so-called "doctrine" is just a follow up, I believe, to the horrendous, revolting and disgusting recent attempts by Leftists to intimidate and silence practicing Christians under the sordid reasoning that comments made by the CEO of a private enterprise, Chick-fil-A, about his own personal, individual beliefs -- in response to an interview question from a biblically-based interviewer, are supposedly "hate-speech."
Such atrociousness should not even be acknowledged, much less discussed in any manner at all -- must be given short shrift -- when we have the rabid reactions of the liberal left insisting now that one's personal religion, and one's expression thereof, is now "hate."
I can't believe anything can be more revolting or disgusting than the combination of those excellent examples of "American standards," Chicagoans Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino; let's not forget Boston's mayor and the several others who climbed out of the woodwork to spew their venom and threats.
In response to Emanuel, I say, "Thank the Good Lord that Chicago standards are not my standards!"
And, with this as the background, we are to accept that the "Fairness Doctrine" is a sincere attempt to be "fair" to "all" points of view in the media industry?
Uh-huh. Right. Sure.
Records Speak for Themselves
The liberals & democrats want 12 years of Mr. Romney's taxes??
How about we just get 1 year's response to any of the following items??
'Nuff said, I think.
Friday, July 27, 2012
OK, Don't Want to Play? Just Shut Down Your Business
In recent days we've had the ongoing argument of whether a speech played practically in its entirety is "in context."
With the well-known liberal habit of parsing, splitting frog's hairs, and debating the meaning of the word "is," we are now debating whether Mr. Obama actually said what he said and in what supposed context he said it -- or didn't say it.
I was sitting right here in front of the tube and watched the the whole darned speech, and as in many cases with liberals, I am going to choose to believe what my lyin' eyes and ears saw and heard -- not what liberals tell me I saw and heard.
We've also heard a lot about the so-called "health-care bill," and a slew of stuff about what it is, what it is not, what it will do, and what it will not do.
Based on my experience with my own lyin' eyes and ears these past 3+ years, I tend to believe there is no way that "health-care" bill has anything to do with "health care" other than just taking over the system and achieving the long-held liberal goal of "universal health care." Taken at Obama's word, the so-called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" has nothing to do with bringing down the cost to make anything "affordable," but, as any thinking person has known since 2009, everything to do with pulling every citizen ever more completely under the total control of the government in every aspect of their lives.
There has been constant denial by the government -- of course -- that its goal is any such thing. (Here again, who ya gonna believe?)
We've also been told that the health care bill will be a boon to mankind, ensuring that every citizen will have "coverage," and that no one will have to take the chance of having a leg cut off just because the surgeon wants to get more money from the insurance company; that no one will lose their doctor if one likes their doctor (strange how my 84 year old Mom has already lost 3 doctors since 2009; they pulled out of Medicare); that the overall cost of health care will go down; and an unending, nauseating list of blatant lies.
The most glaring lie was made public recently by Kathleen Sibelius' recent dictate that all insurance policies must conform to government requirements, including giving abortion and birth control "services" in all employer-provided policies, regardless of personal, religious beliefs of the employer.
These are just the highlights, of course.
But, let's summarize so far: the "health care" bill forces us to accept a government-approved level of "insurance," which will ultimately be provided by the government only; we will not be able to keep our own doctor (not if they leave their careers, as a great number have said they will); and the millions more who are placed into the non-existent "exchanges," are somehow going to lessen the cost and burden on the industry as a whole . . .
All of this is just wonderful and totally hunky-dory, fine-n-dandy, right? Right. So far, so good.
Now, let's add yet another level of government control. We are today witness to the complete removal of the mask from the face of our current "government." Their intent has been made completely clear in their ultimate desire to dictate to us, the American people the what, how, when, where, and why of every aspect of our lives.
With the power created by and placed into the hands of the government specifically by this "Act," Kathleen Sibelius not only feels she can order citizens to breach their own religious beliefs by forcing them to pay for services that are anathema to their personal beliefs, she feels she can now tell a private corporation to either follow their dictates or to shut down.
This is beyond the head-shaking disbelief we've been experiencing these past 3 years. This is the kind of government control, government dictatorship, and takeover of every individual that is -- or at least should be -- completely unacceptable in our world.
This idea would have been unthinkable a few years ago . . . maybe only 6 years ago. In today's upside down world, however, it is hardly surprising that the government would say one thing while consciously knowing what they said is a lie.
The current administration is not only forcing all Americans to get their insurance coverage from one source (the government), student loans from one source (the government), home loans from one source (the government), but now we are going to be told by the government whether we can stay in business or not.
On what possible basis, constitutional or not (Justice Roberts notwithstanding), can this dictatorial régime feel it could once again try to force its demands on law-abiding, self-sufficient American citizens?
In what other country but a socialist one, can a government threaten, brow-beat, beat down a private company to force that company to either "accept" government orders or shut down!
In this type of government, the individual has no meaning. The individual is nothing. All that matters is the collective and the collective is composed only of those chosen by the régime. Anyone with an "older" education should have recognized this government as 1984 come to life and been frightened since the start.
Religious beliefs do not matter, personal or individual preferences and desires do not matter. This dictatorship is classic: nothing matters but "The Collective," and "The Government" when decisions and determinations are to be made for the worker by the government and we are not to question.
Well, guess what -- We the People say, nope, don't think so, no way. We will NOT sit down and shut up and we will dare to fight back and we will not stop.
November 6, 2012 can't get here a minute too soon. The life of our Republic depends on it.
With the well-known liberal habit of parsing, splitting frog's hairs, and debating the meaning of the word "is," we are now debating whether Mr. Obama actually said what he said and in what supposed context he said it -- or didn't say it.
I was sitting right here in front of the tube and watched the the whole darned speech, and as in many cases with liberals, I am going to choose to believe what my lyin' eyes and ears saw and heard -- not what liberals tell me I saw and heard.
We've also heard a lot about the so-called "health-care bill," and a slew of stuff about what it is, what it is not, what it will do, and what it will not do.
Based on my experience with my own lyin' eyes and ears these past 3+ years, I tend to believe there is no way that "health-care" bill has anything to do with "health care" other than just taking over the system and achieving the long-held liberal goal of "universal health care." Taken at Obama's word, the so-called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" has nothing to do with bringing down the cost to make anything "affordable," but, as any thinking person has known since 2009, everything to do with pulling every citizen ever more completely under the total control of the government in every aspect of their lives.
There has been constant denial by the government -- of course -- that its goal is any such thing. (Here again, who ya gonna believe?)
We've also been told that the health care bill will be a boon to mankind, ensuring that every citizen will have "coverage," and that no one will have to take the chance of having a leg cut off just because the surgeon wants to get more money from the insurance company; that no one will lose their doctor if one likes their doctor (strange how my 84 year old Mom has already lost 3 doctors since 2009; they pulled out of Medicare); that the overall cost of health care will go down; and an unending, nauseating list of blatant lies.
The most glaring lie was made public recently by Kathleen Sibelius' recent dictate that all insurance policies must conform to government requirements, including giving abortion and birth control "services" in all employer-provided policies, regardless of personal, religious beliefs of the employer.
These are just the highlights, of course.
But, let's summarize so far: the "health care" bill forces us to accept a government-approved level of "insurance," which will ultimately be provided by the government only; we will not be able to keep our own doctor (not if they leave their careers, as a great number have said they will); and the millions more who are placed into the non-existent "exchanges," are somehow going to lessen the cost and burden on the industry as a whole . . .
All of this is just wonderful and totally hunky-dory, fine-n-dandy, right? Right. So far, so good.
Now, let's add yet another level of government control. We are today witness to the complete removal of the mask from the face of our current "government." Their intent has been made completely clear in their ultimate desire to dictate to us, the American people the what, how, when, where, and why of every aspect of our lives.
With the power created by and placed into the hands of the government specifically by this "Act," Kathleen Sibelius not only feels she can order citizens to breach their own religious beliefs by forcing them to pay for services that are anathema to their personal beliefs, she feels she can now tell a private corporation to either follow their dictates or to shut down.
This is beyond the head-shaking disbelief we've been experiencing these past 3 years. This is the kind of government control, government dictatorship, and takeover of every individual that is -- or at least should be -- completely unacceptable in our world.
This idea would have been unthinkable a few years ago . . . maybe only 6 years ago. In today's upside down world, however, it is hardly surprising that the government would say one thing while consciously knowing what they said is a lie.
The current administration is not only forcing all Americans to get their insurance coverage from one source (the government), student loans from one source (the government), home loans from one source (the government), but now we are going to be told by the government whether we can stay in business or not.
On what possible basis, constitutional or not (Justice Roberts notwithstanding), can this dictatorial régime feel it could once again try to force its demands on law-abiding, self-sufficient American citizens?
In what other country but a socialist one, can a government threaten, brow-beat, beat down a private company to force that company to either "accept" government orders or shut down!
America: Wake Up! Our Republic has almost completely disappeared.
We are, for all intents and purposes, now living under a dictatorship. For those who do not understand the actual meaning of the word -- without parsing hairs -- it means living under a government whose sole purpose is to control, dictate, impose its will upon, and force the populace to do exactly as that government wants -- regardless of the individual's desires.In this type of government, the individual has no meaning. The individual is nothing. All that matters is the collective and the collective is composed only of those chosen by the régime. Anyone with an "older" education should have recognized this government as 1984 come to life and been frightened since the start.
Religious beliefs do not matter, personal or individual preferences and desires do not matter. This dictatorship is classic: nothing matters but "The Collective," and "The Government" when decisions and determinations are to be made for the worker by the government and we are not to question.
Well, guess what -- We the People say, nope, don't think so, no way. We will NOT sit down and shut up and we will dare to fight back and we will not stop.
November 6, 2012 can't get here a minute too soon. The life of our Republic depends on it.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Stop the "Fundamental Transformation"
I
do not know who wrote the piece following my thoughts, but I would
very much like to shake his hand with respect; his name is intact at the end. He
has hit right onto some of the most important myriad reasons that we are now on the
brink of losing our Country.
It is for these reasons, and many more, that we must do everything we possibly can to change everything that is controlling this country from the top down. Yes, it is imperative we also look at those in charge at the local and state levels . . . this "transformation" must be stopped at every level this year -- or we can say goodbye to the Republic of the United States of America.
I understand folks are probably tired of these political things: between the TV commercials, the news programs, the robocalls, the talk shows, etc., it can certainly can get tedious and annoying. But this is much too important to get tired of: our current, as well as future, Country is gravely at stake.
I begged folks to pay attention, not to be taken in by the flash and dance, in 2008; I've done it almost non-stop since then. Four years later, I beg everyone even more strongly. Look around -- is this really the America you want?
I can tell you, this is not the America to which I pledged my allegiance with all my heart when I became a naturalized American in 2004 (after living here since 1964, by the way). The country I originally came from was very much like what our Country is now turning into.
I guess that's why I recognized the problem [danger] so easily. That is why my family, and so many other thousands -- from other countries as well -- left our countries to come to the U.S.A.: for personal and individual freedom, for the opportunity (not the guarantee) to succeed at whatever level we individually decided success was right for us, for the right to speak, think, act, and live as we all wished -- as long we denied no others the same rights. (Simple fact is, there was quite enough of that going on in the countries we left behind.)
Those, to my family, and millions of other immigrants, were some of the reasons we came here.
Now, I unfortunately have to wonder, is there going to be a reason to stay here anymore? We came to live in the Republic of the United States of America; we fear we no longer live there.
From the depths of my own frustration level, I have to ask: Don't folks realize that if we lose the Republic, there are almost no other places to which one can go to have the same freedoms so many have apparently taken for granted for so long, and are in clear danger of losing?
We must fight to keep our Republic: November 6, 2012 is our last chance -- there is no doubt about it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.
The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potentially dictatorial presidency.
During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshiping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they, and not Congress, would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of Obama Care there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take, at their sole discretion, some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once Obama Care is fully operational in 2014.
The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking, and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.
The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history (see the "Fast and Furious" saga). In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election. (As he happened to whisper to Medvedev.)
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people, more than ever before.
Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.
The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.
What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the laws when the chief executive ignores them.
Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party, Independents, and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.
Steve McCann, May 12, 2012
It is for these reasons, and many more, that we must do everything we possibly can to change everything that is controlling this country from the top down. Yes, it is imperative we also look at those in charge at the local and state levels . . . this "transformation" must be stopped at every level this year -- or we can say goodbye to the Republic of the United States of America.
I understand folks are probably tired of these political things: between the TV commercials, the news programs, the robocalls, the talk shows, etc., it can certainly can get tedious and annoying. But this is much too important to get tired of: our current, as well as future, Country is gravely at stake.
I begged folks to pay attention, not to be taken in by the flash and dance, in 2008; I've done it almost non-stop since then. Four years later, I beg everyone even more strongly. Look around -- is this really the America you want?
I can tell you, this is not the America to which I pledged my allegiance with all my heart when I became a naturalized American in 2004 (after living here since 1964, by the way). The country I originally came from was very much like what our Country is now turning into.
I guess that's why I recognized the problem [danger] so easily. That is why my family, and so many other thousands -- from other countries as well -- left our countries to come to the U.S.A.: for personal and individual freedom, for the opportunity (not the guarantee) to succeed at whatever level we individually decided success was right for us, for the right to speak, think, act, and live as we all wished -- as long we denied no others the same rights. (Simple fact is, there was quite enough of that going on in the countries we left behind.)
Those, to my family, and millions of other immigrants, were some of the reasons we came here.
Now, I unfortunately have to wonder, is there going to be a reason to stay here anymore? We came to live in the Republic of the United States of America; we fear we no longer live there.
From the depths of my own frustration level, I have to ask: Don't folks realize that if we lose the Republic, there are almost no other places to which one can go to have the same freedoms so many have apparently taken for granted for so long, and are in clear danger of losing?
We must fight to keep our Republic: November 6, 2012 is our last chance -- there is no doubt about it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.
The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potentially dictatorial presidency.
During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshiping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they, and not Congress, would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of Obama Care there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take, at their sole discretion, some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once Obama Care is fully operational in 2014.
The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking, and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.
The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history (see the "Fast and Furious" saga). In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election. (As he happened to whisper to Medvedev.)
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people, more than ever before.
Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.
The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.
What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the laws when the chief executive ignores them.
Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party, Independents, and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.
Steve McCann, May 12, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Supremes Have Spoken
So the Supreme Court has spoken.
Based on the Dissenting Opinion as well as on the Majority Opinion, it would appear to this American that the honorable justices did something pretty weasel-y. They rationalized their final Opinion by picking for themselves which of the arguments presented by the regime was the one which best fit their decision: this "law" is a "Tax" not a "Mandate."
Right. Uh-uh.
A "mandate," supposedly would have been "unconstitutional," but imposing a "tax" that punishes American Citizens by further destroying the economy, threatens Citizens with huge fines and even jail, needed to have an additional 16,000 new "enforcers" in the IRS to make sure we submit . . . this type of bill has been determined, by the highest court of the land, to be not only "acceptable," but constitutional.
A few months ago, Mr. Obama was ranting about the nerve of a "bunch of unelected" guys in robes to dare even consider the constitutionality of his masterpiece. To this layman's eye, it appears that Justice Roberts, as the deciding majority vote, wanted to want to show Mr. Obama that he was wrong . . . they really would not dare to declare his masterpiece unconstitutional, regardless of the evidence.
Yet, I take hope in the opinion of some who point out that the fact of having to redefine this disaster from the description officially given it by the regime ("mandate," meaning to impose, force upon; which is strangely unobjectionable, under certain circumstances, apparently) to something supposedly more acceptable (a "tax"), also places it in a realm much easier to repeal.
Congress can impose taxes, Congress can remove taxes. Fine. The next Congress should have enough of a majority of reasonable Citizens tired of witnessing the destruction of their country to immediately prepare legislation to remove this outrageous monstronsity from the necks of the American people.
The question, however, remains . . . and is frightening, to me, in terms of believing we still live in a thriving Republic is: why the hell did the U.S. Supreme Court provide an "out" for this administration by essentially showing them how to get their bill determined to be constitutional?
A naive, frustrated explosive response would be: "Whose side are they on, anyway??" Can't possibly be the side of the American people if they have to create an excuse almost out of whole cloth to assist this administration to get their law "constitutionalized."
Either the mandate -- the core of the law, without which none of the rest can survive -- is constitutional, or it is not.
The Court should in no way have told the Administration: "Look, you presented your case so badly in front of us we feel sorry for you . . . you should have declared it from the start as a tax, and there would have been no question. Even though you touted for months (years) that this is not a tax, the only way we can legitimize it is to deem it a tax, no matter what you want to call it. So, we'll help you out, since your ability to present the supposed merits is a bit weak -- we'll determine for you what your argument needs to be in order for us to support it. Voila! It's a TAX, and therefore constitutional."
Some slight of hand, huh?
If the majority had decided to support the core contention that the mandate is unconstitutional, I suppose all thought inside our own heads would be drowned out by the howls of the administration's screaming about a "bunch of unelected men."
But, that lovely thought is not applicable today. We currently live in an upside-down world, the Constitution is constantly gutted, the elected leaders of our country abrogate their responsibility to the majority of their constituents to submit not only themselves, their standards, but also our own to the control of the government.
In my not so humble opinion as an American citizen, by allowing this atrocity to stand in toto, the Supreme Court has legitimized the fundamental transformation of our Country into a totalitarian nightmare.
November 2012, can't get here too quickly, Lord willing!
Based on the Dissenting Opinion as well as on the Majority Opinion, it would appear to this American that the honorable justices did something pretty weasel-y. They rationalized their final Opinion by picking for themselves which of the arguments presented by the regime was the one which best fit their decision: this "law" is a "Tax" not a "Mandate."
Right. Uh-uh.
A "mandate," supposedly would have been "unconstitutional," but imposing a "tax" that punishes American Citizens by further destroying the economy, threatens Citizens with huge fines and even jail, needed to have an additional 16,000 new "enforcers" in the IRS to make sure we submit . . . this type of bill has been determined, by the highest court of the land, to be not only "acceptable," but constitutional.
A few months ago, Mr. Obama was ranting about the nerve of a "bunch of unelected" guys in robes to dare even consider the constitutionality of his masterpiece. To this layman's eye, it appears that Justice Roberts, as the deciding majority vote, wanted to want to show Mr. Obama that he was wrong . . . they really would not dare to declare his masterpiece unconstitutional, regardless of the evidence.
Yet, I take hope in the opinion of some who point out that the fact of having to redefine this disaster from the description officially given it by the regime ("mandate," meaning to impose, force upon; which is strangely unobjectionable, under certain circumstances, apparently) to something supposedly more acceptable (a "tax"), also places it in a realm much easier to repeal.
Congress can impose taxes, Congress can remove taxes. Fine. The next Congress should have enough of a majority of reasonable Citizens tired of witnessing the destruction of their country to immediately prepare legislation to remove this outrageous monstronsity from the necks of the American people.
The question, however, remains . . . and is frightening, to me, in terms of believing we still live in a thriving Republic is: why the hell did the U.S. Supreme Court provide an "out" for this administration by essentially showing them how to get their bill determined to be constitutional?
A naive, frustrated explosive response would be: "Whose side are they on, anyway??" Can't possibly be the side of the American people if they have to create an excuse almost out of whole cloth to assist this administration to get their law "constitutionalized."
Either the mandate -- the core of the law, without which none of the rest can survive -- is constitutional, or it is not.
The Court should in no way have told the Administration: "Look, you presented your case so badly in front of us we feel sorry for you . . . you should have declared it from the start as a tax, and there would have been no question. Even though you touted for months (years) that this is not a tax, the only way we can legitimize it is to deem it a tax, no matter what you want to call it. So, we'll help you out, since your ability to present the supposed merits is a bit weak -- we'll determine for you what your argument needs to be in order for us to support it. Voila! It's a TAX, and therefore constitutional."
Some slight of hand, huh?
If the majority had decided to support the core contention that the mandate is unconstitutional, I suppose all thought inside our own heads would be drowned out by the howls of the administration's screaming about a "bunch of unelected men."
But, that lovely thought is not applicable today. We currently live in an upside-down world, the Constitution is constantly gutted, the elected leaders of our country abrogate their responsibility to the majority of their constituents to submit not only themselves, their standards, but also our own to the control of the government.
In my not so humble opinion as an American citizen, by allowing this atrocity to stand in toto, the Supreme Court has legitimized the fundamental transformation of our Country into a totalitarian nightmare.
November 2012, can't get here too quickly, Lord willing!
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
"Upside-Down Land"
I received this in a forwarded e-mail today and was going to just post the link, http://www.americanreform.org/member-blog/comments/our_upside_down_land, but as I read it over, I realized it is worth posting in toto.
Today's world is absolutely upside-down, backwards, and inside out. I tend to try to tell myself that we have been vaporized without our knowledge and transported to a world where up is down and down is up, where white is black and black is white -- since 2007-08, anyway, and we will wake up soon. (Yeah, yeah, too many *original* Star Trek episodes are showing their influence.)
Today's world is a world in which most of us who are over 50 (who remember a different [better] America) are constantly shocked, surprised, incensed, frightened, and "mind-boggled" over the occurrences of the past 4 years or so.
This detailed, sourced post is an extremely accurate representation of where we are today. The primary question that's been bothering me for the past almost 4 years has been: How the hell did this happen??? Immediately followed by Why the hell did this happen????
Answers come to mind for both questions; not one of them is a good enough answer, though.
5. The unfortunate majority of the American people were just plain stupid!
The link posted above, I think, absolutely delineates the most concerning aspects of what has occured in the past 3+ years to fundamentally transform our Republic into a pseudo-totalitarian, pseudo-banana republic, the laughingstock of the world.
This is what the unfortunate majority of the American people really wanted? I honestly do not think it is -- even the very far Left whose primary regret is that the transformation is not complete and (Dear God willing!) will never be complete!
For those who were honestly duped, allowed themselves to be duped, pulled into the world of "guilt," or allowed their liberal-tinged dreams to take over -- even they must be in shock. Even they can't possibly have thought our country would be so easily and rapidly taken to the brink of total destruction.
In a very short few months, we will go to the polls again to vote for President of the United States of America.
In a few short months, we will decide whether our Country will accelerate its deterioration into a nonentity subservient to the control of the "United Nations" or start the slow and very difficult return to the full-fledged, independent, proud, self-sufficient Republic envisioned by our forefathers.
God willing it is the latter.
Today's world is absolutely upside-down, backwards, and inside out. I tend to try to tell myself that we have been vaporized without our knowledge and transported to a world where up is down and down is up, where white is black and black is white -- since 2007-08, anyway, and we will wake up soon. (Yeah, yeah, too many *original* Star Trek episodes are showing their influence.)
Today's world is a world in which most of us who are over 50 (who remember a different [better] America) are constantly shocked, surprised, incensed, frightened, and "mind-boggled" over the occurrences of the past 4 years or so.
This detailed, sourced post is an extremely accurate representation of where we are today. The primary question that's been bothering me for the past almost 4 years has been: How the hell did this happen??? Immediately followed by Why the hell did this happen????
Answers come to mind for both questions; not one of them is a good enough answer, though.
- The unfortunate majority of the American people allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by an imposed-guilt based "racism."
- The unfortunate majority of the American people really, really, really seemed to believe -- or at least wanted to believe -- that just by electing a man who happened to be black, the act would magically erase that imposed guilt.
- The unfortunate majority of the American people really, really, really seemed to believe -- or at least wanted to believe -- that even if that black man had no qualifications whatsoever to be the senator he had been, much less President elect of the United States of America, it was a "good thing" to elect him anyway.
- The unfortunate majority of the American people really, really, really seemed to believe -- or at least wanted to believe -- that maybe there was a black man who could "show" the country that blacks were (finally!) equal . . . after all, all the media said so, right?
5. The unfortunate majority of the American people were just plain stupid!
The link posted above, I think, absolutely delineates the most concerning aspects of what has occured in the past 3+ years to fundamentally transform our Republic into a pseudo-totalitarian, pseudo-banana republic, the laughingstock of the world.
This is what the unfortunate majority of the American people really wanted? I honestly do not think it is -- even the very far Left whose primary regret is that the transformation is not complete and (Dear God willing!) will never be complete!
For those who were honestly duped, allowed themselves to be duped, pulled into the world of "guilt," or allowed their liberal-tinged dreams to take over -- even they must be in shock. Even they can't possibly have thought our country would be so easily and rapidly taken to the brink of total destruction.
In a very short few months, we will go to the polls again to vote for President of the United States of America.
In a few short months, we will decide whether our Country will accelerate its deterioration into a nonentity subservient to the control of the "United Nations" or start the slow and very difficult return to the full-fledged, independent, proud, self-sufficient Republic envisioned by our forefathers.
God willing it is the latter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if…
 |
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • A Muslim officer crying "Allah Akbar" while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed "Workplace Violence" while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a "Domestic Terrorist". You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
• Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work). You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars). You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Your government can add anything they want to your kid's water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe". You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burqa is only subject to having her neck and head searched. You know you live in an Upside-down Land if... • Using the "N" word is considered "hate speech" but writing and signing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered "art". Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. Our world has been turned upside-down. We are in distress. Where do we go from here? "COWARDICE asks the question - is it Safe?" "EXPEDIENCY asks the question - is it Politically Correct?" "VANITY asks the question - is it Popular?" "But the CONSCIENCE asks the question - is it Right?" "And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither, Safe, nor Politically Correct, nor Popular, but one must take it, because its RIGHT!!" | ||
Where we go from here is to make sure we speak to our families, friends, neighbors, acquaintances about the options we face today. If they are as appalled, frightened and concerned as we are, then we know where they stand already.
If they are not, merely bemused . . . we must speak with them, to try to make them see. We must be kind, thoughtful, calm, clear-headed, and above all, remember that violence never solves anything -- no matter how impossible the situation may appear.
We must remember, simply, and constantly that it is our Country at stake: its deterioration or revitalization.
November, 2012 will provide the answer.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
We MUST NOT Allow These Zombies to Control America's Future
Back in the presidential election season of 2006-2008 (that's the length of Obama's campaign for president), there were many, many voices trying to get out to warn American voters to seek the truth about that startling new candidate, Barack Obama.
Those voices were drowned out, derided, insulted, and attempts were made to try to "legally" shut down their First Amendment rights. Much of that activity was conducted primarily by the so-called "mainstream media" who claimed then, and now, to know better than any of us for whom we should vote, what we should think, say, and do vis-a-vis the candidates and the election (not to mention everything else in life, for that matter).
Those "media" voices were targeted towards those they saw as the primary supporters of their candidate: the youthful voter with the stars of liberalism shining so brightly in their eyes they were unable to see anything else. Tell me, who else could possibly consider Jon Stewart's program as "real news"??
Those of us who grew up with Saturday Night Live's Chevy Chase reporting the "news" can't possibly believe there are really and truly so many gullible people out there . . . but, there are and they unfortunately vote: The Real Obama Supporters.
These are the ones who brought Obama to the White House, not alone, of course -- there were, at the time, hardly enough of them to carry an election by themselves. They were, unfortunately, aided by too, too many who should -- and probably did -- know better than to vote for that man.
I can only hope that the "real Obama supporters" have 1) gotten themselves informed: a possibility when one considers the drop in viewership and revenue to the "top 3" mainstream networks; 2) grown up: doubtful, since too many are so eager to continue to live off (mooch off) their parents, the taxpayers, and anyone else they can bamboozle into being responsible for them; or 3) burned their voter registration cards: which may not matter, considering the push to allow anyone in the country to vote in all elections, regardless of citizenship.
Personally, I hope for none of the above -- anyone who could have voted for this man in the first place has little to no hope of redemption if they are still "supporters" at this point in time. It is no surprise that the Hollywood crowd is still incredibly vocal in their support . . . their own livelihoods depend on a public willing to pay good money to watch whatever kind of stupidity, idiocy, or brain dead production they deem "good enough" for us to watch. They count on the same kind of public that Obama supporters are -- brain dead.
The political, emotional, philosophical, and physical civil union between politics and Hollywood was consummated in the campaign leading to the November 1959 voting which resulted in the election of JFK: the Hollywood, "news" media, and even mafia favorite (if one believes the stories of the time).
That constituency is out in force this year, again, though it leaves one's brain boggled to think that people out there are actually getting voting guidance from Sarah Jessica Parker! (Interesting, even with these "powerhouse" supporters, Obama does not seem close to raising the vaunted "billion" he demanded at the start of the year! . . . A sign of the his times, perhaps?)
We -- the loyal to the United States of America opposition -- must make sure this year that the voices that pushed Obama into the Winner's Circle in November 2008 do not achieve the same this year. The stakes are incredibly high -- whether the United States of America has even a slight chance of returning to its former greatness, or whether our country continues its not so slow deterioration into a less than third rate country.
Our Vote. Our Choice. Pray and Vote.
Those voices were drowned out, derided, insulted, and attempts were made to try to "legally" shut down their First Amendment rights. Much of that activity was conducted primarily by the so-called "mainstream media" who claimed then, and now, to know better than any of us for whom we should vote, what we should think, say, and do vis-a-vis the candidates and the election (not to mention everything else in life, for that matter).
Those "media" voices were targeted towards those they saw as the primary supporters of their candidate: the youthful voter with the stars of liberalism shining so brightly in their eyes they were unable to see anything else. Tell me, who else could possibly consider Jon Stewart's program as "real news"??
Those of us who grew up with Saturday Night Live's Chevy Chase reporting the "news" can't possibly believe there are really and truly so many gullible people out there . . . but, there are and they unfortunately vote: The Real Obama Supporters.
These are the ones who brought Obama to the White House, not alone, of course -- there were, at the time, hardly enough of them to carry an election by themselves. They were, unfortunately, aided by too, too many who should -- and probably did -- know better than to vote for that man.
I can only hope that the "real Obama supporters" have 1) gotten themselves informed: a possibility when one considers the drop in viewership and revenue to the "top 3" mainstream networks; 2) grown up: doubtful, since too many are so eager to continue to live off (mooch off) their parents, the taxpayers, and anyone else they can bamboozle into being responsible for them; or 3) burned their voter registration cards: which may not matter, considering the push to allow anyone in the country to vote in all elections, regardless of citizenship.
Personally, I hope for none of the above -- anyone who could have voted for this man in the first place has little to no hope of redemption if they are still "supporters" at this point in time. It is no surprise that the Hollywood crowd is still incredibly vocal in their support . . . their own livelihoods depend on a public willing to pay good money to watch whatever kind of stupidity, idiocy, or brain dead production they deem "good enough" for us to watch. They count on the same kind of public that Obama supporters are -- brain dead.
The political, emotional, philosophical, and physical civil union between politics and Hollywood was consummated in the campaign leading to the November 1959 voting which resulted in the election of JFK: the Hollywood, "news" media, and even mafia favorite (if one believes the stories of the time).
That constituency is out in force this year, again, though it leaves one's brain boggled to think that people out there are actually getting voting guidance from Sarah Jessica Parker! (Interesting, even with these "powerhouse" supporters, Obama does not seem close to raising the vaunted "billion" he demanded at the start of the year! . . . A sign of the his times, perhaps?)
We -- the loyal to the United States of America opposition -- must make sure this year that the voices that pushed Obama into the Winner's Circle in November 2008 do not achieve the same this year. The stakes are incredibly high -- whether the United States of America has even a slight chance of returning to its former greatness, or whether our country continues its not so slow deterioration into a less than third rate country.
Our Vote. Our Choice. Pray and Vote.
Friday, June 15, 2012
It Is Way Past Time To Make It Matter
To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/38-reasons-why-obama-should-not-be-re-elected/
BETWEEN THE LINES
38 reasons why Obama should not be re-elected
Exclusive: Joseph Farah shares collaborative effort to explain what BHO has wrought
Editor’s note: The following column is a work of collaboration by me and some friends of mine – some of whom feared retribution for speaking so plainly.
Looking back over the past four years, read this to better understand where we are going as a country under the leadership of Barack Obama.
WHEN he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Moammar Gadhafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he surrounded himself in the White House with advisers who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezko – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire globalist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he started appointing White House czars that were radicals, revolutionaries and even avowed Marxist/Communists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar, who believes in “explicit consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as safe schools czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar, who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN Valerie Jarrett, an avowed socialist, was selected as Obama’s senior White House adviser, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN Anita Dunn, White House communications director, said Mao Zedong was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Carol Browner, a well-known socialist as global warming czar working on cap-and-trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed socialist, as green energy czar who was forced to resign, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile-defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops requested by field commanders to win the war, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he took away student loans from the banks and required they go through the government, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he designed plans to take over the health-care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through cap-and-trade, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he finally completed his transformation of America into a socialist state, people began to wake up – but it was too late.
The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.
Looking back over the past four years, read this to better understand where we are going as a country under the leadership of Barack Obama.
WHEN he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Moammar Gadhafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he surrounded himself in the White House with advisers who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezko – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire globalist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he started appointing White House czars that were radicals, revolutionaries and even avowed Marxist/Communists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar, who believes in “explicit consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as safe schools czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar, who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN Valerie Jarrett, an avowed socialist, was selected as Obama’s senior White House adviser, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN Anita Dunn, White House communications director, said Mao Zedong was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Carol Browner, a well-known socialist as global warming czar working on cap-and-trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed socialist, as green energy czar who was forced to resign, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile-defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops requested by field commanders to win the war, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he took away student loans from the banks and required they go through the government, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he designed plans to take over the health-care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through cap-and-trade, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN he finally completed his transformation of America into a socialist state, people began to wake up – but it was too late.
The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.
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,
www.sergiopolitics.org 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.
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.
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,www.sergiopolitics.org: What do you think will be the main issue in November election?
Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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.
Sergio Veskovic,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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.
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,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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,www.sergiopolitics.org: 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)