Yesterday 3 Democrat Senator in the Senate Finance Committee dared to vote AGAINST the public option in the healthcare reform. MoveOn.org (and other left leaning organizations) immediately released attack ads against these Senators: Kent Conrad (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Max Baucus (D-MT)
This ad (http://healthcarecantwait.com/) by The Progressive Change Campaign Committee & Democracy for America is one example -- this one attacks Baucus: who's the chair of the committee.
Wow, how quickly they turn on their own.
Dissension is only appropriate if it's against Republicans. You MUST the MoveOn political agenda or they WILL come after you.
So, where's the President on this?
Well, he's in Denmark politicking to bring the 2012 Olympics to Chicago. But he's not likely to do more than a offer a few comments without any actions. The White House has mentioned this problem in the past and delivered a few PR friendly "stop it please" sound bites, but MoveOn is calling the shots.
“Senator Conrad is out of step with the country and his political party and needs to be held accountable by his constituents. MoveOn.org’s 5 million members expect the Democrats in Congress to deliver on the promise of change that got them elected.” -- Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org.
Just a Townhall protesters were called racists over healthcare and now Democratic Senators waffling over the "public option" are viewed as betraying their agenda. A single payer, government plan must be implemented to appease these groups.
Get in their way and they will come after you.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Their Own Words: Cass Sunstein
Let's examine the Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein.
In this 2003 book, "Why Societies Need Dissent", Cass Sunstein welcomes dissent and promotes openness, attacking "political correctness" in various forms. Sunstein explores how terrorism and violence arises many times from the failure to tolerate dissenting views.
"Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech", from 1995, we find a different tone. Sunstein suggests the First Amendment protects many forms of speech that should never be protected: commercial speech, libelous speech, speech that invades privacy, and certain forms of pornography and hate speech. Sunstein doesn't seem to address defamation and supports the government gaining power over speech.
Dissenters are often portrayed as selfish and disloyal, but Sunstein shows that those who reject pressures imposed by others perform valuable social functions, often at their own expense.
"It is usual to think that those who conform are serving the general interest and that dissenters are antisocial, even selfish. In a way this is true. Sometimes conformists strengthen social bonds, whereas dissenters (endanger those bonds or at least introduce a degree of tension. But in an important respect, the usual thought has things backwards. Much of the time, it is in the individual's interest to follow the crowd, but in the social interest for the individual to say and do what he thinks best. Well-functioning societies take steps to discourage conformity and to promote dissent. They do this partly to protect the rights of dissenters, but mostly to protect interests of their own." - page 212, "Why Societies Need Dissent"
Sunstein is difficult to encapsulate as he supports the State intervening in Free Speech to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views" but we have to wonder why he's not spoken to support dissent at Townhalls or Protests around the country.
Maybe his pro-government beliefs are deeper than we realize.
In this 1999 article (http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/celebrate.html) he tells us how we should celebrate tax day.
"Do not get up tomorrow and drape your house in black! For tax day is not a day of national mourning. Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending."
This is a disturbing perspective on freedom and the government's role in our lives. Sunstein doesn't seem to support private ownership of property without contributing to the good of the collective.
To Sunstein: what good is free speech if we're talking about all of the wrong things and NOT the public good, diversity etc...?
From Cass: "There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day. as Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great Supreme Court justice, liked to say, taxes are "the price we pay for civilization."
I personally find Holmes to be a "moral relativist" and concerning that Sunstein looks to quote him.
In this interview Sunstein expands and introduces "Libertarian Paternalism" (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-green-nudges-an-interview-with-obama-re)
"The price system can be used in a way that fits with people’s moral obligations."
Hence the reason we will see a flurry of vice taxes. Nudges: is this codeword for taxes and penalties?
This "Regulatory Czar" has some very concerning outlooks on how the government interacts with our daily lives. I like to delve into their works, especially interviews, to better understand where these leaders come from, how they'll views will shape their role as a public servant and execute the President's policies.
http://www.littlemag.com/mar-apr01/cass10.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/07/sunstein/
Wikipedia: soft paternalism aka libertarian parternalism: a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind."
In this 2003 book, "Why Societies Need Dissent", Cass Sunstein welcomes dissent and promotes openness, attacking "political correctness" in various forms. Sunstein explores how terrorism and violence arises many times from the failure to tolerate dissenting views.
"Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech", from 1995, we find a different tone. Sunstein suggests the First Amendment protects many forms of speech that should never be protected: commercial speech, libelous speech, speech that invades privacy, and certain forms of pornography and hate speech. Sunstein doesn't seem to address defamation and supports the government gaining power over speech.
Dissenters are often portrayed as selfish and disloyal, but Sunstein shows that those who reject pressures imposed by others perform valuable social functions, often at their own expense.
"It is usual to think that those who conform are serving the general interest and that dissenters are antisocial, even selfish. In a way this is true. Sometimes conformists strengthen social bonds, whereas dissenters (endanger those bonds or at least introduce a degree of tension. But in an important respect, the usual thought has things backwards. Much of the time, it is in the individual's interest to follow the crowd, but in the social interest for the individual to say and do what he thinks best. Well-functioning societies take steps to discourage conformity and to promote dissent. They do this partly to protect the rights of dissenters, but mostly to protect interests of their own." - page 212, "Why Societies Need Dissent"
Sunstein is difficult to encapsulate as he supports the State intervening in Free Speech to "reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views" but we have to wonder why he's not spoken to support dissent at Townhalls or Protests around the country.
Maybe his pro-government beliefs are deeper than we realize.
In this 1999 article (http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/celebrate.html) he tells us how we should celebrate tax day.
"Do not get up tomorrow and drape your house in black! For tax day is not a day of national mourning. Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending."
This is a disturbing perspective on freedom and the government's role in our lives. Sunstein doesn't seem to support private ownership of property without contributing to the good of the collective.
To Sunstein: what good is free speech if we're talking about all of the wrong things and NOT the public good, diversity etc...?
From Cass: "There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day. as Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great Supreme Court justice, liked to say, taxes are "the price we pay for civilization."
I personally find Holmes to be a "moral relativist" and concerning that Sunstein looks to quote him.
In this interview Sunstein expands and introduces "Libertarian Paternalism" (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-green-nudges-an-interview-with-obama-re)
"The price system can be used in a way that fits with people’s moral obligations."
Hence the reason we will see a flurry of vice taxes. Nudges: is this codeword for taxes and penalties?
This "Regulatory Czar" has some very concerning outlooks on how the government interacts with our daily lives. I like to delve into their works, especially interviews, to better understand where these leaders come from, how they'll views will shape their role as a public servant and execute the President's policies.
http://www.littlemag.com/mar-apr01/cass10.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/07/sunstein/
Wikipedia: soft paternalism aka libertarian parternalism: a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind."
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Great Parenting War: US vs The World
Ever wander into the wrong public bathroom or at least think you have? I was shopping at Staples and raced into the restroom only to wander - did I see urinals when I came in?
That mini-panic attack is what happens in every parent's head when they are asked why the guy on "Survivor" is naked?
Our society has discarded any and all barriers to shield our youth from sex, violence and various forms of degradation. A friend in our Bible study class announced how the Sims 3 game shocked her with the simulated sex scene under the sheets.
"The Sims 3" is a virtual game rated "T" for teen but the company's criteria for this rating may not be the same for you and me. This is part of the description for this Sims game:
"These avatars often interact socially, which can sometimes lead to mild flirtation or more intimate encounters. Players can choose to “try for a baby” or “WooHoo” with another Sim – the later option being available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. These two actions cause the selected avatars to jump into bed and go under the covers, where they wriggle, giggle, and moan until confetti bursts over the bed. Sims characters need to maintain their health and hygiene and do so by eating, exercising, bathing, and using the toilet, which is depicted by a blurred, pixilated effect and trickling sounds. Avatars can also vomit, emit flatulence, and wet themselves if no toilet is available or offered." (NOTE: Avatars are the characters)
Rated "T" for teen.
How many 11-year-olds are lobbying for a teen rated video game? This Teen game?
So, let's go back to my "Survivor" nightmare.
Like many football fans I assume I can safely watch the NFL on a Sunday afternoon, but those pesky ads turned my parental universe upside down. First was the aforementioned reality show nudity then it was the gratuitous CSI commercial promoting this week's violent murder mystery and, on this occasion when my daughter was watching, solving a rape case.
When you hear "Daddy, what is rape?" you'd wish you were trapped in a ladies' room stall.
I remember taking my boys to a comic book show and they received some free comics. In fact, this comic "Ultimate Wolverine vs Hulk" had a "Free Comic Book Day" sticker on it, so it was widely distributed.
After the show, I began to thumb through a few pages of this "Ultimate" comic from Marvel and I was shocked. Wolverine was lying in the snow, limbless from the waist down trying to remember how he ended up in this predicament. Oh yeah, the character flashes back to a battles with the Hulk who literally had ripped Wolverine in half, tossing him in two separate directions.
This was a FREE comic, given away to countless kids at comic shows and to celebrate "Free Comic Book Day" so I put it where it belonged -- in the trash. I later read on a blog that there is a scene in which the Hulk makes Wolverine choose which leg he would rather Hulk eat.
Long gone are the days of Archie and Veronica.
We need to be honest with ourselves: we cannot shelter our kids from everything. Parents need to be more vigilant and involved than ever. The internet is a wide open access port to the abyss of vile and filth that the world creates each and everyday.
Sims 3 sold 1.4 million copies in its first week. Commercials are incredibly dangerous and unregulated forms of exposure for unwanted questions and topics for kids.
It's out there and we have to be armed and ready to face these challenges.
Prepare yourself or you'll be wishing you were in the wrong bathroom stall trying to survive a panic attack.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Worst Bible Verses & Christian Ideology?
This week the aptly named ShipofFools.com published a list of the "Worst Bible Verses" submitted by readers. Coming in at #1 on the charts was 1 Timothy 2:12:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
This is a popular passage cited to oppose female priests. The complete Top 10 list is here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/09/top_ten_worst_b.html
Simon Jenkins, editor of shipoffools.com, said the idea behind the web poll was to make people think about the dangers of selectively quoting from the bible.
Really? That was the intent. I'm personally glad Mr. Jenkins clarified the "Mission Statement" from their website:
"That's why Ship of Fools is launching a poll to find the worst verse in the whole Bible. We want you to tell us: which sacred text makes you reach for the red pen? Which hallowed verse makes you laugh for all the wrong reasons? Which blessed passage leaves you groaning with embarrassment? Which piece of holy writ troubles you at night, but at least keeps you awake in sermons?" (http://shipoffools.com/features/2009/chapter_and_worse.html)
Laugh for the wrong reasons? Groaning with embarrassment?
A recent survey reviewed the progressive and conservative views on the Bible and their priorities. 50% of those conservatives polled take a literal view of scripture with only 3% of progressives sharing that ideal. Most progressives claim that the Bible 'contains' the word of God; it's not the literal word of God or the inspired word of God but simply contains the word of God.
Wow.
Only half of conservative Christians believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture and 97% of "Progressive Christians" view the Bible as "inspired" at best.
97%!
When political ideology was incorporated, the conservative Christians listed abortion as the "most important" (83%), gay marriage (65%) and everything else fell no higher than about 25%.
Compare to the progressives: poverty (74%), Health care (67%), the environment (56%), jobs/economy (48%) and the Iraq War (45%) --link to complete survey below.
So we have Conservatives and Liberals aka Progressives and MOST Conservatives take a literal view of Scripture and Liberals dismiss it only as a "guide". I've been told and confirmed on Wikipedia: "Jesus Christ, some view him not as the only way to God, but one of many ways, continuing the Christian modernist paradigm."
Wow again.
I'm really venting now, but I find that cult nature of social justice (poverty, health care etc...) as a substitute for the directives of the Bible. For many, literal interpretation of the Bible requires "too much" from people so they venture into the land of a la carte Christianity.
The ShipofFools website pointed out something very telling: for some Christians, modern beliefs such as feminism and modern lifestyles aren't balanced against the words of God, they are an embarrassment, a joke -- making you "laugh for the wrong reasons"
See, we have the most amazing country on the planet that protects your right to practice how ever you choose. From Atheism to religious fanatics, America has it all. I don't believe you pluck out some feel good verses to feel like a Christian any more that you pluck out some verses to condemn others.
The Bible is a body of work, very complex but our guide to communication to God, fulfilling his purpose for us and walking in the blessing of salvation that Jesus Christ gave us.
Jesus Christ took it literally, quoted Old Testament reguarly believing in a literal translation. (see also Luke when Jesus rebukes Satan by quoting Deuteronomy)
The disciples took Jesus' commands literally, so why shouldn't we?
I'm certainly NOT embarrassed or laughing at the "word of God"(as Progressives descrbe it)
#1 Worst Verse was brought to us by Timothy, so only fitting to allow Timothy to retort:
2 Timothy 2:15:
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."
Public Religion Research survey: http://www.publicreligion.org/blog/2009/09/15/2009-religious-conservative-progressive-activist-surveys/
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
This is a popular passage cited to oppose female priests. The complete Top 10 list is here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/09/top_ten_worst_b.html
Simon Jenkins, editor of shipoffools.com, said the idea behind the web poll was to make people think about the dangers of selectively quoting from the bible.
Really? That was the intent. I'm personally glad Mr. Jenkins clarified the "Mission Statement" from their website:
"That's why Ship of Fools is launching a poll to find the worst verse in the whole Bible. We want you to tell us: which sacred text makes you reach for the red pen? Which hallowed verse makes you laugh for all the wrong reasons? Which blessed passage leaves you groaning with embarrassment? Which piece of holy writ troubles you at night, but at least keeps you awake in sermons?" (http://shipoffools.com/features/2009/chapter_and_worse.html)
Laugh for the wrong reasons? Groaning with embarrassment?
A recent survey reviewed the progressive and conservative views on the Bible and their priorities. 50% of those conservatives polled take a literal view of scripture with only 3% of progressives sharing that ideal. Most progressives claim that the Bible 'contains' the word of God; it's not the literal word of God or the inspired word of God but simply contains the word of God.
Wow.
Only half of conservative Christians believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture and 97% of "Progressive Christians" view the Bible as "inspired" at best.
97%!
When political ideology was incorporated, the conservative Christians listed abortion as the "most important" (83%), gay marriage (65%) and everything else fell no higher than about 25%.
Compare to the progressives: poverty (74%), Health care (67%), the environment (56%), jobs/economy (48%) and the Iraq War (45%) --link to complete survey below.
So we have Conservatives and Liberals aka Progressives and MOST Conservatives take a literal view of Scripture and Liberals dismiss it only as a "guide". I've been told and confirmed on Wikipedia: "Jesus Christ, some view him not as the only way to God, but one of many ways, continuing the Christian modernist paradigm."
Wow again.
I'm really venting now, but I find that cult nature of social justice (poverty, health care etc...) as a substitute for the directives of the Bible. For many, literal interpretation of the Bible requires "too much" from people so they venture into the land of a la carte Christianity.
The ShipofFools website pointed out something very telling: for some Christians, modern beliefs such as feminism and modern lifestyles aren't balanced against the words of God, they are an embarrassment, a joke -- making you "laugh for the wrong reasons"
See, we have the most amazing country on the planet that protects your right to practice how ever you choose. From Atheism to religious fanatics, America has it all. I don't believe you pluck out some feel good verses to feel like a Christian any more that you pluck out some verses to condemn others.
The Bible is a body of work, very complex but our guide to communication to God, fulfilling his purpose for us and walking in the blessing of salvation that Jesus Christ gave us.
Jesus Christ took it literally, quoted Old Testament reguarly believing in a literal translation. (see also Luke when Jesus rebukes Satan by quoting Deuteronomy)
The disciples took Jesus' commands literally, so why shouldn't we?
I'm certainly NOT embarrassed or laughing at the "word of God"(as Progressives descrbe it)
#1 Worst Verse was brought to us by Timothy, so only fitting to allow Timothy to retort:
2 Timothy 2:15:
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."
Public Religion Research survey: http://www.publicreligion.org/blog/2009/09/15/2009-religious-conservative-progressive-activist-surveys/
Friday, September 25, 2009
Indoctrinating Political Worship
Read regular postings of "State of the Nation" at www.DeskofBrian.com
One of the most disturbing videos I've ever seen came from B. Bernice Young Elementary in New Jersey. The Obama worship has reached political brainwashing with this chilling video which same claimed dates back to June 19, 2009; while other accounts claim it was presented as part of Black History Celebrations in February of this year -- this has NOW been confirmed by the school district. (see bottom of post)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU&feature=related
The video was reported a month ago by Prison Planet, but was dismissed as it was erroneously associated with a school in Arkansas. The BBY Elementary teacher retired at the end of the school year, so calls for "her firing" and "investigations" are irrelevant.
The Messianic association with President Obama that disturbs so many opponents has prompted claims of "racism" and "part of the right-wing fear mongering" but this reminds me of Castro or Korean worship videos.
Here the children are taught "Jesus Loves the Little Children" with Obama "saving the world"
Compare:
"Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…" to these lyrics:
"He said we must be fair today! Equal work means equal pay! Barack Hussein Obama! He said, red yellow, black or white, all are equal in his sight! Barack Hussein Obama!"
There are references to his "great plans" to "make this country's economy #1 again"
Can you imagine kids singing in 2003 of the glory of President Bush toppling Saddam Hussein or giving us tax cuts?
Oh wait, we did have accusations of Christian brainwashing under George W. Bush. This video from a Christian Camp didn't focus on their religion or beliefs, but was used as an example of how Republicans are brainwashed. At the 7:08 point in this video, a cardboard cutout of Bush is brought out and the kids are asked to pray of "him" - it, whatever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNvnLFgH5BU
Before the election was had this video: "Sing for Change" which was dismissed as "a song of hope" and how can hope be a bad thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTBq_ybkBmI&feature=related
So months later, New Jersey kids are chanting the Obama version of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"-- "Mr. President, We Honor You Today."
"Jesus" and "God" is being substituted by the use of the President's name. The Messianic message is loud and clear.
Now we have a parent who has spoken out:
Andrea Ciemnolonski, the parent of another one of the students in the video, said the song was part of a second-grade project on a variety of topics related to the month of February, such as Groundhog Day, Valentine's Day and Presidents Day.
"They did songs about President Washington, Lincoln, and they did do one about President Obama," Ciemnolonski said. "My daughter was in the class that did the songs about Obama. It was black history month. ... It was something for the kids to celebrate."
Ciemnolonski said she "just can't look at it as indoctrination," though she added, "The comparisons made were a little exuberant."
Exuberant? Does she mean exuberance as in unrestrained enthusiam, joy and praise? Sounds like worship.
This is NOT respect for a President, the office or otherwise, this is worship. This is indoctrinating individuals, children in particular, to glorify and praise their politicians. I'm not surprised by society's lack of knowledge of Nazi Germany, and other regimes, which brainwashed youth to mindless obedience to its leaders.
What I'm surprised by is the dismissive attitude by Democrats and Obama supporters. If we combine this story with the unprecedented Obama speech to public school kids and the Department of Education's lesson planning; add in the National Endowment of the Arts colluding with the White House to fund develop of propaganda to support the President's policies.
Letter from the school District released today 09/25/09
Dear Burlington Township Families:
Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the Internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.
Sincerely,Dr. Christopher M. Manno,Superintendent of Schools
Lyrics to both Obama songs:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/lyrics-songs-president-obama/
Footnote:
Where did this all come from?
FOXNEWS posted:
Alteredbeat," the YouTube user who posted the video on the Internet, told FOXNews.com that the video was first put online by Charisse Carney-Nunes, an activist and author of the children's book "I Am Barack Obama," which her Web site says "allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama."
Carney-Nunes has been promoting the book during visits to schools on the east coast.
A poster for the book can been seen near the stage of the auditorium in the video of Bernice Young Elementary, but it is unclear whether Carney-Nunes had visited the school or was present during the filming.
"Alteredbeat" told FOXNews.com that he reached out to Carney-Nunes, who insisted that the program had been filmed in June as part of a Father's Day tribute to President Obama. "The kids made up the songs on their own," she wrote, according to the YouTube user.
"Alteredbeat" originally posted the video Sept. 6, two days before Obama made an address to the nation's schoolchildren in which he praised the American education system as the best in the world and urged students to stay in school.
"At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world," Obama said.
One of the most disturbing videos I've ever seen came from B. Bernice Young Elementary in New Jersey. The Obama worship has reached political brainwashing with this chilling video which same claimed dates back to June 19, 2009; while other accounts claim it was presented as part of Black History Celebrations in February of this year -- this has NOW been confirmed by the school district. (see bottom of post)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU&feature=related
The video was reported a month ago by Prison Planet, but was dismissed as it was erroneously associated with a school in Arkansas. The BBY Elementary teacher retired at the end of the school year, so calls for "her firing" and "investigations" are irrelevant.
The Messianic association with President Obama that disturbs so many opponents has prompted claims of "racism" and "part of the right-wing fear mongering" but this reminds me of Castro or Korean worship videos.
Here the children are taught "Jesus Loves the Little Children" with Obama "saving the world"
Compare:
"Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…" to these lyrics:
"He said we must be fair today! Equal work means equal pay! Barack Hussein Obama! He said, red yellow, black or white, all are equal in his sight! Barack Hussein Obama!"
There are references to his "great plans" to "make this country's economy #1 again"
Can you imagine kids singing in 2003 of the glory of President Bush toppling Saddam Hussein or giving us tax cuts?
Oh wait, we did have accusations of Christian brainwashing under George W. Bush. This video from a Christian Camp didn't focus on their religion or beliefs, but was used as an example of how Republicans are brainwashed. At the 7:08 point in this video, a cardboard cutout of Bush is brought out and the kids are asked to pray of "him" - it, whatever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNvnLFgH5BU
Before the election was had this video: "Sing for Change" which was dismissed as "a song of hope" and how can hope be a bad thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTBq_ybkBmI&feature=related
So months later, New Jersey kids are chanting the Obama version of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"-- "Mr. President, We Honor You Today."
"Jesus" and "God" is being substituted by the use of the President's name. The Messianic message is loud and clear.
Now we have a parent who has spoken out:
Andrea Ciemnolonski, the parent of another one of the students in the video, said the song was part of a second-grade project on a variety of topics related to the month of February, such as Groundhog Day, Valentine's Day and Presidents Day.
"They did songs about President Washington, Lincoln, and they did do one about President Obama," Ciemnolonski said. "My daughter was in the class that did the songs about Obama. It was black history month. ... It was something for the kids to celebrate."
Ciemnolonski said she "just can't look at it as indoctrination," though she added, "The comparisons made were a little exuberant."
Exuberant? Does she mean exuberance as in unrestrained enthusiam, joy and praise? Sounds like worship.
This is NOT respect for a President, the office or otherwise, this is worship. This is indoctrinating individuals, children in particular, to glorify and praise their politicians. I'm not surprised by society's lack of knowledge of Nazi Germany, and other regimes, which brainwashed youth to mindless obedience to its leaders.
What I'm surprised by is the dismissive attitude by Democrats and Obama supporters. If we combine this story with the unprecedented Obama speech to public school kids and the Department of Education's lesson planning; add in the National Endowment of the Arts colluding with the White House to fund develop of propaganda to support the President's policies.
Letter from the school District released today 09/25/09
Dear Burlington Township Families:
Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the Internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.
Sincerely,Dr. Christopher M. Manno,Superintendent of Schools
Lyrics to both Obama songs:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/lyrics-songs-president-obama/
Footnote:
Where did this all come from?
FOXNEWS posted:
Alteredbeat," the YouTube user who posted the video on the Internet, told FOXNews.com that the video was first put online by Charisse Carney-Nunes, an activist and author of the children's book "I Am Barack Obama," which her Web site says "allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama."
Carney-Nunes has been promoting the book during visits to schools on the east coast.
A poster for the book can been seen near the stage of the auditorium in the video of Bernice Young Elementary, but it is unclear whether Carney-Nunes had visited the school or was present during the filming.
"Alteredbeat" told FOXNews.com that he reached out to Carney-Nunes, who insisted that the program had been filmed in June as part of a Father's Day tribute to President Obama. "The kids made up the songs on their own," she wrote, according to the YouTube user.
"Alteredbeat" originally posted the video Sept. 6, two days before Obama made an address to the nation's schoolchildren in which he praised the American education system as the best in the world and urged students to stay in school.
"At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world," Obama said.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama's Haliburton: Petrobras & Chevron
Last month the Wall Street Journal reported how the Obama administration had sent preliminary letters of commitment to finance Brazilian exploration for oil. The largest company in Latin America is the oil company, Petrobras. Petrobras specializes in deep-water oil production.
The US will lend $2 billion to the Brazilian company to explore the Tupi oil field. The Tupi oil field is described by some as "possibly the third largest oil field" in the world. In May, the Chinese government financed a $10 billion loan to ensure 150,000 barrels per day for ten years. (some reports claim the agreement is 200,000 barrels per day)
There were a lot of conflicting reports. Insider Peakoil.com reported the US is lending $10 billion, which will match the Chinese. (http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50486)
Now, in September, the Latin American Herald confirms the $10 billion deal. Gen. James Jones has confirmed the US Export-Import Bank already has the letter of intent.
So, as the WSJ article questions: why is drilling in Brazil okay, but not here in the US? We are in the middle of this huge "Go Green" campaign, but that doesn't extend to other countries? This is still foreign oil, is it not?
When President Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban, the environmental lawsuits came pouring in and outrage among those on the left has made this a very divisive issue. So what's so different?
Former VP Dick Cheney's past position with Haliburton enabled political enemies to vilify the Bush administration as corrupted and favored the "Big Oil Companies." Now, with the new regime, we are spending $10 billion to purchase oil from South America instead of Saudi Arabia. Maybe Gen. Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, probably has some first hand knowledge from his days at Chevron.
Oh, did I not cover how Jones was a member of Chevron's Board of Directors from May until December of 2008. Chevron has been successful recently, announcing oil production from Brazil's deep waters (http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2009-06-23), so let me point out this report from an S&P analyst:
"While Brazil (Petrobras-my insertion) would like control over these massive finds, we expect technical and financial challenges in their development will force varied participation by foreign oil firms, and think some production may not be realized for years -- Tina Vital, S&P Equity Research. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-eyes-production-sharing-to-tap-offshore-oil-2009-08-31)
So, Petrobras can't handle this, their stock is shaky even with the billions in US and Chinese funds and they may ONLY GET 30% of the access to the Tupi oil field. Hmmm....I wonder what other company could be readied to move in and help expedite production -- would that be Chevron.
The President is willing to spend $10 billion to help boost this Brazilian company so they can add jobs while we in America watch our unemployment continue to rise. The NSA is a former Chevron board member and Chevron is conveniently positioned with successful drilling in nearby oil fields.
Meanwhile Obama and the extreme want to join the UN and global community pushing for international cap and trade yet the environmentalist prevent Alaskan and offshore drilling in the US.
Wow, even Michael Moore could connect these dots -- nevermind, the word Democrat after their names is like kryptonite to his incredible insight.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14090&ArticleId=340852
The US will lend $2 billion to the Brazilian company to explore the Tupi oil field. The Tupi oil field is described by some as "possibly the third largest oil field" in the world. In May, the Chinese government financed a $10 billion loan to ensure 150,000 barrels per day for ten years. (some reports claim the agreement is 200,000 barrels per day)
There were a lot of conflicting reports. Insider Peakoil.com reported the US is lending $10 billion, which will match the Chinese. (http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50486)
Now, in September, the Latin American Herald confirms the $10 billion deal. Gen. James Jones has confirmed the US Export-Import Bank already has the letter of intent.
So, as the WSJ article questions: why is drilling in Brazil okay, but not here in the US? We are in the middle of this huge "Go Green" campaign, but that doesn't extend to other countries? This is still foreign oil, is it not?
When President Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban, the environmental lawsuits came pouring in and outrage among those on the left has made this a very divisive issue. So what's so different?
Former VP Dick Cheney's past position with Haliburton enabled political enemies to vilify the Bush administration as corrupted and favored the "Big Oil Companies." Now, with the new regime, we are spending $10 billion to purchase oil from South America instead of Saudi Arabia. Maybe Gen. Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor, probably has some first hand knowledge from his days at Chevron.
Oh, did I not cover how Jones was a member of Chevron's Board of Directors from May until December of 2008. Chevron has been successful recently, announcing oil production from Brazil's deep waters (http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2009-06-23), so let me point out this report from an S&P analyst:
"While Brazil (Petrobras-my insertion) would like control over these massive finds, we expect technical and financial challenges in their development will force varied participation by foreign oil firms, and think some production may not be realized for years -- Tina Vital, S&P Equity Research. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-eyes-production-sharing-to-tap-offshore-oil-2009-08-31)
So, Petrobras can't handle this, their stock is shaky even with the billions in US and Chinese funds and they may ONLY GET 30% of the access to the Tupi oil field. Hmmm....I wonder what other company could be readied to move in and help expedite production -- would that be Chevron.
The President is willing to spend $10 billion to help boost this Brazilian company so they can add jobs while we in America watch our unemployment continue to rise. The NSA is a former Chevron board member and Chevron is conveniently positioned with successful drilling in nearby oil fields.
Meanwhile Obama and the extreme want to join the UN and global community pushing for international cap and trade yet the environmentalist prevent Alaskan and offshore drilling in the US.
Wow, even Michael Moore could connect these dots -- nevermind, the word Democrat after their names is like kryptonite to his incredible insight.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14090&ArticleId=340852
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
More Religious Discrimination?
This story (see below) from the UK's Guardian involves the cries of discrimination from a man who was asked to remove his "hood" in a Tesco store. The man's religion - he's the founder of the International Church of Jediism.
Yep, that Jedi, from "Star Wars".
The 23-year-old, David Jones (no relation I assure you) is known as Morda Hehol, is considering legal action. Read the article, I linked it below.
"Fanboys" was a documentary following the "Star Wars" devotees. It joined "Trekkies" as a uber geek film cashing in on the disturbing addictions that some science fiction fans possess. This addiction is widespread amongst the fanboy universe (my favorite is the Matrix truthers) and can lead to some dysfunctional behavior. Dressing up as a comic convention is one thing; creating a religious following is entirely different.
There is actually a petition in England and Australia for the government to recognize "Jedi" as a religious designation on census gathering. The goal is to be recognized as a formal religion.
Should we blame George Lucas who was quoted as saying "I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people — more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system. I wanted to make it so that young people would begin to ask questions about the mystery."
From Wikipedia: "In Scotland 14,052 people stated that Jedi was their current religion (14,014 "Jedi", 24 "Jedi Other" and 14 "Sith") and 2,733 stated that it was their religion of upbringing (2,682 "Jedi", 36 "Jedi Other" and 15 "The Dark Side").
In my opinion, people without a true relationship with Christ will seek nearly anything to fill that void. We have seen different cults and disturbing substitutes. I'm not saying these people are dangerous, but comparing his Jedi costume to Muslim Burquas should raise some eyebrows.
I didn't know if I should be outraged, laugh at their expense or simply be sad for these "Jedis" - I guess I feel all three. More than anything I feel serious distress and sadness over the deterioration in our society.
I'm a huge "Star Wars" fan, but it's still just a movie - ONLY a movie. I guess I'll make some Darth Vader toast (see below), take a sip from my Boba Fett coffee mug and contemplate this further.
http://shop.starwars.com/catalog/product.xml?topcatID=1300264;product_id=1307702
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jedi-religion-tesco-hood-jones
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa041601a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
Yep, that Jedi, from "Star Wars".
The 23-year-old, David Jones (no relation I assure you) is known as Morda Hehol, is considering legal action. Read the article, I linked it below.
"Fanboys" was a documentary following the "Star Wars" devotees. It joined "Trekkies" as a uber geek film cashing in on the disturbing addictions that some science fiction fans possess. This addiction is widespread amongst the fanboy universe (my favorite is the Matrix truthers) and can lead to some dysfunctional behavior. Dressing up as a comic convention is one thing; creating a religious following is entirely different.
There is actually a petition in England and Australia for the government to recognize "Jedi" as a religious designation on census gathering. The goal is to be recognized as a formal religion.
Should we blame George Lucas who was quoted as saying "I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people — more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system. I wanted to make it so that young people would begin to ask questions about the mystery."
From Wikipedia: "In Scotland 14,052 people stated that Jedi was their current religion (14,014 "Jedi", 24 "Jedi Other" and 14 "Sith") and 2,733 stated that it was their religion of upbringing (2,682 "Jedi", 36 "Jedi Other" and 15 "The Dark Side").
In my opinion, people without a true relationship with Christ will seek nearly anything to fill that void. We have seen different cults and disturbing substitutes. I'm not saying these people are dangerous, but comparing his Jedi costume to Muslim Burquas should raise some eyebrows.
I didn't know if I should be outraged, laugh at their expense or simply be sad for these "Jedis" - I guess I feel all three. More than anything I feel serious distress and sadness over the deterioration in our society.
I'm a huge "Star Wars" fan, but it's still just a movie - ONLY a movie. I guess I'll make some Darth Vader toast (see below), take a sip from my Boba Fett coffee mug and contemplate this further.
http://shop.starwars.com/catalog/product.xml?topcatID=1300264;product_id=1307702
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jedi-religion-tesco-hood-jones
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa041601a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
Accounting for the Truth
Bank profits drive the stock market faster than other industry stocks like manufacturing. This is one reason while the banking collapse corresponded and drive the Wall Street nose dive.
So one question that has troubled me greatly is how quickly the banks have recovered from their meltdown.
I have read a few economists and heard some reference to accounting changes that now project profits for these banks that still owe the government billions.
Yalman Onaran wrote this on Bloomberg.com, compiling the inside quotes and analysis that I've been searching for: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alC3LxSjomZ8):
"Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are. "
Accounting rule changes?
"Citigroup’s $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. “The big banks’ profits were totally bogus,” says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. “The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They’re all part of a major effort to put lipstick on a pig.”
In this article (http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/big-bank-profits-are-bogus-massive-public-deception-33228) Weiss really covers the shady books of pumping up the "toxic assets", moving their horrible performances from quarter to quarter, and the real meaning of "credit value adjustment."
One area that they are referring to is the collapse of the commercial real estate market. Businesses are closing in strip malls at a rapid pace and lendors are getting stuck with bad loans.
So one question that has troubled me greatly is how quickly the banks have recovered from their meltdown.
I have read a few economists and heard some reference to accounting changes that now project profits for these banks that still owe the government billions.
Yalman Onaran wrote this on Bloomberg.com, compiling the inside quotes and analysis that I've been searching for: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alC3LxSjomZ8):
"Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are. "
Accounting rule changes?
"Citigroup’s $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. “The big banks’ profits were totally bogus,” says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. “The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They’re all part of a major effort to put lipstick on a pig.”
In this article (http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/big-bank-profits-are-bogus-massive-public-deception-33228) Weiss really covers the shady books of pumping up the "toxic assets", moving their horrible performances from quarter to quarter, and the real meaning of "credit value adjustment."
From Onaran's piece:
"Further deterioration of loans will eventually force banks to recognize losses that their bookkeeping lets them ignore for now, says David Sherman, an accounting professor at Northeastern University in Boston. Janet Tavakoli, president of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc. in Chicago, says the government stress scenarios underestimate how bad the economy may get."
One area that they are referring to is the collapse of the commercial real estate market. Businesses are closing in strip malls at a rapid pace and lendors are getting stuck with bad loans.
"Banks are writing off commercial real estate loans now at a bigger rate than in the last 20 years," said Kathy Boyle, president of Chapin Hill Advisors in New York. "It's a double-whammy. Banks have another shoe to drop on their balance sheets, and regional banks tend to have a much bigger exposure."
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan now have political allies and ties to government policy to help shield them from the pending collapse. How can we evaluate the Stock Market without talking about politics? How can a company such as Citigroup report a profit yet owe the government, the taxpayers - you and me - 50 billion dollars?
The FDIC is running out of funds to bailout banks. But we can rest assured this isn't over. We can try to avoid the large corporate banks with the local choice, but their smaller capital makes them more vulnerable to collapse.
I don't know that I have answers, but I feel closer to asking the right questions and getting names of the economists asking similar questions.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32085576
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20090920_More_bank_failures_are_likely.html
Monday, September 21, 2009
During President Obama's media tour through every network, excluding FOX, the President either lied or admitted to NOT reading the bill - particularly, the HIS Stimulus bill.
The frenzy over the ACORN videos has been brewing for about two weeks now as Breitbart's BigGovernment.com aired a series of video outing the corruption and illegal activities ellicited at ACORN facilities.
While on with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Frankly it's not really something I followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I know is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserved to be ‑‑
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you are not committing the cutting off the federal funding?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.
Let's flashback a bit for a moment, shall we....
The emergency Stimulus bill featured $8.5 billion to be allocated to ACORN. $8.5 Billion, capital "B" and was written by the Apollo Alliance, a participant in organizing the new green jobs initiative with the $500 billion over ten years. That's $50 Billion.
"I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money. "
Wasn't the initiative from the administration to his cabinet to cut $100 million in costs?
That was $100 million and the President DOESN'T know where $8.5 billion is going AND that is was allotted as part of the Green initiative that's receiving $50 billion per year ?!?!?!
"It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."
For the LOVE OF PETE MR. PRESIDENT, MAYBE YOU SHOULD!
The President of "Hope and Change", who campaigned on "transparency" needs to know the company receiving $8.5 billion is promoting child prostitution and tax fraud.
We all know you were connected to ACORN years and years ago, but it's important to do what is right, say what is right NOT what's politically expedient.
According to Reuters, President Obama has done more interviews (to this point in his Presidency) than Presidents Clinton and Bush combined! (Obama=124, Clinton=46, Bush=40)
So, maybe if the President weren't so overexposed, appearing on every news channel and David Letterman, he'd have more time to keep track of our $8.5 billion dollars and be aware of the corruption associated with it's recipients.
Racism: Cosby agrees with Carter
Bill Cosby has thrown in his support for Jimmy Carter's racism allegations.
From Cosby's Twitter account: I agree with President Carter that racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama.
From Cosby's Facebook:
During President Obama’s speech on the status of health care reform, some members of congress engaged in a public display of disrespect. While one Representative hurled the now infamous “you lie” insult at the President, others made their lack of interest known by exhibiting rude behavior such as deliberately yawning and sending text messages.
Various polls prior to the election indicated that between five and ten percent of Americans would never vote for an African American president. That number, of course, only includes those who actually admitted to their prejudice. How many others harbored such feelings but did not respond honestly when asked the question? And how many people oppose Obama’s plan because the President is African American?
In "Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith used white actors in black face to portray black legislators as having low intelligence and acting like fools. Today, we have a band of real life congressional fools seemingly bent on blocking any meaningful reform of the health care system. But if we allow even one American to die simply because he or she cannot afford treatment, we are creating a shameful scenario that could aptly be called “Death of a Nation.”
Well, amongst the "various polls" supporting the racism argument is the NY Times who claim the number to be 15%.
I remember asking an Obama supporter why he wasn't ahead of Hillary by a wider margin -- quick response: racism.
Why won't these accusers explain Michael Steele's elevation to chair of the Republican party? Steele is a conservative African-American, so let's see what he had to say:
"This isn't about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president's wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose."
"Characterizing Americans' disapproval of President Obama's policies as being based on race is an outrage and a troubling sign about the lengths Democrats will go to disparage all who disagree with them. "
Wow, I'm not a Michael Steele fan, but he's spot on with that response.
I'll close by referring to a piece by Walt Williams from August in which he quotes Rev. Jesse Jackson.
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." - Rev. Jesse Jackson
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5620)
Maybe Cosby is right, 15% of Americans can't support a black man, especially since Jesse Jackson is having some racist thoughts.
From Cosby's Twitter account: I agree with President Carter that racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama.
From Cosby's Facebook:
During President Obama’s speech on the status of health care reform, some members of congress engaged in a public display of disrespect. While one Representative hurled the now infamous “you lie” insult at the President, others made their lack of interest known by exhibiting rude behavior such as deliberately yawning and sending text messages.
Various polls prior to the election indicated that between five and ten percent of Americans would never vote for an African American president. That number, of course, only includes those who actually admitted to their prejudice. How many others harbored such feelings but did not respond honestly when asked the question? And how many people oppose Obama’s plan because the President is African American?
In "Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith used white actors in black face to portray black legislators as having low intelligence and acting like fools. Today, we have a band of real life congressional fools seemingly bent on blocking any meaningful reform of the health care system. But if we allow even one American to die simply because he or she cannot afford treatment, we are creating a shameful scenario that could aptly be called “Death of a Nation.”
Well, amongst the "various polls" supporting the racism argument is the NY Times who claim the number to be 15%.
I remember asking an Obama supporter why he wasn't ahead of Hillary by a wider margin -- quick response: racism.
Why won't these accusers explain Michael Steele's elevation to chair of the Republican party? Steele is a conservative African-American, so let's see what he had to say:
"This isn't about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president's wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose."
"Characterizing Americans' disapproval of President Obama's policies as being based on race is an outrage and a troubling sign about the lengths Democrats will go to disparage all who disagree with them. "
Wow, I'm not a Michael Steele fan, but he's spot on with that response.
I'll close by referring to a piece by Walt Williams from August in which he quotes Rev. Jesse Jackson.
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." - Rev. Jesse Jackson
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5620)
Maybe Cosby is right, 15% of Americans can't support a black man, especially since Jesse Jackson is having some racist thoughts.
Healthcare Debate: Now It's Auto Insurance?
The Salesman-in-Chief changed his rhetoric again this weekend. President Obama now likens his healthcare proposal (i.e. takeover) to mandated auto insurance.
"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance." -- President Obama.
Huh?
I heard this stance once before from a healthcare supporter, comparing required health insurance to auto insurance.
Well, both have the same words in them, but other than that, where's the similarity?
Auto insurance is liability insurance to protect others and protect you from others. Health insurance is to protect you and your family. Driving a car is a privilege, so should we require everyone to have auto insurance even if they don't drive? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't drive.
Millions of people use public transportation, ride a bicycle or find other means as an alternative to driving their own vehicle.
I think the President, like many of his supporters, are desperate to push healthcare through. The government's goal of a one payer system is obvious and admitted by some (Dennis Kucinich) and they'll try anything to convince Congress that they can get re-elected after voting for Obamacare.
Healthcare fearmongering has taken over the Democratic platform as we've endured: healthcare is a right, healthcare is like auto insurance, backdoor deal between Obama and "Big Pharma", manipulated uninsured data, demonized doctors and insurance companies -- the result is still the same: government takeover of healthcare.
Obama was billed as the smartest President ever, but in this case his analogy is all wrong.
"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance." -- President Obama.
Huh?
I heard this stance once before from a healthcare supporter, comparing required health insurance to auto insurance.
Well, both have the same words in them, but other than that, where's the similarity?
Auto insurance is liability insurance to protect others and protect you from others. Health insurance is to protect you and your family. Driving a car is a privilege, so should we require everyone to have auto insurance even if they don't drive? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't drive.
Millions of people use public transportation, ride a bicycle or find other means as an alternative to driving their own vehicle.
I think the President, like many of his supporters, are desperate to push healthcare through. The government's goal of a one payer system is obvious and admitted by some (Dennis Kucinich) and they'll try anything to convince Congress that they can get re-elected after voting for Obamacare.
Healthcare fearmongering has taken over the Democratic platform as we've endured: healthcare is a right, healthcare is like auto insurance, backdoor deal between Obama and "Big Pharma", manipulated uninsured data, demonized doctors and insurance companies -- the result is still the same: government takeover of healthcare.
Obama was billed as the smartest President ever, but in this case his analogy is all wrong.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wizardry of Dictatorship: Chavez
While Oliver Stone's new "documentary" tours some film festival around the world, Hugo Chavez parades red carpets like a Hollywood celebrity. The film "South of the Border" seems to ignore the shortcomings of the Venezuelan dictator. Stone on Chavez: "He's open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character."
He seems very open, especially with the new Media Crimes bill that would give the Venezuelan government sweeping authority to jail journalists, media executives, and bloggers who report on anything that the government considers to be harmful to state interests.
Got that: "state interests"
There are concerns about recent shutdowns of radio stations in Venezuela and a proposed law in Argentina that would break up Clarin, one of Latin America's largest newspaper and cable TV companies. Globovision, the last "opposition aligned" TV channel on the open airwaves, is also the target of multiple investigations that authorities say could lead to the revocation of its broadcast license.
This 2007 article (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1626151,00.html) reveals the longtime struggle in Venezuela for media outlets. Protests are widespread in this extremely polarized society.
Now back to Oliver Stone on Chavez's "dark side": "A dark side? There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things?" He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region."
So the Hollywood portrayal of Hugo Chavez will be a warm-hearted, fascinating character performing tremendous things. Interesting parallel to Sean Penn on David Letterman after a 2007 visit: "fascinating", "fascinating character" and "did incredible things for the 80% of the people that are very poor there" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2Lm_F58Nc) -- all of this before Penn LIED about RCTV promoting killing Chavez daily.
There has been a surge in anti-Semitism fueled by the government, even circulating "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", an alleged worldwide Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world. The independent Caracas newspaper, El Universal, has documented hundreds of instances of anti-Semitism in government media.
Chavez has a tight relationship with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, visiting Iran several times and voicing his support for an Iranian nuclear program. The Venezuelan Jews are leaving, migrating elsewhere.
The violence is also against women.
Venezuela added a law in 2007 proclaiming the violence against women as human rights crime. Amnesty international's statement:
"Thousands of women in Venezuela live in a constant state of fear of violence from their partners, fear for their lives and the safety of their children. When a safety net is not provided, many women feel that they have no choice but to stay with their abuser or to be homeless and unable to support themselves or their children." - March 2008.
From February 2009: "...almost two years on, there is still a wide gap between the law’s promised objectives and its implementation in practice. One significant obstacle to delivering the promised protection is the desperate shortage of shelters for women experiencing domestic violence." -- Amnesty International.
Hugo Chavez, though, insists that reports of 100,000 people being murdered in the country since 1999 are lies from private media, though he admits that the nation's crime problems are quite bad.
Chavez maybe joining the Cult of Personality Club with President Obama, thanks to Hollywood and this new Oliver Stone tour. According to TIME magazine, the film never questions the human rights violations, the oppression of the free press or the outbreak of attacks on Jews.
I find that incredible and fascinating.
Friday, September 18, 2009
New Contract for America?
I've never been a big fan of Laura Ingraham, but I'm not thoroughly familiar with her program. A recent "Google search" (can't I just use google as a verb?) revealed an interesting post on her website called the "Top for '10: Winning Washington by Empowering Americans"
From her site:
1) Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR). Limit federal spending growth to the percentage in population growth plus the rate of inflation; provide taxpayers the option of filing a post-card sized return using a low, flat tax rate of 15%
2) End Tax-funded abortions. Stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood and prohibit any taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortion
3) Defend American Borders. Complete America's border-protection initiatives using remaining funds from the so-called stimulus bill
4) King Dollar. Preserve a strong dollar so that Americans' savings aren't wiped out by inflation and the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency
5) Empower American Business. Immediately slash corporate tax rates to 15% and scrap the capital-gains tax altogether
6) Defend America. Strengthen America to defend our homeland and fully fund an operational, layered missile-defense system
7) Statism Exit Plan. De-fund czars; immediately cease bailout payments to failed companies; ban future bailouts
8) End Generational Theft. As few believe America's entitlement programs will be able to pay benefits to future generations, provide younger workers the choice of diverting payroll/Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts
9) Restore America's System of Justice. Introduce penalties for frivolous lawsuits, where those who launch unsuccessful lawsuits are liable for the defendants' legal bills
10) American Energy Independence. All-of-the-Above strategy that embraces alternatives, expands and accelerates exploration and production of oil and natural gas, and jumpstarts dramatic increases in nuclear power
Some interesting stakes are presented. I'd like comment and amend a few things:
1. Balance the budget: My apologies to the Congress and/or White House, but enough is enough. We really need to start running a surplus to pull ourselves out from under this national debt, but the first mandate would be: net budget of zero. No one borrowing, no more printing.
We cannot prolong the pain.
2. Federal Funded Abortions: Planned Parenthood is corrupted by individuals preventing prosecution of statutory rapists. There are WAY TOO MANY folks NOT in favor of abortions to even consider this program. This would be a major polarizing topic for the voting public. I'm the first to say that politically, abortion is way down the to-do list after a mountain of economic goals.
3. Shut the border down! Countries are defined by our language, culture and borders. In addition to national security issues, the economic impact of the 12-15 million illegal immigrants is too big to ignore.
4. Reversing the crashing dollar: I would need some help here, but let's start by supporting Ron Paul and ENDING THE FED and turning OFF the printing press.
5. Business Investment: Ms. Ingraham is spot on with this one. Can I add reducing or eliminating the death tax as well.
6. Defend America: Well, let's defund the UN, ship their headquarters overseas (I hear Switzerland is nice year round), reduce our senseless troop occupation all over the globe and then we can move forward.
7. Statism Exit Plan. Czars, bailouts, corporate takeovers, firing CEOs, government stock ownership in banks -- all comes to end IMMEDIATELY!
8. Entitlement Programs: Every program is bankrupt. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, even the Post Office -- it's time to stop pretending all of this works.
9. Read Above -- all I'll say is YES! YES and YES!
10. Drill NOW! Go get the oil, go get the natural gas, go build nuclear power plants. Stop pretending the global warming is a state of emergency to reshape society.
This doesn't make me a Laura Ingraham reader or supporter, but I start to get the sense that more people are saying and thinking the right things. Keeping this honest, preventing corruption and pet projects -- well, that's an entirely different challenge.
From her site:
1) Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR). Limit federal spending growth to the percentage in population growth plus the rate of inflation; provide taxpayers the option of filing a post-card sized return using a low, flat tax rate of 15%
2) End Tax-funded abortions. Stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood and prohibit any taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortion
3) Defend American Borders. Complete America's border-protection initiatives using remaining funds from the so-called stimulus bill
4) King Dollar. Preserve a strong dollar so that Americans' savings aren't wiped out by inflation and the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency
5) Empower American Business. Immediately slash corporate tax rates to 15% and scrap the capital-gains tax altogether
6) Defend America. Strengthen America to defend our homeland and fully fund an operational, layered missile-defense system
7) Statism Exit Plan. De-fund czars; immediately cease bailout payments to failed companies; ban future bailouts
8) End Generational Theft. As few believe America's entitlement programs will be able to pay benefits to future generations, provide younger workers the choice of diverting payroll/Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts
9) Restore America's System of Justice. Introduce penalties for frivolous lawsuits, where those who launch unsuccessful lawsuits are liable for the defendants' legal bills
10) American Energy Independence. All-of-the-Above strategy that embraces alternatives, expands and accelerates exploration and production of oil and natural gas, and jumpstarts dramatic increases in nuclear power
Some interesting stakes are presented. I'd like comment and amend a few things:
1. Balance the budget: My apologies to the Congress and/or White House, but enough is enough. We really need to start running a surplus to pull ourselves out from under this national debt, but the first mandate would be: net budget of zero. No one borrowing, no more printing.
We cannot prolong the pain.
2. Federal Funded Abortions: Planned Parenthood is corrupted by individuals preventing prosecution of statutory rapists. There are WAY TOO MANY folks NOT in favor of abortions to even consider this program. This would be a major polarizing topic for the voting public. I'm the first to say that politically, abortion is way down the to-do list after a mountain of economic goals.
3. Shut the border down! Countries are defined by our language, culture and borders. In addition to national security issues, the economic impact of the 12-15 million illegal immigrants is too big to ignore.
4. Reversing the crashing dollar: I would need some help here, but let's start by supporting Ron Paul and ENDING THE FED and turning OFF the printing press.
5. Business Investment: Ms. Ingraham is spot on with this one. Can I add reducing or eliminating the death tax as well.
6. Defend America: Well, let's defund the UN, ship their headquarters overseas (I hear Switzerland is nice year round), reduce our senseless troop occupation all over the globe and then we can move forward.
7. Statism Exit Plan. Czars, bailouts, corporate takeovers, firing CEOs, government stock ownership in banks -- all comes to end IMMEDIATELY!
8. Entitlement Programs: Every program is bankrupt. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, even the Post Office -- it's time to stop pretending all of this works.
9. Read Above -- all I'll say is YES! YES and YES!
10. Drill NOW! Go get the oil, go get the natural gas, go build nuclear power plants. Stop pretending the global warming is a state of emergency to reshape society.
This doesn't make me a Laura Ingraham reader or supporter, but I start to get the sense that more people are saying and thinking the right things. Keeping this honest, preventing corruption and pet projects -- well, that's an entirely different challenge.
You Make a Difference
How many people, especially when they are young, dismiss politics and social activity as pointless? "What does it matter?", "It won't make a difference", or "It doesn't really effect me" -- all seem to be the crutch of the apathetic.
James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have proved all of those presumptions 100% false with their undercover videos outing of ACORN. O'Keefe had made this video:(http://vodpod.com/watch/1237160-planned-parenthood-racism-statutory-rape) alleging racism and statutory rape corruption at Planned Parenthood. There are supposedly more than one video, but I've only found one to date.
There is another set of videos and outing of Planned Parenthood around the country covering up statutory rape. (http://www.cassyfiano.com/2009/03/planned-parenthood-gets-caught-covering-up-statuatory-rape-again)
This pro-life investigation was done by a UCLA college sophomore, Lila Rose, was only covered by religious newspapers and publications. Read here at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31004
We in a new era of journalism, or lack there of.
ACORN may be the tip of the iceberg of corruption, but one thing is clear: you can make a difference. A couple of twenty-somethings have out done the mass media and, most importantly, they are NOT alone.
We can all make a difference, we just need to embrace our God given talents.
James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have proved all of those presumptions 100% false with their undercover videos outing of ACORN. O'Keefe had made this video:(http://vodpod.com/watch/1237160-planned-parenthood-racism-statutory-rape) alleging racism and statutory rape corruption at Planned Parenthood. There are supposedly more than one video, but I've only found one to date.
There is another set of videos and outing of Planned Parenthood around the country covering up statutory rape. (http://www.cassyfiano.com/2009/03/planned-parenthood-gets-caught-covering-up-statuatory-rape-again)
This pro-life investigation was done by a UCLA college sophomore, Lila Rose, was only covered by religious newspapers and publications. Read here at: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31004
We in a new era of journalism, or lack there of.
ACORN may be the tip of the iceberg of corruption, but one thing is clear: you can make a difference. A couple of twenty-somethings have out done the mass media and, most importantly, they are NOT alone.
We can all make a difference, we just need to embrace our God given talents.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Glenn Beck on TIME magazine
I've followed Glenn Beck since his days on 970 WFLA here in Tampa. I didn't (and still don't) always agree with most of his rantings, especially his efforts at comedy or "duping the morons" during afternoon drivetime.
His recent success is, in my opinion, due to his transformation to seek a more universal truth through criticism and skepticism of both political parties. Like Beck, I railed against President Bush, especially the last three years or so of his administration. There wasn't a home between the Bush-haters and the Republican loyalists.
Unlike many conservatives, especially talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, Beck ventures off the Republican reservation to attack the hypocrisy of "conservatives" as well as the Democrats.
The coverage of ACORN and Van Jones have really advanced his cause by establishing credibility. I don't think of any of these talking heads as "journalists", but Beck partnered with Andrew Breitbart to out ACORN's incredible corruption and illegal activities discovered by two inidiviuals posing as a pimp and prostitute.
The networks have only now begun to embrace the story.
Likewise, Beck was "way out in front" on the Green Czar Van Jones, outing his long history of self-proclaimed radical history and controversial comments. Jones resigned over a long weekend skirting criticism from the media.
Gracing the cover of TIME will raise the question from those in the media: is Beck sincere with his comments and stances against so many officials and governement policies? I personally think the media and journalists have become so fake, blinded by their own political bias and an industry likemindedness, they simply don't understand Beck.
It's just simply easier to dismiss him as crazy than review the stories and have the results contradict their own personal beliefs.
For me, Beck is just another face in the crowd, but deserves some unique credit for carving out a niche in calling out both sides and running stories no one else will present.
His recent success is, in my opinion, due to his transformation to seek a more universal truth through criticism and skepticism of both political parties. Like Beck, I railed against President Bush, especially the last three years or so of his administration. There wasn't a home between the Bush-haters and the Republican loyalists.
Unlike many conservatives, especially talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, Beck ventures off the Republican reservation to attack the hypocrisy of "conservatives" as well as the Democrats.
The coverage of ACORN and Van Jones have really advanced his cause by establishing credibility. I don't think of any of these talking heads as "journalists", but Beck partnered with Andrew Breitbart to out ACORN's incredible corruption and illegal activities discovered by two inidiviuals posing as a pimp and prostitute.
The networks have only now begun to embrace the story.
Likewise, Beck was "way out in front" on the Green Czar Van Jones, outing his long history of self-proclaimed radical history and controversial comments. Jones resigned over a long weekend skirting criticism from the media.
Gracing the cover of TIME will raise the question from those in the media: is Beck sincere with his comments and stances against so many officials and governement policies? I personally think the media and journalists have become so fake, blinded by their own political bias and an industry likemindedness, they simply don't understand Beck.
It's just simply easier to dismiss him as crazy than review the stories and have the results contradict their own personal beliefs.
For me, Beck is just another face in the crowd, but deserves some unique credit for carving out a niche in calling out both sides and running stories no one else will present.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Racism: How to Change the Debate
When the fire gets too hot, either the media or President Obama seem to want to bring his "race" into the debate. Conservatives, like Glenn Beck, have made this matter worse by asserting insane comments like "Obama hates white people" or is "racist" himself.
The President's ignorant comments to support his friend Professor Gates did reveal a prejudice nature and a trigger happy component from the President to stereotype according to race. This hardly means a "half-white" man hates white people.
But Obama's track record is getting muddled with instances of leaning on the race card to get through troubled time. When the critics begin asking difficult questions racism is the immediate response.
Rep. Joe Wilson rudely shouted at the President and columnist Maureen Dowd translated his outburst into "You Lie, Boy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?bl&ex=1252987200&en=294d3085ac11979c&ei=5087%0A)
Boy?
I thought the immediate racism was going to be the exclusion of the illegal immigrants and the insensitive nature of Wilson and other Republicans.
Nope.
Now the media cycle has embraced the "racism" headline to explain the opposition. We are only seeing the fringe minority and painting the masses at protests and Townhalls as being racist. I'm sure there is a small contingent that may be approaching the debate hindered by their prejudice, but there's an equal or greater support for the President, who support him unilaterally because he's a minorty. If the country was so obsessed with race, would he be the President?
President Carter joined the fray:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
Those racist Southerners -- always behind the curve on tolerance.
Look, many of us are trying to ask viable questions about many issues and I find it destructive to resort to the crutch of racism. I don't care about the color of the President's skin, but care deeply about the thickness of it.
NBC’s Matt Lauer suggested. “We talk about political divides, ideological differences that sometimes turn ugly. … Why can’t we say this is what this is about right now? Why does race have to be made part of it?”
The President's ignorant comments to support his friend Professor Gates did reveal a prejudice nature and a trigger happy component from the President to stereotype according to race. This hardly means a "half-white" man hates white people.
But Obama's track record is getting muddled with instances of leaning on the race card to get through troubled time. When the critics begin asking difficult questions racism is the immediate response.
Rep. Joe Wilson rudely shouted at the President and columnist Maureen Dowd translated his outburst into "You Lie, Boy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?bl&ex=1252987200&en=294d3085ac11979c&ei=5087%0A)
Boy?
I thought the immediate racism was going to be the exclusion of the illegal immigrants and the insensitive nature of Wilson and other Republicans.
Nope.
Now the media cycle has embraced the "racism" headline to explain the opposition. We are only seeing the fringe minority and painting the masses at protests and Townhalls as being racist. I'm sure there is a small contingent that may be approaching the debate hindered by their prejudice, but there's an equal or greater support for the President, who support him unilaterally because he's a minorty. If the country was so obsessed with race, would he be the President?
President Carter joined the fray:
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
Those racist Southerners -- always behind the curve on tolerance.
Look, many of us are trying to ask viable questions about many issues and I find it destructive to resort to the crutch of racism. I don't care about the color of the President's skin, but care deeply about the thickness of it.
NBC’s Matt Lauer suggested. “We talk about political divides, ideological differences that sometimes turn ugly. … Why can’t we say this is what this is about right now? Why does race have to be made part of it?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)