In Two Cities

Birth of Gideon Andrew Ott, my Facebook meandering

2010-12-13T16:26:00.000-05:00

Another GAO & Gideon!?! Prophesy? Providence? Inspired? Just noticed that Gideon Andrew Ott, son of Andy & Jenn, shares initials with the Government Accounting Office. Our government certainly ought to be called to account. Our Nation certainly can use a Gideon: "The Book of Judges:" Gideon http://bit.ly/dMD9Zd
The Book of Judges: Gideon | Yahweh then orders Gideon to tear down his father's altar to Baal, the god of the Amorites and the Canaanites, and to cut down the pole that represents Asherah, the goddess of the Amorites and the Canaanites. He orders Gideon to use the pole to erect an altar to Yahweh and then sacrifice one of his
Jim Batley: Inadvertent inclusion of text above [on Facebook] may be providential. Children generally improve their parents. Gideon of old corrected the defects of his father. Only defect of Andy I am aware of is service in Air Force rather than Navy. Perhaps Gideon Ott will join and improve the Navy as did the co-founder, Les Spencer, of The Navigators http://bit.ly/hDFtEP
Semi-apology to Andy. It seems The Navigators was founded before the Air Force Academy: '"You teach him!" [Dawson] Trotman responded. And the 2 Timothy 2:2 [ http://bit.ly/gQlBUg ] vision was strengthened. | [Les] Spencer did teach the sailor, and soon the two men were meeting with others. Eventually, 125 men on their ship, the U.S.S. West Virginia, were growing in Christ and actively sharing their faith. By the end of World War II, thousands of men on ships and bases around the world were learning the principles of spiritual multiplication by the person-to-person teaching of God's word.' http://bit.ly/i1HTqR
It is interesting that I seem to be carrying on a bit like Simeon: "[Luke 2:]29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, http://bit.ly/gjF5fT
Usually I seem to be a bit like Polonius: "And Polonius is not exactly an exemplary character. He’s dull, pedantic, wields no real power at court and manages to get himself killed by hiding in the Queen’s bedroom. More to the point, having made this speech full of homely wisdom to Laertes, he is next seen talking to Reynaldo (Act 2, Scene i), a spy he is intending to set on his son." http://bit.ly/gaHWqj

Finnegan's Wake More Fun

2010-09-29T12:47:00.001-04:00

     Headline below reminded me of the iconic Tim Finnegan and the great work of literature he inspired: Link
     "Kid's birthday party turns into brawl" Link
     But not nearly as much fun as Finnegan's wake: "Wasn't it the truth I told you? Lots of fun at Finnegan's Wake" Link
     Perhaps pondering on the power of Irish wiskey to revivify Tim Finnegan and on the word for whiskey in the old language which literally means water of life, the fantastically gifted James Joyce was inspired to turn a pleasant little song into a great epic representing the birth, death, and ressurection of the Universe.
     Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link
     Finnegans wake - Google Books Link
     A Webified version of James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. Link

"... I got rid of the dog but kept the husband?”

2010-09-28T15:51:00.002-04:00

     Jennifer: “Do I redeem myself if I mention that I got rid of the dog but kept the husband?”
     No [further (ch. 9/29)] redemption necessary for those not under law but under grace. It is a matter of formal sequential ordering. Scripture plainly teaches children that fathers are first in honor (and mothers first in fear or reverence Lev.19:3 KJV: “Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father ...” Equity rather than the zeitgeist's equal rights.) Equality of person, but subordination of office. Like the Trinity. Mankind in the image of the Creator.
     Your statement is understandable in terms of the way your affections are employed in your daily duties. As a matter of phileo, rather than agapeo. Our Lord accepted Peter's phileo.
     John 21:15-17 KJV So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
     John 21:15-17 GNT-TR οτε ουν ηριστησαν λεγει τω σιμωνι πετρω ο ιησους σιμων ιωνα αγαπας με πλειον τουτων λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε συ οιδας οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω βοσκε τα αρνια μου 16 λεγει αυτω παλιν δευτερον σιμων ιωνα αγαπας με λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε συ οιδας οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω ποιμαινε τα προβατα μου 17 λεγει αυτω το τριτον σιμων ιωνα φιλεις με ελυπηθη ο πετρος οτι ειπεν αυτω το τριτον φιλεις με και ειπεν αυτω κυριε συ παντα οιδας συ γινωσκεις οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω ο ιησους βοσκε τα προβατα μου
     You are probably right to object. But as I often told those who objected to one of Pastor Steve Petit's positions: "Since you are strong in the faith, you should not make a fuss about the positions of those who are weak.” Romans 14:1 KJV Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
     You young Facebook friends have driven me to resume my blog. Facebook formats are too small for the largeness of my meandering thoughts.

Repairing "bare ruined choirs"

2010-09-28T12:36:00.001-04:00

     "[Jennifer's friend] is excited to join church family and friends as we put the final touches on the repaired sanctuary! We are praying that everything is up and running by Sunday."
     Better to repair "bare ruined choirs" than to write poetry about them:
     SONNET LXXIII
1. That time of year thou mayst in me behold
2. When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
3. Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
4. Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.
5. In me thou see'st the twilight of such day
6. As after sunset fadeth in the west;
7. Which by and by black night doth take away,
8. Death's second self, that seals up all in rest.
9. In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire,
10. That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
11. As the death-bed, whereon it must expire,
12. Consumed with that which it was nourish'd by.
13. This thou perceiv'st, which makes thy love more strong,
14. To love that well, which thou must leave ere long. Sonnet text & commentary

"almost 4 kids, 1 dog, 1 hubby...that's life!"

2010-09-28T11:19:00.000-04:00

     Quote of the Day: "almost 4 kids, 1 dog, 1 hubby...that's life!" | I do not wish to embarass my old chum, Jennifer Ott, by revealing the source of the quotation.
     It does, at least, encourage the avoidance of polyandry. But the tertiary position of the husband combined with the secondary position of the dog demonstrates that older women have failed in their scriptural duties in instructing the younger women.
     If the older women fail to instruct the younger, we are in real trouble. Young women do not often listen to men. (Single young women may often pretend to listen to a young man they have targeted, of course.)
     Titus 2:3-4 KJV The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
     The Greek is interesting. Two compound verbs are used. Compounds of phileo akin to our "Philadelpha", "love of brothers". Phileo is affectionate love of those like us, or things we desire. Young women know that they are the grandest of human beings. The good Lord has made them so. So that they can properly take care of babies, and that the babies may be drawn to them. The compound Greek verbs are telling young women to have affectionate love toward husban and children as toward fellow human beings, despite their obvious deficiencies.
     I am not one to preach about this. It has recently come to my attention that I have been consistently and egregiously coming short of the behavior intructed for aged men in the preceding verse. It is interesting that I seem to favor those moral injunctions that cannot possibly apply to me.

A Victim of a Series of Accidents

2010-09-27T07:16:00.000-04:00

     "I am the victim of a series of accidents -- as are we all" - The Space Wanderer, aka Malachi Constant, protagonist of Kurt Vonnegut's great inter-galactic epic, "The Sirens of [Saturn's Earth-sized satellite,] Titan". (Click to read first five pages plus)
     The fate of the Wanderer, as well as the fates of rest of us, are better understood by the now often considered archaic and obsolete term: Providence.
     Matthew 5:44-45 KJV But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
     Romans 8:28 KJV And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
     Providence is much more comfortable -- and beautiful, -- and good, -- and true.

Do not kill the goose that lays your golden eggs!!!!!

2010-09-24T07:58:00.000-04:00

"A man may seye full sooth (truth) in game and pley," -Chaucer. An example of truth in silliness is an oldie but goodie JimSmiling multi-Tweet: {{_ ATTENTION! All placepersons!! Everywhere!!! ==>==>Always speak, act, and VOTE to FREE: - free enterprise!!!! ==>==>Do not kill the goose that lays your golden eggs!!!!! ==>==>N.B. “Placeperson” is the politically correct update of the archaic “placeman”. ==>==>Meaning: Non-hereditary, non-elected, but, appointed or selected, government official or employee. – js. _}}

President Obama Fisked

2010-01-30T12:37:00.001-05:00

President Barack Obama said Saturday that trimming budget deficits [N.B. #1 - Code for tax increase in order to kill free enterprize.]
is as important as creating jobs, [N.B. #2 - Only tax cuts that free small business to create job will work.]
his top domestic priority this year, [N.B. #3 - The red diaper baby's top goal is government control.]
to continue the economic recovery [N.B #4 - Any signs of life are despite O's policies. Hard times remain, made much harder by O.]
that appears under way. [N.B. #5 - Straight talk from experts: this appearance is deceptive.] http://bit.ly/dafoLY

From a somewhat popular twiterer.

Tweeting while neglecting forums. - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

Mamas, Protect Babies From Leftists!

2010-01-26T14:55:00.001-05:00

Forty Years of Feminism Now Bearing Fruit

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be lefties.
Every child in America, all 73.7 million of them, should be kept safe from the leftist inculcation of the public school curriculum. Taxpayer money should be used to help set up home-schooling networks and resources across the country.
We spend more per capita on education than virtually every other nation, and yet we rank close to the bottom in math and science -- so busy are our children being force-fed global warming junk science, the [h%%%%%%%%l activist] agenda, a whitewashed Muhammad, and other assorted propaganda.
This is how the left has been destroying America since they took over in the '60s. Now the teenage girls in Azam's documentary are reaping what the left has been sowing for decades. [My emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article by Pamela Geller, Forty Years of Feminism Now Bearing Fruit, more below:

”Why should we pass this bill for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?” (– 19th Century Member of Irish Parliament, archetypical “Irish bull” -- with deepest apologies to Daniel O’Connell, et al.) - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

WARNING Explicit references to s%%%%l moral decay follow!

Forty Years of Feminism Now Bearing Fruit [/] January 26, 2010 [/] By Pamela Geller
A new documentary, O%%% S%% Is the New Goodnight Kiss, chronicles America's moral decay. Sharlene Azam, a Canadian filmmaker, says, "If you talk to teens [about o%%% s%%], they'll tell you it's not a big deal. In fact, they don't consider it s%%. They don't consider a lot of things s%%." In the documentary, teenage girls talk casually about their s%%%%l experiences and even their forays into p%%%%%%%%%n. [/] One girl sums up the new attitudes: "F%%% m%%%%s and I got %%%%. If I'm going to s%%%p with them anyway because they're good-looking, might as well get p%%d for i%, right?"
Azam said that this was going on in good homes right under parents' noses: "The prettiest girls from the most successful families [are the most at risk]. We're not talking about marginalized girls. [Parents] don't want to know because they really don't know what to do. I mean, you might be prepared to learn that, at age 12, your daughter has had s%%, but what are you supposed to do when your daughter has traded her v%%%%%%%y for %%%%% or a %%% %%%?"
This is the bitter fruit of forty years of feminist domination in the United States.Virtue, self-worth, and man's moral value are DOA in the age of the cultural domination of the left. What an awful stench this decaying corpse gives off, lying in a smoldering, fetid pile of ash. [/] This is how the phony feminist movement empowered women? Girls s%%%%%g the i% for a %%%%%%? Those men-hating parasites have ruined the glorious exaltation of women in 20th-century America. I know. I grew up in it. All one has to do is watch movies from the forties, fifties, and sixties (before the left culture rout) to catch a glimpse of the status of women. We were then formidable, respected, treasured, and above all...revered. It was as good as it gets.
Azam's vulgar and depressing documentary is no surprise. The atmosphere is already poisoned by the left's attitudes toward teenage s%%. And these attitudes come out everywhere. Two weeks ago, in Crosby Middle School in Hitchcock, Texas, a member of the Hitchcock school board, Shirley Price, gave what was supposed to be a motivational talk to sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade girls. Instead, she gave a graphic, sm%%-filled rant about o%%% and a%%% s%%. [/] I am sickened by this -- not because I am prudish, but because it speaks volumes about how girls view themselves and their roles, not to mention the ever-increasing diminishing of women in American society.
To say that feminism was one of the worst things to happen to women is being easy. It has been worse for men. The demon seeds of the "liberation" movement are everywhere -- including the epidemic of single motherhood, the breakdown of the American family, the street vernacular of "b%%%%%s and h%s," the e%%%%%%%%%%n of men, and the bone-crushing responsibility of single moms acting as mother, father, breadwinner, chief cook, and bottle-washer.
And what has Obama done about all this? He has appointed Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN (G%%, L%%%%%n, Straight Education Network), to be his Safe Schools Czar. GLSEN is notorious for having sponsored a conference at Tufts University at which teenagers were given instruction in an array of risky and dangerous s%%%%l practices. Obama has appointed this radical to head up America's "safe schools," but who is going to keep kids safe from him? This is another terrible Obama choice. Whatever one's s%%%%l preferences or proclivities may be, do not traumatize children. Why can't the schools just teach reading, writing, arithmetic -- and civics?
But this is no surprise, of course. A breakdown of s%%%%l mores and a flouting of convention is part and parcel of the agenda in every society to which socialism has come.
Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America (Simon & Schuster). [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: De-Curtained By Mass. Voters

2010-01-24T14:37:00.001-05:00

“The inner hollowness and facile talent that propelled his rise gave him none of the grit necessary to meet the challenges. Where would he begin?”

We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown's sup porters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn't merely elect a senator. They ripped the façade off the Obama presidency.
Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz," the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.
It's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.
[…] America has survived bad presidents before and we will survive this one. Fortunately, we're no longer waiting for him to grow into the job. Massachusetts proved the Nation is ready to move forward. [My emphasis]

From a New York Post article, End of O's cowardly lyin', more below:

The revealed man is the same one seen by the discerning two years ago. - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

End of O's cowardly lyin' [/] Updated: Sun., Jan. 24, 2010, 11:07 AM [/] By MICHAEL GOODWIN
[…] At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches. [/] He never advances a practical idea. Every proposal overreaches and comes wrapped in ideology and a claim of moral superiority. He doesn't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him. [/] After his first year on the job, America is sliding backwards, into grave danger at home and around the world. So much so that I now believe either of his rivals, Hillary Clinton or John McCain, would have made a better, more reliable and more trustworthy president. [/] They warned us he wasn't ready.
Yes, we're stuck with him, but we're no longer stuck with his suffocating conformity. The second Boston Tea Party opened the door to new ideas and new people of both parties. Obama's reactions were predictable. More self-pity, blaming George W. Bush, and claiming that the voter revolt is due to ignorance about the health-care plan they hate. [/] Blah blah blah. Hasn't he heard? The magic is gone.
Massachusetts changed everything. America's spirit of independence has been emancipated and the cult of Obama-ism is finished.
The health-care debacle perfectly captured his utter lack of governing substance. [/] He embraced major provisions he rejected during the campaign, misled the public about costs and impact, and got competing versions through Congress only with a grab bag of outlandish bribes and exemptions. [/] He pledged transparency, then retreated to secret deal-making that corruptly rewarded unions and fleeced everybody else. The result was a national scandal that would have done tremendous damage if it became law.
His sudden adoption of a bank tax springs from a baser motive -- political desperation. [/] He unveiled the tax as polls showed Scott Brown closing in on victory. White House flunkies said the tax marked an aggressive turn to populism and Obama obliged by trotting out the "fat-cat banker" phrase. [/] Which, of course, is bizarre when you want those banks to lend money to create jobs. And you can be sure Obama will hit up those fat-cat bankers for contributions at election time, as he did in 2008. Even his attacks are cynical.
His foreign policy is a dangerous muddle. He is feckless about both Iran's brave dissidents and the mullahs pushing for nuclear weapons. [/] He took a bad situation in the Mideast and made it worse with pernicious demands on Israel. Muslims reject his bended-knee apologies, giving him nothing for his amateurish squandering of American power. [/] Frightening details are still emerging about the disastrous handling of the Christmas Day bomb plot. The decision to quickly put the al Qaeda-trained Nigerian into civilian courts stems from his fixation on giving terrorists constitutional protections.
The talk in Washington is that he look to Bill Clinton's presidency for comeback answers, or maybe Ronald Reagan's. Political history won't help him much. [/] Obama's crisis is personal. The inner hollowness and facile talent that propelled his rise gave him none of the grit necessary to meet the challenges. Where would he begin? [/] America has survived bad presidents before and we will survive this one. Fortunately, we're no longer waiting for him to grow into the job. Massachusetts proved the nation is ready to move forward. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama Ugliness Huge As Revealed By “Game Change”: Parts I and II

2010-01-16T15:23:00.001-05:00

Et tu, “Game Change” authors! Then fall, Obama mythology?

N.B. #1. “Et tu, Brute. Then fall, Caesar.” – Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar recognizing his friend, Brutus, as one of the forty or so conspirators who were ending his reign over Rome and the Mediterranean world by the pre-Christian method of stabbing him to death.

N.B. #2. The problem with political jokes is that too many of them get elected. – Will Rogers

[I.] In other words: he claims credit for others' ideas, brags when "his" ideas turn out to work and –when he is not unnaturally apathetic (oh..sorry..calm) he is filled to the brim with hubris and ego. [/] Great guy....
[II.] This [attitude toward U.S. Senate], of course, reflects why he tramples the Constitution, congressional rules, traditions, engages in bullying and bribery, loopholes, etc. to push through his policies. Why should he care about other people or institutions (or checks and balances) because that is all so boring. No wonder he just cannot stop giving speeches and making appearances on television, in front of crowds, down Broadway-because that is ... what is fun
My question: why has the media ignored, at least so far, this unflattering portrait of our President? [My emphasis]

From two American Thinker blog entries by Ed Lasky, Game Change on Obama and More on Obama from Game Change , more below:

And Lasky has only gotten to page 30 - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

[I.] Game Change on Obama [/] January 15, 2010 [/] Ed Lasky [/] Within a few pages of the new book:
He could come across as cocky, that was for sure. He knew he was smarter than the average politician and he not only knew it but wanted to make sure everyone else knew it, too. He would interrupt aides at meeting, saying Look (he does this all the time) and be off to the races, reframing the point, extending it and then claim ownership of it. "Whose idea was that?” Was another of his favorites, employed with cheerful boastfulness whenever something he'd previously proposed had come up roses. His calmness and composure would veer into the freakish,., and sometimes concealed gaudy confidence in himself. When asked if he was nervous, Obamareplied "I'm Lebron, baby..I can play at this level. I got some game".

In other words: he claims credit for others' ideas, brags when "his" ideas turn out to work and -when he is not unnaturally apathetic (oh..sorry..calm) he is filled to the brim with hubris and ego. [/] Great guy....
[II.] More on Obama from Game Change [/] January 16, 2010 [/] Ed Lasky
This book by page 30 (where I am at) comes down pretty hard on Obama. Aside from today's post, just a couple of pages later he describes how bored he was with the Senate. [/] Excerpt:
The glacial pace, the endless procedural wrangling, the witless posturing and petifoggery, the geriatric cast of characters doddering around the place: all of it drove him nuts. To one friend in Chicago, Obama complained, [/] "It is basically the same as Springfield except the average age in Springfield is forty-two and in Washington it's sixty-two. Other than that, it's the same b%%%s%%%".
After listening to Biden during a committee hearing, Obama passed a note to Gibbs that read "Shoot me now". [/] Time and again after debates on the floor, he would emerge through the chamber's double doors shaking his head, rolling his eyes, using both hands to give the universal symbol for the flapping of gums, sighing wearily, "Yak, yak, yak".

My question: why has the media ignored, at least so far, this unflattering portrait of our President?
This , of course, reflects why he tramples the Constitution, congressional rules, traditions, engages in bullying and bribery, loopholes, etc. to push through his policies. Why should he care about other people or institutions (or checks and balances) because that is all so boring. No wonder he just cannot stop giving speeches and making appearances on television, in front of crowds, down Broadway-because that is ...what's fun? [My ellipses and emphasis]

Union White House Deal = Obamacare Joke!?!

2010-01-16T13:04:00.001-05:00

Et tu, Denver Post! Then fall, Obamacare?

N.B. #2. The problem with political jokes is that too many of them get elected. – Will Rogers

Aside from the sleazy deals patching this bill together, its provisions add up to a poison pill for the country in that it fails to reduce costs.
From the wildly improper gifts to senators like Nebraska's Ben Nelson to this week's backroom deals for unions, the so-called health care reform emerging from Washington has become bad medicine for America and ought to be rejected. Quickly.
Unbelievably, the bill got even worse this past week when lawmakers agreed to exempt union workers from paying taxes that other workers will have to pay for years. [My emphasis]

From a Denver Post editorial, Dispatch health care reform bill , more below:

Just as a predecessor left undeniable evidence on a blue dress, our president’s fingerprints are all over this political “joke”. The scene of the “backroom deal” was closed “backroom” meetings in the White House. - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

Dispatch health care reform bill [/] The backroom deal to exempt unions from new taxes is a joke. Sen. Bennet should show his independence and kill the bill. [/] Saturday, January 16, 2010 [/] EDITORIAL [/] By The Denver Post
[...] Colorado Senators. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet ought to take a principled stand against the failed reform effort, even if it once held promise. [/] Bennet went on the record weeks ago saying he would support the bill even if it cost him his job. Well, it probably will. [/] His hard-line stance may have been noble at the time, but so much has changed with the legislation since then that the bill is now at odds with the stated goals of both Bennet and Udall. We think both senators have more than enough clearance to oppose it and ask for better. [/] Bennet faces a tough election in November. We understand the pressure Democratic Party leaders have put on him to ensure this stinker of a bill passes, but most Coloradans want an independent leader, and not doing right by Coloradans could be costly at the polls. [/] We'd like to think Udall, who campaigned as a moderate Democrat, could muster the courage to buck his party and vote against the bill, but we won't hold our breath.
Unions bitterly opposed the Senate's tax on the so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans that many union workers enjoy. In private meetings with the White House and President Obama this week, union chiefs won a deal in which workers with high-end insurance don't have to pay the tax for five years. [/] The reasoning is that union members need the time to negotiate with management for contracts that adjust for the new taxes. Fair enough, but why doesn't that protection apply equally for those workers who aren't members of unions? [/] "The White House and congressional Democrats are picking one group of workers over another," a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader John Boehner told the Wall Street Journal. "If this sounds discriminatory, well, it is."
The Journal reported that the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, made indications that unions would be less willing to help Democrats this fall. [/] The seedy pact Democrats reached now means that lawmakers must find another way to raise money to make up for the revenue lost to the five-year union waiver. Negotiators are said to be looking at increasing taxes on medical device makers, drug makers and nursing homes — costs which will almost certainly be passed on to consumers. [/] [...] Colorado's elected officials shouldn't accept it. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Haiti: US Top Rescuer, As Usual

2010-01-14T15:56:00.001-05:00

(But the anti-American mainstream media seems to emphasize small contributions and intentions of various statists.)

But for all the abuse it takes from abroad [and from domestic elite “intellectual” liberal media, officials, and educators, ably led by our President] about not "doing its share," America already is showing it does know what to do. As a nation, Americans are mobilizing to provide the lion's share of help to the helpless. They did so with the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, and they will do so for our tiny stricken neighbor, too.
It's our nation at its finest. When the chips are down, it's the Americans who come to the rescue.
It won't be an easy task. A quake such as this can have a terrible effect on the morale of a nation. Haiti is a proud country with a history of independence much like our own. It was just getting back on its feet after years of decline. Catastrophe there could have the same effect as 1755's Lisbon earthquake, which left many questioning whether there was a benevolent God and accelerated the Enlightenment.
In this impossible situation, the U.S., the nation born of the Enlightenment [From the Scots enlightenment, actually, where a rational approach was added to a Reformation culture and the common sense of the clans.], is now the hope arising out of the disaster. Not just for Haiti, but as the last best hope for the world. [My emphasis and bracketed qualifications.]

From an Investor’s Business Daily editorial, In Haiti, It's U.S. To The Rescue Again , more below:

Our America bashing mainstream media seem to emphasize the small contributions and noble intentions of the usual suspects: Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, Democrat officials. - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

In Haiti, It's U.S. To The Rescue Again [/] IBD EDITORIALS [/] Posted 01/13/2010 07:03 PM ET
Disaster Relief: Tuesday's earthquake in Haiti was its worst since 1770, leaving the capital in ruins and a death toll that may top 100,000. But help is on its way, and it's America leading the effort. [/] Our tiny tragic neighbor was already in bad shape when the 7.0 earthquake struck the capital of Port-au-Prince. It wasn't just any 7.0 quake, as if that were not bad enough, but a shallow one, meaning it shook harder. [/] Worse still, it hit the most populated area of the country, where 3 million of the country's 9 million citizens live — and left thousands dead and many more homeless. […] As for the poor, the story is unbearably sad as the injured trapped in hovels cry out for help and bodies are dragged to the streets. There are no ambulances, no telephones, no power and no potable water.
But there is the U.S. and, all partisan politics aside, it's to America's credit that it's once again the last resort of the devastated, and has the biggest, swiftest response under way. [/] Employing the best practices learned from past disasters, already the U.S. Coast Guard has surveilled the country by air with P-3 Orion aircraft to determine the extent of the catastrophe. The U.S. embassy personnel inspected the airport and port and found them usable, and U.S. military personnel have taken over air traffic operations to ensure aid can get through.
Disaster Assistance Response Teams (known as DARTs) landed Wednesday, less than 24 hours after the quake, and are assessing where help is most needed, as well as how much and what kind. The DARTs are gathering news about open roads, areas where information can be found, medical needs, and food, sanitation and potable water needs. [/] Meanwhile, President Obama has ordered the U.S. Navy's Southern Command to send the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier with 2,000 Marines, plus six other ships, toward Port-au-Prince. It will support the U.S. Agency for International Development effort, and keep order with the U.N. mission down. Cargo planes are on the way; the USS Comfort, an invaluable hospital ship, [Maybe one of these should be home ported on the gulf coast.] is preparing to leave Baltimore. Cities such as Los Angeles have also dispatched disaster response teams to help.
Then there are the ordinary U.S. citizens. Using the technology of the day, Americans have sprung forward with $10 donations to the American Red Cross by texting "HAITI" to 90999, billable to their cell phones. Haitian musician Wyclef Jean has seen his Web site overwhelmed with offers of help and is urging Americans to text "YELE" to 501501 to donate small amounts. [/] Aid agencies such as Feed the Children, the Salvation Army, Catholic Relief Services and Direct Relief International are marshaling resources and preparing to find the best way to deliver them. [/] There's no doubt the task will be tough for everyone and there could be blunders along the way. Disease, looters and corruption are troubles ahead. Already Haitians are complaining that the [United Nations] troops are clogging the streets and doing nothing, probably because they don't know what to do. [/] [My ellipses and emphasis and bracketed comment.]

Experienced Based Opinion

2010-01-13T21:59:00.001-05:00

More correct than the “politically correct” opinion perhaps?

Every religion has its abusers. And anecdotal evidence alone cannot establish the truth or falsity of any religion. But there comes a point when we begin to see patterns and must admit that a religion simply does not “work” when it comes to providing recovery or redemption.
[…] Brit Hume was right about the prospect of Christianity offering redemption for Tiger Woods. He was right because Christianity offers truth and Buddhism offers an illusion. And that is why we must steer clear of Buddhism. We simply cannot allow its karma to run over our dogma. [My emphasis]

From a Town Hall .com article, by Mike Adams, Buddha Take the Wheel!, more below:

Dr. Adams recalls some experiences with the practical results of religious belief.

The final authority for every man is his own experience. - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

Buddha Take the Wheel! [/] Mike Adams [/] Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Back in 2007, I received an email from a young woman whose life was a mess. It wasn’t as bad a mess as Tiger Woods’ life. But she was miserable. And the source of her misery was similar to Tiger’s. She had been sleeping around for a number of years and simply couldn’t find peace and happiness. Apparently, something she read in one of my columns convinced her she could no longer continue to have sex outside of marriage and expect happiness.
So she stopped sleeping with her boyfriend. He was pretty irritated because he was the one who recommended my columns to her in the first place. He thought the columns would affect her but really didn’t expect them to affect him – at least not in that particular way!
The column the young woman referenced was about the concept of “testing the fleece” to determine what God wants for your life. It also included an assertion that no matter what one’s past has been there is someone out there for everyone. If one makes a choice to walk with God he (or she) will not be punished with a lifetime of loneliness. God will provide someone for them regardless of their past. In other words, Christianity offers a promise of hope and redemption for even the worst of sinners.
About six months after this young woman told me she was splitting up with her boyfriend she wrote back to tell me she had met someone new. She met him at church and together they were learning to walk with God in ways they never had before. I was pleased to hear it. But I didn’t hear anything about the relationship for about two more years.
That changed in November when the woman wrote to ask me whether I was an ordained minister. I laughed before responding that I was not. Then I realized what she meant. The two were getting married. This woman who had thought she did not deserve a husband (and thought she had blown her chances of redemption) was wrong. She turned to Christianity and found a better life. She found redemption and she has now found happiness.
I shared this woman’s story in December when I was in a Karaoke bar Los Angeles. I was talking to a former cocaine addict who had turned his life around about a decade ago. He had given up drugs and alcohol and sex outside marriage since his conversion to Christianity. This was a decision he made after sleeping with over 100 different women.
This man was full of energy and enthusiasm as he talked about his new life. He felt lucky to be alive after all he had done. And he pledged to live a life of celibacy until the Lord gave him someone with whom he could share the rest of his life. He told me emphatically: “I am doing it God’s way or no way at all.”
I shared the story of the newly engaged woman with that former addict because I believe he will write to me one day with news of an engagement to another Christian. I see these happy endings all the time with people who decide to turn to Christianity for redemption.
The contrast between those who seek happiness in Christianity and those who seek happiness in Buddhism could not be more marked. I simply have no good stories to tell concerning those who turn to the latter as opposed to the former.
I think of one of my Buddhist friends – I only know two – who, since divorcing, has been involved in a number of sexual liaisons. He enjoys group sex, sex with married women, and seems to have no real boundaries in matters sexual. But he meditates daily in order to free himself from worldly desires on a supposed path towards greater enlightenment.
My only other Buddhist acquaintance – a gay man now living out West – lives a similar lifestyle. By night, he frequents gay bars. But every day he meditates for three hours – again, in an effort to free himself from worldly desires on a supposed path towards greater enlightenment.
[…] There are good reasons why Buddhism seems to work for so few people. Among them are the following:
[…] 2) Since Buddhists believe that evil is an illusion there is no basis for condemning the actions of a Tiger Woods anyway. And there is little sense seeking a cure for something that does not really exist.
[…] 4) Finally, the tendency to look within to find enlightenment is nothing more than a poorly-disguised desire to become one’s own personal god. Such a desire is more than just a contradiction of the supposed effort to thwart desire. It is a vain attempt to inflate one’s ego in an effort to cure problems that stem from an inflated ego. It seeks in vain to make a cure out of a disease.[…] [My ellipses and emphasis]

The Gospel: Ann Coulter’s View

2010-01-13T21:03:00.001-05:00

The Old Testament critics of those in authority usually exhibited similar beliefs.

And no more caring what the world thinks of you -- because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.
With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don't deserve it. It's the best deal in the universe. [My emphasis]

From an article by Ann Coulter, IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT!, more below:

It is not necessarily immoral to disrespect a religion. It may be a duty. It is more important to respect one made in the image of the Creator than it is to respect that man’s religious opinions. - js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER DEAL, TAKE IT! [/] January 6, 2010
Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension. [/] On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:
The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible: "How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words." John 8:43.)
[…] God sent his only son to get [[beaten]], die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you're in. Your sins are washed away from you -- sins even worse than adultery! – because of the cross. [/] "He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2:14. [/] Surely you remember the cross, liberals – the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?
Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world. [/] In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don't need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don't need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you'll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you're getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that's disputed.
You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you're in! [/] Because, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.
If you do that, every rotten, sinful thing you've ever done is gone from you. You're every bit as much a Christian as the pope or Billy Graham. [/] No fine print, no "your mileage may vary," no blackout dates. God ought to do a TV spot: "I'm God Almighty, and if you can find a better deal than the one I'm offering, take it."
The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random: [/] "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16. [/] "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8. [/] "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23. [/] In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being "judgmental." No, we're relieved. [/] Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies – no doing what all the other kids do. [… [see at top]] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Best tweet (so far) scoops Rush

2010-01-13T13:40:00.001-05:00

Chefs Used Ringers, Not Veggies From Obama Garden http://bit.ly/7RVZUU

Thus avoiding Clinton sludge contamination. http://bit.ly/7txxGA

_________________________________________

Perhaps they also raised veggies in Chicago, at their own expense.

If so, I will apologize for the tweet.

UPDATE:

2:32 PM 1/13/2010 Rush Limbaugh just reported on the substitution and the sludge. At times, I find myself actually ahead of the cutting edge.

Liberals: Interpretation and Response

2010-01-11T12:40:00.001-05:00

False Religion versus The Truth

The phrase “you’re being uncivil” always means that the liberal is experiencing anger at his, her, or its inability to counter an intelligent political move or political argument.
When the liberal begins to hate the speaker, he, she, or it refers to the argument as “hate speech.”
The phrase “you’re being uncivil” is most frequently employed by the least polite and least socially skilled (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) party in a given conflict.
The appropriate conservative response to an accusation of incivility is to: a) identify the exact words, phrases, and ideas that provoked the accusation of incivility, and b) increase their frequency of use by at least 50% in all subsequent confrontations with the accusing liberal.
And, finally, (it should go without saying) never apologize in response to an accusation of incivility at the hands of a liberal. [My emphasis]

From a Town Hall .com article by Mike Adams, R.E.S.P.E.C.T., more below:

You can tell that a liberal begins to understand what you are saying when he becomes speechless with rage. – Ann Coulter

The sad, sad Truth about politically correct nonsense.

Including the preposterous notion that respect should be equally distributed to any opinion voiced by anyone. – js

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

R.E.S.P.E.C.T. [/] Mike Adams [/] Monday, January 11, 2010
[…] Imagine having to answer to a left-wing feminist who alternately encourages uncivil discourse (to war protestors) and civil discourse (to town hall protestors) depending on political expediency. But I do know something about working for Nancy Pelosi. I work for her ideological twin sister, Rosemary DePaolo.
In January of 2008, there was a movement by some members of the faculty senate to fire DePaolo […] DePaolo undoubtedly got wind of the potential coup. […] So she did what many radical feminists do under the circumstances: She hired a man to come save her. [/] After Provost Brian Chapman was hired […] he quickly earned a reputation as a hot-head. [/] […] During one of those faculty meetings a tenured professor asked Chapman whether he was hired to come in here and “kick a**” for DePaolo. He answered in the affirmative. [/] In other words, our East Coast Nancy Pelosi needed someone to yell at the faculty and keep them in line. But she didn’t want to be the one who was tagged as being “uncivil.” She gave the job to a stronger man.
The faculty responded with an uprising and fired Chapman. Chancellor DePaolo (hereafter: DePelosi) responded by pushing for greater “respect” and “civility” on campus. She even had the following “Seahawk Respect Compact” framed and posted in every classroom on campus:
In the pursuit of excellence, UNC Wilmington actively fosters, encourages and promotes inclusiveness, mutual respect, acceptance and open-mindedness among students, faculty, staff and the broader community. [/] Therefore, we expect members of the campus community to honor these principles as fundamental to our ongoing efforts to increase access to and inclusion in a community that nurtures learning and growth for all."
~ We affirm the dignity of all persons. ~ [/] ~ We promote the right of every person to participate in the free exchange of thoughts and opinions within a climate of civility and mutual respect. ~ [/] ~ We strive for openness and mutual understanding to learn from differences in people, ideas and opinions. ~ [/] ~ We foster an environment of respect for each individual, even where differences exist by eliminating prejudice and discrimination through education and interaction with others. ~

In other words, DePelosi did everything short of hiring Elton John to come sing “Can you feel the love tonight” before the entire faculty senate. [/] It is important for every conservative to read that compact (and to forward this column) because it reveals fundamental truths about how the liberal operates in response to a potential loss of political power – or even the prospect of losing a simple argument. Some of those truths are worth highlighting: [[See paragraphs quoted at top – js]]
[…] Recently, a student came by to complain that he had gone to one of DePelosi’s “open forums” designed to allow students to ask questions of the Speaker, I mean, Chancellor. He wanted to ask a question but was not allowed to. Instead, students were asked to write down their questions on a sheet of paper. An assistant to the chancellor then filtered all the questions and read the easier ones to the Chancellor, thereby avoiding any direct exchanges with the students (read: constituents). [/] That scene mirrors the way our politicians view us today. They are increasingly afraid of us because they are increasingly aware that we do not approve of what they are doing to us. But our approval is, in their eyes, increasingly irrelevant. And they try to shut us out of the process by ignoring difficult questions. [/] I really don’t respect Chancellor DePelosi because she has not earned it by showing she can debate with people a third of her age. Nor do I respect Speaker Pelosi since she is unwilling to allow transparency during the legislative process.
Respect cannot be legislated any more than it can be framed and nailed on a wall. Respect must be earned. Then, and only then, can we talk about civility. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Captain Oblivious and the Limits of Cool

2010-01-10T11:58:00.001-05:00

Et tu, Maureen Dowd! Then fall, Obama Intelligence Team?

N.B. “Et tu, Brute. Then fall, Caesar.” – Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar recognizing his friend, Brutus, as one of the forty or so conspirators who were ending his reign over Rome and the Mediterranean world by the pre-Christian method of stabbing him to death.

Our president came down from the mountaintop. [/] He had applied the freshness of his independent thought to the critical matters at hand. He had convened his seminar, reviewed the reviews, analyzed the intelligence every which way, thought anew about everything, and lo and behold, he finally emerged to tell us some stuff we already knew.
We are under attack. [/] There is evil in the world. [/] Yemen is a dangerous place that breeds people who want to kill us. [/] Al Qaeda is determined to attack inside the United States. [/] Al Qaeda is casting a wide recruiting net for vulnerable young men. [/] Aspirational terrorists eventually become operational terrorists. [/] Our airports are not safe. [/] Metal detectors can’t detect nonmetal explosives sewn into underwear. [/] Our incomplete no-fly lists are more like “Welcome aboard” lists. [/] We still can’t connect the dots, even when the dots are flying at us like 3-D asteroids. [/] The sun rises in the east. [/] Two plus two equals four.
“We must do better,” Captain Obvious said Thursday at the White House, “in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while still facilitating air travel.” [My emphasis]

From New York Times op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd, Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool , more below:

I am too courteous to mention rodents looking for convenient exits.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool [/] January 10, 2010 [/] OP-ED COLUMNIST [/] By MAUREEN DOWD
[…] “We must do better,” Captain Obvious said Thursday at the White House, “in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while still facilitating air travel.” [/] John Brennan, the deputy national security adviser, was equally illuminating. “The intelligence,” he informed us, “fell through the cracks.” [/] He also offered this: “Al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.” That rings a bell.
The president and his intelligence officials stressed that these were not the same mistakes made before 9/11. [/] “Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence,” President Obama said, “this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.”
Wow. That makes me feel that all those billions spent on upgrading the intelligence system were well spent.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father personally delivered a neon warning to our embassy in Nigeria, and a State Department employee quickly dropped the ball by misspelling the aspiring terrorist’s name, leading to the false assumption that he did not have a valid U.S. visa. [/] Border security officials figured out while he was in the air that the young man had extremist links, but inexplicably decided to wait until he landed to question him, failing to notify the pilot of his plane. After all, what harm could a foreign extremist bring to a plane over American soil.
So it wasn’t bureaucratic turf wars that caused the intelligence to fall through the cracks this time. The C.I.A. and counterterrorism agencies weren’t hoarding information and refusing to pool tips. They were just out to lunch.
And this is supposed to be progress? [/] I’d rather they were hoarding. It would be more reassuring to think our intelligence analysts actually knew what was going on but were hampered by power grabs than to think they were cooperative but clueless.
Even though Russ Feingold, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been pointing out since 2002 that we need to focus on Yemen — “It’s the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the place where Al Qaeda blew up the U.S.S. Cole and we lost 17 people,” he impatiently notes — the president said that the intelligence community was caught off guard by the attack planned by the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, even though “we knew that they sought to strike the United States, and that they were recruiting operatives to do so.” [/] Senator Feingold told me that “this is obviously an international network and we have to start thinking about it that way rather than as a country-by-country eradication process.”
Unlike the Republicans, who have yet to take responsibility for a single disastrous thing they did, President Obama said “ultimately the buck stops with me.” [/] But when he failed to immediately step up to the microphones in Hawaii after the Christmas terror and thank the passengers for bravely foiling the plot that his intelligence community had failed to see, President Cool reached the limits of cool.
No Drama Obama is reticent about displays of emotion. The Spock in him needs to exert mental and emotional control. That is why he stubbornly insists on staying aloof and setting his own deliberate pace for responding — whether it’s in a debate or after a debacle. But it’s not O.K. to be cool about national security when Americans are scared. [/] Our professorial president is no feckless W., biking through Katrina. He is no doubt on top of the crisis in terms of studying it top to bottom. But his inner certainly creates an outer disconnect. [/] He’s so sure of himself and his actions that he fails to see that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments. [/] He’s more like the aloof father who’s turned the Situation Room into a Seminar Room. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: “Bunker-Mode Insanity”?!?

2010-01-08T11:45:00.001-05:00

U.S. Intelligence: “Clueless[ness]” Cubed?!?

Let's parse that more particularly. More than eight years after 9/11, the U.S. did not have a counterterrorism desk that was: [/] a) comprehensive or [/] b) functioning [/] c) in dealing with high visibility and [/] d) high priority [/] e) Al Qaeda plots [/] f) particularly against Homeland. [/] That d%%%ing, wholesale admission of gross and inexcusable incompetence is accompanied by failures regarding would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabthat are astonishing for being all the more mundane.
[…] Obama's performance was his strongest to date in struggling to get command of an administration that was clueless as to the seriousness of the attack and its own bumbling. So clueless, NCTC boss Michael Leiter took to the ski slopes after the bombing attempt. So clueless, Brennan fessed up to having given Leiter the okay to go. [/] While accepting responsibility and promising accountability, Obama blamed the system and took no action against anyone, not even Leiter, who after three years at the top of NCTC produced an operation that was neither "comprehensive or functioning." That doesn't come close to accountability. That's bunker-mode insanity. [My emphasis]

From a New York Daily News editorial, Terrible on terror:, more below:

Et tu, New York Daily News editors! Then fall, Obama Intelligence Team?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Terrible on terror: Airline bombing revealed total dysfunction of U.S. intelligence [/] EDITORIALS [/] Friday, January 8th 2010, 4:00 AM
In advance of yesterday's report on the failed Christmas Day terror attack, theWhite House national security chief warned that the revelations would generate "a certain shock" among Americans. [/] That was an understatement of epic and outrageous proportions. [/] The administration's summary of how Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula slipped its operative through America's vast intelligence network revealed screwups and incompetence of the most fundamental nature.
To wit, and quoting from the heart of the matter as outlined on the very last page of the document: [/] "There was not a comprehensive or functioning process for tracking terrorist threat reporting and actions taken such that departments and agencies are held accountable for running down all leads associated with high visibility and high priority plotting efforts undertaken by Al Qaeda and its allies, in particular against the Homeland." […] To wit, and again quoting from the last page:
"NCTC and CIA personnel who are responsible for watchlisting did not search all available databases to uncover additional derogatory information that could have been correlated with Mr. Abdulmutallab."

"A series of human errors occurred – delayed dissemination of a finished intelligence report and what appears to be incomplete/faulty database searches on Mr. Abdulmutallab's name and identifying information."

"Information technology within the [counterterrorism] community did not sufficiently enable the correlation of data that would have enabled analysts to highlight the relevant threat information."
Again parsing more particularly, the staffs of the National Counterterrorism Center and CIA did not thoroughly and competently search U.S. computer files - and their computers stank. [/] At this level of buffoonery, it was almost foreordained that Islamist radicals would manage to get explosives onto a jetliner. [/] Even though, as Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan conceded, the NCTC was well aware Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was seeking foot soldiers to attack the U.S. [/] Even though the NCTC had gotten screamingly clear warnings that Abdulmutallab was likely one of those recruits. [/] President Obama announced remedial action, including ordering his intel crew to accountably pursue terror tips. How basic is that? [/] […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Evil: In Man Or In “The System”?!?

2010-01-06T13:07:00.001-05:00

For some, there is no evil in man. Only in the imperfect "system". "The system", of course, is a code name for Providence. Blasphemy? - JimSmiling Tweet

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

2010 Will Be Much Worse

2010-01-01T15:01:00.001-05:00

After fifty years of government financial mismanagement, climaxed by the gross government financial mismanagement of recent months and years.

Ludwig von Mises addressed the limits of credit in The Theory of Money and Credit, originally published in 1912. As he expressed in later work: “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit [debt] expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit [debt] expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
In 2009, it was not possible to finance U.S. capital requirements through conventional markets. Only via the Fed's explicit (and surreptitious) Quantitative Easing was the government able to fund its 2009 deficits. Discussing 2009, Zerohedge [[blog]] stated: “There was a huge credit and liquidity crunch, and then there was Quantitative Easing. The last is the Fed's equivalent of band-aiding a zombied and ponzied corpse, better known as the US economy. It worked for a while, but now the zombie is about to go back into critical, followed by comatose, and lastly, undead (and 401(k)-depleting) condition.” [My emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article, 2010 Will Be Worse, more below:

Sources that I consider reliable are consistent with this assessment.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

2010 Will Be Worse [/] January 01, 2010 [/] By Monty Pelerin
[…] The government has decided that the cure for too much debt is more debt. This solution cannot work, especially when credit is already so overextended. Income and wealth cannot support present debt levels. Credit will adjust back to the mean, regardless of what the government attempts. Whether this is via orderly payment or via default, the reduction in debt is inevitable. [/] Zerohedge [[blog]] estimated that demand (financing) for U.S. fixed-income securities must increase elevenfold in order to fund capital needs in 2010. Continued shrinkage in foreign participation in U.S. fixed-income markets makes that increase impossible.
There are only three possibilities with respect to meeting 2010 funding needs:

[1.] The Fed continues its QE beyond their planned cessation in March 2010.

[2.] The Fed raises interest rates to levels that would attract the capital necessary to fund government operations via conventional credit markets.

[3.] No Fed action is taken. That would cause the government to default on some of its obligations.

None of these alternatives is attractive. The unpalatable choices arise from prior Fed and governmental policies. To avoid recessions over the past fifty years, the government abused and then finally exhausted all reasonable options. After years of mismanagement, the government is in a quandary of its own making from which there is no escape.
All alternatives will be very painful, and none offer the possibility of a traditional recovery. No matter what alternative is chosen, the country cannot avoid a depression. At this point, "do no further harm" should guide policy. [/] Of the three alternatives, what is best economically is worst politically. This natural conflict between good economics and good politics is not unusual. Economically, the country would be harmed least by implementing alternative 2. From a political standpoint, alternatives 2 and 3 are probably unacceptable. Thus, it is likely that alternative 1 will be tried (again!). It is precisely the continual overuse of this alternative that has led to the current sad state. [/] Alternative 1 cannot work. It will not avoid a depression. Worse, it will likely result in hyperinflation. Thus, we likely end up with the worst of all worlds. With hyperinflation, money will cease to be a medium of exchange. Markets will cease to work, except on a barter basis. The middle class will be wiped out. Their savings will become worthless along with the dollar. The end will be as Mises warned so many years ago.
The possibility of losing our form of government is a real risk under any of the alternatives. So is civil unrest and strife. All are probably more likely under alternative 1 because of the corrosive effects of high inflation combined with a depression. [/] Beware the turn of the calendar. Things are going to get interesting, and probably very quickly. [/] Monty Pelerin blogs at economicnoise.com. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Freedom Over Fear

2009-12-22T20:46:00.001-05:00

May, by the grace of God, still prevail in the Twenty-First Century

It may turn out to be one of the most important facts of the 21st century that the American people - as exemplified by, but not limited to, the tea-party fighters – came down on the side of freedom over fear. I don't know if there is another people on the planet who would have had a similar impulse and judgment. It is, to use a word, exceptional (as in "American exceptionalism").
It is why we live in hope this Christmas season that we may yet claw back our government in time to protect our grandchildren's freedom and prosperity.
"Yet, Freedom! yet thy banner, torn, but flying, streams like the thunderstorm against the wind." - Lord Byron. [My emphasis]

From a Washington Times article, 'Yet, Freedom!', more below:

The Spirit of ’76 Lives! | “Not a man can be a slave, / While shouting the battle cry of “Freedom!” | “Let tyrants shake their iron rods, / And slavery clank her galling chains / We fear them not, we trust in God. / New England’s God forever reigns.” | It was on Christmas, actually, when Washington demolished the Hessians at Trenton. | Merry Christmas to all.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

'Yet, Freedom!' [/] Tuesday, December 22, 2009 [/] Tony Blankley
Taking stock this second Christmas after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, as a conservative Republican (with growing tea-party tendencies) I'm filled with a thrilling, unexpected hopefulness that the president may be well on his way to losing his battle for the hearts and minds of the American people - tempered by a shocked disbelief that so much long-term damage could have been perpetrated on the American economy, national security and way of life in just 11 months of ill-judged governance.
Inevitably, Charles Dickens' immortal opening sentence to "A Tale of Two Cities" comes to mind:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way."
Remarkably, this view could apply equally to the left and to the right. Mr. Obama first thrilled, then disappointed and now enrages the left with his policies of (as they now see it): (1) giving the banks, health insurance companies, drug companies, for-profit hospitals and Washington lobbyists everything they want; (2) doing nothing for middle-class homeowners; and (3) escalating the war in Afghanistan.
Of course, conservatives are appalled at (among other things) the trillions of dollars in new deficits, the nationalizations, the trillion-dollar partisan slush fund (i.e., stimulus packages), the attempted federal government takeover of the private economy via carbon taxing and regulating, the weakening of our anti-terrorism efforts, the never-ending worldwide apology tour, the undercutting of allies while appeasing enemies, and the ongoing effort to destroy our health care system and replace it with a socialized, rationing Euro-system.
Remarkably, the president cannot even credibly make the claim that if he has the left and right agitated it is because he is going down the sensible middle. The Dec. 9 Quinnipiac Poll mirrors what other polls are showing: Mr. Obama is losing the independents, too. In that poll, overall, the president's approval/disapproval was 46 percent to 44 percent. However, with independents he was at 37 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval.
Of course, for both the left and the right, all our hopes and dreads hinge on how an increasingly volatile American public expresses itself on Election Day. Currently, in head-to-head polling of generic party voting intentions, the Republicans, who had been steadily down by double digits (and as much as 18 percent) to the Democrats, in the past few months have surged to a 2 percent to 3 percent advantage (RealClearPolitics' latest average: 43.3 percent to 41 percent).
But all is not solidity on the right. In one of the more remarkable entrances into American politics, the tea-party movement, which did not exist until spring, already has gained a second-place affiliation status in Scott Rasmussen's poll last month: Democratic Party, 36 percent; tea party, 23 percent; Republican Party, 18 percent. [/] That number is, if anything, probably understated because the polling respondents are taken from voter registration lists. And based on what I have observed while attending tea-party events (and from other sources), it is my sense that many tea-party people may not even have registered to vote in the past. (They are registering now, by golly.)
Keep in mind: They have no national leaders - no billionaire Ross Perot-type nor nationally admired Barry Goldwater-type. Of course, individuals are stepping up across the country to help organize, but they are the purest example of what Thomas Jefferson might have called an aroused yeomanry (back then, the small freeholders who cultivated their own land). They are a reaction (in the very best sense of the word) to the ongoing attempted power grab by Washington of a free people's wealth and rights.
In the aftermath of the economic collapse and the election of a glamorous new, young president who seemed to many people as a fresh force, unentangled with entrenched special interests (emphatically not my view, during the election or afterward) - the country could have gone one of two ways: Fearing the rigors of economic hard times, people could have sought shelter under the wing of a stronger government (as Americans did during the Great Depression), or, fearing the power of government, they could seek shelter in freedom - come what may economically. […] [/] Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century" (Regnery, 2009) and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama Hides His Credentials!?!

2009-12-22T14:52:00.000-05:00

Yet demands credibility!!! | While touting openess, accountability, and transparency!!!

The real issue, however, is not about birthers or theories or racism or whatever else you want to add. The real issue is about the secrecy of Barack Obama, and it involves more than the release of his complete birth records. Hospital records; high school, college and law school records; transcripts; writings; and passport info have been requested, and all are being withheld by Obama.
Mr. Obama is presented as the smartest man in the country, yet we have not seen his college course list or grades. Hmm, hmm, hmm.
A normative democratic society cannot allow a president to continue to speak disingenuously about transparency while withholding basic information. [My emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article, Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy, more below:

Just how foolish are the media --- and the electorate?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy [/] December 22, 2009 [/] By Monte Kuligowski
Everyone has gotten the memo by this point: Do not question Barack Obama. Even conservatives have been warned by other conservatives about mentioning the secrecy issue: It's pointless and can only harm conservatism. [/] Recently, Rusty Humphries broke the rule and asked Sarah Palin if she would make the "birth certificate an issue" if she runs for office. In her answer, she noted that people "still want answers" and "it's a fair question." Her enemies pounced quickly, casting her as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
[…] We happen to have a president who touts openness, accountability, and transparency in a way that is unparalleled when compared to all previous presidents. Yet we know less about this man than about his predecessors. Consequently, there are twists of irony and feelings of distrust at almost every turn in the Obama presidency.
I therefore suggest a couple of reasons for the president to hit the reset button and release the requested information. [/] People have asked to see the records. [/] That doesn't seem to be too much to ask from a man of outspoken transparency. And these are not just any people, but citizens of the U.S., over whom he presides, who have asked. They're not asking for the moon and the stars -- just simple documents.
The "natural born" requirement of the U.S. Constitution was inserted to prevent conflicting loyalties and ideologies in a president. Citizens have the right to feel assured in that constitutional protection. [/] Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history whose father was a foreign national in the U.S. on a student visa. His father was a non-practicing-Muslim-turned-atheist, and his mother later remarried another foreign national, this one from from Indonesia, who was also a Muslim.
Some believe Obama was adopted and became a citizen of his stepfather's country. Obama's mother moved him to Indonesia in 1967 to live with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. While other children Obama's age in America were pledging allegiance to the U.S. and learning to respect America, Obama as a schoolboy (grades 1-5) registered as Barry Soetoro, was reading from the Koran, reciting Muslim prayers, and learning the civics of Indonesia (the Indonesian school records were released independently prior to Obama's blockade).
Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to have been raised in nontraditional/non-Christian homes. Based on what he's said, his mother was an agnostic. Obama's grandparents, with whom he lived for a period, were extremely left-leaning in their religion and politics. As Obama admits in one of his two pre-accomplishment autobiographies, he associated with Marxists and radical leftists during his college days.
The president's situation is remarkably unique, and his uniqueness has nothing to do with the color of his skin. People have an assortment of reasons for wanting to see Obama's complete birth certificate and other records. [/] Yes, Mr. Obama has posted a bare-bones "certification of live birth" (which doesn't name the hospital or physician), and Hawaii has confirmed that the long-form certificate exists. However, it is no secret that births were routinely registered in 1961 by affidavit under the laws (Act 96) of the newly admitted state. On affidavits of non-hospital deliveries, certifications of live birth were generated in Hawaii.
Now, my argument is not that a foreign birth was registered as Hawaiian on a false affidavit. (Also, I don't argue that dual citizenship or a foreign adoption disqualify Obama.) That misses the point. My argument is that because Obama says he is transparent, he should be transparent -- especially when people have asked for the info. [/] No one should have had to file in court for Obama's records, including his birth records showing his hospital and delivering physician. And taxpayers should not have to foot the Justice Department's efforts in defending the withholding of basic information. Releasing the information would cost virtually nothing. The president should want to provide all the requested documents, especially when doubt exists. By withholding the requested information, Obama is slapping transparency in the face while trying to make it a feature of his presidency.
Mr. Obama might want to reconsider releasing simple documents to show that he respects the people. By refusing to do so, it sort of makes him look really arrogant, as if releasing the information would be beneath him. If he has nothing to hide, all that remains is inexplicable arrogance. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obamacare: Horrendous Backlash!?!

2009-12-22T14:49:00.001-05:00

And well deserved by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and assorted co-conspirators!!!

3. The problem isn’t simply with how substantively awful the bill is but how deeply dishonest and (legally) corrupt the whole process has been. There’s already a powerful populist, anti-Washington sentiment out there, perhaps as strong as anything we’ve seen. This will add kerosene to that raging fire.
4. Democrats have sold this bill as a miracle-worker; when people see first-hand how pernicious health-care legislation will be, abstract concerns will become concrete. That will magnify the unhappiness of the polity.
5. The collateral damage to Obama from this bill is enormous. More than any candidate in our lifetime, Obama won based on the aesthetics of politics. It wasn’t because of his record; he barely had one. And it wasn’t because of his command of policy; few people knew what his top three policy priorities were. It was based instead on the sense that he was something novel, the embodiment of a “new politics” – matured, high-minded and gracious, intellectually serious. That was the core of his speeches and his candidacy. In less than a year, that core has been devoured, most of all by this health-care process. [My emphasis]

From a Commentary Magazine .com article, The Health-Care Backlash, more below:

The people are awakening from their stupendous stupor. 56% now disapprove, 46% strongly disapprove Obama’s performance.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

The Health-Care Backlash [/] Posted By Peter Wehner On December 21, 2009 @ 3:07 PM In Contentions [/] Here are some thoughts on where things stand in the aftermath of the certain passage of the Senate health-care bill.
1. Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force.
2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it.
[…] Mr. Obama has shown himself to be a deeply partisan and polarizing figure. (“I have never been asked to engage in a single serious negotiation on any issue, nor has any other Republican,” Senator McCain reported over the weekend.) The lack of transparency in this process has been unprecedented and bordering on criminal. The president has been deeply misleading in selling this plan. Lobbyists, a bane of Obama during the campaign, are having a field day. [/] President Obama may succeed in passing a terribly unpopular piece of legislation – but in the process, he has shattered his carefully cultivated image. It now consists of a thousand shards.
6. This health-care bill shouldn’t be seen in isolation. It’s part of a train of events that include the stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill (complete with some 8,500 earmarks), and a record-sized budget. In addition, as Jim Manzi points out [1] in the new issue of National Affairs:
[Under Obama] the federal government has also intervened aggressively in both the financial and industrial sectors of the economy in order to produce specific desired outcomes for particular corporations. It has nationalized America’s largest auto company (General Motors) and intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings of the third-largest auto company (Chrysler), privileging labor unions at the expense of bondholders. It has, in effect, nationalized what was America’s largest insurance company (American International Group) and largest bank (Citigroup), and appears to have exerted extra-legal financial pressure on what was the second-largest bank (Bank of America) to get it to purchase the country’s largest securities company (Merrill Lynch). The implicit government guarantees provided to home-loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been called in, and the federal government is now the largest de facto lender in the residential real-estate market. The government has selected the CEOs and is setting compensation at major automotive and financial companies across the country. On top of these interventions in finance and commerce, the administration and congressional Democrats are also pursuing both a new climate and energy strategy and large-scale health-care reform. Their agenda would place the government at the center of these two huge sectors of the economy

Together, these actions tell quite a tale. Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical [policies].
Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party [[and the Nation]]. And there is more, much more to come. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Key Verse | Faith | 2 | Eph 2:8-10

2009-12-15T19:44:00.002-05:00

Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (KJV)

Character of Justifying Faith: B, The Gift Of God

Salvation is on the basis of unmerited favor (grace) and through the instrument of justifying Faith.

This Faith is the gift of God.

Salvation does not come through works lest man should boast.

Good works are the result of God’s workmanship.

Good works are the pre-ordained result of the joint working of God and His new creation in Christ Jesus.

A work cannot truly be called “good” without the intimate joining of the wills of God and His new creature.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; - First John 1:1 KJV
Hear, and thy soul shall live. - Isaiah 55:3 KJV

Obama the Red Avenger

2009-12-15T16:57:00.001-05:00

It’s rather obvious, actually.

Obama's early life indicates that young Barry may have been brought up as a Red Avenger against America. We know that he talks like an anti-capitalist and an anti-Constitutionalist, and that he compulsively apologizes for American actions during the Cold War. The Cold War was not something we started -- it was started by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other totalitarian mass murderers long before the Korean War and the Vietnam War, our two hot proxies in the Cold War.
What we haven't understood is how deeply Obama was indoctrinated from childhood onward in the war against America. But every intelligence agency in the world has to have figured it out, because it's all in the public record. Leftists around the world have also known it from day one, and that includes leading Democrats. Obama was not an unknown to Democrat Party apparatchiks. Or the media. Only the American people were kept in the dark. The media and the Democrats are still doing their Obama cover-up today and hoping they will get away with it. [My emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article, Obama the Red Avenger, more below:

His mother and her parents attended “the little red church in the vale”.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Obama the Red Avenger [/] December 15, 2009 [/] By James Lewis
The French called Hitler a revanchiste -- a Kaiser soldier of World War I aching to avenge his old defeat. Hitler made no secret of his desire for revenge. He made it a Nazi slogan. Well, you can have ideological revanchisme as well -- for instance, a Marxist determination to take revenge for America's victory against worldwide Communism in the Cold War.
[…] I just talked with a professor who […] obviously thinks he's a hero by being a Marxist in America. But according to Marxist historians themselves, Red regimes killed at least 100 million people in "crimes, terror and repression," with still more dying today in North Korea. That's not even counting the dead and wounded in wars fought by Communist regimes.
[…] Why is Obama so deeply, emotionally opposed to America's defense of freedom and democracy in the Cold War? Because Barry Soetoro was born in 1961 and lived in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta from age six to ten, the years 1967-1971 --- right after the bloodiest civil war in Indonesian history, which took place from 1965 to 1967. The Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was wiped out and massacred during that civil war. There is absolutely no way a left-wing family living in Jakarta could not have been in a constant uproar during those years, even after the massacres had died down. After all, Barry's parents were active sympathizers, if not party members themselves, as was his biological father
Indonesia was host to millions of ethnic Chinese, some of whom were slaughtered in the "communal violence" which followed a failed coup. China was then in the middle of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which killed from 50 to 70 million people. Ann Dunham, Lolo Soetoro and Barry Soetoro were living in the very midst of the hottest front line between the West and totalitarian Communism.
Indonesia's dictator General Sukarno was overthrown in 1965 by either the Communist Party (the PKI) or the Indonesian army and Islamic parties -- and probably by all three. The PKI was the third biggest Communist Party in the world outside of the Soviet Union and Communist China. (See The Year of Living Dangerously.) PKI members were killed in the resulting riots and massacres throughout 1965 and 1966, starting in Jakarta, where Barry Soetoro's family lived. Imaging living in Atlanta, GA, right after General Sherman finished marchin' through Georgia, and not knowing anything about it.
There is simply no way those earth-shattering events could not have touched Barry Soetoro's life in Jakarta from the age of six to ten. Barry's temporary dad Lolo Soetoro was originally a supporter of General Sukarno and the Left; Sukarno's party had sent Lolo to Hawaii to get a graduate degree, where he met Ann Dunham. There is no real safety in such conditions. Revenge killings happened after World War II in Europe and after the Civil War in the United States.
The big question is, Why did Ann Dunham risk bringing her young child to Jakarta? She must either have been utterly naïve politically, or, much more likely, she knew that she and Lolo were protected by powerful political forces. [/] Ann Dunham was at least an active fellow traveler with the Communist Party. Remember, this was just fifteen years after the death of Stalin and the American domestic reaction to Stalinist infiltration, now dubbed "McCarthyism." We now know with historical certainty that the U.S. government, including the State Department and the White house, was in fact infiltrated by Stalin's Communist Party members, and that secrets of U.S. nuclear bombs were instantly passed to the Soviet Union by Manhattan Project member Klaus Fuchs, who was honored by the East Germany Communist Party when he went back there. Stalinist Communists were also very powerful in Hollywood, the newspapers, and the universities.
Barry's childhood and education under the guardianship of Communist Party rep Frank Marshall Davis, followed by an endless parade of far Leftist mentors from Hawaii to Harvard and Chicago, were all shaped by an identical political narrative. Every adult he ever knew told the same story. Everybody hated the same satanic enemy: American capitalism -- also known as freedom and democracy – the CIA, the U.S. military, Senator Joe McCarthy, President Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon. We now know that Nixon was overthrown by the American Left using the Watergate scandal, including the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee, in close coordination with the FBI's Assistant Director Mark Felt, who was Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat.
The Jesuits used to say, "Give us a boy before he is ten and we will have him for life." That's why the Ranting Reverend Wright's Church of Marxism was such a natural place for the Obamas to go every Sunday and bring up their own girls. It's what they were used to; it had that old home feeling.
When kids believe that their mothers and fathers are in danger, they often imagine themselves to be the saviors -- they can get a Savior Complex. (Sound familiar?) Children in abusive families often feel that way. Barry Soetoro grew up needing to rescue his side in the Cold War -- the Red side.
Human beings who think they are world saviors are narcissists from day one because they believe they have God-like powers. How else can you Save the Planet? How else can you "keep the seas from riiiiising," as Obama said in his acceptance speech to the Democrats? Narcissism is a standard character trait on the Left. It's one of the basic differences between ideological Leftists and conservatives. Edmund Burke, the granddaddy of Anglo-American conservatism, pointed that out in his most important book, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1791). Conservatives are generally normal people. Ideological Leftists are ambitious World Saviors who turn out to kill a lot of people who resisted being saved by coercive force. Can you think of any American conservative who acts like Obama?
Take a kid with a savior complex and raise him with an endless slew of Leftist mentors, from Mom onwards. He is the savior child as far as they are concerned -- the Red Avenger. He will redeem them in the bitter aftermath of the defeat of Communism. Barack Obama has had substitute parents -- patrons who eased his way -- throughout his life, including Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Emil Jones.
Notice that I have not said that Obama is dangerous. A lot depends on defeating ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, EPA regulation of CO2, and dozens of other mad and foolish schemes.
The American political system is resilient, but we must know the truth. I believe that "the Red Avenger" is the ground truth of who Obama really is.
It's not Obama's blackness that's at issue. It's his redness. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Jim Smiling's Tweet of the Day - 12/14/09

2009-12-15T14:52:00.002-05:00

“I never seen nothin’ like that before and I’ve been putting in septic tanks for twenty years.” bit.ly/6WFjde

Grace is always amazing.

Jim Smiling Tweet of the Day 12/15/09

2009-12-15T14:47:00.002-05:00

A working stove, hot water, a new pair of shoes. William "Bill" Jayson didn't want these "luxuries." Instead, he saved. bit.ly/8euhKn

Acts 20:33-37 KJV I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. 34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. 36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. 37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,

Liberal Talking Points Are So Yesterday

2009-12-12T17:47:00.001-05:00

I get tired of hearing and reading the same old stuff.

Liberal talking points in posts are new to very few. Those who follow mainstream media have already heard them praised. Those who follow alternate media have already heard them ridiculed.

I, for one, would appreciate posts that are more informative and substantial.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalm 20:7

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my
Blogs, Forums & Essays

The Obama Four Year Plan to Re-make America

2009-12-12T14:43:00.001-05:00

Link to the entire article. The devil is in the details.

This spirit of freedom which built our country is presently in jeopardy. It is being stealthily undermined by the peculiar form of government which the Obama administration is determined to institutionalize; a government with a lust for control that is more expansive in scope than many seem to realize; and one which tries to arrogate - contrary to the principles of the Founding Fathers- far more power than it was originally intended to wield.
Amongst the primary objectives the Obama administration has set out to accomplish are: a complete restructuring of our economy in accordance with the President's socialist construct; the establishment of a federally run Health Care System; the reshaping of our military prowess into an obsolete commodity; A gradual consolidation, under the Executive branch, of authority commonly delegated to the Judicial and the Legislative branches; and finally, the legal prohibition of aired dissent from any assembly or media outlet which happens to disagree with the President or seeks to divulge the potentially deleterious effects of his policies.
A key element of this strategy is to create a narrative which questions the plausibility of a majority elected government in a free society like ours, entertaining and eventually actualizing such illiberal aspirations, and portrays the Obama administration as one that is not engaged in clandestine operations as has been unfairly alleged; and that any evidences to the contrary are merely the unintended consequences of nobler initiatives which have been skewed by the media, or most likely part of a smear conspiracy from his right wing detractors. [My emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article, The Obama 4 year plan to re-make America, more below:

Some Americans get it. Including the 20% that favor impeachment. According to the liberal Public Policy Polling December 4-7 [.pdf link, scroll down]:

Q6 Do you support the impeachment of President Obama for his actions in office so far? Yes - 20%; No - 67%; Not Sure- 13%

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

The Obama 4 year plan to re-make America [/] December 12, 2009 [/] By Miguel A. Guanipa
There are very good reasons why the United States of America is still worthy of being referred to as the greatest country is the world. This Nation's very existence is a tribute to the unflagging spirit of innovation, courage and self-determination. But most importantly, America provides an exemplary model for what the concept of freedom is supposed to look like in real time, which other countries seek to emulate. That is not the myopic and pretentious declaration of a naive urbanite -- it is a demonstrable truth. Try living overseas for a little while and you will see what I mean.
[…] But since the Obama administration has indeed shown that it does entertain such aspirations, and that it plans to make good on them, let us then briefly examine every one of these rather ambitious objectives in terms of their respective strategies, if for no other reason than to offer some kind of preparatory grounds for resistance.
[…] How then do we stop this well orchestrated assault on our freedoms?
Freedom means action, and it comes with great responsibility. Once we surrender our responsibility to preserve Freedom and are given over to complacency, our precious liberties naturally begin to erode. [/] So first we must sound the alarm and do our best to warn the uninformed, of the imminent peril our freedoms face. We must also resist by coming out in force to the voting booth. And finally, we must pray ardently. For if these objectives are allowed to see fruition, it will not matter who is chosen next time, for new administrations seldom take pains to rescind or diminish their fresh claims to power, once their predecessors have cast a wide net of dominance over that which they have been asked to preside.
If we avoid this great responsibility, we should not be surprised when we awaken one day to find that not only us, but also our children, have little choice but to endure the terrible consequences of our apathy. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obamacare Dissed By Gov Actuaries Report

2009-12-12T11:39:00.001-05:00

Government Medicare Actuaries Report Costs Hidden From Public

A report by analysts at the Health and Human Services Department said the bill would increase the nation's annual spending on health care beyond the current $2.5 trillion at a slightly faster rate than if Congress did nothing. It concluded that new taxes on drugs, medical devices and health insurance plans would trigger higher insurance premiums for consumers. [/] The report also said the Democrats' plan to pay for about half of the $1 trillion bill with Medicare cuts "may be unrealistic" and could undermine the Medicare program, warning the bill could force out of business one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care providers. [My emphasis]

From a Washington Times article, Rising costs predicted in health care bill

Some of the enormous hidden costs to taxpayers, providers, and patients are reported by honest civil servants.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Rising costs predicted in health care bill [/] Saturday, December 12, 2009 [/] S.A. Miller
Dealing an unexpected blow to Senate Democrat's health care bill, administration economists on Friday predicted the overhaul would accelerate rising costs of health insurance and medical services, and that its proposed Medicare cuts could reduce care for senior citizens. [/] The report, which included a disclaimer that it did not represent the Obama administration's position on the health care bill, supplied fresh ammunition to Republicans.
"Higher costs and cuts to Medicare are not the reforms the American people want and need," said Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, ranking Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "How many more devastating studies do we need before the Democratic leadership will agree we need to scrap these flawed bills and start over?"
White House spokesman Linda Douglass stressed the report's finding that the legislation would have a "a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates." She said opponents of President Obama's health care reform efforts were cherry-picking the report and ignoring the long-term benefits it cited. [/] "As savings from reform kick in, national health expenditures are projected to increase at a slower annual rate under the Senate bill than under the status quo," she said.
The report was prepared by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which specializes in long-range cost evaluations for Medicare. It analyzed the total public and private cost of the health care bill over the next 10 years, in contrast to earlier studies by the Congressional Budget Office that said the measure would minimally lower the record-setting federal deficit over the decade. [/] Under the Democrats' plan, according to the analysis, health care spending would rise by an additional 0.7 percent between 2010 and 2019, mostly the result of more people getting medical services. [/] Although the increased access to health care would drive up costs, the report found that the bill would accomplish Mr. Obama's goal of expanding health care coverage. About 93 percent of Americans would have health insurance under the plan, removing about 33 million people from the ranks of the uninsured.
Perhaps the most startling revelation in the report, however, was an assessment that cuts to the Medicare program could undermine it. [/] "Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable," the report said. "Absent legislative intervention, [physicians] might end their participation in the program, possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the bill got a "failing grade." He said the report, coupled with a CNN poll on Friday that showed 61 percent of Americans oppose the health care bill, was a seminal moment in the debate. [/] "How much more do we need to hear before we stop this bill and start over?" Mr. McConnell said. [/] Democrats are embracing the budget office findings that said the bill would reduce the deficit and likely not increase premiums for most people who already have health insurance. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama Safe School Czar F%%%gate Links

2009-12-10T14:33:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Times & Big Government .com & Gateway Pundit

Washington Times Obama’s risky-s%%-czar: http://bit.ly/6Le498

Big Government .com F%%%gate IV: http://bit.ly/8FE6CT

Gateway Pundit F%%%gate III: http://bit.ly/84Irqm

WARNING: This editorial includes discussion of topics that are sexually graphic. Under usual circumstances, we would never entertain these subjects or the rancid language involved. In this case, however, a very unusual exception must be made because the issues are central to the background of a senior presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Education who is in a position to influence how and what our children are taught in our nation's schools. Thus far, out of fear or squeamishness, there has been public hesitance to examine closely the beliefs of this individual because many are afraid even to touch the risky content. Our scruples cannot be used against us when traditional moral precepts need to be defended. Simply, the deep level of depravity involved in this subject cannot be portrayed without providing a couple of examples to illustrate the inappropriate content. Please do not read any further if you will be offended by sexually graphic language. […] [My emphasis]

From a Washington Times editorial, Obama's risky-s%% czar

Distasteful language is sometimes needed. Particularly if one wishes to keep such language out of public schools.

The Gateway Pundit posts convincingly convict the Obama Safe School Czar of decade long detailed teaching of all sorts of pansexual activity to children. The organization he founded and headed taught such things to children in 2000, 2001, and 2005. Major public objections were ignored. Lessons that appear to have more to do with promotion of alternate life styles than promotion of tolerance for alternate life style practitioners.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Totalitarian Sentimentality

2009-12-10T12:09:00.001-05:00

”The social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy.”

[The Liberal and Conservative] portraits are familiar to everyone, and I have no doubt on which side the readers of this magazine will stand. What all conservatives know, however, is that it is they who are motivated by compassion, and that their cold-heartedness is only apparent. They are the ones who have taken up the cause of society, and who are prepared to pay the cost of upholding the principles on which we all -- liberals included – depend. To be known as a social conservative is to lose all hope of an academic career; it is to be denied any chance of those prestigious prizes, from the MacArthur to the Nobel Peace Prize, which liberals confer only on each other. For an intellectual it is to throw away the prospect of a favorable review -- or any review at all -- in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books. Only someone with a conscience could possibly wish to expose himself to the inevitable vilification that attends such an "enemy of the people." And this proves that the conservative conscience is governed not by self-interest but by a concern for the public good. Why else would anyone express it?
By contrast, as conservatives also know, the compassion displayed by the liberal is precisely that -- compassion displayed, though not necessarily felt. The liberal knows in his heart that his "compassionating zeal," as Rousseau described it, is a privilege for which he must thank the social order that sustains him. He knows that his emotion toward the victim class is (these days at least) more or less cost-free, that the few sacrifices he might have to make by way of proving his sincerity are nothing compared to the warm glow of approval by which he will be surrounded by declaring his sympathies. His compassion is a profoundly motivated state of mind, not the painful result of a conscience that will not be silenced, but the costless ticket to popular acclaim. [My emphasis]

From an American Spectator article, Totalitarian Sentimentality , more below:

Is your compassion cost-free – or costly?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

THE PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE [/] Totalitarian Sentimentality [/] By Roger Scruton from the December 2009-January 2010 issue
Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay. Conservatives therefore maintain severe and -- to many people -- unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service. They believe in the family and think that the father is an essential part in it. They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency. They value the hard-won legal and constitutional inheritance of their country and believe that immigrants must also value it if they are to be allowed to settle here. Conservatives do not think that war is caused by military strength, but on the contrary by military weakness, of a kind that tempts adventurers and tyrants. And a properly ordered society must be prepared to fight wars -- even wars in foreign parts -- if it is to enjoy a lasting peace in its homeland. In short conservatives are a hard and unfriendly bunch who, in the world in which we live, must steel themselves to be reviled and despised by all people who make compassion into the cornerstone of the moral life.
Liberals are of course very different. They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included. And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better. Children should be allowed to play and express their love of life; the last thing they need is discipline. Learning comes -- didn't Dewey prove as much? -- from self-expression; and as for sex education, which gives the heebie-jeebies to social conservatives, no better way has ever been found of liberating children from the grip of the family and teaching them to enjoy their bodily rights. Immigrants are just migrants, victims of economic necessity, and if they are forced to come here illegally that only increases their claim on our compassion. Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give -- something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves. As for the legal and constitutional inheritance of the country, this is certainly to be respected -- but it must "adapt" to new situations, so as to extend its protection to the new victim class. Wars are caused by military strength, by "boys with their toys," who cannot resist the desire to flex their muscles, once they have acquired them. The way to peace is to get rid of the weapons, to reduce the army, and to educate children in the ways of soft power. In the world in which we live liberals are self-evidently lovable -- emphasizing in all their words and gestures that, unlike the social conservatives, they are in every issue on the side of those who need protecting, and against the hierarchies that oppress them.
[…] Bush was the voice of a property-owning democracy, in which hard work and family values still achieved a public endorsement. As a result he was hated by the European elites, and hated all the more because Europe needs America and knows that, without America, it will die. Obama is welcomed as a savior: the American president for whom the Europeans have been hoping – the one who will rescue them from the truth.
How America itself will respond to this, however, remains doubtful. I suspect, from my neighbors in rural Virginia, that totalitarian sentimentality has no great appeal to them, and that they will be prepared to resist a government that seeks to destroy their savings and their social capital, for the sake of a compassion that it does not really feel.

10% of Democrats want to impeach Obama

2009-12-09T21:30:00.001-05:00

5% of those who voted for Obama want him impeached.

10% of Democrats want to impeach Obama [/] Public Policy Polling, the liberal polling service, asked 1,253 registered voters: “Do you support the impeachment of President Obama for his actions in office so far?” [/] 20% said yes. Among Democrats, 10% said yes. [/] Even more incredibly, 5% of those who voted for Obama want him impeached. [/] Now surely Joe Biden cannot have that many relatives. [My emphasis]

From a Charleston Daily Mail article, 10% of Democrats want to impeach Obama

An honest and responsible House member would have submitted a bill of impeachment after the first month or two in office.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Palin On Politicized Science

2009-12-09T16:05:00.001-05:00

Alaska Experience Enlightens Climategate, Copenhagen

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. [My emphasis]

From a Washington Post article, Copenhagen's political science , more below:

Trusted pro-America, pro-humanity, voices agree.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Copenhagen's political science [/] By Sarah Palin [/] Wednesday, December 9, 2009
[…] This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions – President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.
In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen. [/] The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama’s Whiney Blame Game

2009-12-09T14:14:00.001-05:00

Whopper of the Day: "One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility."

The other day, I wrote that President Obama has "run out of both charm and ideas." I was too kind. [/] To judge from the string of whoppers in his dreary jobs speech yesterday, he's also run out of facts. And he's still whining about the problems he inherited and blaming Republicans. [/] He might as well be barking at the moon. That's sort of what he is doing, because the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace. [My emphasis]

From a New York Post article, Bam's whiny blame game , more below:

The Bubble Crumbles On!!!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Bam's whiny blame game [/] By MICHAEL GOODWIN [/] Last Updated: 5:22 AM, December 9, 2009
[…] The latest Gallup Poll gives him a record low 47 percent approval. Only 26 percent in another poll say he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Naturally, his press secretary attacks the pollsters, likening them to children with crayons. [/] And Obama plunges on with his blame-game act. It's tired, unpresidential and ineffective, all the more so because he's banking on a bill of goods to prop himself up. [/] The most egregious example came when Obama said yesterday the $700 billion bank-bailout fund, or TARP, was "launched hastily under the last administration" and was "flawed."
Here are the facts. George Bush was in the White House, but Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Obama himself, as a senator, voted for the bailout in October 2008. [/] No one claims the bill was perfect, but there is no record --zero -- of Obama trying to fix it. Remember, it was John McCain who rushed back to Washington after the first version failed and tried to get involved to reshape it. [/] McCain flubbed the effort, but Obama made none. He only reluctantly joined a White House conference with McCain and Bush on the bailout after urging Congress "to step up to the plate and get this done."
He went on the Senate floor and said there wasn't time to fiddle with the bill before leaving the details to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said at the time, "No one knows what to do."
Fortunately, there were people who knew what to do. Timothy Geithner, then chairman of the New York Federal Reserve and now Obama's treasury secretary, was deeply involved with Bush's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in shaping the legislation that helped to avert a financial crash.
That 2008 vote released half the TARP money, with a second vote coming in January 2009, a week before Obama was inaugurated. He wanted the second installment of $350 billion, and most Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to give it to him. [/] The record is clear: The $700 billion bailout was crafted on a bipartisan basis, with Obama's support and encouragement, and he has controlled most of the money. For him to now claim otherwise is disgraceful.
Of course, no Obama speech is complete without straw men bearing false choices, and yesterday's was no exception, as this passage shows: [/] "There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other. But this is a false choice." [/] It's not a false choice, given the context of Obama's plan to use $200 billion of the TARP money as a slush fund to help small businesses. That's not the deal he made in January. [/] Angry over how Paulson and Geithner used the first half, Congress set tighter restrictions on the money because it was borrowed and thus added to the deficit. The intent was to repay it as soon as possible, not to turn it into a revolving pot of discretionary spending for the White House.
Still, Obama was just getting warmed up. The earlier misleading claims were mere prelude to his Whopper of the Day: "One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility."
Does a single American believe that? Does he? […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

It's high time Barack Obama learnt some manners

2009-12-09T13:08:00.001-05:00

The American president is acting like an elephant in a porcelain shop.

First Mr Obama declines an invitation to lunch with King Harald V, the Norwegian monarch, an event every other winner, from the Dailai Lama to Al Gore, has graciously accepted. Then he announces he won’t have time to visit the Oslo Peace Centre, where the achievements of previous winners are celebrated. As one Norwegian public relations expert puts it: “The American president is acting like an elephant in a porcelain shop.” [My emphasis]

From a Telegraph [UK] article, It's high time Barack Obama learnt some manners , more below:

Walking in darkness leads to stumbles.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

It's high time Barack Obama learnt some manners [/] By Con Coughlin World Last updated: December 9th, 2009
We here in Britain are well-aquainted with the haughty disdain with which U.S. President Barack Obama likes to treat his European allies. We might have the largest military force of any European country fighting alongside the Americans in southern Afghanistan, but that doesn’t seem to count for much at the White House, where Mr Obama’s shabby treatment of our prime minister has now become the norm. Whether it is offering him a box set of dvds, or forcing him to conduct important bilateral meetings in the kitchens of the U.N. complex in New York, Mr Obama’s charmless treatment of Gordon Brown has become a standard feature of the so-called special relationship.
But now, with his dismissive treatment of the Nobel peace prize committee, Mr Obama’s supercilious behaviour has plunged new depths. One might question why on earth the worthy souls responsible for awarding the prize decided on someone whose main claim to fame so far is simply to have got himself elected. But having accepted the award, the least Mr Obama could do would be to show the Norwegian hosts some respect. But no, Mr Obama insists on doing everything his way, even when it comes to something as banal as accepting a peace prize, and on this occasion he has managed to cause immense offence to the peace-loving Scandawegians.
[…] Con Coughlin, the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, is a world-renowned expert on the Middle East and Islamic terrorism. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books. His new book, Khomeini's Ghost, is published by Macmillan [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama and Palin Autobiographies Compared

2009-12-09T12:14:00.001-05:00

”Even the [New York] Times gets it”

The much ballyhooed Obama “biography”, Dreams From My Father , is more like a really crappy piece of abstract art. Nobody in the room wants to admit they don’t get it for fear of appearing unsophisticated. [/] Going Rogue is a chronology of the events that shaped Palin’s life with her character coming through entirely naturally. Dreams is a muddy admixture of scenes, many of them fictional, from the perspective of an angry, self obsessed young man with an aptitude for finding ersatz racism in absolutely any situation no matter how innocuous. Palin’s book recounts her numerous accomplishments. That option was not available to Obama. [/] Dreams is a meandering saga told disjointedly out of sequence suggesting the author’s lofty artistic aspirations far outstrip his actual talents. [My emphasis]

From a Canada Free Press .com article, Comparing Dreams of My Father and Going Rogue, more below. The New York Times article referred to is currently unavailable. But Google cache version is available.

The stumbling, in both word and act, of those who are walking in darkness is obvious to those who are in the Light, directly or culturally.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Comparing Dreams of My Father and Going Rogue [/] The New York Times Hearts Palin [/] By Joy Tiz Tuesday, December 8, 2009
“When I walked into the Strand Bookstore in Manhattan last week, I headed straight for the bright young thing who wore an ‘Ask Me’ button, and asked her to point me to the section of the store where I might find Sarah Palin’s memoir, ‘Going Rogue: An American Life.’ She looked at me as if I had requested a copy of ‘Mein Kampf’ signed in blood by the author, and directed me to the nearest Barnes and Noble, where, presumably, readers of dubious taste and sensibility could find what they wanted.” [/] The audacious Stanley Fish of the New York Times persevered and was able to appropriate a copy of Palin’s book. Perseverance is a ubiquitous theme in her tome which is not to be confused with Barack Obama’s perseveration.
Fish liked the book and by extrapolation, Palin herself. Her autobiography is undeniably all Sarah: [/] “The questions to ask then are (1) Does Palin succeed in conveying to her readers the kind of person she is? and (2) Does she do it in a satisfying and artful way? In short, is the book a good autobiographical read? I would answer ‘yes’ to both.” [/] Fish is taken with Palin’s authenticity. Her many supporters figured that out long ago. The autobiography is a crisp and snappy read, telling the life story of Sarah Palin. Palin is a doer, not a dreamer, and unlike the current Oval Office occupant, Palin is keenly aware of how her actions impact other people.
[…] Obama spends most of his book whining. Everything that fails to go his way is due to racism. Most disturbingly, Obama never rages or whines about the legitimate traumas of his youth: abandonment by both parents. Instead he acts out and continues to do so from the White House. [/] Whining is not part of Sarah Palin’s disposition. Whiners wouldn’t last long in Alaska. Both Sarah and her husband Todd’s families imbued a compelling work ethic into their offspring. Unlike Obama, Todd Palin does not exploit his ethnic heritage for political gain.
Both Obama and Palin come from outlier states which were brand new to the union. Obama manifestly developed no love or respect for the country he now is supposed to lead. By contrast, Palin is American down to the cellular level. Even the Times gets it: [/] “The message is clear. America can’t be stopped. I can’t be stopped. I’ve stumbled and fallen, but I always get up and run again. Her political opponents, especially those who dismissed Ronald Reagan before he was elected, should take note. Wherever you are, you better watch out. Sarah Palin is coming to town.” [/] But beware of liberals bearing gifts. Chris Matthews, who has the impulse control of a two year old, is beseeching the GOP nominate Palin for 2012 in the fatuous belief that she will be the party’s most beatable.
Joy Tiz, Joytiz.com, born in Chicago, recalls when many democrats were actually normal people who were just wrong about everything. Joy holds a M.Sc. in psychology and a JD in law. [/] Joy has written extensively about current events and politics. She was a columnist at Americas Voices and now writes for Canada Free Press. Joy’s latest book, Obamanutz: A Cult Leader takes the White House provides an unblinking look at who Barack Obama is and what forces propelled him into the White House. [/] Email: joy@joytiz.com or Twitter at: Joytiz [My ellipses and emphasis]

Nat Hentoff: The cold heart of Obamacare

2009-12-06T11:03:00.001-05:00

From an important liberal columnist:

Is there anything you want to say to your representatives in the House or Senate before the final vote is taken? If you don't act urgently now, you may become part of another collective statistic – American annual death rates.

I'm scared, and I do mean to scare you.

We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be. That decision is way above their pay grades.

Nat Hentoff: The cold heart of Obamacare - http://shar.es/aIK1c

Climategate Summary Tweeted

2009-12-02T15:43:00.001-05:00

Climategate Summary From National Review .com (NRO) via Jim Smiling Tweets
The scandal surrounding Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is 3 scandals: science, media, political. nro.
1. Scientific scandal: the leading lights of the climate-research cabal conspired: fudge data & silence skeptics. ib
2. Media scandal: reporters and editors on the climate beat acted as stenographers & ignored the scandal. ibid
3. Political scandal: officeholders using bunk science to control & decimate the world’s energy. ibid.
http://tinyurl.com/ybqgd2n

Obama: Most Supporters Deserting

2009-12-02T13:44:00.001-05:00

Examination of Three Groups of 2008 Supporters Fading Away

The magic is gone from Barack Obama. He's here, but the glamour has vanished. He still talks, but few people appear to be listening. [/] Sometime in spring, it began to be noticed (by Fred Barnes, among others) that he was losing the power to move people, or shape their opinions. When his agenda began meeting resistance, he gave a series of speeches and resistance grew stronger. The more he explained, the more people disliked what he said he was doing. [/] The base remained loyal, but three other subgroups had become disenchanted. "The thrill is gone," said E.J. Dionne, who seemed at a loss as to where it had gone to. In the interests of clarity, and of diagnosis, let us attempt to explain. [My emphasis]

From a Washington Examiner article, Obama is so last season, more below:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, / As I foretold you, were all spirits and / Are melted into air, into thin air: / And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, / The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, / The solemn temples, the great globe itself, / Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve / And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, / Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep. – Shakespeare, The Tempest, 4.1

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Washington Examiner article, Obama is so last season

Barack Obama is so last season [/] By: Noemie Emery, Examiner Columnist [/] December 2, 2009
[…] There was one group that fell for Obama the Moderate, the man who kept his head (or appeared to) in the financial meltdown last autumn, the temperamental conservative who seemed incremental, the one David Brooks would call "Burkean." Unfortunately, the temperamental conservative turned out to be an ideological radical, intent on ramming through on a narrow majority (and against the wishes of most of the country) a massive redo of the health care delivery system, an immense stack of paper that no one has read.
There was a second that fell for Obama the Story, the half-African waif, whose rise to the leadership of a powerful, once-slave-holding nation was the matter of legend, and tears. He was Reaganesque, he was JFK Redux, a figure of glamour and eloquence. [/] But Reagan and Kennedy saw themselves as temporary custodians of a tradition older and bigger than they were, and thought they were lucky to serve it. Obama seems to think he is doing the country a favor by gracing it. [/] Reagan and Kennedy wanted to project and increase American power and influence; Obama wants to walk it back from what he thinks its delusions of consequence. Reagan and Kennedy talked about freedom, which gave their speeches their eloquence. Obama is bored with the subject of freedom (ask Iran and Honduras), and talks of himself. [/] It is a topic that gets stale fairly quickly. In fact, it already has.
Then there's the third group, perhaps the most painful, which is the young voters, who fell for Obama the Fad. "In 2008 the torch really was passed to a new generation of voters," Dionne had said hopefully. A year later, however, the torch has gone missing, or simply slipped out of their hands. [/] Democratic pollster Celinda Lake found "a dramatically lower level of turnout from Obama surge voters," whose lack of interest seemed terminal. "I don't like what any of them are doing in Washington," an ex-voter complained. It was all so confusing, or perhaps so exhausting. "I'm tired of politics," as another one told her. "I need a rest." [/] "Barack Obama ... is now being treated as a new fashion icon," one fashion blog had reported. Anna Wintour held fundraisers for him. Diane von Furstenberg designed a tote in his honor. Donatella Versace dedicated her collection to him, during Fashion Week in Milan. [/] Obama was sold less as a pol than a fashion accessory, which is how the young bought him. It didn't hurt that he looked like the models in catalogs. He was so young and so hip, and so trendy and slender. [/] They bought less his ideas than his aura and ambiance. And what was the problem with that? [/] Well, quite a lot. As any fashionista will tell you, the problem with being this year's "in" fashion is that sooner or later, you're out. [/] Obama now is "so 2008," which might be 1908 to Celinda Lake's voters. They've been there and done that, and want the new model. [/] All presidents fail in some things, and some fail in most things, but Obama is the first to become a true fashion victim. Everyone knows what happens to fashions that go out of style: They get shoved on a rack to the back of the closet, and slide in a heap to the floor. [/] Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families." [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL BJon GateCrashGate: Who to trust?

2009-12-01T13:26:00.001-05:00

Salahi denies. Gibbs: the Salahis were gatecrashers. Hard choice. http://tinyurl.com/ydpfqko

Use tinyurl or see excerpt below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 148832!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Yahoo .com AP article, Salahi denies being White House party-crasher:

Salahi denies being White House party-crasher [/] By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 3 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The man who got into a White House dinner without an invitation denied Tuesday that he and his wife were gatecrashers. [/] Appearing on a nationally broadcast morning news show with his wife, Michaele, Tareq Salahi said the furor surrounding their attendance at the state dinner for the visiting Indian prime minister has been a "most devastating" experience. [/] Salahi said in the interview Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show that there was more to the story — an explanation that would exonerate the couple from allegations of misconduct in the breach of White House security.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, appearing on the same program, stood by the administration's position that the Salahis were gatecrashers. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Hat tip to Jim Smiling tweet: GateCrashGate: Who to trust? Salahi denies. Gibbs: the Salahis were gatecrashers. Hard choice. http://tinyurl.com/ydpfqko

Poll Question: GateCrashGate: Who to trust? | Poll choices:

1. Sahali. O people dishonest. / 2. Sahali. O White House deceitful. / 3. Sahali. Doubt Dem. Officials. / 4. Sahali. O people inept. / 5. Sahali. O White House disfunctional. / 6. Sahali. What has O done right?. / 7. Sahali. Washington bureaucratic snafu. / 8. Sahali. . / 9. Do not trust either. / 10. Neither, both D.C. types. / 11. Trust both, but not O. / 12.Trust both, misunderstanding. / 13. Gibbs. . / 14. Gibbs. Mrs. S crashed Redskins. / 15. Gibbs. Had time to think. / 16. Gibbs. O staff had time to think. / 17. Gibbs. O had time to think. / 18. Gibbs. His ineptitude not perfect. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24.Interesting, but stupid / 25 Other.

Climategate: Lead UN Warmist Scientists Dumped Data

2009-11-30T14:13:00.002-05:00

Times UK: East Anglia U Climate Research Unit dumped raw data,

These people are the lead technicl activists for the UN and the worldwide global warmist cabal.

The dog ate Al Gore's homework.

Two Big Pictures: ClimateGate & Obama

2009-11-30T13:24:00.002-05:00

Power Line/Muir/Ramiriz on Obama White House & Climategate.

Pictures worth 2000 words.

Climategate: Worst Science Scandal

2009-11-29T19:11:00.001-05:00

Scientific Establishment Is Hopelessly Compromised

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails [/] from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [My emphasis]

From a Telegraph [UK] article, Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal , more below:

Millennium’s worst science scandal, so far. Sorry about that, Al Gore.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation [/] Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. [/] By Christopher Booker [/] Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
[...] Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. [/] Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. [/] They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
[...] The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
[...] The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports. […]

Government Caused Economic Debacle

2009-11-28T11:48:00.001-05:00

Subprime Quicksand In Giant Government Created & Backed Banks

Placing the roots of the housing boom and bust in the free market and the solution in government is very convenient for politicians and for those who favor government interventions. But such explanations are inconsistent with facts, however impressive they might be as exercises in rhetoric.
Both the genesis of unaffordable housing in particular local areas and the responses with national policies to make buying a home easier were political in origin, and government regulation is what forced lenders to meet arbitrary quotas by eroding traditional mortgage-lending safeguards. [/] The facts could not be plainer.
Market criteria had long required such things as substantial down payments, as well as income and credit histories that made continuing payments likely. But all that was brushed aside in the political crusade for "affordable housing" and bigger homeownership statistics. [/] Both the unrealistic nature of policies pursued in the name of "affordable housing" and the serious dangers that such policies posed to the entire economy provoked many warnings from economists and others. But these warnings were repeatedly brushed aside by political leaders, often by shifting the focus to the supposed benefits of creating more homeownership through "affordable housing." [My emphasis]

From a Investors [Business Daily [IBD]] .com excerpt from a book by Thomas Sowell, How Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Sank In The Subprime Quicksand
, more below:

”An economic primer on the housing bubble, but more importantly, it is an examination of the ruling class's inability to leave well enough alone” – American Spectator on Sowell’s book

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from an Investors [Business Daily [IBD]] .com excerpt from a book by Thomas Sowell, How Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Sank In The Subprime Quicksand

IBD EDITORIALS [/] How Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Sank In The Subprime Quicksand [/] By THOMAS SOWELL [/] Posted 11/27/2009 06:48 PM ET
[…] Who, if not the taxpayers, would pay for these government subsidies — much less the defaults from making riskier loans — was not revealed.
For some homebuyers, the standards were relaxed to the point where there was no down payment at all required, contrary to a long-standing tradition that homebuyers should have some stake in the home, so as to reduce the risk of default on the mortgage. The reduction or elimination of traditional safeguards in mortgage lending entailed a rising riskiness of the mortgages acquired by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the new and lower mortgage loan approval standards.
Under these political pressures, traditional mortgage loans with traditional safeguards began to decline and mortgage loans made under the "innovative" and "flexible" standards urged by government increased.
[…] What was crucial was that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was among the federal agencies pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make more loans to people who would not normally be approved for loans — the "underserved" population, in the phrase often used — "allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing," according to the Washington Post.
In short, riskier loans were accepted as good loans by one of the key regulators of the housing markets.
Moreover, HUD was not just accepting subprime lending but pushing for more. After HUD became a regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992, these government-sponsored enterprises were set numerical goals — quotas — for what share of their lending was to be for "affordable housing" mortgages.
In practice, they were pushed to acquire more subprime mortgages.
This was important not only because of the risk to the assets of these two enterprises themselves but, because they are dominant forces in the housing market and major gigantic financial institutions, there were dangers to the whole financial market if things went wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose securities were widely held by other financial institutions on Wall Street and beyond. [/] The importance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the housing markets is demonstrated by the magnitude of their mortgage guarantees, which total more than two trillion dollars. That is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four nations.
Ordinarily, financial markets would become less willing to invest in an enterprise with ever-growing risks. But, although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are officially private, profit-making enterprises, their size and the federal government's involvement in both their creation and their ongoing operations led many investors to assume that the federal government would never allow them to fail.
Which is to say, the increasing riskiness of the assets of these two mortgage market giants was an increasing riskiness for the taxpayers, whether the taxpayers knew it or not.
[…] Moreover, "creative" accounting within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac themselves concealed the full extent of the risk until independent audits turned up discrepancies at both places, which led to the resignation of the heads of both institutions.
[...] Next week: Alan Greenspan's concerns and how such concerns were dismissed by Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd and others who resisted reform of Fannie and Freddie. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Thank God for America!

2009-11-26T14:08:00.001-05:00

Thanksgiving: The Great American Holy Day

Thanksgiving is not simply about giving thanks for what we have. It is about giving thanks for a country that has enabled us to earn what we have, keep what we have earned and live the way we live because of its great and enduring foundational strengths. These foundational strengths include our constitution, and our commitment to property rights and the rule of law. They include the respect for the individual citizen. These might seem like core American features, but it was never inevitable that we would have managed to keep them for 200 plus years.
Bottom line: Thanksgiving is about giving thanks for the reality of America and the fact that year after year for more than two centuries, we as a people have been able to depend on this country as a peaceful and promising place. [My emphasis]

From a Fox News .com article, Thanksgiving: The Great American Brand, more below:

Give greater thanks for greater blessings. Greater thanks for persistent, uninterrupted blessings. And give the greatest thanks for eternal blessings.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. - Romans 1:21 KJV

More from a Fox News .com article, Thanksgiving: The Great American Brand:

Thanksgiving: The Great American Brand [/] John Tantillo - FOXNews.com - November 25, 2009
Thanksgiving is about giving thanks for the reality of America. [/] It is the one holiday that is most truly and powerfully ours as a nation. [/] July 4th, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day –these are all important holidays— but there is nothing quite as American as Thanksgiving Day. At times, unfortunately, I think we can lose sight of the very essence of Thanksgiving.
[...] Lincoln seemed to have this in mind when in the middle of the Civil War he invited the nation to set aside a day to give thanks (it wouldn’t become a Federal holiday until 1941). [/] The Civil War might seem a strange time to give thanks, but not if you are giving thanks for the very strengths that assured Lincoln that this country would endure past the tragedy and that its best days still lay ahead. Here’s part of what he wrote:
In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict

Let’s face it. Gratitude is a kind of discipline. It requires perceiving the good by recognizing all that could have gone wrong, all that you should never take for granted. To be grateful is to make a positive choice.
In Lincoln’s invitation to give thanks, he made the point that as bad as things obviously were, the important things like order, the law and a peaceable society had been maintained and liberty, the lifeblood of our nation, had not been disrupted. These are no small things, but he knew that we could easily overlook them if we didn’t make the positive choice to see them and to celebrate them. [/] Recently a 1795 reeded-edge United States penny was sold for $1.3 million dollars at auction. Across the top of the penny the words “Liberty” are written. What other country’s citizens can look back over the past 200 plus years and identify with the ideal of liberty and know that the promise of liberty has remained uninterrupted? -- No European can. No Asian can. No African can. No South American or Central American can. – But an American can.
With all the talk of other nations eclipsing America with their rapid growth (i.e., China) or dynamic social policies (i.e., universal health care reform), it is easy to forget that these nations simply don’t have the incredible track record of stability, justice and just plain domestic peace that we do. [/] Every one of those countries has suffered horrible upheavals in their not-so-distant past in which members of their societies lost property and lost their lives because of tyranny. But if you lost your bounty in America in the last two hundred years, you couldn’t blame a corrupt state, a dictator or a communist ideology, it was almost always your own fault.
[...] The opportunity that Meb is talking about wasn’t his family’s opportunity because of how good and talented they were, it was the opportunity that America itself affords anyone who is here. [/] Meb and his family saw it clearly because they only knew too well what opportunity doesn’t look like. And when you know what opportunity doesn’t look like and then find it, you “make sure you use it.”
Our American uniqueness and this opportunity should never be a reason to become complacent as a nation, but it should be a reason to celebrate and above all be thankful. [/] Happy Thanksgiving! [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Abortion Debate Definition

2009-11-26T11:04:00.001-05:00

t’s hard not to think of the late Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey, another Catholic Democrat. In a speech at the University of Notre Dame in 1995, he said: “Human life cannot be measured. It is the measure itself. The value of everything else is weighed against it. The abortion debate is not about how we shall live, but who shall live. And more than that, it’s about who we are.”

From a National Review .com article, Providence Provides.

The greater measure is the One who is both Son of God and Son of Man.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Angelina Jolie Disses Barrack Obama!!!

2009-11-25T11:54:00.000-05:00

From Us Weekly via AllahPundit

Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie’s seal of approval.
“She hates him,” a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).
“She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise,” adds the source…
“Angie isn’t Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors,” the source says.

From a Hot Air .com article, Celebrity news of the day: Angelina Jolie thinks Obama’s a socialist phony.

Some of us had our suspicions but this settles the case for immediate impeachment.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

U. S. Government: Stupider Than Squirrels?!?

2009-11-23T10:53:00.001-05:00

“Clever debt management strategy can’t completely substitute for prudent fiscal policy.”

“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group, the giant bond-management firm. “The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”

From a New York Times article, Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government, more below:

Even the New York Times is taking notice of reality.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

PAYBACK TIME [/] Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government [/] By EDMUND L. ANDREWS [/] November 23, 2009
WASHINGTON — The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s on terms that seem too good to be true. [/] But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last much longer. [/] Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.
Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.
[...] Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.
[...] “The government is on teaser rates,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates lower deficits. “We’re taking out a huge mortgage right now, but we won’t feel the pain until later.”
[...] The problem, many analysts say, is that record government deficits have arrived just as the long-feared explosion begins in spending on benefits under Medicare and Social Security. The nation’s oldest baby boomers are approaching 65, setting off what experts have warned for years will be a fiscal nightmare for the government.
“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group, the giant bond-management firm. “The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”
[...] This month, the Treasury Department’s private-sector advisory committee on debt management warned of the risks ahead. [/] “Inflation, higher interest rate and rollover risk should be the primary concerns,” declared the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of market experts that provide guidance to the government, on Nov. 4. [/] “Clever debt management strategy,” the group said, “can’t completely substitute for prudent fiscal policy.” [My ellipses and emphasis]

Key Verse | Faith | 1 | First John 5:4-5 NKJV:

2009-11-17T22:15:00.003-05:00

For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Character of Justifying Faith: A, Begotten Of God

Our main topic is Faith. We capitalize “Faith” to signify that we are describing a very special kind of faith.

One special attribute of Faith is that it is begotten of God.

Our text is very clear about this. Particularly when examined closely.

The conclusion is plain: He that possesses Faith that is begotten-of-God has already achieved victory over the world.

Notes. “Whatever”, not “whoever” is plainly indicated by the Greek. “Overcomes” is closely related to “victory” in the Greek. “Has the victory over” may be substituted for “overcomes”, giving greater accuracy at the cost of wordiness. “Begotten” is a more literal translation than “born”. It covers the entire process from conception to birth. It is up to the reader to apply a narrower interpretation where it seems warranted.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; - First John 1:1 KJV

Hear, and thy soul shall live. - Isaiah 55:3 KJV

Tolerance Of Muslims Sometimes Unwise

2009-11-08T15:14:00.001-05:00

American and Muslim Moral Values Not Always Congruent

Generally speaking, American non-Muslim fathers don’t run over their children with their cars and call it “honorable.” And American non-Muslim military personnel don’t intentionally kill their fellow soldiers. There is a pattern of very dangerous, deadly behavior with Muslims in America and around the world.
Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does. [My emphasis]

From a Town Hall .com article, "Tolerance" and the "Other" American Muslim Tragedy , more below:

The use of force and violence is limited by the Constitution --- and by the Lord Jesus Christ.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Town Hall .com article, "Tolerance" and the "Other" American Muslim Tragedy :

"Tolerance" and the "Other" American Muslim Tragedy [/] Austin Hill [/] Sunday, November 08, 2009
“... America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings...”
Those remarks were uttered by President Barack Obama on June 4th of this year. And I wish I could believe that they were accurate. [/] Obama was, of course, speaking at Cairo University, and making good on his campaign promise of “delivering a speech from the capitol of a Muslim nation.”
Yet, despite the immense power of Obama’s oratory skills (and his incredible confidence in his skills), he nonetheless appears to be merely human, and does not seem to possess the supernatural ability to “speak things into existence.” [/] Thus, Obama simply declaring that America and Islam “overlap,” and that Muslims and Americans share “common principles of justice and progress,” does not guarantee that this “sharing” and “overlapping” actually occur.
By now, the horrific profile of Army Major Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is widely known. And despite President Obama insisting that we must not “jump to conclusions” about this American Muslim man, the picture is still horrifying: an American soldier who openly disagreed with the policies of two American Presidents (the “Hawk” George W. Bush and the “Dove” Barack Obama), who complained about deployments, and made “outlandish statements” against his nation and its government, was nonetheless allowed to rise through the ranks of the U.S. Army.
The obvious question – the “elephant in the living room,” to use a term from the world of family psychology – is “why was this kind of behavior tolerated and apparently overlooked?” And the only obvious answer, at least at this point, is simply “because he is a Muslim.” [/] Our government and our President will make their “conclusions” when they make them. The rest of us who are private citizens and who want our unique American style of human freedom to continue, must begin communicating clearly, and honestly, about the Islamic problem in our midst. And that means getting beyond the “kid glove” approach we typically utilize in speaking about minority groups, and being willing to speak the truth about Muslims – even if that results in “hurt feelings” for some, or cries of "intolerance" from others.
The unwillingness (or perhaps it’s a matter of inability) to speak the truth on these matters is often painfully apparent in both local and national media. Several days before Major Hasan became a mass murderer, a series of misconstrued, soft-pedaled press conferences and news reports unfolded in Phoenix, Arizona about a man who murdered his own daughter by running over her with his Jeep suv. [/] [...] Immediately after the incident, the Peoria police department briefed the local media. And in what seemed to be an overarching attempt to avoid saying anything that may have cast the Muslim father in a bad light, it was explained that the motive for the crime appeared to have centered on the fact that the daughter was living in such a way that she was inconsistent with “her family’s values.” Shortly thereafter, the statewide Arizona Republic newspaper published a report entitled “Lifestyle May Have Put Woman In Hospital.”
A 20 year-old woman in Arizona who was in pursuit of a job, a college degree, and a husband of her own choosing was murdered by her own dad. Yet, law enforcement and media professionals, perhaps in an attempt to express “tolerance” or to show respect for the “diversity” of Islam, were suggesting that Noor’s choices and “lifestyle” were to blame for her death.
Generally speaking, American non-Muslim fathers don’t run over their children with their cars and call it “honorable.” And American non-Muslim military personnel don’t intentionally kill their fellow soldiers. There is a pattern of very dangerous, deadly behavior with Muslims in America and around the world.
Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Experts Forecast 25 Year Depression?!?

2009-08-29T21:13:00.002-04:00

But Financial Bubble Euphoria Marches On!?!

We know what caused this crisis. The West kept short-term interest rates too low for a quarter century, luring society into debt: and the East held down long-term rates by flooding bond markets as a side-effect of their mercantilist strategy (ie suppressing currencies to gain export share).
The outcome was over-investment, excess capacity, and too much debt among those supposed to buy the goods. Has any of this changed? No. Have we cleared the excess plant? No. [/] Jeff Wenniger from Harris Private Bank says an army of baby-boomers have seen their old age plans shattered by the housing bust. Their nightmare is here. They will have to spend less, and save more. "Generational destruction of a society's balance sheet [does] not rectify itself in a matter of months". [/] How about a quarter century? [My emphasis]

From a Telegraph [UK] article, Our quarter-century penance is just starting, more below:

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is International Business Editor for the London Telegraph, Europe’s biggest daily newspaper. Fifteen years ago, as the Telegraph’s man in Washington, Evans-Pritchard was way ahead of the local talent in investigating Clinton crimes. In the last few years, Evans-Pritchard has accurately predicted the global financial meltdown.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from "Our quarter-century penance is just starting":

Our quarter-century penance is just starting [/] Never in modern times has there been such a flat contradiction between the euphoria of markets and the stern warnings of officialdom at central banks and financial watchdogs. [/] By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [/] Published: 10:00PM BST 29 Aug 2009
Corporate credit has seen the steepest rally in almost a hundred years, according to Morgan Stanley. Hedge funds are reviving the final bubble play of early 2007, writing put options on long-dated "volatility" contracts to wring out extra profit. [/] It is as if the Great Contraction – as the Bank of England now calls it – was just a random shock, as if we should naturally expect "V-shaped" resurgence to take us back to where we were. Yet that is what precisely we are being told will not and cannot happen.
"The current financial crisis is unlike any others," says the Bank for International Settlements. Lasting damage has been done. The "cumulative output loss" is likely to reach 20pc of GDP in the major economies. [/] The message is the same at the International Monetary Fund. "The world is not in a run of the mill recession. The crisis has left deep scars. In advanced countries, the financial systems are partly dysfunctional," said Olivier Blanchard, the Fund's chief economist. [/] Mr Blanchard said an IMF study of post-War banking crises led to an unpleasant finding. "Output does not go back to its old trend path, but remains permanently below it."
Then the sting: we are exhausting the limits of fiscal stimulus. "The average ratio of debt to GDP in the G-20 economies was high before the crisis, and is forecast to exceed 100pc in the next few years". [/] We cannot add debt, so the IMF says we must draw down our future pensions and future health spending to keep today's economy afloat. "A modest cut in the growth rates of entitlements can buy substantial fiscal space for continuing stimulus." [/] Shouldn't bulls be sobered that the bastion of hard-nosed orthodoxy feels the need to talk in such terms, or that White House officials are preparing the ground for another round of emergency spending even as it reveals that fiscal deficits will reach $9 trillion over the next decade. This is $2 trillion worse than feared in March, and based on rosy growth assumptions. [/] It has certainly alarmed US retail tycoon Howard Davidowitz. "As a country we are out of control, we're in a death spiral," he said.
All that has happened over this crisis is that huge private losses have been dumped on society: but the losses are still there, smothering the economy. Taxes must rise. Debts must slowly be purged. "As long as economic growth relies on the state, you cannot talk about durable recovery," said European Central Bank member, Yves Mersch.
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said the US needs another fiscal blast for "political reasons", alluding to the Great Depression. It was Phase II from late 1931 to early 1933 that tipped half Europe into fascism and brought America soup kitchens. Although such a fate has been averted this time by government action, the Atlanta Fed says the true rate of US unemployment is already 16pc (not 9.4pc), worse than early 1931 levels. Official youth unemployment is 34pc in Spain, 28pc in Latvia, 25pc in Italy, 24pc in Sweden, Hungary, and Greece. [/] I have some sympathy with the Krugman view, but entirely disagree over methods. The key is to prevent a debt deflation trap – note that producer prices have fallen 8.5pc in Japan, 7.8pc in Germany, and 6.8pc in the US. The least dangerous medication is Quantitative Easing a l'outrance (ie printing money), as the Bank's Mervyn King clearly thinks. This does not add debt. It prevents the real value of existing debt from rising. [/] Mr Krugman undermined his case by citing Italy as a country that faced public debt of 118pc of GDP in the early 1990s without disaster. Actually, it has caused disaster, even if it has taken this recession to expose the damage. Debt will rocket to 125pc next year (IMF forecasts), and then -- one fears – off the charts. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Unprecedented Socio-Economic Turmoil Ahead!?!

2009-08-27T16:27:00.000-04:00

Indicators Show Continuing Downturn!!!

End of Cheap Energy = End of Growth?!?

“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist
adjusts the sails” [/] I find it alarming the extent to which our political elite is fixated with the idea that the wind will change. The reality is that the wind is almost certainly blowing us towards unprecedented socio-economic turmoil in the coming years, […] [/] We have now entered the beginning of the end of mankind’s era of cheap energy and with it the end of relentless, reliable economic growth. […] - Comment by Mark on Aug 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pm [My ellipses and emphasis]

From a Telegraph [UK] Finance Blog, Can the soufflé really rise again?, International Business Editor’s top of thread post below.

Free societies can grow despite rapid technological change. Statist societies will go the way of National Socialist Germany, Fascist Socialist Italy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellites, once thriving Cuba and Venezuela, etc. Growth in the era of automation will not depend on cheap energy but on economic freedom from government influence. Prosperity depends upon giving true freedom of choice to consumers, charities, entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, inventors, developers, engineers, programmers, and educators.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Telegraph [UK] Finance Blog, Can the soufflé really rise again?:

Can the soufflé really rise again? [/] Wednesday 26 August 2009 [/] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
[Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has covered world politics and economics for 25 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London.]
Two facts that should give pause for thought.
1) Japanese data released on Thursday showed that exports fell yet again in July. They are down 39.5pc to the US, and 26.5pc to China. [/] Japan is the world’s second biggest economy. It lives on exports. It is also a key part of the supply chain for the Chinese economy. How can this hard data be reconciled with the extreme V-shaped recovery already priced in by the markets? [/] By the way, Toyota is suspending a key production line at its Takaoka plant in central Japan. It is cutting global capacity by 1m vehicles.
2) The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates for bulk goods and commodities has been falling almost continuously for eleven weeks, dropping from 4,290 to 2,778 on Thursday. [/] Is this just a glut of ships or is this telling us what the Shanghai market is also telling us, that credit tightening by the Chinese government is pulling the rug from underneath the latest commodity bubble? [/] There is something wrong with the entire recovery tale, which ignores the fact that excess plant is still at the highest level since the Great Depression (capacity use is 70pc in Europe, 68pc in the US, 65pc in Japan, and as low as 50pc in some countries, according to the World Bank’s Justin Lin). Companies will have to cut jobs and investment. [/] Soaring “confidence” indicators have decoupled from reality. The world economy is still prostrate. GDP has shrunk 4pc, 6pc, 8pc, even 12pc or more in a large group of countries. There it more or less sits, like a deflated soufflé.
An end to technical recession in France, Germany, and Japan because Q2 ( and undoubtedly Q3 to come) ekes out a rise from a collapsed base does not mean anything – except that zero interest rates worldwide, and a massive fiscal stimulus that is pushing public debts towards 100pc across the OECD states (and cannot easily be repeated once the first sugar rush subsides), has mercifully prevented the Great Contraction from turning into an immediate catastrophe. [/] As the Bank of England’s Governor Mervyn King puts it: “It’s the level, stupid”. The level of economic activity is years away from full recovery.
The Bundesbank’s Axel Weber says it will take until 2013 for Germany to get back to where it was. He also warns, by the way, that there will be a second wave of the credit crisis as Germany’s home-grown troubles come to the fore. Round one was imported havoc from the US: round two will be rising defaults at home and a credit squeeze as ratings downgrades force banks to set aside fresh capital. (I enclose the Weber link for German readers http://www.sueddeutsche.de/finanzen/916/484353/text/ )
I have no idea when stock markets and commodities – especially base metals – will reflect the hard facts on the ground (ie, an end to the Chinese construction bubble). Timing is not my forte. Nor is the market.
But I am absolutely convinced that those who think we can return to the status quo ante of the credit bubble as if nothing has happened are delusional. As almost every central banker in Jackson Hole reminded us over the weekend, it is going to be a very long hard slog. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Stocks Up Because Dollar Down!?!

2009-08-23T22:16:00.001-04:00

Takes a lot more dollars to buy slightly improved stocks!?!

What we have is not a stock market rally but an adjustment to global market prices. Fully 80% of the movement in the S&P can be explained by the movement in the dollar index. [/] That is a profile well known to emerging market investors. Whenever the Brazilians would pull another currency devaluation, stock prices rose to compensate, as tradeable assets floated up to world market prices. The bank bailout has made Americans poorer relative to the rest of the world and created the illusion of a stock market recovery. [My emphasis]

From a Asia Times blog post by Spengler, If Asset Prices Are Dropping, Why Are Banks Rising?, more below:

Our author made quite a few dollars for himself and for his then employer, the Bank of America, a few years back. As Spengler of the Asia Times he has been a top notch explainer of Obama.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Asia Times blog post by Spengler, If Asset Prices Are Dropping, Why Are Banks Rising?

If Asset Prices Are Dropping, Why Are Banks Rising? [/] Stock Market Rally or Dollar Devaluation? [/] August 21st, 2009 [/] By David Goldman [aka Spengler]
[[See chart at above link.]] The chart below shows the SPX (vertical scale) vs the dollar bullish ETF UUP (horizontal scale) for the year to date: [/] Fully 80% of the movement in the S&P can be explained by the movement in the dollar index.
Statistical analysis confirms the visual impression that the two variables are moving in lockstep. In the chart below [[See chart at above link.]] we see the rolling three-month correlation between daily returns to SPX and the dollar bullish ETF UUP, which mimics the dollar index DXY. [/] Something ominous is at work here. Typically, a stronger dollar goes together with a stronger stock market. That is what we observe prior to the bank bailout last fall. Starting in the third quarter of 2008 and going to the present, the correlation turns sharply and persistently negative. A cheaper dollar means higher stock prices, as US assets are marked down for global investors.
What we have is not a stock market rally but an adjustment to global market prices. Fully 80% of the movement in the S&P can be explained by the movement in the dollar index. [/] That is a profile well known to emerging market investors. Whenever the Brazilians would pull another currency devaluation, stock prices rose to compensate, as tradeable assets floated up to world market prices. The bank bailout has made Americans poorer relative to the rest of the world and created the illusion of a stock market recovery.
That does not necessarily mean that inflation will return to the US, as some analysts believe. Foreign investors are not likely to buy homes in Cleveland (although the dollar devaluation certainly should help real estate prices in New York or San Francisco). And the combination of high unemployment and deferred retirement (greeter jobs at Wal-Mart will be in great demand) will keep wages down. The price of international tradeables, though, will affect US inflation, which is why I continue to recommend classic commodity hedges (including gold and oil) rather than TIPS. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

The “Death Panel” Marches On!!!

2009-08-15T18:06:00.001-04:00

Sarah Palin has forced the Senate to remove “Death Panel” support from the Health Care bill senate version, but the Porkulus bill has already established a “Death Panel”, and the President has suitably appointed “Dr. Death” as a prominent member!?!

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. [...] Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. [/] Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses." [/] [...] Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
Who is on the Council? [...] Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows: [/] Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations. [My elipses and emphasis]

From an American Thinker .com article, 'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists, more below:

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists [/] By Joseph Ashby [/] August 15, 2009
Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' article rebutting Palin's claim. [/] [...] The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. [/] [...] What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.
H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.
Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses." [/] McCaughey goes on to explain: [/] Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
[...] Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.
How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.
Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."/[...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Health Care Bill FACTS

2009-08-12T14:57:00.001-04:00

If you cannot trust a Duke classics professor’s analysis …

Which just goes to show that just about anyone can figure out what is in the healthcare bill, if they just take the time to read it.[/] In any case, Mr. Lewis represents the best of Americans being citizens – and, alas, citizen journalists. [My emphasis]

From a Sweetness – Light .com blog post, What The Health Care Bill Actually Says, more below:

A regular little shop of horrors, actually. Does the Lord High Executioner have a little list of those who never will be missed? Life continues to imitate art.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

What The Health Care Bill Actually Says[/] Here is a long but we believe helpful analysis of HR 3200 from the site, Classical Ideals, by John David Lewis:[/] The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says John David Lewis[/] August 6, 2009
What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.
This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.
We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.
[...] WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?[/] This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.[/] and, under “Definitions”:[/] (A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . . and:[/]
(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
and:[/] (6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .[/] (C) the measures of readmissions . . .
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:[/] 1. This section amends the Social Security Act[/] 2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”[/] 3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.[/] 4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.[/] 5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.[/] 6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.[/] 7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.
Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?[/]
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:[/] (a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—[/] (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over[/] (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .[/]
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:[/] 1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.[/] 2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.[/] 3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
[...] Mr. Lewis is a professor of classics at Duke University.[/] Which just goes to show that just about anyone can figure out what is in the healthcare bill, if they just take the time to read it.[/] In any case, Mr. Lewis represents the best of Americans being citizens – and, alas, citizen journalists.[/] This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, August 12th, 2009 at 12:16 am. You can leave a response. [\] 9 Responses to “What The Health Care Bill Actually Says” [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Taking Tea with Terrorists?!?

2009-08-08T16:00:00.001-04:00

Is it always good to talk?!?

I have a soft spot for people who can't sweet-talk to save their lives. "His heart's his mouth," Menenius Agrippa, the patrician Roman, says about his friend Coriolanus. "What his breast forges, that his tongue must vent." [/] [...] The scene in which Coriolanus endeavours to answer mildly is high comedy. The tribune Sicinius has only to accuse him of being a traitor to the people, and Coriolanus is off. "How! Traitor!" "Nay, temperately!" Menenius reminds him. "Your promise." But it's an ineluctable progression to another of Coriolanus's great rants [...] and 10 lines later, to the delight of the citizenry, he has turned his back on Rome, boasting, "There is a world elsewhere." [/] Yes! [/] Except that it's no. For there isn't, of course, a world elsewhere. It's the sure fact of there being nowhere else to go, [...] [My elipses and emphasis]

From an Independent [UK] article, In these days of taking tea with terrorists , more below:

1 John 2:15-17 KJV Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Howard Jacobson: In these days of taking tea with terrorists, it isn't always good to talk [/] A wise government has two faces. It’s the new chitti-chattiness I’m worried about [/] August 8, 2009
[...] It must be 10 years or more since that ad campaign went off the air, but suddenly it's good again to talk. There is is absolutely no one we aren't up for having a conversation with. The Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah, Kim Jong-il of North Korea. Why, we have even just sent our second most senior diplomat in Tehran to the ceremonial endorsement of a president we don't actually believe should be endorsed, in the hope that even if Ahmadinejad didn't have the opportunity to converse with us he might at least notice we were there and wave.
This is the Obama effect, partly. After Bush and his Axis of Evil, we can't wait to be talking to everyone and everybody. Evil? What evil? That's metaphysics; whereas what we need right now is diplomacy. Any bright young man or woman wondering how to earn a crust could do worse than consider a career in diplomacy. We are going to see a lot of it. Forget banking, unless you want to burn in h%%%. Diplomacy's the coming thing. Making chums with the enemy because there is no enemy.
We are told diplomacy is forever at work behind the scenes, even in places where we pretend we don't have a syllable to exchange. I think this is a good thing. Not letting the right hand know what the left hand's doing. A wise government has two faces. It's the new overt chitti-chattiness I'm uneasy about. It assumes the relative reasonableness, not to say inherent decency, of every bent regime and murderous grievance movement on the planet. Only talk and we'll discover how nice they really are. Whether they are interested in discovering how nice we really are is another matter. It would seem to be the legitimatising effect of talk that they most care about; which is fine by us because we are of a mind, post-Bush, to throw legitimacy around like confetti.
[...] But then if the alternative is war without end, why not talk? Where tanks fail, diplomacy might just succeed. There's a cringing part of me that agrees with this. Just chat on equal terms with the Brigade for the Destruction of Western Civilisation and Everything Else We Have Ever Held Dear and the world will be a safer place. But there's another, less accommodating part of me that finds this sickening. What's the point of holding what we hold dear if we don't hold it dear?
[...] So don't trust me when I say we shouldn't be seen speaking to people whose existence we would not grace with notice if we were men of honour. We shouldn't, but honour, as Coriolanus learns the hard way, is a moral cul-de-sac. The world is now so dangerous there is no principled way left to behave in it. We kowtow to tyrants and take tea with terrorists. [… I]t isn't always good to talk. Talk can just as often demean us and destroy us. It just happens to be our last resort. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Romans 10:9-10 KJV That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Dissent Out!?! Conformity In?!?

2009-08-08T13:00:00.001-04:00

The National Community Needs More Organization?!?

But a sick, deranged, un-American mob has put an end to all that moderate and reasonable steamrollering by showing up and yelling insane, out-of-control questions like, "Awfully sorry to bother you, your Most Excellent Senatorial Eminence, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you don't read any of the laws you make before you make them into law?" [/] The community is restless. The firm hand of greater organization is needed. [My emphasis]

From an Orange County Register article, Mark Steyn: Conformity is now the new dissent, more below:

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Obama Probably NOT Born In Kenya?!?

2009-08-07T14:39:00.001-04:00

Zanibar Much More Likely!?!

This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961 [/] But an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate obtained by WND shows distinct differences. [/] The verified 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate is described at the top as a "Government of Kenya" document. It includes: Where Born; Name or names; Sex; Father's occupation and rank; Father's nationality; Name and maiden name for mother; Mother's Occupation; Mother's nationality; Signature, description and residence of information; Date of birth; Date of registration; Baptismal name if added or altered after registration of birth; Reference to register.
Kenyan government officials interviewed by WND sources in Kenya have pointed out a key difference in the Taitz document. In 1961, Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar, not the Coast Province of Kenya. The area was later ceded to Kenya.
[…] THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue [My elipses and emphasis]

From a World Net Daily .com article, Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents, more below:

Birth Location Irrelevant!?! - British Subject Father Constitutionally Disqualifies Obama?!? – See Adult Christian thread or Christian AAA thread "Obama Not Natural Born?!?".

Flash - Hawaii State Democratic Senator’s Bill Would Force Obama To Reveal Birth Documents!!!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a World Net Daily .com article, Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents:

Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents [/] State senator: 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?' [/] Posted: August 07, 2009 12:30 am Eastern [/] By Jerome R. Corsi [/] WorldNetDaily [/] Friday, August 07, 2009 [/] BORN IN THE USA? [/] WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state's lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama's birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.
Espero told WND his bill is aimed at "giving citizens access to birth records" under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii. [/] "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions," Espero said. [/] Espero told WND that he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.
"My motivation is strictly to promote transparency," he said. "When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?' [/] "As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain," he said. [/] Asked specifically about Obama's birth records, including the original long-form birth certificate, Espero said, "Whatever birth records regarding President Obama that the Hawaii Department has on file should be made public."
[…] WND has also reported the Hawaiian Department of Health declined to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form "Certification of Live Birth," posted online – one image produced by the Obama campaign and the other produced by FactCheck.org.
Okubu also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino's initial press release in her position as chief of the health department last October and subsequent press release on July 27 avoided declaring the posted images to be authentic documents.
[...] WND has reported the Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND's investigative operatives in Africa. [/] That's even though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.
[…] This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961 [/] But an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate obtained by WND shows distinct differences.
The verified 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate is described at the top as a "Government of Kenya" document. It includes: Where Born; Name or names; Sex; Father's occupation and rank; Father's nationality; Name and maiden name for mother; Mother's Occupation; Mother's nationality; Signature, description and residence of information; Date of birth; Date of registration; Baptismal name if added or altered after registration of birth; Reference to register.
Kenyan government officials interviewed by WND sources in Kenya have pointed out a key difference in the Taitz document. In 1961, Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar, not the Coast Province of Kenya. The area was later ceded to Kenya.
[...] WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." [/] Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. [/] Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions. [/] WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Recession Forever?!? Top Ten Reasons!?!

2009-08-05T16:35:00.000-04:00

David P. Goldman, First Things editor, aka Spengler of the Asia Times, onetime big money maker (tens of billions of financial derivative profits per year) for the Bank of America, tells it as he sees it, and --- I believe --- with maximal credibility.

And Dave’s Number One reason the recession will last forever is: [/] 1. Barack Obama! [/] Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, thought in effect, "Let’s get economic growth so I can tax it and pay for all my toys and games." That was the "New Democrat" approach. Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness. [My emphasis]

From an Asia Times blog post, Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever, more below:

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Dave’s Top 10 Reasons the Recession Will Last Forever [/] August 5th, 2009 [/] By David Goldman
10. No innovation. As Nobel Prize Laureate Edmund Phelps told Bloomberg News Aug. 2, "I’m not convinced that there’s going to be another wave of innovation in the offing."
9. Speaking of innovation, the US is [not] getting the clever immigrants it used to. Remember that almost half of Silicon Valley during the tech bubble peak was Asian.
8. China will hold its own but its economy is too small to act as a locomotive for the rest of the world (maybe for Korea).
7. The US only can finance its nearly $2 trillion annual borrowing requirement if banks and households buy Treasury securities rather than riskier corporate securities or mortgages. If the rest of the economy starts competing with the Treasury for capital, interest rates rates will rise immediately and suppress economic activity.
6. The rest of the world is full up on US Treasury securities. Asia won’t dump its existing holdings (it would be the biggest loser) but will try to diversify out of dollars. That’s why the Euro is trading at the ridiculous level of $1.40. There won’t be enough Europeans left working in thirty years to pay taxes to cover the interest on newly issued long-term government bonds. But the Euro has diversification value against the dollar and its parity is exaggerated. So revert to Point 5: the US is on its own financing the deficit.
5. The US consumer can’t get out of a hole. The bloggers have been all over the personal income data for June, which shows that household finances continue to deteriorate. I don’t need to reiterate what others have documented; see for example
The U.S. Consumer’s Pain Will Continue Until 2010 by John Lounsbury

Personal Income and Savings: The Double Whammy by Tyler Durden

Where’s the Consumer? by Karl Denninger

4. American demographics look suspiciously like Japan’s in 1990, at the beginning of the "Lost Decade." Japan’s elderly dependent ratio jumped from 18% to 26% over the 10 years; between 2010 and 2020, America’s will rise from 19% to 25%. In other words, a huge component of the labor force is nearing retirement. They have no savings to speak of and what they thought was their nest egg (home equity) just vaporized. Their savings requirements are bottomless. The combination of demographic and wealth shocks should produce a loop-de-loop in the "marginal propensity to save" such as we have never seen before, except, of course, in Japan.
3. More taxes are en route, to pay for health care, the interest on the federal debt, or whatever. No country ever taxed its way out of a recession.
2. The rule of law has been severely weakened in financial transactions, through heavy-handed White House intervention into the bankruptcies of the auto sector, through mortgage renegotiation, and so forth.
And Dave’s Number One reason the recession will last forever is: [/] 1. Barack Obama!

Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, thought in effect, "Let’s get economic growth so I can tax it and pay for all my toys and games." That was the "New Democrat" approach. Obama knows that if the economy crumbles and he’s the only one left with a checkbook, then everyone has to come to him. Where is the independent base of entrepreneurial business to which the Republicans might to to raise money against Obama? The banks, the hedge funds, the manufacturers, the municipalities, in fact everyone who is left standing in the economy is beholden to Obama. This is Chicago city politics writ large. Leave aside all of the individual things that Obama is doing that harm economic growth: Obama is the first American president (with the possible exception of FDR) to actually benefit from economic weakness. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Honky Faces Vengeance from On High!?!

2009-08-04T12:13:00.002-04:00

Essential Redneck Transportation Targeted As Prices Will Rise for Clunkers and Clunker Engines!?!

Engines Killed With Liquid Glass!!! --- Big Government Science Marches On!!!

Will Senior Citizens Become Part of the Clunker Cash Flow?!?

What Mr. Mueller discovered is that sodium silicate is the designated agent of death for cars surrendered under the federal cash-for-clunkers program. To receive government reimbursement, auto dealers who offer rebates on new cars in exchange for so-called clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models, using a method the government outlines in great detail in its 136-page manual for dealers: Drain the engine of oil and replace it with two quarts of a sodium-silicate solution. [...] [/] Often called liquid glass, sodium-silicate solution has been better known for being used to save motors rather than killing them: It is used to stop leaks in the gaskets that seal cylinder heads to engine blocks. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

From a Wall Street Journal article, The Killer App for Clunkers , more below:

Communism possesses a language which every people can understand. Its elements are hunger, envy, death. - Heinrich Heine

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a Wall Street Journal article, The Killer App for Clunkers :

The Killer App for Clunkers Breathes Fresh Life Into 'Liquid Glass' [/] Rebate Program Prescribes Chemical to Stop Car Engines -- for Good; Mechanics 'Can't Wait' [/] PAGE ONE AUGUST 4, 2009 [/] By KEVIN HELLIKER
Robert Mueller deals in chemicals for a living -- things that can unstick glue, thin paint, make plastic -- but he'd never seen an order like the one he got for sodium silicate. [/] The compound is typically used to repel bugs or seal concrete, but this buyer's online order form betrayed a whole different intent: "To Kill Car Engines." [/] "That worried me a little, so I picked up the phone and called the gentleman," recalls Mr. Mueller, an owner of chemical-firm CQ Concepts Inc. in suburban Chicago.
What Mr. Mueller discovered is that sodium silicate is the designated agent of death for cars surrendered under the federal cash-for-clunkers program. To receive government reimbursement, auto dealers who offer rebates on new cars in exchange for so-called clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models, using a method the government outlines in great detail in its 136-page manual for dealers: Drain the engine of oil and replace it with two quarts of a sodium-silicate solution.
"The heat of the operating engine then dehydrates the solution leaving solid sodium silicate distributed throughout the engine's oiled surfaces and moving parts," says the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publication. "These solids quickly abrade the bearings causing the engine to seize while damaging the moving parts of the engine and coating all of the oil passages."
In a nation packed with experts on how to keep cars running, the engine-killing powers of sodium silicate are a well-kept secret. "I, like, have so not even ever heard of this before," said Robert Lutz, new marketing chief and renowned "car guy" at General Motors Co., in an email.
Often called liquid glass, sodium-silicate solution has been better known for being used to save motors rather than killing them: It is used to stop leaks in the gaskets that seal cylinder heads to engine blocks.
At dealerships across America, mechanics accustomed to fixing engines are battling for the chance to ruin them. "Everybody wants to go first, so I'm probably going to have to make them draw straws," says Jim Burton of Randy Curnow Buick Pontiac GMC in Kansas City, Kan. As service manager, however, he might reserve that thrill for himself. "I can't wait," he says. [/] Over the weekend, half a dozen mechanics gathered around three clunkers marked for death at Jim Clark Motors in Lawrence, Kan. As Loris Brubeck Jr., the dealership's president, held a stopwatch, the sodium-silicate solution took two minutes flat to kill a 2002 Ford Windstar, and just a few seconds more to kill a 1999 Jeep. But a 1988 Dodge van lasted more than six minutes.
"Sometimes those old engines, they're the hardest to kill," says Mr. Brubeck.
The automotive death sentences are meant to ensure that gas-guzzling old models make no return to the road. As sodium silicate disables an entire generation of junkyard-bound cars, the price of used engines will likely skyrocket, predicts Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association. "It's the law of supply and demand."
Before settling on sodium silicate, the government considered other methods of execution, including drilling a hole in the engine block and running the engine without oil. But it concluded that sodium silicate was safest for mechanics and for the environment. In its instructions to dealers, the government says that the federal Food and Drug Administration classifies sodium silicate as GRAS -- "generally regarded as safe."
[...] But while manufacturers have plenty on hand, the government failed to warn distributors about the impending onslaught of demand from car dealers. [/] "It's like the government decided to put every old car in America in mothballs without giving any heads up to mothball" suppliers, says John See, owner of the ChemistryStore.com near Columbia, S.C.
[...] But within moments of learning about its new purpose, Mr. See ordered enormous supplies and purchased prime space on Google, so that his company popped up in searches for sodium silicate. Last week, he sold 4,600 gallons of it, and the rush is continuing. "We're working 16 hour days, and we've got friends and family helping out filling orders," says Mr. See.
[...] Long an obscure item in the CQ Concepts catalog, sodium silicate has become "the best-selling product of the year," says Mr. Mueller. [/] Write to Kevin Helliker at kevin.helliker@wsj.com [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama Not Natural Born?!?

2009-08-02T18:04:00.001-04:00

British Subject Father Disqualifies President Wherever He Was Born?!?

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
[My emphasis]

From a Federalist Blog .us article, Defining Natural-Born Citizen , more below:

It looks like the majority of the “birthers” have been barking up the wrong tree. If Obama were born in Hawaii, as alleged, he would be merely native born, not natural born. Constitutional eligibility for the office of President seems to require that the father be an American citizen. Proper interpretation of the Constitution often requires a modicum of common sense.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Federalist Blog .us article, Defining Natural-Born Citizen :

Defining Natural-Born Citizen [/] By P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008 [/] UPDATED 3/4/09
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean [/] Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth? [/] Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
[...] Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child, as well as recognizing the right of expatriation - something unheard of under the common law. States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenship through birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.
[...] Fourteenth Amendment [/] Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” [/] This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
[...] What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama’s Birth FACTS PLUS CONCLUSIONS !!!

2009-08-01T22:10:00.002-04:00

Challenge: Can any poster disprove any fact or conclusion in this article?!?

Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” [:]

Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight! [My emphasis]

From a Canada Free Press .com article, Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”, more below:

Please link to the full article. I have attempted to provide a succinct extract below, but have missed much that is of value. The recent announcement by an Hawaiian official regarding Obama’s birth does not significantly change the situation. Documentation that provides verifiable details should be provided. Only such details as precise place of birth make the assertions provable or disprovable. And, as reasoned below, birth on U.S. soil to a U.S. mother may not of itself meet constitutional requirements.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers” [:]

Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight!

By JB Williams Saturday, August 1, 2009
The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight! [/] The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…
But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.
[...] Since ALL Obama records remain SEALED, what files did O’Reilly and others investigate in order to draw their absolute conclusion that Obama is legit and millions of Americans are nuts?
What’s all of the stink about? [/] US Law establishes that while there are several ways one can become a US citizen, there are actually only three different types of US Citizens with three very different sets of qualifications and citizen rights. [/] A US Citizen [/] A Native Born Citizen [/] A Natural Born Citizen
[...] A foreign born immigrant, who has successfully navigated the naturalization process, is a legal US citizen with all of the Constitutional rights afforded a US Citizen with the exception of one, the right to be President of the United States. As a matter of Constitutional case law, - 94 ”Whatever the term ‘’natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘’naturalized.’’
In this regard, the issue of Obama’s adoption by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro is also of consequence, as Obama could only be a US citizen by way of “naturalization.” There is no record of Obama naturalizing as a U.S. citizen upon returning from Indonesia.
All of this is at the heart of the debate over where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. [...] [/] But since he has refused to open up his official birth records in Hawaii, nobody knows for certain where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. Contrary to leftist attempts to spin, the mere fact that such a constitutional requirement exists implies that one must provide proof of compliance, if and when asked to do so.
[...] If Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed born in Hawaii, and this can be verified by authenticating his official birth records alleged to exist in Hawaii, then he could be a “US Citizen” and maybe even a “Native Born Citizen” having been born on American soil. To date, no such evidence has been made available for purposes of authentication. [/] However, one can be both a “US citizen” and a “Native Born citizen”” and still NOT be a “Natural Born Citizen.”
[...] It was the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” [/] They based this clause on the following; “Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘’the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .’’ 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.”
So, had both of Obama’s parents been US citizens, he would indeed be a “natural born citizen” of the US, even if he had been born in Kenya. By way of “natural law,” he inherited the name and citizenship of his father, in Kenya, not the US. [/] As his father was not a US citizen, but rather a citizen of Kenya, Obama inherited by birthright, natural law, his fathers name and citizenship. He is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the US, no matter where he was born.
[...] There are TWO reasons why the “birther” movement is EXPLODING instead of going away, despite daily attacks and name calling from the lamestream press.
[...] Sooner or later, Obama is going to have to prove that he is legitimate. The longer it takes for him to come forward and do so, the more dangerous the situation will become, as citizens grow increasingly angry [...] [/] The truth exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records. Nobody hides the truth unless the truth will expose a lie… [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Remembering Reverend Ike

2009-08-01T16:08:00.001-04:00

His message was very clear and very effective. - ToK

From time to time his financial dealings attracted the unwelcome attentions of the Internal Revenue Service, but his church somehow managed to retain its tax-exempt status and continues to this day. Its website describes its founder as a man whose teachings "are accepted as universal truths". Sadly for Christianity, they probably are. [My emphasis]

From an outstanding source of well written obituaries, a Telegraph [UK] article, The Reverend Ike, more below:

It is interesting to find that the Right Reverend Doctor Eikerenkoetter was, as his last name suggests, of Dutch descent. At the risk of sounding bigoted, it seems to me that the Dutch can always be depended upon to make money.

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

More from a Telegraph [UK] article, The Reverend Ike:

The Reverend Ike [/] Published: 5:20PM BST 30 Jul 2009
The Rt Rev Dr Frederick J Eikerenkoetter II, who died on July 28 aged 74, was a pioneer preacher of what has become known as the "Prosperity Gospel"; this is based on the claim that the root of all evil is not the love of money, but the lack of it.
The Reverend Ike, as he was known to his followers, offered to open people's hearts to the love of God: "But it won't be the God you learned about in Sunday School. It won't be that stingy, hard-hearted, hard-of-hearing God-in the-Sky." Instead it would be a God who teaches that salvation lies in being rich.
"Close your eyes and see green," he exhorted his followers. "Money up to your armpits, a roomful of money and there you are, just tossing around in it like a swimming pool." Or alternatively: "Don't wait for your pie in the sky, by and by. Say I want my pie right now – and I want it with ice cream on top!"
There was no point in prayer and repentance: "When you kneel down to pray, you put yourself in a good position to get a kick in the behind." And there was absolutely no virtue in self-denial: "If it's that difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, think how terrible it must be for a poor man to get in. He doesn't even have a bribe for the gatekeeper."
The way to salvation was through a self-help philosophy which the Reverend Ike called "positive self-image psychology" or "thinkonomics", and his approach was to interpret the Bible "psychologically, rather than theologically". "This is the do-it-yourself church," he proclaimed. "The only saviour in this philosophy is God in you."
The main beneficiary of this approach was the Reverend Ike himself. As well as founding no fewer than three churches, he was one of the first evangelists to exploit the power of television. At the height of his success, in the 1970s, he reached an audience estimated at 2.5 million.
In return for spiritual guidance, he requested cash donations – notes, preferably, rather than coins ("Change makes your minister nervous," he claimed). He also sold a range of merchandise, including guides on issues such as to "How to have surplus instead of shortage"; "How to make people love to do exactly what you want"; and "Enemy Fixer", a guide to "getting rid of your enemies without getting into trouble".
Since money was "God in action" and its accoutrements a sign of Divine Grace, the Reverend Ike had no qualms about flaunting it with luxurious homes in New York and Hollywood, a huge rhinestone-encrusted wardrobe, drawers full of flashy jewellery and a fleet of Cadillacs, Bentleys and Rolls-Royces. "My garages runneth over," as he put it.
Frederick Joseph Eikerenkoetter II was born on June 1 1935 at Ridgeland, South Carolina. His father was a Baptist minister of Dutch-Indonesian extraction, his mother an African-American schoolteacher. [/] He began his career as a teenage preacher at his father's church and, after leaving school, took a degree in Theology at the American Bible College in Chicago. After two years in the US Air Force as an assistant chaplain, he returned to Ridgeland, where he founded his first church, the United Church of Jesus Christ for All People.
Somehow, though, the traditional Christian message did not seem to offer the answers the Reverend Ike was looking for, and in 1964 he moved to Boston where he founded the United Christian Evangelistic Association and set himself up as a faith healer. Two years later he moved to New York City to establish the Christ Community United Church, setting up shop in an old cinema in Harlem. It was here that he began to tailor his message to appeal to a more prosperous audience.
In 1965 he devised the "Blessing Plan", under which the faithful were exhorted to give whatever they could afford to the Reverend Ike, with the promise that it would be returned with interest to those of sufficient faith.
In 1969 the fruits of the Blessing Plan enabled him to pay $600,000 for the old Loew's 175th Street movie theatre, a 1930s extravaganza described as being built in the "Byzantine-Romanesque-Indo-Hindu-Sino-Moorish-Persian-Eclectic-Rococo-Deco style". He made it his headquarters, calling it the Palace Cathedral. By the mid-1970s the Reverend Ike was touring the country and preaching on 1,770 radio stations and on major television networks.
From time to time his financial dealings attracted the unwelcome attentions of the Internal Revenue Service, but his church somehow managed to retain its tax-exempt status and continues to this day. Its website describes its founder as a man whose teachings "are accepted as universal truths". Sadly for Christianity, they probably are.
The Reverend Ike married, in 1962, Eula May Dent. They had a son, Xavier F Eikerenkoetter, who inherits the ministry. [/] Published July 30 2009 [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Clinton Sludge Ruins Obama Veggies!?!

2009-07-31T12:16:00.002-04:00

A “teachable moment” perhaps?!?

The likely source of the toxic sludge that has ruined Michelle's garden? The Clinton White House apparently used a sludge-based product to fertilize the lawn during the 1990s! Aside from casting a shadow on the first White House vegetable garden since Eleanor Roosevelt resided there, the sludge ensures that Michelle's garden will never attain organic status. Organic certification processes strictly prohibit the use of sludge as a fertilizer substitute. [My emphasis]

From a Daily Finance .com article, Michelle Obama's toxic veggie nightmare:, more below:

As well as a possibly prophetic parable, the article and the linked federal official wisdom on the safe and proper treatment of sludge used in agriculture causes one to wonder again about the wisdom of trusting our health to the decisions of bureaucrats. One also wonders if the official redefinition of “sludge” as “sludge not processed to meet our standards” by the government permits non-organic products to promote themselves as sludge free or even as organic.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

Michelle Obama's toxic veggie nightmare: White House organic garden polluted with sludge [/] Alex Salkever [/] Jul 30th 2009 at 10:00AM
When First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn in March 2009, she hoped to both set an example of healthy eating and to grow tasty edibles for her daughters and husband. But Michelle's organic dream has been dashed by a nasty toxic legacy lurking in the soils of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It turns out that a previous Presidential gardening team had used sewage sludge for fertilizer.
This is a fairly common practice with one huge problem. Sewage sludge tends to be laced with anything that people pour down the drain and often contains heavy metals. Not surprisingly, the National Park Service tested the dirt beneath Michelle's garden and found the plot has highly elevated levels of lead averaging 93 parts per million. That's below the 400 ppm that the Environmental Protection Agency says is a threat to human health. But I'd wager that Sasha, Malia and Barack won't be getting arugula or tomatoes from this garden any time soon.
The likely source of the toxic sludge that has ruined Michelle's garden? The Clinton White House apparently used a sludge-based product to fertilize the lawn during the 1990s! Aside from casting a shadow on the first White House vegetable garden since Eleanor Roosevelt resided there, the sludge ensures that Michelle's garden will never attain organic status. Organic certification processes strictly prohibit the use of sludge as a fertilizer substitute.
The White House has sought to downplay the issue, and a number of experts have pointed out that 93 ppm of sludge in soil is somewhat normal for older urban locales. However, the EPA recommends not growing food in soil that has 100 ppm. Several major food producers, including H.J. Heinz and Del Monte, won't accept produce grown in sludge. That's despite decades of U.S. government efforts to encourage farmers to use solid sewage wastes in lieu of traditional fertilizer products. [My ellipses and emphasis]

More Obama Birthplace FACTSFACTS FACTSFACTS

2009-07-28T17:45:00.001-04:00

With information omitted by earlier *FACTS* source

Without egregious elitist spin.

One. Hawaii official has examined original records and verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii. Will not say more.

Two. Same official examined original birth document in October and certified that Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii. Would not say more.

Three. Hawaii hospital received letter from Obama claiming that he was born there. Neither hospital nor Obama will say more.

Four. Contemporary birth notices in two Hawaii newspapers appear to have been originated by original registration of the birth.

Five. Name of “son” not on birth notices.

Six. Address on birth notices may well be “mailing address” from original birth registration.

Seven. No one seems to have come up with testimony from any reasonably available witness, living (or dead via credible documentation), who can credibly verify the place of Obama’s birth.

Links for points One through Six provided below. Links contradicting point Seven, in particular, are welcome. Some of my links may not be the best. Better links are welcome.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

One. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

Two. http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html

Three. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104718

Four, Five, Six. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08

Former “FACTS*FACTS*FACTS” thread:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/kath/messages?msg=143603.1

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

”FACTS FACTS FACTS *FACTS"

2009-07-14T14:41:00.004-04:00

HAWAII GAVE OUT CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH TO BABIES NOT BORN IN HAWAII OR THE USA IN 1961.
UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT HOSPITAL AND DOCTOR DELIVERED OBAMA YOU DO NOT KNOW IF HE IS NATURAL BORN, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE PRESIDENT.

From a comment on a Ledger-Enquirer .com [Columbus, Georgia] article, Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president, more below.

It is also of note that the media have been unable to find a friend or neighbor who convincingly remembers that Obama’s birth took place in Hawaii.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

More from a comment on a Ledger-Enquirer .com [Columbus, Georgia] article, Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president:

xinunus wrote on 07/14/2009 12:58:11 PM:
*FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS
HAWAII GAVE OUT CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH TO BABIES NOT BORN IN HAWAII OR THE USA IN 1961.
UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT HOSPITAL AND DOCTOR DELIVERED OBAMA YOU DO NOT KNOW IF HE IS NATURAL BORN, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE PRESIDENT.
UNTIL OBAMA SHOWS US WHAT HOSPITAL AND DOCTOR IS LISTED ON HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH.
OBAMA COULD END ALL OF THIS WITH A 5 MINUTE PHONE CALL.
INSTEAD HE IS SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON LAWYERS TO HIDE ALL RECORDS THAT SHOW THAT HE CAME FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING OBAMA?
YOU'RE PRESIDENT NOW.
TIME TO STOP HIDING YOUR PAST.
*FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS [My ellipses and emphasis]

St. Paul’s Body Found?

2009-06-30T17:11:00.001-04:00

Independent carbon dating of bone fragments extracted from traditional tomb consistent with traditional martyrdom.

There is a reasonable probability that the remains are those of the Apostle Paul.
In the time of Pius XII the possible remains of the Apostle Peter were found where they were supposed to be, beneath the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica on Vatican hill in Rome. And then lost in a Vatican storeroom. And then rediscovered in the time of Paul VI. Interesting book about it: "The Bones of Saint Peter".
There is an interesting biblical parallel between the lives of Daniel and his three friends in Babylon near the time of the destruction of the first Jerusalem temple. And the traditional martyrdom of leading Apostles in Rome near the time of the destruction of the second Jerusalem temple.

From my comment on a Daily Mail .co .uk article, Have we found the body of St Paul?, article excerpts below:

I report and link. You decide. - J:)

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

Excerpts from a Daily Mail .co .uk article, Have we found the body of St Paul?
:

Have we found the body of St Paul? [/] By A N Wilson Last updated at 2:43 AM on 30th June 2009 [/] Ruthless, half mad, he stoned Christians to death. He also founded modern civilisation. And until yesterday, his fate was one of history's great mysteries...
Deeply moved, the Pope delivered the news on Sunday that fragments of bones found in the tomb traditionally considered to be that of Saint Paul did indeed date from the first or second century. [/] Which means that, in all likelihood, they are the bones of the Apostle Paul - bones that have lain there for 1,950 years yet, astonishingly, have only been discovered in our time.
You might say, so what? Aren't Roman Catholics always making claims about bones and relics? Was it not said that if you measured all the bits of the True Cross venerated throughout the world you could build a bridge to the moon? Yes, yes. [/] But this is slightly different, and it is very exciting. The Pope was not saying that he revered some relics as a matter of faith. He was saying that scientists, by carbon dating, have come as close as possible to identifying the very bones of St Paul himself.
Why is he so convinced? Though the carbon-dating experts knew nothing of their origins, the bone fragments were recovered after a tiny probe was inserted into the tomb which lies in a crypt beneath the Basilica of St Paul outside the Walls in Rome - a church long held to have been built on the site where Paul was buried.
It was only three years ago that the tomb itself was discovered by Vatican archaeologists. [/] The fact that it was positioned exactly underneath the epigraph Paulo Apostolo Mart (Paul the Apostle and Martyr) at the base of the altar convinced them it was Paul's tomb. [/] Now backed by the evidence of his carbon-dated bone fragments, the Pope has announced: 'This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that the bone fragments are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul.'
What makes the discovery all the more exciting is that the last days of Saint Paul have always been a bit of an historical puzzle. [/] To understand why this news is being treated as such a sensation, we have to examine his life - an extraordinary and dramatic life which, it is no exaggeration to say, changed the course of the world.
[…] You can tell from his letters that he is a driven, hyperactive genius of a man - more like a half-mad poet, I have often thought, than a clergyman. [/] His great flights of beautiful prose-poetry about the nature of love, or about the consolations of faith, echo down the ages to inspire new generations of readers afresh. [/] 'Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril or sword?'
Paul was the first great theologian, insisting that we are forgiven not because of our good deeds, but solely because of God's love for us. He was the prime influence on all the great Christian philosophers and thinkers from Augustine to Luther.
But what happened to him in the end? We never knew. We know from the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible that he was arrested for causing an affray in Jerusalem, when Jews set upon him for preaching Christianity. [/] We're told that, as a Roman citizen, he made an appeal to Caesar's supreme court in Rome, living for two years under house arrest. But then his story fizzles out. [/] Now, it appears that the aural tradition, passed on by word of mouth since the second century, that he had suffered martyrdom and was beheaded for his faith, is true.
[...] Historical research alone will never produce faith. But it has always been part of the Christian claim that it was historically rooted. The ministry of the Church - its bishops and priests - goes back, as far as the West is concerned, in an unbroken line to the martyrs of Rome in the early days of Christianity. [/] These were men and women who were alive during the lifetime of Jesus, and their lives had been turned around by their beliefs concerning his life, death and resurrection. To all the apostles, therefore, the Church owes an historic debt.
But to none more so than Paul, who opened up to the Gentile world the inexhaustible riches of the Jewish spiritual tradition which culminated in Jesus Christ. [/] A.N. WILSON is author of Paul: The Mind Of The Apostle. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Nine Supremes Dis Wise Latina!?!

2009-06-29T21:20:00.003-04:00

(Sorry, the muse of sock-it-to-‘em headlines could not be denied.)

It is not encouraging that Judge Sotomayor showed less concern than the four liberal Justices for protecting white employees from being treated differently from other employees based on their race, and for avoiding a de facto quota system. Nor is it encouraging that Judge Sotomayor reached this result without appearing to engage the issue, through a summary order that may well have been intended to bury the claims of the white firefighters. But such is the jurisprudence of the "wise Latina" jurist President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court.

From a Power Line Blog .com post, RICCI: THE MAJORITY'S WAY, THE DISSENTERS' WAY, AND SOTOMAYOR'S WAY, more below.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

RICCI: THE MAJORITY'S WAY, THE DISSENTERS' WAY, AND SOTOMAYOR'S WAY [/] Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff [/] June 29, 2009 Posted by Paul at 1:39 PM
[…] In Ricci, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether, or under what circumstances, an employer can discard the results of a facially neutral selection device in order to favor members of a particular racial group, where the purpose of doing so is to avoid a potential claim of disparate impact discriminaton. The City argued that employers should be able to do so where they have a "good faith belief" that this step is necessary to avoid liability for disparate impact discrimination.
The Ricci majority rejected this view. Justice Kennedy explained that the "minimal standard" advocated by the City
could cause employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional examinations even where there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination. That would amount to a de facto quota system in which a focus on statistics could put undue pressure on employers to adopt inappropriate prophylactic measures.

This is the heart of the matter. For more than 30 years, since my days as a government civil rights lawyer, important elements of the civil rights community and the civil rights bureaucracy have wanted employers to relax their standards to the extent necessary to guarantee that minorities enjoy proportional representation in the workplace. This urge has increased over the years, as it has often seemed that no matter how hard employers try to create tests and other selection devices that will not adversely affect minorities, they continue to come up short (or, stated differently, minorities continue to come up short on the tests).
For example, in the New Haven case, the city took testimony from a professor at Boston College whose area of "expertise" was "race and culture as they influence performance on tests and other assessment procedures." Declining even to look at the City's exam, she testified that no matter what test the City had administered it would have revealed a disparity between blacks and whites, as well as Hispanics and whites, particularly on a written test. In the 1960s, liberals would considered such a claim to "racist." These days, some liberals liberal rely on it.
Today's decision represents a setback to those who would impose a de facto quota regime. Employers will not be allowed to throw up their hands and abandon selection criteria merely because the criteria have an adverse impact on minorities and they don't feel like being sued (or in the case of political entitiies, because they want to favor, or curry favor with, minority groups and cite the risk of litigation as an excuse for doing so).
Under the standard articulated for the majority by Justice Kennedy, an employer may discard the results of a selection device that would have an adverse impact on minorities only if the employer has a "strong basis in the evidence" to believe that using the selection device would cause it to violate Title VII by engaging in disparate impact discrimination. Thus, the employer must have a strong basis in the evidence to believe that (1) using the device will result in disparate impact and (2) the test cannot be justified under the job relatedness/business necessiity standard or (3) there exists an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative selection device that it refused to adopt.
Justice Ginsburg, in dissent, argued for a more lenient standard than the majority's "strong basis in the evidence" test. The dissenters would uphold the discarding of results from a test with a disparate impact where "the employer has good cause to believe the device would not withstand examination for business necessity." Depending on how this standard were applied, it could perhaps be sufficient to avoid a de facto quota system, and Justice Ginsburg made a point of claiming (albeit not very persuasively) that her standard would, in fact, avoid that result.
In any event, even the dissent's more lenient standard is a departure from that endorsed by Judge Sotomayor. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in footnote 10, "the lower courts focused on respondents' 'intent' rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act." In other words, Judge Sotomayor refused to demand even that New Haven have "good cause" (never mind a strong basis in the evidence) to believe that it was vulnerable to a meritorious suit for disparate impact discrimination, before depriving the white firefighers of promotions they would have received had they been black.
It is not encouraging that Judge Sotomayor showed less concern than the four liberal Justices for protecting white employees from being treated differently from other employees based on their race, and for avoiding a de facto quota system. Nor is it encouraging that Judge Sotomayor reached this result without appearing to engage the issue, through a summary order that may well have been intended to bury the claims of the white firefighters. But such is the jurisprudence of the "wise Latina" jurist President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Radical Christianity? Good or Bad?

2009-06-15T13:31:00.001-04:00

”Radical” has the basic meaning of “uproot”. – “Mark 4:16-17 KJV […] when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, […]”

I realized that during that time of my life my obsession was in obliterating myself in subjugation to the idea of salvation. My mantras of the time were to "lose my life for Christ" and to "pick up my cross and follow Him." And this tendency to destroy the self in this manner can be found amongst radicals of almost all political and religious ideologies -- you certainly show how leftist and Islamist radicals do it. [/] Radicalism is a universal phenomenon that can be fueled by almost any ideology. And sometimes these radicalisms stumble upon common objectives. [My emphasis]

From a Front Page Mag .com article, FrontPage Interview, more below:

Taking up your cross and following Jesus is, in the context of the gospels, a call to the “so great salvation” later made available through the blood sacrifice of the Son of God. Interpreting these passages as a mere call to self sacrifice has led many astray.

I report and link. You decide. - J:)

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. - 2nd Corinthians 2:14

From a Front Page Mag .com article, FrontPage Interview
(David Swindle interviewed by Jamie Glazov):

FP: What books have influenced you and made you reconsider your radical past?
Swindle: The first book which showed me how I might take conservatism seriously and eventually begin to develop my own variation of the philosophy was Andrew Sullivan's The Conservative Soul. I read it while I was still a leftist but Sullivan's description of "a conservatism of doubt" really struck a chord with the passionate agnostic in me. (Even if movement conservatives are still pissed at Sullivan for x, y, and z they simply must read his book. It's wonderful.)
This understanding of conservatism set me up for David[ Horowitz]'s work. Having read almost all of them now my favorite is still The Politics of Bad Faith. David articulates a compelling case for understanding the Left as a religious movement. It's an idea that just rings so true. Uncivil Wars, with its exciting, unifying vision of the American Idea is also one of his books whose praises I can't sing loud enough.
On the subject of the intersection of religious and political faiths, though, your recent book, United In Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror really sent my mind exploring over the ideological terrain I'd explored -- but surely not in the way you would have guessed. Because the radicalism it forced me to reflect on was not the leftist radicalism of my college years but the Christian radicalism of my junior high and high school years. My deep agnosticism didn't emerge from nowhere. From 1995 up through about 2000 the driving pursuit in my life wasn't political but religious. I was a zealous Evangelical Christian on an intense mission to try and convert as many people as possible so they could escape the fires of hell. Your book made me reflect on this time of my life primarily because of what you wrote about in your chapter "Cravings for Death," what I reflected on in my FrontPage essay.
I realized that during that time of my life my obsession was in obliterating myself in subjugation to the idea of salvation. My mantras of the time were to "lose my life for Christ" and to "pick up my cross and follow Him." And this tendency to destroy the self in this manner can be found amongst radicals of almost all political and religious ideologies -- you certainly show how leftist and Islamist radicals do it.
Radicalism is a universal phenomenon that can be fueled by almost any ideology. And sometimes these radicalisms stumble upon common objectives. That's why you find the "Unholy Alliance" which David first wrote about and which you elaborated on in your own book. Having made these connections I've become intensely interested in what I refer to as "the radical spirit" and the attempt to figure out how those of us possessed of it can channel it into more productive directions than the radicals you and David have been so good at critiquing.
FP: Are you still a Christian? Tell us how your spiritual journey has evolved during your political transition.
Swindle: It depends on who we let define what it means to be a Christian. If one must believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the talking snake, and the inerrancy of the Bible then I'm not a Christian. But if we define "Christian" more broadly as I do, and we understand Christianity as a love for the ideas and example of Christ, then I'm very much still a Christian. I still read the Bible, consider its teaching, and seek to emulate Christ's call to live a life of absolute love for humanity. I want to internalize the spirit and metaphors of Christianity while discarding its archaic, and often downright destructive dogmas. (I hold this exact same attitude about the Left by the way. "Progressive dreams pursued through conservative means" remains one of my mantras.)
During my leftist college days I often drifted into exploring mystical and occult ideas. I explored the writings of Aleister Crowley and the variant of chaos magic advocated by comics author Grant Morrison. And I still find the magical metaphor to be a useful, intriguing way of looking at the world.
More recently, though, I've been strongly influenced by George[ Wolfe]'s Inter-Faith spirituality. […] This spiritual approach has seemed to fit so well that my wife April and I chose to have George marry us in an Inter-Faith wedding ceremony which was held on May 16. I find this spiritual outlook fits with my agnostic tendency and lines up pretty well with M. Scott Peck's fourth stage of spiritual growth -- a model for understanding spirituality that I find accurate and useful. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Iran's Axis of Nuclear Evil

2009-03-21T17:58:00.001-04:00

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Wall Street Journal article, Iran's Axis of Nuclear Evil:

Iran's Axis of Nuclear Evil [/] By JOHN BOLTON [/] Saturday, March 21, 2009
While President Obama's unanticipated Nowruz holiday greeting to Iran generated considerable press attention, his video wasn't really this week's big news related to the Islamic Republic.
Far more important was that a senior defector -- Iran's former Deputy Minister of Defense Ali Reza Asghari – disclosed Tehran's financing of Syria's nuclear weapons program. That program's centerpiece was a North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria. Israel destroyed it in September 2007.
At this point, it is impossible to ignore Iran's active efforts to expand, improve and conceal its nuclear weapons program in Syria while it pretends to "negotiate" with Britain, France and Germany (the "EU-3"). No amount of video messages will change this reality. The question is whether this new information about Iran will sink in, or if Washington will continue to turn a blind eye toward Iran's nuclear deceptions.
That the Pyongyang-Damascus-Tehran nuclear axis went undetected and unacknowledged for so long is an intelligence failure of the highest magnitude. It represents a plain unwillingness to allow hard truths to overcome well-entrenched policy views disguised as intelligence findings.
Key elements of our intelligence community (IC) fought against the idea of a Syrian nuclear program for years. In mid-2003, I had a bitter struggle with several IC agencies -- news of which was leaked to the press -- concerning my testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the Syrian program. Then Sen. Joe Biden made the Syria testimony an issue in my 2005 confirmation battle to become ambassador to the United Nations, alleging that I had tried to hype concern about Syria's nuclear intentions. (In fact, my testimony, in both its classified and unclassified versions, was far more anodyne than the facts warranted.)
Key IC agencies made two arguments in 2003 against the possibility of a clandestine Syrian nuclear weapons program. First, they argued that Syria lacked the scientific and technological capabilities to sustain such a program. Second, they said that Syria did not have the necessary economic resources to fund a program. [/] These assertions were not based on highly classified intelligence. Instead, they were personal views that some IC members developed based on public information. The intelligence that did exist -- which I thought warranted close observation of Syria, at a minimum -- the IC discounted as inconsistent with its fixed opinions. In short, theirs was not an intelligence conclusion, but a policy view presented under the guise of intelligence.
How wrong they were.
As for Syria's technical expertise, North Korea obviously had the scientific and technological ability to construct the reactor, which was essentially a clone of the North's own at Yongbyon. Moreover, it is entirely possible that Syria's nuclear program -- undertaken with Pyongyang's assistance -- is even more extensive. We will certainly never know from Syria directly, since Damascus continues to deny it has any nuclear program whatever. It's also stonewalling investigation efforts by the International Atomic Energy Agency. [/] As for Syria's ability to finance a nuclear program, Iran could easily supply whatever Syria might need -- even in a time of fluctuating oil prices. Moreover, given Iran's hegemony over Syria, it is impossible to believe Syria would ever undertake extensive nuclear cooperation with North Korea without Iran's acquiescence. Iran was likely an active partner in a three-way joint venture on the reactor, supplying key financial support and its own share of scientific knowledge. Cooperation on ballistic missile programs between Pyongyang and Tehran is longstanding and well-advanced, and thereby forms a basis of trust for nuclear cooperation. Moreover, both Iran and North Korea share a common incentive: to conceal illicit nuclear weapons programs from international scrutiny. What better way to hide such programs than to conduct them in a third country where no one is looking?
Uncovering the North Korean reactor in Syria was a grave inconvenience for the Bush administration. It enormously complicated both the failing six-party talks on North Korea and the EU-3's diplomatic efforts with Iran, which Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice so actively supported.
Mr. Asghari's revelations about Iranian financing of Syria's nuclear program -- if borne out – will have precisely the same negative impact on Obama administration policies, since they track Mr. Bush's so closely. In fact, the two administrations' approaches differ only to the extent that Mr. Obama is poised to pursue policies, like face-to-face negotiations with Iran, that the second term Bush State Department wanted to do, but faced too much internal dissonance to implement.
The Nowruz video reflects the dominant view within the Obama administration that its "open hand" will be reciprocated. It's likely Iran will respond affirmatively to the near-plaintive administration request to "engage." [/] And why not? Such dialogue allows Iran to conceal its true intentions and activities under the camouflage of negotiations, just as it has done for the past six years with the EU-3. What's more, Iran will see it as confirmation of U.S. weakness and evidence that its policies are succeeding.
There is very little time for Mr. Obama to change course before he is committed to negotiations. He could start by following Iran's money trail.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007). [My ellipses and emphasis]

Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths

2009-03-21T16:50:00.001-04:00

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an American Thinker .com article, Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths:

Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths [/] By James Lewis [/] September 25, 2008
"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' [/] -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model." [/] -- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...." [/] -- The Nation

A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.
Alinsky boasted about his close alliance with Frank Nitti, Al Capone's second in command in the Chicago Mob during the 1930s. Al Capone's Mob were domestic terrorists, and not for any noble cause either. They poisoned the Chicago politics of their era. Alinsky's close alliance with Frank Nitti tells us something crucially important today. Alinsky was also a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party, at a time when Stalin was known to have murdered tens of millions of people. He was proud of building a bridge between organized crime and the power hungry Left. That tacit alliance may continue today.
Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."
Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.
A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.
Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.
Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals. But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain.
That is why Obama is now instructing his followers to "get in their faces" of those Americans who are not down for his cause. Obama acts like a nice guy, but he is a political warmonger. He's been very clear about that: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's the language of gang war.
Today we can see the Left's rage reaction to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. The New York Sun quoted one feminist saying "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows ...People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president -- our potential next president." [/] The "comedienne" Sandra Bernhard suggested that Sarah Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan" if she dared to go there.
A British Leftist writing for Pravda (!) called "Sarah Palin - The Devil in disguise... [/]
Sarah Palin, Mrs. Nobody know-it-all shreiking cow from Alaska, the joke of American politics, plied with a couple of vodkas ... cheap little guttersnipe ... suppose you shut up ... you pith-headed little bimbo from the back of beyond ... So next time suppose you keep your mouth shut and while you're at it, make sure the members of your family keep their legs shut too. ... "
That warlike rage has been systematically whipped up over decades by the Left. That's what college "Women's Studies" does, just as "Black Studies" is deliberately designed to whip up black rage and victimhood. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is a case in point.
Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals
"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right ... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people. Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.
These claims require proof; but we have been looking straight at the evidence since the first Clinton term. Bill Clinton fits the diagnostic description of psychopathic personality, now relabeled "antisocial personality' in the DSM IV, the official diagnostic manual for psychiatry. Three out of the following seven criteria nails the diagnosis:
1. Failure to conform to social norms ... [/] 2. Deceitfulness ... or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; [/] 3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; [/] 4. Irritability and aggressiveness ... ; [/] 5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others; [/] 6. Consistent irresponsibility ... ; [/] 7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
I would give Mr. Clinton credit for Numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7, and possibly 3 (impulsivity) and 4 (irritability and aggressiveness). Dick Morris, who advised the Clintons for 20 years, describes dramatic scenes that certainly fit the description. Or Bill's inability to stick with a meeting agenda, impulsively running endless bull sessions at the White House. As for 5, his picking up women opportunistically and in a way that put his career, not to mention his family life and American security, at risk. The Monica affair showed an impulsive, reckless president who got into power by endless lying and conning.
Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.
Normal people slow down in School Zones where kids might run across the street -- not because they're afraid of getting a speeding ticket but because they can't stand the thought of hurting kids. They don't need to cheat compulsively on wives and husbands to prove how irresistible they are. Normal people have internalized some modesty and humility, and are capable of respect and love for others. A common feature of psychopaths is the inability to feel authentic love and respect for others.
True psychopaths are often charming, seductive, and treacherous. They make natural con artists. Many psychopaths are extremely manipulative -- and what is more manipulative than stirring up hatred among victim groups to empower oneself? That is Jeremiah Wright, the diabolical Father Pfleger, James Meeks, and by his own definition of radicals, Saul Alinsky.
The worst are "malevolent psychopaths" -- people who sadistically hurt others. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, and probably many famous Western intellectuals fit the description of malevolent psychopaths. That is tragic and shocking. Historian Paul Johnson presents compelling evidence for malevolent psychopathy in the life of Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, and many others in his important book Intellectuals. Western intellectuals have been the home team of Leftist radicalism for a century now.
But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!" [/] That is a laugh line, believe it or not.
Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.
Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals: [/] "... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
If that doesn't send a shiver down your back, you haven't been paying attention. [/] James Lewis occasionally blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com [My ellipses and emphasis]

Thank God America Isn't Like Europe -- Yet

2009-03-21T12:25:00.002-04:00

Wisdom in the Washington Post?!? Will wonders ever cease?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Washington Post article, Thank God America Isn't Like Europe -- Yet:

Thank God America Isn't Like Europe – Yet [/] By Charles Murray [/] Sunday, March 22, 2009; [Page] B02
Do we want the United States to be like Europe? [/] The European model has worked in many ways. I am delighted whenever I get a chance to go to Stockholm or Amsterdam, not to mention Rome or Paris. There's a lot to like -- a lot to love -- about day-to-day life in Europe. But I argue that the answer to this question is "no." Not for economic reasons. I want to focus on another problem with the European model: namely, that it drains too much of the life from life.
The stuff of life -- the elemental events surrounding birth, death, raising children, fulfilling one's personal potential, dealing with adversity, intimate relationships – occurs within just four institutions: family, community, vocation and faith. Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. The European model doesn't do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.
Drive through rural Sweden, as I did a few years ago. In every town was a beautiful Lutheran church, freshly painted, on meticulously tended grounds, all subsidized by the Swedish government. And the churches are empty. Including on Sundays. The nations of Scandinavia and Western Europe pride themselves on their "child-friendly" policies, providing generous child allowances, free day-care centers and long maternity leaves. Those same countries have fertility rates far below replacement and plunging marriage rates. They are countries where jobs are most carefully protected by government regulation and mandated benefits are most lavish. And with only a few exceptions, they are countries where work is most often seen as a necessary evil, and where the proportions of people who say they love their jobs are the lowest.
Call it the Europe Syndrome. Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. Afterward, a few of the 20-something members of the audience came up and said plainly that the phrase "a life well-lived" did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and they saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.
It was fascinating to hear it said to my face, but not surprising. It conformed to both journalistic and scholarly accounts of a spreading European mentality that goes something like this: Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible.
If that's the purpose of life, then work is not a vocation, but something that interferes with the higher good of leisure. If that's the purpose of life, why have a child, when children are so much trouble? If that's the purpose of life, why spend it worrying about neighbors? If that's the purpose of life, what could possibly be the attraction of a religion that says otherwise?
I stand in awe of Europe's past. Which makes Europe's present all the more dispiriting. And should make it something that concentrates our minds wonderfully, for every element of the Europe Syndrome is infiltrating American life as well. The European model provides the intellectual framework for the social policies of the Democratic Party, and it faces no credible opposition from Republican politicians.
Yet not only is the European model inimical to human flourishing, I predict that 21st-century science is going to explain why. A tidal change in our scientific understanding of what makes humans tick is coming, and it will spill over into every crevice of political and cultural life. As Harvard's Edward O. Wilson argues in his book "Consilience," the social sciences are increasingly going to be shaped by the findings of science. It's already happening. Whether it's psychologists discovering how fetal testosterone affects sex differences in children's behavior or geneticists using haplotypes to differentiate the Dutch from the Italians, the hard sciences are encroaching on questions of race, class and gender that have been at the center of modern social science. And the tendency of the findings lets us predict with some confidence the broad outlines of what the future will bring.
Two premises about human beings are at the heart of the social democratic agenda: what I label "the equality premise" and "the New Man premise." The equality premise says that, in a fair society, different groups of people -- men and women, blacks and whites, straights and gays – will naturally have the same distributions of outcomes in life -- the same mean income, the same mean educational attainment, the same proportions who become janitors and who become CEOs. When that doesn't happen, it is because of bad human behavior and an unfair society. Much of the Democratic Party's proposed domestic legislation assumes that this is true.
I'm confident that within a decade, the weight of the new scientific findings will force the left to abandon the equality premise. But if social policy cannot be built on the premise that group differences must be eliminated, what can it be built upon? It can be built upon the premise that used to be part of the warp and woof of American idealism: People must be treated as individuals. The success of social policy is to be measured not by equality of outcomes for groups, but by the freedom of individuals, acting upon their personal abilities, aspirations and values, to seek the kind of life that best suits them.
The second tendency of the new findings of biology will be to show that the New Man premise -- which says that human beings are malleable through the right government interventions -- is nonsense. Human nature tightly constrains what is politically or culturally possible. More than that, the new findings will confirm that human beings are pretty much the way that wise observers have thought for thousands of years.
The effects on the policy debate will be sweeping. Let me give you a specific example. For many years, I have been among those who argue that the growth in births to unmarried women has been a social catastrophe -- the single most important force behind the growth of the underclass. But while other scholars and I have been able to prove that other family structures have not worked as well as the traditional family, I cannot prove that alternatives could not work as well, and so the social democrats keep coming up with the next new program that will compensate for the absence of fathers.
Over the next few decades, advances in evolutionary psychology are going to be conjoined with advances in genetic understanding, and I predict that they will lead to a scientific consensus that goes something like this: There are genetic reasons why boys who grow up in neighborhoods without married fathers tend to reach adolescence unsocialized to norms of behavior that they will need to stay out of prison and hold jobs. We will still be able to acknowledge that many single women do a wonderful job of raising their children. But social democrats will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensable role in human flourishing and that social policy must be based on that truth.
For some years a metaphor has been stuck in my mind: The 20th century was the adolescence of Homo sapiens. Nineteenth-century science, from Darwin to Freud, offered a series of body blows to ways of thinking about human life that had prevailed since the dawn of civilization. Humans, just like adolescents, were deprived of some of the comforting simplicities of childhood and exposed to more complex knowledge about the world. And 20th-century intellectuals reacted precisely the way adolescents react when they think they have discovered that Mom and Dad are hopelessly out of date. It was as if they thought that if Darwin was right about evolution, then Aquinas was no longer worth reading; that if Freud was right about the unconscious mind, then the Nicomachean Ethics had nothing to teach us.
The nice thing about adolescence is that it is temporary, and when it passes, people discover that their parents were smarter than they thought. I think that may be happening with the advent of the new century. All of us who deal in social policy will be thinking less like adolescents, entranced with the most titillating new idea, and more like grown-ups. But that will not stop America's slide toward the European model. For that, there must be a kind of political Great Awakening among America's elites. They will have to ask themselves how much they value what has made America exceptional, and what they are willing to do to preserve it.
The trouble is that American elites of all political stripes have increasingly withdrawn to gated communities -- literally or figuratively -- where they never interact at an intimate level with people not of their own socioeconomic class. Over the last half-century, the new generation of elites have increasingly spent their entire lives in the upper-middle-class bubble, never having seen a factory floor, let alone worked on one, never having gone to a grocery store and bought the cheap ketchup instead of the expensive ketchup to meet a budget, and never having had a close friend who hadn't gotten at least 600 on her verbal SAT.
America's elites must once again fall in love with what makes America different. The drift toward the European model can be stopped only when we are all talking again about why America is exceptional, and why it is so important that America remain exceptional. That requires once again seeing the American project for what it is: a different way for people to live together, unique among the nations of the earth, and immeasurably precious. [/] Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from his 2009 Irving Kristol Lecture. [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL BJon Blame Fritzl’s Mother For His Horrendous Abuse Of His Daughter?

2009-03-19T19:32:00.001-04:00

(Josef Fritzl was recently sentenced to life in a psychiatric facility for imprisoning and massively abusing his children and grandchildren for twenty-four years.)

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 139419!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

Why did Fritzl feel the need to dominate someone to such a degree? [/] Time and again, in his jail cell and in court this week, he has cited the influence of his mother, a woman of stern principles and iron discipline, whom he claims forbade him to have friends and sought to 'protect' him from the wild, wicked world outside. [/] 'My mother used to stop me having friends,' he told the court. 'I was not allowed to have any until I was 12. [/] 'I did manage to have one secret friend, but the friend bitterly let me down. I decided not to have any friends after that.'
Thinking, as he must have, that his mother loved him, he submitted himself completely to her will. Ever afterwards his notion of love was perverted. [/] For him, it meant an expression of absolute power - and recipients of this love would be expected to demonstrate unquestioning acquiescence. [/] Normal human relationships are utterly impossible for a man with such convictions. [/] People are not robotic and predictable, as he would like them to be; they are messy and surprising. They do not respond according to the rules. They do not fit with our preconceived ideas of what they should say or do.
[...] A control sadist like Fritzl, who is inherently terrified of this unpredictability, will create a different universe in which nobody says no, and nobody upsets the order which he imposes by his own will. [/] Fritzl did so in a literal sense, by building an airless and lightless dungeon beneath his house, and leading his second, secret fantasy-life inside it - a life he also shared with other living souls whom he reduced to objects he could manipulate.
That is the reason why he did not speak to Elisabeth for years and years, but always copulated in silence. [/] If he spoke, then she might reply, and that was dangerous, for it would remind him - and declare to herself too - that she was human and not an object or a thing required for his pleasure. It was essential for Fritzl that she should be deprived of vitality and reduced to an object, and for this to happen she had to be voiceless. [/] Literally, she was the living dead - which explains my nauseous sense that there are worse things than murder, and why we all shudder with contempt for this man and what he has done with his own offspring.

From a Daily Mail [U.K.] article, What kind of human being can this be?, more follows:

What kind of human being can this be? [/] By Brian Masters [/] Last updated at 1:27 PM on 18th March 2009
For more than 25 years now, I have pondered, examined and attempted to comprehend some of the most baffling and sordid cases of serial murder. [/] I wrote a biography of serial killer Denis Nilsen, and covered the trial of Rosemary West. [/] But the Josef Fritzl case makes me wonder if there are not degradations of the soul more deeply squalid even than murder.
This man did not kill his daughter; but he did take her life while she remained living, thus condemning her to be witness to her own obliteration. [/] He is said to have raped her up to 3,000 times over 24 years - mechanically, indifferently, and in front of other members of his incestuous family in the cellar. He is said not to have addressed a word to her for the first nine years of her ordeal. [/] All this is unimaginably cruel, and yet we must consider what makes a man descend to such wickedness?
It is no good merely to weep and wail: for the sake of our own humanity, we are obliged to work out what manner of a man this is. [/] […] [/] But it is not the sadism which looks for gratification simply in the infliction of pain and contemplation of suffering; it is the sadism of blind selfishness.
Fritzl was determined to have his way at all costs. He was determined not to be thwarted; nor to be challenged or resisted. He even used the word 'kingdom' to describe his ghastly dungeon. Only he could enter his domain, and those inside were subjected to his terrifying rule. [/] Grotesque though it is to contemplate, we can hardly be surprised that his obsessive urge to exert control without any fear of reprisal led to incest. [/] For what weaker victim is there than your own child, who not only would be too frightened to argue, but would also be inclined to assume that all was as it should be, since it is the child's wish to trust?
As Elisabeth Fritzl emerged from childhood into puberty and adolescence, she would have realised the desperate trap into which she had been enticed by a father who so appallingly abused her innocence and trust. [/] But by then she would also have come to accept that it was too late to do anything but subject herself to his relentless abuse. Her thoughts must truly have been of blackest despair, that her tormentor was the one man on Earth she had once believed was inherently responsible for her happiness. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: Blame Fritzl’s Mother For His Horrendous Abuse Of His Daughter? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Visiting iniquity upon descendents. / 2. Yes. Freud was right. / 3. Yes. Fritzl permanently crippled emotionally. / 4. Yes. Extremely evil woman. / 5. Yes. Extremely misguided woman. / 6. Yes. Mother’s parents also to blame. / 7. Yes. All or most of 1-6 above. / 8. Yes. / 9. Possibly. Fritzl may be lying. / 10. Possibly. Not much known about her. / 11. Possibly. Father, others may be more to blame. / 12. Possibly. / 13. No. / 14. No. The wickedness of the wicked is upon him. / 15. No. She did what she could. / 16. No. Freud was wrong. / 17. No. Law of mother not to be kept. / 18. No. His insanity of unknown origin. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 139419! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Disown, Ask, and Receive

2009-01-19T21:19:00.000-05:00

From a forum post

{{___ Good question. }}

Not sure what question you are referring to.

{{___ Because we are not perfect we fall.}}

Adam did not fall from imperfection but from a deliberate disobedience of an explicit command or law that God had placed him under.

Christians today are not under law as was Adam in Eden and Israel under the law of Moses.

The born again are completely forgiven of all imperfections, past, present, and future.

Although the heart may say that one has failed, God is greater than our hearts. His Word and His Spirit testify that foregiveness is complete.

{{___ This is why I believe Jesus says to deny ourself daily.}}

I have always taken the daily to apply only to taking up one's cross. Leedy's diagram of the verse agrees. And this instruction took place before the crucifixion. It does not have precise application today.

In the process of conversion, we deny or disown ourselves. Jesus is accepted as Lord. He now "owns" us, particularly as to all we are and have in this world. Our new possessions are spiritual and eternal and are not to be disowned or denied.

{{___ From this I think Jesus means for us to stay in denial of ourself all the time.}}

The memories of the old man and his ways must be pushed aside explicitly at times and the focus placed once again on Jesus and the putting on of the new man, the putting on of the armor of light, the putting on of the Lord Jesus Christ.

{{___ Then we keep open the door for the Holy Spirit to indewll us.}}

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not cease. The door only has to be opened at conversion. The internal witness of the new personal spirit of the born again supported by the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit that one is a child of God is always there when it is sought.

{{___ It may be Jesus knew we may rely on when we were born again for denial but Jesus wants us to stay in denial of ourself all the time.}}

There is no sense in repeating the denial of self when the Word and the inner spiritual witness tell us that denial followed by the gift of saving faith is evelastingly sufficient. A better way of stating what I think you are getting at is that we should always remember that we belong to Jesus now, as members of His Body in fact, and that we no longer belong to ourselves. Our commitment at conversion is accepted and superceded by God's eternal and irrevocable commitment to us as His sons.

Joe the Plumber Reports from Terrorist Missle Target, Sderot in Israel

2009-01-12T12:39:00.000-05:00

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Power Line Blog .com article, Joe the Plumber, live from Sderot:

Joe the Plumber, live from Sderot [/] Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff [/] http://www.powerlineblog.com [/] January 11, 2009 Posted by Scott at 8:44 PM
The Jerusalem Post reports that Joe the Plumber has arrived in Israel. By noon today he had made it to Sderot. By my estimation, he has gotten a better handle on the situation than his supposed betters in the media:
"You should be ashamed of yourself," he told foreign reporters [[foreign from Jerusalem Post perspective]].
"You should be patriotic, protect your family and children, not report like you have been doing for the past two weeks since this war has started," he said.
Wurzelbacher, the man who stole the limelight from Republican presidential candidate John McCain during the American election campaign, has found a new job - as a correspondent for the Internet Web sites PJTV and Pajamas Media.
Armed with a camera and a temporary Government Press Office card, he got a taste of reality in Sderot, visiting a house hit by a Kassam rocket two weeks ago and experiencing a "Code Red" alert first-hand. He also observed and reported from the house where a Kassam landed on Sunday afternoon.
The people of Sderot "can't do normal things day to day," like get soap in their eyes in the shower, for fear a rocket might come in, Wurzelbacher said. "I'm sure they're taking quick showers. I know I would."
He also wondered why Israel waited so long to act. "I know if I were a citizen here, I'd be d%%%%d upset." He described himself as a "peaceloving man," but added, "when someone hits me, I'm going to unload on the boy. And if the rest of the world doesn't understand that, then I'm sorry."

Is there any chance Pajamas can send Joe on to Beirut, Damascus and Tehran after he completes his assignment in Israel? I think he could teach the media reporting from those locales how to do it right as well. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama‘s D. C.: Already “Clown-Car Fast Lane“?

2009-01-05T19:55:00.001-05:00

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a National Review .com article, Life in the Clown-Car Fast Lane:

Life in the Clown-Car Fast Lane [/] And the party has not even started yet! [/] January 05, 2009, 4:00 a.m. [/] By David Kahane
Can you believe it? Barack Hussein Obama II hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and he’s already been interviewed by federal prosecutors in the ongoing Blago mess; he’s seen Bill Richardson immolate himself rather than stand the federal grand-jury scrutiny that would have come with his appointment as Commerce Secretary; his boy Rahm Emanuel is both en pointe, having resigned the House seat that was previously warmed by Hot Rod [[Blago]] and Dan Rostenkowski [[ In 1994, Rostenkowski was indicted on corruption charges and stepped down as Ways and Means chairman; he lost his House seat in the Congressional elections later that year. He pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996, and was fined and served (1996–97) a 17-month sentence. … Rostenkowski was pardoned by President Clinton in 2000.]], and, apparently, on Patrick Fitzgerald’s tapes too; and he’s facing the prospect of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, standing like a homunculus George Wallace in the schoolhouse door, ready to deny entrance to a black man when Roland “We Are the Senator” Burris tries to take Bambi’s [[Obama’s]] hardly-even-used seat tomorrow.
And here we Democrats thought the Clinton administration could never be topped!
You people had better get used to it, though, because hijinks and shenanigans like these are going to be the order of the day for at least the next four years. After all, we are the Tammany Party — the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sedition, and Surrender — so this sort of thing is not exactly new for us. Just look at our track record: We rightfully opposed the tyrant Lincoln with a loser general running on an antiwar platform, we perfected defensive election theft with Boss Tweed to save us from the plutocrats and goo-goos, [[The goo-goos, or good government guys, were political groups founded in an era when urban municipal governments in the United States were dominated by machine politics. … In New York, the exclusive City Club was the domain of "goo-goos," who sponsored "Good Government Clubs" in every assembly district. Their efforts led to the election of a reform mayor in 1894, a setback for the political machine known as Tammany Hall. - Wikipedia]] and we formed an unholy alliance with gangland to get Franklin D. Roosevelt the Democratic nod over Al Smith at our convention in (where else?) Chicago in 1932.
We are the party of Barack Obama and the Daley Machine; the party of the Clintons and their amazing alchemistic Library, which turns Saudi dross into altruistic gold; the party of Tony Rezko and Norman Hsu; the party of vaporizing fundraisers, absconding bagmen and sitting New Mexico governors (and a recent presidential “candidate”) currently under federal investigation for allegedly steering a state contract in the direction of one of his big backers, David Rubin of CDR Financial Products in Beverly Hills. Now comes word that Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state-designate, Congress and the Emoluments Clause willing, got millions of dollars for a mall in Syracuse shortly after the developer coughed up a hundred grand for the Bill Clinton “Foundation.” That’s what I call commerce!
We are also the party of Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who’s currently under “investigation” by the House “Ethics” Committee for a myriad of dubious practices, including using campaign contributions to pay his parking tickets.
Best of all, we are the party of the ineffable Christopher Dodd (D., Countrywide), another recent “presidential candidate” who in appearance and demeanor is a throwback to the great days of Tammany mugs. It was Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who got a sweetheart mortgage deal as a “Friend of Angelo” Mozilo, the disgraced former head of Countrywide Financial; Dodd who steadfastly denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in trouble — perhaps his status as the No. 1 recipient of their campaign largesse had something to do with his unshakeable faith in them; and Dodd who has promised to release the paperwork concerning his hinky mortgages but, of course, hasn’t.
The War Hero [[John Kerry, 2004 Democratic presidential nomineee]] will release his Navy service records, which show him racking up medals faster than Audie Murphy in his 16 weeks of “combat,” before the son of disgraced Connecticut senator Thomas J. Dodd releases his paperwork. Yes, that’s right — Chris’s old man was censured by the Senate in 1967 for behavior “contrary to good morals, [that] derogates from the public trust expected of a senator, and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.” And now Chris seems headed down the path to the same fate, although how it’s possible to bring a Senate that includes such stalwart Democrats as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, and Hillary Clinton into disrepute seems hard to fathom.
Still, as the Connecticut Post recently editorialized: “[Dodd] says there was nothing untoward about the mortgage rate he received from Countrywide Financial, a company that was heavily involved in the nationwide mortgage collapse. He feigns indignance each time the issue is raised. But he can make the questions stop easily. All he has to do is release documents on two mortgages from Countrywide, each of which seemingly came in with interest figures below the going rate. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he should have long ago put this issue to rest.”
But what’s the rush? Like one of the patron saints of Tammany Hall, Richard “Boss” Croker, Dodd’s little tin box has bought him a fine getaway estate in the Ould Sod. Dodd’s little manse in County Galway ought to come in handy when the Senate “Ethics” Committee starts closing in.
All of which, believe it or not, makes me proud to be a Democrat. The fact that we can get away with antics like these — the fact that our clown car is being driven at breakneck speed by real clowns under more or less permanent investigation — makes me laugh. Because you dopes never catch on and, like ^%$&BUSH&^%!, insist on treating us as a legitimate political party of high-minded statesmen instead of the lovable scamps and rapscallions we really are.
It doesn’t matter that Tammany and its mini-Tammanys across the country perfected a system of graft and corruption under the guise of helping the “little guy.” It doesn’t matter that, at various times, a coalition of gangsters, criminals, and Democratic politicians has seized, held, and operated whole states as criminal enterprises:
* Louisiana, where from Jean Lafitte to Huey Long to Edwin Edwards, crime has paid handsomely in this formerly one-party state. Laissez les bon temps rouler! [[Let the good times roll!]]
* New Jersey, where the cozy relationship between the Mob and Trenton is well documented, and where former senator Bob Torricelli — the Torch — loudly proclaimed his innocence in a fundraising scandal right up to the moment he flamed out and quit his reelection race.
* Arkansas, whose governors and U.S. senators were for many years on the gangland payroll run out of Hot Springs by transplanted Tammany gangster Owney Madden, acting in concert with Frank Costello and Meyer Lansky.
* Illinois, where, in a fit of affirmative action, we’ve brought both Republicans and the Jake Lingle Memorial Media into the fold, so that they can go to jail just like Democrats on the rare occasions they’re caught and convicted.
None of it matters. We keep on peddling the same shtick and the suckers keep on buying, and the bigger Big Government gets, the more adherents we garner. Pretty soon, if it hasn’t happened already, the Party of Take will be bigger than the Party of Give and then the Party really will be over. I just hope I’m long retired to my Countrywide-financed estate in Bayonne before it happens.
Which is why this Fitzgerald character has me a little worried. We loved him when we thought he was going to take down Darth Cheney, and even though all he threw us was the scalp of Marc Rich’s lawyer, Scooter Libby, we took our Fitzmas where we could find it. But now that he’s knee-deep in Blagojevich, we’re beginning to change our tune, and the deeper he digs, the more he’s starting to resemble Thomas Dewey. [[Governor of New York (1943-1955) and the unsuccessful Republican candidate for the U.S. Presidency in 1944 and 1948. … Dewey helped indict and convict Richard Whitney, the former president of the New York Stock Exchange, on charges of embezzlement. … Dewey also led law-enforcement efforts to protect dockworkers and poultry farmers and workers from racketeering in New York. … In 1939 Dewey prosecuted American Nazi leader Fritz Kuhn for embezzlement, crippling Kuhn's organization and limiting its ability to support Nazi Germany in the Second World War. … By the late 1930s Dewey's successful efforts against organized crime – and especially his conviction of Lucky Luciano – had turned him into a national celebrity. His nickname, the "Gangbuster", became the name of a popular radio serial based on his fight against the mob. Hollywood film studios even made several movies based on his exploits; one starred Humphrey Bogart as Dewey - Wikipedia]] There are even rumblings that, having requested a three-month extension to bring an indictment against Hot Rod, Paddy Fitz might be looking at a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) beef against the whole darn Combine. [[Chicago Democratic machine]] Mother of Mercy!
But not to worry: BO Jr., can always do what his Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton, did and fire every single one of the federal prosecutors, P. J. Fitzgerald, Esq., most certainly included. Luckily, folks will still be too busy sleeping off their hangovers and beginning the gestation period of their new babies to notice.
— Although he is a completely fictional character and does not, in fact, exist, David Kahane was born a Democrat, raised a Democrat and will die a Democrat. You can tell him how right he is to be a Democrat at kahanenro@gmail.com. [/] — David Kahane is a nom de cyber for a writer in Hollywood. “David Kahane” is borrowed from a screenwriter character in The Player. [My ellipses and emphasis]

U. S. Assaulted and Battered by Guilty Liberals on Behalf of “Victims“!!!

2009-01-05T15:16:00.001-05:00

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

[…] Her thesis this time is that liberals always act like they are being victimized, primarily by the Republican Attack Machine. While in fact, they, with the help of a very biased media, tend to victimize all who disagree with them. […] She also tells the little-reported tale of how Obama won his Illinois Senate seat. During the presidential campaign, Obama was full of sanctimony about keeping candidates’ families off-limits. But, Coulter writes, "The only reason he was in position to run for president in the first place was that the Media Attack Machine ripped open the sealed divorce records of his two principal opponents … Why did no one know that during the 2008 campaign? The fact that Obama won his Senate seat by rifling through the divorce records of his opponents is surely at least as important as the fact that Palin’s teenage daughter got pregnant out of wedlock," she contends.

From The Women on the Web [wowOwow] .com article, Coulter on Caroline Kennedy:, more follows:

Coulter on Caroline Kennedy: 'Every Time She Opens Her Mouth It Gets Worse' [/] (and other gentle musings from the irritatingly leggy author of Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America) [/] By Myrna Blyth [/] [Jan. 5, 2009] 9:00 am
Ann Coulter is at it again. Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum), the newest book from the leggy, blonde, irritatingly slender liberal-basher hits bookstores this week and is already climbing Amazon’s bestseller list. And so the usual media Ann-a-rama has begun with Coulter launching the book on her pal Sean Hannity’s radio and TV shows. She’ll be on “Today” on Tuesday and will follow that with countless interviews.
Coulter’s publicist says she never turns down an interview, even on radio talk shows that sound as if they emanate from someone’s garage. She knows her people are listening and buying thousands of copies of her books. She has already had six New York Times mega-bestsellers. Yes, there is a vast right-wing book-buying public who loves a girl who can call JFK “a venereal-disease-ridden sexual profligate and drug addict”; who never forget that “Sen. Ted Kennedy drove Mary Jo Kopechne off the Chappaquiddick Bridge”; who can recall that “President Clinton walked to and from church every Sunday carrying a ten-pound bible for the cameras – and then returned from church on Palm Sunday, 1996, to use a cigar as a sexual aid on Monica Lewinsky”; who can document, in footnote after footnote, that the Swift Boat Veterans were correct in their condemnation of the war record of “the mountebank Kerry.”
I talked to Coulter about Guilty as she was about to embark on her media tour. The book is (no surprise) another in her attacks against liberals. Her thesis this time is that liberals always act like they are being victimized, primarily by the Republican Attack Machine. While in fact, they, with the help of a very biased media, tend to victimize all who disagree with them. She has written about media bias before. “I really didn’t intend to make the book so much about the media,” she told me, "but I just couldn’t help it because the media has so much power. They like to act as if they are powerless, but everything today is about the media. I just had to point out all their dirty little tricks. If you are Paul Revere you have to sound the alarm.”
Now, let’s get one thing straight. I’m a member of the media who is about as unbiased in my political leanings as, say, The New York Times. In general, I think Ann is often more right than wrong, no pun intended. Oh, sure, she goes over the top once in a while, but when she does she is no more unfair or unbalanced then, say, Frank Rich or Keith Olbermann [[most of the time - BJon]]. And she is a lot funnier. In fact, she is often laugh-out-loud funny. And as for being a judge of the true character of some of our political leaders, do remember it was Ann who appraised John Edwards correctly long before his supporters and, unfortunately, Elizabeth Edwards ever did.
Guilty is full of interesting set-pieces such as her report on how the Media Attack Machine turned, during primary season, on their longtime dearly beloved Bill Clinton. She writes, “Obama emerged from the clouds, and at long last, liberals were finished with the Clintons … It took a decade but journalists finally noticed that Clinton getting serviced by a White House intern whose name he couldn’t recall may not have been the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address.” She points out that journalists acted as if Clinton had changed, rather than as if they were no longer covering up for him. Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair said Clinton’s “cavernous narcissism” was related to his triple-bypass surgery. Coulter writes, “Yes, who doesn’t know someone who, after open-heart surgery, becomes an egomaniacal, pathologically lying horndog?”
She also tells the little-reported tale of how Obama won his Illinois Senate seat. During the presidential campaign, Obama was full of sanctimony about keeping candidates’ families off-limits. But, Coulter writes, “The only reason he was in position to run for president in the first place was that the Media Attack Machine ripped open the sealed divorce records of his two principal opponents … Why did no one know that during the 2008 campaign? The fact that Obama won his Senate seat by rifling through the divorce records of his opponents is surely at least as important as the fact that Palin’s teenage daughter got pregnant out of wedlock,” she contends.
What does Coulter think of Sarah Palin? “I loved Sarah Palin. The media went after her so viciously and it was all about class,” she says. “She is a real middle-class woman, just the sort of woman that Democrats are always pretending they represent, and they attacked her relentlessly. I am not saying she was ready to be president this year, but with McCain running, she wasn’t going to get anywhere near being president. If she goes back to Alaska and is a good governor and studies and learns, she may be a presidential candidate a couple elections from now. Maybe she could be another Reagan. Remember, Reagan didn’t run for president at forty-four. She has things she needs to learn. But she has heart and soul and you can’t learn that from a book.”
As for Caroline Kennedy’s bid to be named senator, Coulter snorted, “I am indignant! In New York and Massachusetts people act as if the rest of the country is primitive, but they are the ones who are so primitive and nepotistic to even consider her. Fortunately, I think that may be headed for a crash landing. Every time she opens her mouth it gets worse.”
Although Coulter has had her great success preaching to the converted, I wondered if she also hoped her books might be read, as well, by independents or even liberals who might be swayed by her arguments. "But liberals don’t read," she replied. “If they read anything they wouldn’t be liberals. Whenever I go to dinner parties it is always conservatives who know things, who have the facts. I want my readers to read the book and be able to shoot down the myth of the Republican Attack Machine. I want them to argue with liberals on the street.”
Still, as the Inauguration approaches, Coulter is feeling just a bit more positive about the Obama presidency. “Judging by his Cabinet choices, he may not be as crazy as I thought he was," she said. “That may be worse for my career but better for the country. And that’s all right with me.”
Editor’s Note: Anyone who has read a women’s magazine in the last 25 years has most likely read the work of Myrna Blyth, who weighs in at wowOwow with this provocative piece. Myrna is the founding editor of More magazine, was the longtime editor-in-chief of Ladies’ Home Journal, and was senior editor for Family Circle magazine. She is the chairman of the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. She has received many awards including the Matrix Award from New York Women in Communications, Inc., the Woman of Achievement Award from the New York City Commission on the Status of Women, and was named Publishing Executive of the Year by Advertising Age. Currently she writes for The National Review Online and is the editor-in-chief of Betty Confidential. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Hidden Toxic Debt Prevents Recovery!?!

2009-01-03T20:01:00.000-05:00

But what are the world’s government financial moguls doing about it?!? The recent experiences of Japan and Sweden point to the one step, full disclosure of toxic debt, that is essential to any effective recovery!!!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article, Only full disclosure of toxic debts will get the West moving again:

Only full disclosure of toxic debts will get the West moving again It has been a year of financial explosions. [/] By Liam Halligan [/] Last Updated: 5:44AM GMT 29 Dec 2008
The commercial pillars holding up the Western world - banking prudence and sound credit - have been smashed to smithereens [/] The "advanced" nations are now flirting with economic collapse. The emerging economies have also suffered "collateral damage" – the West's "sub-prime" debt bombs now threatening the stability of global commerce. [/] The developed world is on course to contract by 1.1pc during 2009. That will hurt. The emerging markets are also set to slow – their growth falling to 3.1pc – as China and India feel the impact of lower Western demand. [/] But 2010 could be even worse – unless policymakers can piece the global economy back together. And the prevailing policy response –soft bail-outs, ultra-low interest rates and unfettered government spending – not only won't work, but will compound this crisis.
So how should Western governments respond? How can we escape this credit crunch, and prevent it being repeated? [/] As the Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said last month, "getting the banks lending normally again . . . is more important than anything else". After piling into risky assets for years, the Western banks now refuse to lend to millions of credit-worthy firms and households. That's jammed the wheels of finance, making fears of recession self-fulfilling. [/] The money markets are locked because the banks don't trust each other. Even they don't know how much toxic debt is out there – and which bank could be the next to fall. That's why the spread between the London Inter-bank Offered Rate and overnight interest rate swaps of the same maturity remains so wide – and wider in the UK, now, than either the States or the eurozone.
The crucial inter-bank market will remain frozen until the banks are forced, under threat of prosecution, to reveal the true extent of their sub-prime liabilities. Such "full disclosure" won't be easy – involving the exploration of millions of complex derivative contracts, often across borders – but it simply must be done. [/] America's first serious reaction to "sub-prime" was the Troubled Assets Relief Programme – buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of dodgy loans the banks didn't want any more. When that didn't work, the US asked banks to forfeit some share capital in return for government cash, as in the UK.
But that's failing too – as shown by sky-high Libor rates. So, as a matter of urgency, the West must copy the hard-headed Swedes – who, in the early 1990s, insisted nationalised banks write down the full extent of their non-performing loans before more public money is spent on recapitalisation. Only then – once the sub-prime losses are fully-exposed – can securities markets clear and the inter-bank market reboot.
The UK/US approach of piling public sector debts on top of private sector debts prevents this vital purging process. Until it happens the global economy will continue to slide. But the big Western economies remain in self-denial, repeating the mistakes made by the Japanese. We're creating our very own "zombie banks" – technically alive, but commercially dead due to the weight of their toxic debts. A Western "lost decade" now looms.
So we need Swedish-style full disclosure. Nothing else will break the deadlock and get us out of this fix. Western politicians – and commentators – need to stand up to the powerful money men and administer the necessary medicine. [/] Instead, all our leaders do is slash interest rates, print money and rack up public debt. History will judge them harshly.
After full disclosure, how do we prevent such a crisis happening again? Firstly, the "white collar" crimes which drove this sub-prime debacle – at mortgage lenders, investment banks and ratings agencies – need to be severely punished. People who did bad things must go to jail. I'm against regulatory overkill, but recognise a strong framework of rules is needed. We need to acknowledge that too much leverage is even more dangerous than too little. Western central banks need to regain powers, weakened in the 1980s and 1990s, to impose "reserve asset requirements", so reining in bank lending.
Above all, we need to re-introduce the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This legislation – the centre-piece of America's response to the 1929 Wall Street crash – was copied across the Western world. [/] Glass-Steagall prevented commercial banks – which take in deposits and service ordinary firms and households – from engaging in the high-risk speculative activities undertaken by investment banks. \In the early 1990s – after huge lobbying by Wall Street, and lots of ridiculous talk about "freedom" – the legislation was repealed. No other single action has done more to cause this crisis. [/] The money men have, so far, managed to close down any talk about restoring Glass-Steagall. But that debate must now take place. That's why Glass-Steagall will be the subject of my first column of 2009. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Is Religion Necessary for Constitutional Government?

2009-01-03T15:10:00.001-05:00

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [- John Adams]

From an American Thinker .com article, Is Religion Necessary?, more follows:

Is Religion Necessary? [/] January 03, 2009 [/] By Joseph Ashby
The least understood idea presented in Mitt Romney's 2007 speech on religion was his statement, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." From Left to Right this comment was savaged and belittled. [/] Neither Romney's speech nor his answers to questions on the topic indicated exactly why he thought religion was so important to freedom. He did assert that many of the Founding Fathers shared his view. Those familiar with the Founders know there is always a ‘why' in what they believed. [/] Romney's couplet was based on a statement John Adams made to the US Military where he said: [/] "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
To understand this statement we must remember that the Founders based their philosophies on human nature. So what Adams was saying was not theological or religious but pragmatic. George Washington's words clarify Adams' belief: [/] "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." [/] The debate over whether this concept is anti-atheist ignores Washington's point. Which is that "reason" (the atheist's guiding light) and "experience" tell us that religion is necessary to maintain national morality; not that it's some mystic force that favors believers over non-believers.
There are so many who take personally any mention of religion in a public context, perceiving it as an attack on non-religious, moral individuals. But such statements should be taken in the broadest of all contexts, speaking generally to the entire society and espousing the most basic of all moral principles (such as honesty, fidelity and love for fellow man). [/] Returning to Adams' point, America's Constitutional system specifically requires a high level of morality (and by extension religion). This is because of the broad freedoms the Constitution affords. At the time Adams was president there were no drug laws, gun control laws, disaster relief or welfare programs. In essence, the Founding was built on the principle that Americans not only could but must govern themselves.
Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract. This is because no law is perfect. The perfect application of law is only possible if the lawmaker and judge are omniscient, knowing every reason a law exists and every detail, even the thoughts, of the alleged law-breaker.
Since this is impossible, the best situation is to have the fewest laws possible, to avoid illegalizing proper behavior under legislation's inevitably wide swath. The more self-regulating (or moral) a nation is collectively, the fewer laws needed to maintain order. [/] As national morality declines, inducing governments and citizens to favor more laws, the less plausible our Constitutional system becomes.
Recent tactics of the pro-gay marriage camp are a perfect illustration of this principle. As reports mount of out of hand protests and intimidation, it's obvious that what they are doing is wrong. The Stalinist tactics used to target private citizens, business and churches are clearly a perversion of First Amendment rights. [/] Unfortunately, this problem has no solution that can be both legislative and Constitutional. Passing a law restricting this behavior destroys the rights of responsible citizens whose actions are too similar to be legally distinguishable.
This dilemma is systemic. Misuse of guns induces public fervor to violate the Second Amendment. Neglectful parents lead to laws that destroy the right to parental prerogatives in raising and educating children. Corrupt politicians provoke expression demolishing restrictions on speech and campaign donations. The immoral use of rights is a precursor to laws that infringe upon those rights. [/] {The only Constitutional solution to these problems is to depend on citizens' sense of morality. In the absence of a "moral and religious people," the rights enumerated in the Constitution are "wholly inadequate" in creating a well-ordered society*. This is the meaning of Adams' words. [/] The irony should not be lost that the Anti-Prop 8 groups, who call for "the exclusion of religious principle" from constitutions, are the very people demonstrating why it is necessary.
* It should be noted here that in many respects, because government has overstepped its bounds, we are not governed by the Constitution. As our religiosity and morals have declined (and I count socialism's legalized plunder immoral), we have distanced ourselves from the America of John Adams' day. This is yet more empirical evidence supporting his conclusion about morality and religion.
Joseph Ashby is an aeronautical engineer specializing in lightweight carbon composite aircraft design. [/] [My ellipses and emphasis]

In Two Cities

Birth of Gideon Andrew Ott, my Facebook meandering

Finnegan's Wake More Fun

"... I got rid of the dog but kept the husband?”

Repairing "bare ruined choirs"

"almost 4 kids, 1 dog, 1 hubby...that's life!"

A Victim of a Series of Accidents

Do not kill the goose that lays your golden eggs!!!!!

President Obama Fisked

Mamas, Protect Babies From Leftists!

Obama: De-Curtained By Mass. Voters

Obama Ugliness Huge As Revealed By “Game Change”: Parts I and II

Union White House Deal = Obamacare Joke!?!

Haiti: US Top Rescuer, As Usual

Experienced Based Opinion

The Gospel: Ann Coulter’s View

Best tweet (so far) scoops Rush

Liberals: Interpretation and Response

Captain Oblivious and the Limits of Cool

Obama: “Bunker-Mode Insanity”?!?

Evil: In Man Or In “The System”?!?

2010 Will Be Much Worse

Freedom Over Fear

Obama Hides His Credentials!?!

Obamacare: Horrendous Backlash!?!

Key Verse | Faith | 2 | Eph 2:8-10

Obama the Red Avenger

Jim Smiling's Tweet of the Day - 12/14/09

Jim Smiling Tweet of the Day 12/15/09

Liberal Talking Points Are So Yesterday

The Obama Four Year Plan to Re-make America

Obamacare Dissed By Gov Actuaries Report

Obama Safe School Czar F%%%gate Links

Totalitarian Sentimentality

10% of Democrats want to impeach Obama

Palin On Politicized Science

Obama’s Whiney Blame Game

It's high time Barack Obama learnt some manners

Obama and Palin Autobiographies Compared

Nat Hentoff: The cold heart of Obamacare

Climategate Summary Tweeted

Obama: Most Supporters Deserting

POLL BJon GateCrashGate: Who to trust?

Climategate: Lead UN Warmist Scientists Dumped Data

Two Big Pictures: ClimateGate & Obama

Climategate: Worst Science Scandal

Government Caused Economic Debacle

Thank God for America!

Abortion Debate Definition

Angelina Jolie Disses Barrack Obama!!!

U. S. Government: Stupider Than Squirrels?!?

Key Verse | Faith | 1 | First John 5:4-5 NKJV:

Tolerance Of Muslims Sometimes Unwise

Experts Forecast 25 Year Depression?!?

Unprecedented Socio-Economic Turmoil Ahead!?!

Stocks Up Because Dollar Down!?!

The “Death Panel” Marches On!!!

Health Care Bill **FACTS**

Taking Tea with Terrorists?!?

Dissent Out!?! Conformity In?!?

Obama Probably NOT Born In Kenya?!?

Recession Forever?!? Top Ten Reasons!?!

Honky Faces Vengeance from On High!?!

Obama Not Natural Born?!?

Obama’s Birth *FACTS* *PLUS* *CONCLUSIONS* !!!

Remembering Reverend Ike

Clinton Sludge Ruins Obama Veggies!?!

More Obama Birthplace *FACTS*FACTS *FACTS*FACTS

”FACTS *FACTS *FACTS *FACTS"

St. Paul’s Body Found?

Nine Supremes Dis Wise Latina!?!

Radical Christianity? Good or Bad?

Iran's Axis of Nuclear Evil

Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths

Thank God America Isn't Like Europe -- Yet

POLL BJon Blame Fritzl’s Mother For His Horrendous Abuse Of His Daughter?

Disown, Ask, and Receive

Joe the Plumber Reports from Terrorist Missle Target, Sderot in Israel

Obama‘s D. C.: Already “Clown-Car Fast Lane“?

U. S. Assaulted and Battered by Guilty Liberals on Behalf of “Victims“!!!

Health Care Bill FACTS

Obama’s Birth FACTS PLUS CONCLUSIONS !!!

More Obama Birthplace FACTSFACTS FACTSFACTS

”FACTS FACTS FACTS *FACTS"