The Truth Is Out There

I received two rather disturbing emails this morning from two of my very good friends. The first one said:

"If you are going to talk about negative SHIT about my President. Then take me off your email list.Thank you and I still love You,
S***** W*****"
A President Barack Obama Supporter" -- she wasn't kidding.

the second said:

"Dag, Robin I can't understand why you are so anti black. Did you get dropped on your head when you was a baby? Lol"-- the "lol" aside he wasn't kidding either. (This was written in response to a joke I made about Barack Obama not being present at Michael Jackson's funeral because he couldn't think of a way to blame it on George Bush--well I thought it was funny)

I've tried at length to explain why I feel the way that I do to my friends to no avail. How I can't reconcile his policy with my faith. How I feel that his policy will negatively impact this country and therefore Black folks will necessarily negatively impact Black folks since we are Americans too. A fellow blogger Malcolm Kirkpatrick commented that "Obama worship is self-love" and it occurred to me that if to those who KNOW me feel that I hate myself because I don't support Obama then to them to love Barack Obama is to love themselves...that's sick on so many different levels. However, Digital Publius brilliantly deconstructs this curious phenomena that is at play in my world as my friends have fallen into the Obama snare he writes:

The truth is indeed out there, if you are inclined towards it, it can be found. The problem is not that the truth is or is not knowable, but rather that it is so often ignored when it conflicts with ones deeply held ideologies. This is the case often, when you endeavor to hold civil discourse with those that lean more towards their ideologies than reality and who are committed to remaking the world into a reflection of those ideologies despite the truth. This is how I would define the average liberal.
Interestingly enough, not all Democrats are liberals. Many of the people who vote Democrat that I know, share the same conservative values that I proudly trumpet. Unfortunately; there is a disconnect, they can’t see that when they support the Democratic party for the social issues they may believe to be virtuous, you become a de facto liberal because you cannot support the party of affirmative action without supporting the unGodly party of abortion on demand and Gay marriage.
Where your average liberal is often favorably disposed towards irrational beliefs and doctrines of devils, your average Democrat is simply too lazy or racist to look into the truth as they have made up their minds based on those aforementioned ideologies. Democrats however can on occasion be reached, yours truly would be an example of that particular truth. Democrats when confronted with the proof they are often to lazy to look into themselves, will on occasion admit that they were making a grave error when supporting a character like Barney Franks. They even sometimes, like me, become Ex-Democrats. A liberal never ever sees beyond the unicorns President Obama promised him he would have to ride around the autonomous collectives we will all live and work on.
For the liberals out there I’m joking about the President promising literal unicorns, I wish I could say that his actions thus far hadn’t made the autonomous collectives look so likely though.
As for racism, without it there would be no Democratic party. Racism drives the democratic party. You have the liberal Democrat, (White or Black) who is perhaps the most racist human being on earth who is so convinced of the inferiority of the minorities in America (even when he is one) he is compelled to help them by lowering standards so they can compete with their betters. This of course ends when it comes to rubber meeting the road programs like school vouchers where it would put their little Suzy in direct contact with a child from a family really seeking to improve that child’s lot by allowing them to contend on an even playing field, can’t have that.
Then you have the Original Democrats, these are folks that know the origin of the Democratic party. They know that it was the Democrats who started the Klu Klux Klan, with the express purpose of terrorizing black voters and to keep them from voting for the party that freed them. The O.D.s are the ones that still remember it was the Democrats during the civil rights movement that turned on the fire hoses and loosed the dogs on the civil rights activists in the 50s and 60s. It was the Democrats that raised the Confederate battle flag over all the municipal buildings in the south.
The O.D.s know that the party simply changed tactics when they lost the civil rights struggle, instead of beating and lynching people, they began to implement programs that stemmed the tide of independent minority progress both socially and economically, while appearing to be the party of the black man. Since we began to vote en masse for the democrats can we as the black community honestly say we are better off? With 70 percent of our children now being born out of wedlock and the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country? With our young men disproportionately represented in the nations jails and prisons and killing themselves in violent criminal activity in staggering numbers? This was not the case during my parents time nor was it the case when I was a kid in the 70’s when the liberal programs were just getting started, we are only now really seeing the bitter harvests that those programs are yielding.
Then you have the Black Democrat who if he is an elected official just may fall under the liberal umbrella depending on the level of indoctrination he fell victim to, I think our President falls under this category. The other elected official category is the Black Democrat who knows these programs are no good for the black community but he has sold himself out to the O.D.s for special favors. These are the real house negroes in the black community and they are represented in large numbers.
The Black Democrats are ofttimes virulently racist as well, so racist in fact that they do not think themselves capable of racism. I have heard such nonsensical rhetoric as, it is impossible for the black man to be racist because we don’t have the power to impose our racism institutionally. Let that be a comfort to you white folks if your Beamer stalls out on the corner of Mack and Bewick in Detroit and you are not there buying drugs.
The Black Democrat votes for the party primarily because they believe the Republican party is the party of white folks. The Democratic party has worked tirelessly to foster that belief and the Republican party has done little to combat that perception, despite a rich history of being the true party of equality.
Democrats can sometimes be reached with facts, liberals are completely indifferent to them, unless of course in those rare occasions where those facts have the virtue of agreeing with their varying realities.
I wrote an article last election day entitled, “The Bush Economy and the Politics of Ignorance”, which illustrated the unfortunate propensity liberals and democrats have to ignore empiricism in favor of rhetoric, emotionalism and racism if you haven’t read it you may find it worthy of your attention, I do hope everyone who voted democrat in that election reads it, as well as an article I wrote called, “Rahm and Hegel Sittin’ in a Tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G.” which includes a timeline of President Bush’s statements in warning of the then coming financial crisis and his attempts to stave it off. These articles and the following C-Span video offer enough evidence of the culpability of the Democrats in the collapse of Fannie and Freddie which triggered this economic malaise that Obama’s policies are only deepening.
It is time to stop calling this financial crisis the Bush economy and place it at the feet of those who truly are responsible. Democratic voters wake up! Liberals, well, take another Percocet.
Behold, You desire truth in the inner being; make me therefore to know wisdom in my inmost heart. Psalm 51: 6 (Source) - emphasis added

Digital Publius I wanna be like you when I grow up! Seriously he broke this down to the bone grissle. If my beloved friends don't understand now after his ever so succinct dissertation then I'll just have to give them over to their democrat, liberal or both reprobate minds.

Here is the video he referenced:

Obama's Mythography:An Orwellian Disaster

The following article was printed in the opinion section of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

President Barack Obama's Orwellian rhetoric has become absolutely pathological. And it's become so blatant that you can almost guarantee that the truth is the exact opposite of what he says. To wit:

The president insisted he had no intention of taking over Chrysler and General Motors.

He did.

The president calls "cap-and-trade" environmental legislation a "market-based" approach, based on "sound science."

It is not.

The president claims his health care reform plan is not "socialized medicine."

It is.

He claims it won't harm private insurance.

It will.

He claims service won't be rationed.

But to control costs as he proposes, it must be. (Even top aides concede the point.)

Mr. Obama says he supports "democracy" in Latin America.

How can he? He also supports the Marxist ways of Manuel Zelaya, legally removed from Honduras' presidency by the constitutional actions of the legislative and judicial branches.

And the examples of this president's mythography go on and on.

Some will dismiss Barack Obama's pronouncements merely as "rhetoric" and "posturing." "Everybody does it," they'll say. "It's politics."

But this is different and decidedly more dangerous: The president of the United States says one thing and does another and claims things that cannot possibly be.

Whether by delusion or by design, Barack Obama is being dishonest with the American people. And that is a harbinger of national disaster. (Source) - emphasis added

President Obama is a veritable Marxist but Americans are either too afraid to say that which is politically incorrect, too ignorant to realize it, or so filled with animus towards the U.S that they couldn't care less.

Winston Salem Woman (Vap) Has Two Degrees & No Job in Thirty Years...

Vap of Winston Salem, NC has two degrees and hasn't found a job in 30 years. She blames racism in spite of the fact that she is incredibly inarticulate and clearly daft. I was just listening to a podcast of yesterday's Mark Levin show and a woman called in to say that she had been "listenin' at" the previous callers and she wanted to make the point that she is a victim of racism and has not been able to work in her field of expertise in spite of the fact that she has two degrees. Vap says she has a degree in "sosology", the guest host Tom Marr asked her to repeat it and again she said she has a degree in "sosology" which was actually her second degree because she also has a degree in "bid'ness" administration. She continued to expound on the fact that she has been unable to find a decent job in 30 years (because of racism) and has therefore begun to see an "anthropologist" in order to document her life experience. Tom Marr then asked the caller where she obtained her two degrees and she said Winston-Salem State.


I write this only to plead from the depth of my heart for my brethren and "sisteren"to please stop crying foul and screaming racism especially if you are personally as dumb as a box of rocks - it's just not helping the cause. I realize that many don't realize that they aren't very bright but one could at the very least refrain from complaining about the lack of personal advancement and achievement when it's certain that YOU have not put forth your best intellectual effort.

This caller proved Tom Marr's point that Affirmative Action is doing more harm than good at this point in time. Clearly, Vap was under no compulsion to learn verb conjugation, speech, diction or even how to properly pronounce her major yet she expects an employer to hire her as a "sosologist"...lol. Listening to the clip of this woman extolling her educational (ahem) accomplishments one has to ask how in the heck did she graduate? How could any institution of higher learning confer upon her not one but two degrees?!?!

Here is the link to the show --Vap's clip is at the 1hour 27min 37sec point in the broadcast.

I'm willing to bet that a few of my readers will impugn The Mark Levin Show and his call screeners for giving Vap airtime.

Just A Reminder......

J.C. Ryle (1816-1900) wrote the following in Fire, Fire!:

Beware of manufacturing a god of your own: a god who is all mercy but not just, a god who is all love but not holy, a god who has a heaven for everybody but a hell for none, a god who can allow good and bad to be side by side in time, but will make no distinction between good and broad in eternity. Such a god is an idol of your own, as truly an idol as any snake or crocodile in an Egyptian temple. The hands of your own fancy and sentimentality have made him. He is not the God of the Bible, and beside the God of the Bible, there is no God at all.

Beware of making selections from your Bible to suit your taste. Dare not to say, ‘I believe this verse, for I like it. I refuse that, for I cannot reconcile it with my views’. Nay! But O man, who art thou that repliest against God? By what right do you talk in this way? Surely it were better to say over EVERY chapter in the word, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth”. Ah! If men would do this, they would never deny the unquenchable fire.

H/T to Unworthy1 who posted this quote on Defending.Contending!

Obama's Government Health Plan Will Look Like Public Schools

Geoffrey P. Hunt's illustration of ObamaCare, posted on American Thinker this morning is the most accurate and intelligently deconstructed piece I've read on the subject. If only I could communicate these concepts as cogently to the willfully ignorant Obama sycophants in my world. He writes:


Much of the speculation around Obama's health care reform centers around a single payer government monstrosity resembling either a larger bankrupt Medicare platform or the discredited national health schemes in Canada or the UK. Yet it's just as likely Obama's inspiration is the failed public school model.

The government school monopoly, compulsory with mediocre results, unaffordable and ungovernable with beleaguered local taxpayers hopelessly unable to force accountability from teachers' unions co-dependent with democrat party legislators, is a perfect model for Obama to finance and ration health care for the masses.

Who can argue against the noble objectives of universal healthcare? Horace Mann's education reform exhortations in the late 1830's and 40's were eerily parallel to the pitch for Obama today: full inclusion, mandatory attendance, standardized pedagogy, along with coerced community participation by virtue of local taxes providing funding. It promised to eradicate illiteracy, violence and vice. For decades, the payoff was impressive. But one hundred years later, Mann's idealism would be corrupted by John Dewey's progressive advocacy of self esteem replacing subject matter mastery. Finally, any hope for high performance pedagogy was thoroughly crushed by President John F. Kennedy's executive order enabling collective bargaining and unionization of public school teachers. It is safe to expect none of Mann's idealism but all of today's public school abominations will shape Obama's health care system.

In a seductive overture to private health plan stalwarts, Obama says the government health care system will not be a mandatory substitute for private health care preferences, only an option. Of course those who remain in a private system will face double jeopardy -- covering their own private medical costs while suffering higher federal taxes to pay for somebody else's -- in the same manner that private school parents, opting out of horrible local public schools for far better independent alternatives, must pay private school tuition while still shouldering ever escalating property and state income taxes to educate those poor wretches who cannot escape the government's incompetence.

Those who cannot afford private health care, whose employers would rather pay higher taxes instead of underwriting actual medical claims, will also be victimized just as parents with no choice have to send their children to lousy government schools. Want to see what demotivated clock watchers -- doctors and nurses alike -I n a government run clinic would look like? Just spend a few hours in a typical public high school faculty lounge. Want to see what government hospital administrators consumed by micro-management of trivialities would look like? Just spend a few hours at a typical Public School Board or School Committee meeting.

And who would thwart the temptations for the government health care bureaucrats to regulate medical care provided by private institutions who accept federal grants for medical research? Check out the hostility towards home schoolers these days from State Boards of Education . And given the enthusiasm shown by Congressman Barney Frank and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner alike for government control over compensation of executives running government financed private companies, why wouldn't they have an equally big appetite to regulate pay and benefits for doctors wherever they practice? Tenure for marginal practitioners and those twelve step compensation tables embedded in nearly all teachers' contracts wouldn't be far behind.

Well at least one group of health care professionals might vote for the Obama health care public school model -- medical residents. Imagine trading off those legendary 36 hour shifts for three months vacation every summer. But such relief would be short lived as civil service exams, just like state mandated teacher certifications, would soon be more important than Medical Board exams. After all, isn't government run enterprise all about proving mediocrity can be delivered consistently to everybody while pretending to actually know something about anything.

Obama showed his hand in yanking the school vouchers in the DC school system. When private choice threatened to disinfect the stubborn bacteria in DC's public schools, choice was flushed. Expect more of the same under Obama's public school system look-alike for health care. (Source)-emphasis added

The Unproductive, Undead Are Coming After You...."Who Are You Gonna Call?"

I don't think ghostbusters are going to be able to stand against these power hunger zombies. H/T to JudyBright who posted this Andrew Klavin video on another site. It's entitled the night of the Living government:




"Every dollar that the government takes is one less dollar of freedom for you and one more dollar of power for them"

Not sure I've ever processed this concept in this way but the simple truth of this statement hit me like a ton of bricks. For those of us who are desirous of financial freedom, all of the new taxes we are hearing about in the "state run media" are so depressing because they move the mark (financial freedom) farther and farther away.

Since The Real God Is Not Welcome In America, It's Only Natural That He Would Be Replaced

The pathology of liberalism becomes more apparent daily. They despise anyone would professes deep and abiding love the the Lord Jesus Christ and regard people of faith as stupid, nonthinking, anti-intellectuals. Yet they abject themselves before an adulation seeker and bestow all manner of wisdom, experience, compassion and superhuman abilities upon him. Equally infuriating to liberals are men who aren't seeking adulation as these liberals want someone to adulate. It is very sick.

Evan Thomas says:
"Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial."

Then Thomas elaborates on Obama as God, as he patronizingly says:

"He's going to bring all different sides together...Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn't even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He's all about let us reason together...He's the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he – he can – he can do that.

HE HAS THE MORAL AUTHORITY? What???!!!! Authority given by whom? Well, Rush Limbaugh now calls the media "State-Run Media" and he couldn't be more correct. I guess the state run media along with Obama sycophants and various other Liberal-types have bestowed said authority upon The counterfeit One.

Further, what an arrogant airhead Evan Thomas is -- Who's he referring to when he says "children?" Oh, yes how could I have forgotten to the Modern Liberal Americans are children and so following their pathological logic the leaders of the world must be children as well and Obama the leader of the World not just America is the benevolent "Father" aka counterfeit "god the father" (can't bring myself to capitalize it but you get my point). Well, If Barack Obama is god then I AM AN ATHEIST!

I am reminded of a very scary book I read by C.S Lewis several years ago called The Heinous Strength. I can't help but think about the spiritual apostasy which abounds in this age and how the the spirit of anti-Christ can appear as light to those who are not spiritually discerning. I'm not saying that President Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ but if those who are called to be salt and light have no concerns about following and supporting this man, its going to be a veritable cake walk when the real Anti-Christ comes.

Why Are Conservatives So Mean?

H/T to Constructive Feedback for turning me on to this Pajama TV production that I missed.




Kanye West says "George Bush don't care about black people" that statement still makes my blood boil some 8 years later. Likewise whenever I hear grown men talk about which politicians "care" about black people and which politicians don't "care" about black people I want to scream...."YOU ARE A GROWN-AZZ MAN WHY DO YOU NEED ANOTHER GROWN-AZZ MAN OR WOMAN EMPLOYED AS A POLITICIAN TO CARE ABOUT YOU?" I seriously can't see how anyone with the slightest modicum of self-respect could utter such a thing. Why in the world can't they take care of themselves? Are they retarded? Are they daft? Are they children? Hell, even children eagerly await the day when they can take care of themselves as they protest "I can do it, let me do it" but then these kids grow up to be democrats and suddenly someone else is expected to "do it" and the liberal democrat is all too willing to make the promises. Except that these "promises" of a false utopianism where every one's need is met is really just a tyranny in disguise. But it sounds so wonderful all of this Hope & Change. President Obama never really spelled out exactly what "Hope & Change" was but I think everyone implicitly understands what he was speaking of. But FDR did spell it out in his 1944 State of the Union address some call it the "2nd Bill of Rights":

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

This all sounds pretty good except that it is Utopia. Grown-ups realize that all of these things are possible and good but it is not a function of government to secure these things for you. It is up to you the individual to provide for your sustenance and well being as it should be. Grown-ups are not willing to give up personal freedom in order to have our needs met by the state. I illustrated this concept to my daughter this way--We would be willing to support you financially for the rest of our natural lives and meet your every need if and only if you live at home with us, go out with only those friends that we choose and allow us to go too if we want to, and you can never ever marry or have sex--do we have a deal? She said no. What a smart child young woman.

Andrew Thomas Asks: Do Liberals Crave A Master?

Umm, yes. But here is what Andrew Thomas had to say over at American Thinker this morning (You know the drill my comments in red):

Everybody's looking for something...
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree? - Eurythmics


Contemporary liberals, having abandoned the belief in God-given inalienable rights, masochistically crave a worldly master. This master is a sadistic god-substitute who will provide the stern discipline needed to force economic equality and "fairness" by requiring painful sacrifices and bestowing government-created rights onto obedient and acquiescent groups of left-leaning masochists. (Flashback--yesterday's press-conference (although I'm not sure you could call it that since Pres. Obama didn't field any questions) where he tells us we will be required to "sacrifice".)

Of course, I am not referring to the sexual variety of masochism, but rather the recognized psychosis of moral masochism. Large segments of the population, and even entire nations can suffer from this illness as described in Daniel Rancour-Laferriere's book, "The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering". (Yes, black folks have begun to display framed pictures of the Obama's on the wall of their foyers. Just like the old folks used to display pictures of MLK, JFK and Jesus)

First, some re-definitions: In the same derogatory fashion liberals refer to contemporary Conservatives as "neocons", I will label this group as "neolibs" going forward. I feel this is appropriate, as the Liberal movement has taken a decidedly leftward leap and become more radicalized in their outward behavior in the last few years, and is therefore a new phenomenon.

In most conservative writing (Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, and more recently Mark Levin) the common theme is the sanctity of individual freedom and liberty. The conservative is an individualist and an independent thinker, as opposed to those who primarily identify themselves as members of a group. The term "conservative" is a misnomer for this philosophy, as it connotes a preservation of the status quo, or even a "regressive" yin to the "Progressive" yang. This is why I believe a more appropriate label for conservative philosophy is "individualist", and I will refer to it in this manner for the remainder of this article. (Somehow being an individualist and looking out for the concerns of yourself and your family has fallen out of vogue. It's more noble somehow to gleefully accept the Federal Government's extractions of your money in order to care for the needs of the collective.)

Next, a pop-psychology primer: individualists gravitate toward existential thinking, or a view of the world where individuals have complete freedom of choice and take full responsibility for the results of those choices. This mandates that choices must be made with a logical evaluation to determine the potential consequences. The impartial evaluation of phenomena to determine the truth is an offshoot of existentialism known as phenomenology. The phenomenologist is rational and emotionally detached from the subject of analysis, eliminating judgment and perception. Once the perceptions of reality are stripped away as much as possible, the phenomenologist then attempts to perform an insightful analysis of the object to determine what is real or "true". I believe that many individualists tend to be effective phenomenologists due to their ability to separate themselves from group-think and emotional judgment. Therefore, let's use the phenomenological process to analyze the "Neolib as masochist" theory. (Fancy that, a new word to describe conservative thought -- phenomenology. Henceforth I shall refer to myself as an phenomenologist.)

In our first analysis, we will impartially examine Neolib behavior. Objectively listen to Janeane Garofalo in the Youtube video linked to her name. In listening to neolibs such as Janeane speak, it is evident that they appear to be driven predominantly by emotion rather than logic. Just reviewing an alphabetical list of emotions, as extracted from a list in Wikipedia, lends itself to describing neolib behavior:

Anger,
Angst,
Anxiety,
Compassion,
Contempt,
Despair,
Disgust,
Empathy,
Envy,
Guilt,
Hatred,
Hope,
Hostility,
Hysteria,
Rage,
Shame,
Suffering,
Worry.

(Wow, I'm wondering if Mr. Thomas has been reading my blog comments and using UptownSteve, etal as the prototype for the Neolib)

Anyone who views the world through these emotions would naturally feel threatened when interpreting individualists' behavior. The neolib typically projects hatred, bigotry, selfishness, and greed onto the individualist when there is no physical evidence to support the interpretation. The strong passions exhibited by neolibs, coupled with delusions of persecution, foster these masochistic tendencies. (Delusions of persecution? Well, slavery wasn't an illusion but some are choosing to be "persecuted" by it in 2009 and taking the term "never forget" to a whole different dimension)

Now let's objectively review the initiatives in the neolib agenda: Environmentalism, global passivism, overpopulation, socialized healthcare, and promoting government intervention into all aspects of life. All of these priorities require individuals to sacrifice their lifestyles, their income, and/or their basic comforts. (I'm thinking that Obama supporters just don't see it that way....although I'm not sure how they rationalize it because the discourse never seems to advance beyond racism and the presumed "buck dancing" of the black conservative...ahem, I mean the black phenomenologist)

This past week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory..." in order to sacrifice ourselves to the gods of global warming. As presidential candidate Obama said, "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times..." He seems to indicate that he wants us to starve and freeze. (Well 72 degrees is hardly freezing but when it's 13 degrees outside I should be free to turn my thermostat to 82 degrees if I want to and as long as I'm paying the utility bill. It's very sad and rather astounding how many really smart people have bought into this global warming scam. I guess all it takes to convince the masses is a movie.)

Most of these initiatives involve the inflicting of pain and misery. Tom Daschle, in his book "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis" says health-care reform "will not be pain free" and that seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of having them treated. In other words, you will suffer a slow agonizing death under government mandate. (I think it's fascinating that the black quasi-socialist fundamentalist progressive racism chasers aren't all over this. I guess they think that as long as we have a black POTUS that black senior citizens will get preferential treatment under ObamaCare)

As a final phenomenological exercise, impassively observe the level of neolib support for this agenda. It has not appeared to wane. In fact, neolib fervor continues to increase as the promised level of suffering increases. (I fully expect Neolibs to lie about the level of suffering they either have or will experience. Over the Memorial day weekend I was in conversation with Neolib, racism chasing friends who declared that the quality of life was better for them under the Clinton administration than the Bush administration. Because I was in mixed company I fought with every fiber of my being not to call them liars but they were lying through their teeth! These fools purchased cars,boats, furs, Rolexes and more as the pulled equity out of their homes and lived LARGE. Now that the loans have reset and the mortgage payments have increased they are blaming George Bush. I guess these well educated black professionals of PG county were duped. It's couldn't be they made bad decisions based on greed or a desire to keep up with the Joneses or in their cases the "Washington's" - lol)

According to Rancour-Laferriere, increasing Russian masochism coincided with the rise of the Soviet Union and Communism, although it was pervasive in the soul of Russia prior to that. The conclusion to this analysis is that as neolib moral masochism increases, so does the emotional need for an all-powerful master to govern them. As the governing master becomes more dominant and disciplinarian, the masochism is reinforced and the spiral continues.
(Well, I know nothing about Russians but I do know that as long as those who identify as Christians adopt the basic tenets of liberalism and fail to confront and openly admonish behaviors that lead to failure over behaviors that lead to success in the name of "tolerance" then we will continue to "need" government assistance. So that there is no confusion I'll just say what I mean -- as long as we accept our daughter dressing up like little (or big) harlots; and accept and sometimes encourage our sons to have several girlfriends; as long as we allow our sons to impregnate women without marrying them; or as long as we take our daughter's to get birth control pills instead of instilling in them as early as possible to abstain until marriage; as long as we allow our sons to turn a buck by any means necessary rather than study and excel in school in order to go to college or the military then all manner socially undesirable manifestations will ensue which ultimately lead to dependence of the government either in the form of welfare or the prison system.)

Is there a cure? Self-destructive behavior is very difficult to overcome. Many years ago in an Abnormal Psychology class, I studied the case of a group of young adults who would continually pound their heads against a wall until they became bloody pulps. Psychologists found that the only thing that would interrupt their behavior was a 9,000 volt shock from a cattle prod. (I hope my little space in the blogosphere can serve as a ideological cattle prod)

This is probably an impractical solution. Since 45% of the nation thinks we are going in the right direction, there are too many neolibs and too few cattle prods.

Sultan Knish Asks What's Wrong with A Little Wealth Distribution Anyway?

Blogger Sultan Knish posted the following article today. You'll find my comments in red.

Word that the Obama Administration may have used its power over Chrysler's restructuring process to shut down dealerships whose owners donated to Republican candidates, while leaving open dealerships that donated to Obama is spreading across conservative blogs. But while this kind of abuse of government power is shocking, it really shouldn't be. (I really hope that this isn't true. Will we ever know? If it is true, how do you Obama supporters feel about that? Is corruption OK as long as it's Barack Obama...you know, retribution for all of the foulness of white politicians throughout the annals of time?)



Government is an engine of wealth redistribution, and when it gains control of businesses, it redistributes wealth in a way that benefits its supporters. That is what government always does, no matter how it disguises it.

That is why despite all the leftist wishful thinking in the world, centrally planned economies are corrupt, inept and inefficient. (Wishful thinking or just plain "back-azzward" thinking?)

The free market operates based on profit motive. A store owner's goal is to sell products in order to earn a profit. If he provides discounts, he has to do it based on an economic incentive, for example selling at a lower cost per unit to a purchaser who buys large quantities. A store owner who sells products at a lower price to Democrats and at a higher price to Republicans, or who sells at a lower price to whites and at a higher price to blacks... is hurting his own profit margins and so is really hurting himself. The profit motive "purifies" economic behavior in the free market to a degree. By contrast within government there is no "purifier", except the legal system, which is also controlled by the government. (Well, that's as it should be according to Obama and Sotomayor)

A government's economic behavior is controlled by politicians who have only one goal, Patronage. Politicians gain control of resources in order to reward their supporters. This takes the form of providing government contracts or jobs to the individual supporters. It also takes the form of providing general forms of aid targeted at their base, e.g. welfare, union jobs. (Most people understand this and acknowledge the truthfulness of this statement-- but fail to take it to it's logical conclusion as described in the next paragraph)

When government gains control of businesses, it naturally goes into wealth redistribution mode and begins providing patronage to the supporters of the ruling party. Communist countries are a example of the system taken to its limits, with the entire economy controlled by the ruling party and wealth distributed to supporters of the party, based on their level of support and affiliation. (I've concluded that while Obama supporters will acknowledge that most politicians are panderers and beholden in some form or another to some group or organization, they fail to acknowledge that the "love-child" of pandering/beholdeness and expanding government is soft tyranny. They seem incapable of connecting the dots when it comes to Obama)

The more wealth the Federal government took in and gave out, the more it got into the patronage business. And that corrupted the free market and the national economy. Where individual businesses have economic disincentives for practicing discrimination or handing out wasteful contracts, the government has none.

Where individual free market profit is economic in nature, governments spend money in order to reward supporters and expand their base of support. Everything the Obama regime has done is textbook Machiavelli, but it is also the inevitable result of letting the same government that has treated the national budget as a pork barrel take holds of banks and the auto industry. (Yet, Obama supporters are perplexed and wondering why "wingnuts" like yours truly won't get off of Obama's case. Makes you wonder who the real "wingnuts" are doesn't it?)

No doubt there is a long list of industries that Obama will be happy to "bail out", and by bail out, we mean of course spend billions in taxpayer owned debt to take over, carve up and hand out to their supporters.

The rape of the American auto industry by Obama and his henchmen was a classic case of a gang of politicians robbing the country blind in order to provide patronage to their backers, both at the union and the dealership level. But that is par for the course.

Obama promised to fix the capitalist arrogance of the free market with some wealth redistribution, which is a lot like a mugger telling you that he can cure your credit card debt by taking all your money. Now we're seeing just how far that mugging went and how many victims it's leaving behind. And we're not done yet.

If the initial phase was the mugging, the next phase is that the beating the mugger dished out transmitted a disease which is now in the veins of his victim. When government takes control of an industry, it immediately promotes rent seeking behavior in order to increase its own wealth and power. This naturally drives up the cost of everything, produces inferior products and adds layers on bureaucracy on top of everything. (Oh Joy! Hope and Change is Mother.....isn't it?)

CAFE and a big package of regulations will insure that Chrysler and GM produce cars that meet the standards of the left, and that no one will actually want to buy or drive. The government naturally will buy the cars, both for itself, and subsidize their purchase for the "disadvantaged." Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac will have an auto buddy who exists to insure the "right" of everyone to own a car, with loans to people who can't pay them, for cars they can't afford. (Obama supporter: What's the matter with that?)

If Obama gets his way, the US auto industry will wind up looking like its Soviet counterpart, a government subsidized white elephant that will benefit no one but politicians and their supporters. And it will once again serve as a textbook example of what's wrong with wealth redistribution, and how absolute government power over the free market, corrupts it absolutely into patronage. (Source)-emphasis added

Emancipation Revelation Revolution

Bob Parks of Black And Right uploaded these videos on Youtube in 2006 with the permission of the producer Nina May. Every black person who is a Democrat party loyalist with an express disdain for all things Republican and an acute contempt for the Black Conservative should watch these short video excerpts.

Emancipation Revelation Revolution:: Part 1


Emancipation Revelation Revolution:: Part 2


Emancipation Revelation Revolution:: Part 3


I'm not sure if I'm more saddened or amazed as I am asked almost weekly "how could you as a black woman think this way or that?" My answer--because I'm free to stand on my principles. I'm not shackled by "group think". Shelby Steele aptly describes The Black Conservative as the "Free-est people in the United States". It's a beautiful thing.

Survival Strategies For Apostate Times by John MacArthur

Survival Strategy For Apostate Times, Part 1::Grace to You

Survival Strategy For Apostate Times, Part 2::Grace to You

Survival Strategy For Apostate Times, Part 3::Grace to You

H/T to Job at Jesus Christology who posted this series this evening. John MacArthur is one of my favorite preacher/teachers and once again in this series Pastor MacArthur "unleashes God's truth one verse at a time" as he answers these questions: "How do we contend for the truth? How do we preserve the truth? How do we protect the church and the people that are coming to the church desiring to know the truth? How do we protect ourselves? How do we survive in increasingly apostate times? And Paul, of course, told Timothy at the end of his life that evil men will grow worse and worse. And Paul indicated in his letter to the Thessalonians that the apostasy would escalate as you got closer to the end. How do we survive? How do we protect the truth? How do we engage in a triumphant battle in the midst of apostasy?

He discusses the lack of discernment within the church:"Why is there such a lack of discernment? Reason number one, because there's a weakening of doctrinal clarity and conviction. A cheap gospel, as it's called, easy believism, tolerance, unity, openness, there is a negative attitude toward being narrowed toward being doctrinal. There's even a negative attitude towards saying this is a true interpretation and that is not. It seems like everybody is entitled to his own spin on everything. The church has been invaded with liberalism, psychology, charismaticism, politicism. It's forced its way into the church and, of course, whenever error wants to find a place in the church, it has to find a way to get rid of dogmatism. The only way that error can be accepted in the church is if people are no longer going to hold a doctrinal standard. And so that's what happens. These forces that are outside the Bible demand acceptance, demand a place in the church and so they push dogmatism aside. The emphasis in the church then goes from preaching doctrine to the mind for the purpose of people giving greater glory to God through His Word, to inducing pleasant emotion, pleasant feeling, good feeling, fun, personal comfort, etc. Worship descends from singing truths about God, lyric-centered music full of theology, to that Seven-Eleven music, seven words repeated eleven times which is dominated by volume, rhythm, harmony, to induce warm, fuzzy and sensual moods. So you have a weakening of doctrinal clarity and conviction. People don't know what doctrines they believe, they're not clear on them and they don't have convictions about them. (this is why so many in the body of Christ support Barack Obama-CBW's words not John MacArthur's)

Pastor MacArthur aptly describes this as "Spiritual Terrorism" he says: "Failure to confront spiritual terrorists destroyed the church at Pergamos, they allowed some who held the teaching of Balaam, they allowed some who held the teaching of the Nicolaitans and it destroyed the church and the Lord says, "If you don't repent, I'm going to come quickly and make war against you with the sword out of My mouth." It destroyed the church at Thyatira because they tolerated the woman Jezebel who taught the people to commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. As I told you, it destroyed the church at Sardis and soiled their garments. And on the other hand, there was the church of Smyrna in Revelation 2 that maintained its purity and the church at Philadelphia that maintained its purity and God promised them a blessing. Churches that stop spiritual terrorism at its border by profiling them, understanding who they are, protect themselves and then face the incredible responsibility to give those same terrorists the gospel. To this we are called, to this great challenge."

What a powerful message. What are you going to do? Pick up your cross and follow Christ or mind your business as you strive for tolerance and political correctness?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor An Exemplary Illustration Of Far Left Justices

Charles Krauthammer Reacts To Sotomayor Pick for the Supreme Court:




Charles Krauthammer has hit the nail on the proverbial head yet again as he suggests that identity politics is the mother's milk of the far left. This couldn't be more clearly illustrated with President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I personally find it very difficult to get behind the nomination of a judge who is heralded as an intellectual sharp-shooter but who in my opinion has allowed her alleged above average intellect to be overruled by her obvious propensity towards grievance or identity politics.

Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case, is currently in front of the U.S. Supreme. Writing in the Washington Post, George Will provides a one paragraph précis of the case:

In 2003, the city [of New Haven, Connecticut] gave promotion exams--prepared by a firm specializing in employment tests, and approved, as federal law requires, by independent experts--to 118 candidates, 27 of them black. None of the blacks did well enough to qualify for the 15 immediately available promotions. After a rabble-rousing minister with close ties to the mayor disrupted meetings and warned of dire political consequences if the city promoted persons from the list generated by the exams, the city said: No one will be promoted. Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters, a decision that her colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Judge Jose Cabranes, writes The New Republic's Jeffery Rosen, denounced as containing "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (source)

This trend of "sticking it to the man" in order to "even the playing field" is going to prove detrimental to all minorities in the long run. Principle matters. Allowing personal prejudices to impede our decision to stand on that which is right is a recipe for civil unrest. Things are going to get very ugly.

Nothing New Under The Sun...Ronald Reagan On Socialized Medicine

There is absolutely nothing new under the sun. The Statist, Socialist, Collectivist call them whatever you'd like have been trying to usurp the liberty this country provides for years. I keep stumbling upon more and more historical evidence to support this fact. Ronald Reagan delivered this speech in 1961 when he was still a private citizen decrying the dangers of socialized medicine. I don't know what is will take to convince these imbecilic Obama acolytes to look past their paranoia that people are coming against The Black Man and consider how the Obama Plan is disastrous. The effect of the "changes" he is implementing will linger long after his time in office.


I love the way he says "guvment".

Transcript:

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States. (Sort of like the Chrysler, GM take over last week)

But at the moment I would like to talk about another one because this threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. (Unfortunately, Mr. Reagan American are quite a bit stupider in 2009 than in 1961 and they don't let facts get in the way of their emotions)

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. This would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.

Now Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, "If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that. Walter Ruth said, it’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. (Yep, that about sums up the unholy alliance of our Statist-in-Chief and the unions he is beholden to)

Now let us see what the socialist themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can't say we haven't been warned. (Nope, we surely can't say that we haven't been, but again Mr. Reagan--Some folks are too invested in the success of Barack Obama and other are just too damn dumb to consider history...they are incapable of digesting information unless it's in 45 second sound byte form)

Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in the particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance. (Yes, much like today's liberals would have you believe that people go without health care when in reality some people between the ages of 22-40 choose not to carry insurance because they are healthy, the poor are covered under medicaid and it's against the law for an emergency room to deny critical care due to lack of insurance. They tout this propaganda because the general populous accepts and recapitulates it.)

Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis and say,” What would you do?" "Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?"

That's ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mill bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.

What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is the frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the states to help those people who need it.

Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless if they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time; socialized medicine.

James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Well of course, but again we are not working with extremely thoughtful people at this point in time.They have abandoned all sensibilty for the prospect of "Hope & Change" -- poor dopes)

They want to attach this bill to social security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.

Let's take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries. (Many Americans didn't get this memo)

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to another.

But let's also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. A doctor begins to lose his freedom, it's like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go. (Are you kidding me Mr. Reagan, who cares about RICH doctors losing their freedom?)

This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I'd feel if you my fellow citizens, that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theatre. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. (Established precedents? What's that? Who has the energy or inclination to find out? Not many, especially if they are liberal democratic drones)

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world's history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution just exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man's relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves, the God given right and ability, to determine our own destiny. This freedom is built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rules all that is needed. The majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minority. ("The minority"? Racist. How dare you say "minority" Mr. Reagan! It doesn't matter what else you say, Black folks will not hear it because you had the unadulterated gall to say "minority". Of course I'm being sarcastic but I know how black folks think as a matter of fact I have volumes of documentation entombed in the comment section of this site)

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking. Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, "When the American people wants" something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want. So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don't let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don't tax to get the moneys the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from his constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now and call your friends and them to write. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don't do this and I don't do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free. (Bingo! That time is now)

The Low Art Of Political Seduction

Rush Limbaugh discusses Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame on his show yesterday. He pointed out that Barack Obama is a master at the "Low Art of Political Seduction" Mark Levin describes Obama as a charismatic demagogue. They are right....



Rush goes on to say:

"This is not about abortion. This is about the low art of political seduction. This is about Newspeak. This is about turning what is immoral into the moral. This is about Barack Obama persuading the people of this country to vote against their own very interests all the time. This abortion discussion today is just an illustration, is just an example of it. It's the most recent one since it happened yesterday. We're not debating abortion. Now, you might think so because I'm asking some questions about what Obama said. If there's nothing wrong with it, then why all this confusion, if there's nothing wrong with abortion, why all this stress, why all this tension? And where do you compromise here? I don't know where the moderate, middle ground is on life and death. I just don't know where it is. I don't know where you compromise on victory and defeat. I don't know where you compromise on good and bad, good and evil, I don't know where you compromise on it. But see, we're supposed to compromise on everything, and for that to happen, notice Obama is not changing his position. We have to change ours, because of his successful practice of the low art of political seduction."

I think it is simply amazing that we are witnessing 1984, and Animal Farm. Was George Orwell some sort of prophet or what? But the ideology of the left is exactly as Rush contends that which is moral is immoral because it isn't politically correct to offend. The positively astonishing part about this in my humble opinion is how easily Christians have accepted this "Orwellian morality" and just like Obama they cherry pick the message of Jesus Christ to accommodate anything and everyone. In fact, why isn't the left up in arms? He invoked Jesus Christ in his speech. He invoked the name of Christ. Where's separation of church and state? The president of the United States at a commencement speech went out and talked about Jesus Christ and detailed how he was delivered to Christ(ahem, really?). Now, you let George Bush or somebody go to Notre Dame and make this speech, I guarantee you that's what they're going to be focusing on, how the Republican president should not enforce and impose his religious views on people. What did we get but Obama imposing his religious views, or attempting to have us justify or accept his? It's the low art of political seduction.

Rush goes on to say: (I couldn't get all of this in the video clip I'm new to movie maker):

"I'm illustrating the low art of political seduction practiced by President Obama, how he just made a speech advocating a point of view or suggesting that we peacefully co-exist here, but he didn't detail his position here. I want you to know what his position is in his own words. This is in the Illinois state Senate, April of 2002." (Then he plays an audio clip of Barack Obama from 2002:)

OBAMA: And that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

RUSH: Now, here he is talking about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and why he was going to vote against it. And he voted against it three times, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, because it would be a burden to bring in another doctor, okay, the abortion doctor botches it, so you gotta bring in a third doctor to save the baby. That's a burden on the first doctor. It's a burden on the second doctor; it's a burden on the mother, who intended to abort. Here's Obama, August 16, 2008. This is Lake Forest, California, after the Saddleback Civil Forum with Rick Warren, the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody talked to Obama, said, "Real quick, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill."

OBAMA: Here is a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely and fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born, even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill -- a law already in place in Illinois that ensured lifesaving treatment was given to infants. So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous.

RUSH: Well, play number nine real quick again. He says ridiculous? Well, let's listen to number nine again. (He played the soundbyte below)

OBAMA: And that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

RUSH: Now, if he's going to start calling people liars, we're going to have to ignore what he said on three different occasions in order not to call him[self] one.

Amazing....utterly amazing.

Why I Voted Democrat....

Bear who blogs at The Absurd Report compiled the following satirical list of reasons for voting Democrat:

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.
I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.
I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.
I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Those who vote Democrat clearly have not followed their platforms through to the logic conclusions.

Unwed Mom Boom Threatens The Sanctity Of Gay Marriage

Oh my Lord...Yes, you have read this right. It seems the chronically aggrieved homosexuals at Defense of Gay Marriage Association (DOGMA) are angry with heterosexual women for being all skankie and whatnot and popping out babies without the benefit of marriage. Who could make this stuff up?!? Seriously, proponents of GAY MARRIAGE are getting all moral, sanctimonious and downright persnickety. Yes, this is very bizarre "dogma" indeed. Whatever happened to live and let live? I just can't understand how two women who bump coochies and two men who....I shudder to think what they do have the unmitigated impudence to talk about that which is sanctified? I picked up this little snippet below from Scott Ott over at ScrappleFace:


"(2009-05-14) — The boom in childbirth by unwed mothers has some American homosexuals concerned about the sanctity of their newly-minted marriages, according to a spokesman for the Defense of Gay Marriage Association (DOGMA).
Some 40 percent of all children are now born to unwed mothers, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Among minority groups, the news is even more stunning. Black single Moms give birth at twice the White rate, and Hispanic solo mothers bear babies at triple the rate.
“All of this is bad news for the institution of traditional gay marriage,” said the unnamed source at DOGMA. “It’s hard not to see this as another example of homophobia. Gays finally start getting the right to marry, and what happens? We see straights abandoning the practice. Heterosexual bigots are looking at marriage and apparently saying, ‘That’s so gay!’”
The advocacy group claims that no society has survived the collapse of the institution of marriage, and it backs a Constitutional amendment forcing cohabiting couples to wed." (Source) - Emphasis added

I'm not saying that all gay people are liberal but these DOGMA people must be because this is some twisted, Orwellian, Bizzarro world business here. Yet another example of liberal hypocrisy -- where is their tolerance? Aren't they "judging" these unwed mothers? Who are they to say that "marriage" is better for children or for humanity than singleness? Not that I disagree with the basic premise but I'm an evil, narrow-minded, self-hating, black conservative -- naturally I'd feel that way. But not the enlightened ones? Say it isn't so?

Update: Well, This was a parody---thank God! But, it fooled the heck out of me because it's soooo believable. Thanks daddyquatro for clearing this up. -- Sincerely Boo-Boo the fool aka CBW.

Barack Obama's Declaration of Dependence by Pamela Meister

I read this bit of satire below I had a good chuckle but the more I think about it....I'm not sure I shouldn't have been crying.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one Messiah to dissolve the historic bonds that have connected his subjects with the fundamental beliefs of a bunch of dead white guys, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Marx entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, womyn, transgendered and questioning individuals deserve equal division of goods, that they are endowed by Me with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to abort life, servitude to the state, and the pursuit of taxpayer-supported benefits. That to secure these rights, government is instituted in Me, deriving my just powers from the consent of a Democrat Congress, ACORN, and Universal Voluntary Public Service. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of Me to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Big Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing (with the help of the groups previously named) My powers in such form, as to Me shall seem most likely to effect My subjects' safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that My government short established should be changed for causes I deem appropriate; and accordingly all my inexperience hath shown that personkind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the oppressive regime instituted by dead white men to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce my subjects under absolute Evil Capitalism, it is My right, it is My duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future Social Security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these downtrodden victims of Evil Capitalists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. This history of the present Representative Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute freedom for these victims. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a slavering mainstream media.

This Representative Republic was founded on the principles of limited government, and does not allow Me to make all decisions without impunity.

This Representative Republic allows for too many States' rights.

This Representative Republic allows Me to serve only two terms in the highest office in the land.

This Representative Republic allows for too much personal freedom, assuming that individuals know best how to spend the money that they earn and how best to live their lives.

This Representative Republic allows for the free market, not all-knowing bureaucrats, to right any wrongs in the economy.

This Representative Republic expects judges to uphold, not enact, law.

This Representative Republic allows private citizens to own firearms, thus allowing them to protect themselves and their family from all intrusions (including those from government).

This Representative Republic does not guarantee electoral outcomes for any one particular party - namely, My party.

This Representative Republic guarantees citizens equality before the law - not social justice as defined by activist judges and legislators.

In every stage of these oppressions, I have petitioned for redress in the least humble terms: My repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Representative Republic, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define oppressive Evil Capitalism, is unfit to be the government of a people yearning for Hope and Change.

Nor have I been wanting in attention to my Global Citizen brethren. I have warned them from time to time of their attempts by their elected leaders to follow in the footsteps of the United States. I have reminded them of the circumstances of America's many mistakes. I have appealed to their systems of justice and social programs, which I hope to emulate. I have also appealed to our enemies, as I have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow the usurpations of America, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces America's sovereignty, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, superiors in war, in peace superiors.

I, therefore, the Messiah of the United States of America, acting of my own volition, appealing to Myself for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of Myself, solemnly publish and declare that the United States ought to be dependent states; that they are absolved from the Tenth Amendment, and that all political connection between them and the Federal Government, is and ought to be of a dependent nature; and that as subservient and dependent states and citizens thereof, they have no power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, or do any other acts and things without express permission from Federal Government thus represented by Me. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Nanny State, I pledge to oversee your lives, your fortunes, and what is left of your sacred honor.



Signed,






No other signatories needed
(Source)

Barack Obama Defunds Historically Black Colleges & Universities

s
I readily admit that my thinking is not clear when it comes to Historically Black Colleges & Universities. I actually feel terribly guilty about the fact that I feel they are obsolete, their admission standard are too low and I am utterly heartbroken that my daughter has decided to attend one. Now before you all start beating me up...save your wrath because I am beating myself up about it. But, hey at least I'm honest about it and I have four years to work through my angst...I guess. Unless she transfers (one can only hope).

On the heels of destroying the DC voucher program, the Obama administration is now reportedly planning to cut $85 million of federal dollar which HBCU's have relied on since 2007. The White House notes, however, that HBCUs would benefit in the long run from other direct government funding, which would mean a hike of about $12 million – raising the amount of federal dollars to $250 million. But, as Black-college leaders point out, the cessation of the specific fund would mean a $73 million reduction. Here is the kicker, which really illustrates Barack Obama's incredible hubris or stupidity I'm not sure which but,"Obama contends that under his education plan, Black colleges would be able to better serve Black students because of a $200increase in the maximum Pell Grant – taking the total allowance to $5,550...." On second thought Obama just thinks black folks are stupid. Well, I guess 96% of us are --that is the 96% of ya'll that voted for his monkey azz.

Hey Kanye, judging from this it isn't President Bush who DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE, is it? It's America's first Black President in the person of Barack Obama who doesn't appear to give a tinker's damn about black people and in approximately 114 days has managed to inflict harm on black children TWICE.

I hope this opens up the eyes of the blind. Neither the democrat party, liberals, or Barack Obama give two shades left of a good G**damn about black people. It's all about power for politicians-- the acquistion and perservation of power. Black folks have it twisted and until we stop expecting politicians to "care" about us and seeing ourselves as some sort of inferior beings who need to be coddled then they will continue to take our votes for granted. I get so angry when I hear grown men complain that Republicans don't cares about us . Why should anyone care about us when we consistently make uninformed decisions based solely on whether or not someone is Black or White, Democrat or Republican? Aren't we really telling the world that we don't care about ourselves? So why should someone care more for you than you care for yourself? How many Democrats will it take to poop (like Obama has done -- TWICE) on us to prove that they are just USING US?

Blame It On The EEEE-Conomy..Spoof

This Alphacat dude is certainly no Zo...clearly he has no grasp on reality politically speaking (he is probably a democrat) but this was pretty darn funny nonetheless.



The woman playing Shelly O really does bear a striking resemblance to Mrs. Obama.

Just thought I'd lighten the mood.