I was cleaning out my e-mail, and stumbled across an article from mid-2007 written by Larry Kudlow. He was commenting on the new Democratic Majority's promise to change things. As he pointed out, at the time the market was at an all-time high, housing values were up 200%, unemployment was at near-historic lows, oil prices were dropping, and our deficit had been cut in half.
And he asked the obvious question -- what exactly where the Democrats going to change?
The answer is now clear. The question is why anybody who actually had any money saved would ever have voted for the Democrats or Obama -- and whether anybody who used to have money before the Democrats took over would make that mistake ever again.
Obama may be a good President for the unemployed and those who spent money they didn't have. Democrats are good at supporting their constituency, which apparently are a mix of people who don't invest, people who don't work, and people who have money but never had to work for it and have it protected. Oh, and I forgot tax cheats.
But, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, socialism is great for the have-nots, until they run out of "haves" to steal from. Which Obama is taking care of in record fashion. At some point, maybe Obama will realise that if the nation is bankrupt, the Russians and the Chinese and the Palistinians aren't going to come bail us out. And you can't give away health care if you don't have it to give. And, well, all of us really did want to retire some day, even if Obama is too young to give a damn.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Holder: Guantanamo's great, but we'll close it anyway.
Leave it to the new Democratic administration to realise that Guantanamo bay is nothing like what they thought, but still stick to their stupid plan to close it.:
In what world does that make sense? The fantasy world of the Obama Administration. If a federal program has failed miserably, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he wants to spend billions more on it. But a "well-run, professional facility?" Shut it down, and use the money for programs that don't work.
My guess is that Guantanamo is run better than most of the in-state prison facilities where we will end up sticking these terrorists, until they get out on technicalities and launch new attacks on our country.
And when they do, Obama will no doubt blame Bush for "making them hate us". Obama would be a one-trick pony if he had any tricks at all.
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday the Guantanamo detention center is a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close — but he's still going to do it. Holder visited the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Monday and spoke to reporters about his trip during a news conference Wednesday.
In what world does that make sense? The fantasy world of the Obama Administration. If a federal program has failed miserably, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he wants to spend billions more on it. But a "well-run, professional facility?" Shut it down, and use the money for programs that don't work.
Holder said his visit to the site was instructive. He met with military officials and toured the facilities, including the court setting where military commissions were to be held until Obama suspended them.
He said he did not witness any rough treatment of detainees, and in fact found the military staff and leadership performing admirably.
"I did not witness any mistreatment of prisoners. I think, to the contrary, what I saw was a very conscious attempt by these guards to conduct themselves in an appropriate way," he said.
The attorney general said none of those impressions alters the administration's goal of closing Guantanamo by January 2010.
My guess is that Guantanamo is run better than most of the in-state prison facilities where we will end up sticking these terrorists, until they get out on technicalities and launch new attacks on our country.
And when they do, Obama will no doubt blame Bush for "making them hate us". Obama would be a one-trick pony if he had any tricks at all.
Relative Lack of inexperience
Obama is one of the least experienced presidents we have ever had. As my wife said after watching him a little last night "He was like the head Cheerleader", rather than a President.
The local paper thought the most important quote from Obama was "The time to secure our future is here". The only thing more trite would be if he said "The time to secure our future is now" -- which at least would have had the advantage of showing the President knows how to use English. Really: The time is HERE? And I guess he is now.
But Obama is trying to look more experienced by appointing inexperienced, unqualified people to his cabinet (in retrospect, Clinton as Secretary of State looks positively golden, and she had never held a single position working with foreign issues before her appointment).
But the Democrats in congress will cover for him. I loved this comment about Carl Levin from Defense Daily:
{Carl} Levin says he “can’t foresee” opposing nominee for top Pentagon procurement post, but adds it’s “perfectly legitimate” to question Carter’s lack of acquisition experience at upcoming confirmation hearing.
Thanks, Carl, for suggesting that it's OK to ask why the nominee has never done the job he is being nominated for. Was there NO person in the aquisition department that was ready to take over the top job?
For Commerse, we now has former Governor Locke, who apparently has no commerce experience, but is another lobbyist. Remember when Obama was opposed to lobbyists, back when he was trying to get elected? Now it seems that lobbyists are the only people qualified to work in his administration.
When Obama DID nominated a qualified person for Commerse (Senator Gregg), he then drove him off by taking away all the department's responsibilities and essentially explaining that Gregg would be the "token experienced person".
Don't forget the Treasury secretary who didn't know how to do his taxes. That's good for a laugh, except then he had no idea what his plan was for saving the banks -- way to go, yes we can, ruin the economy.
When Obama said yesterday that he had never been in a helicopter, so he didn't know why he would need new Presidential copters, someone had to explain to him that the beanie with the propeller on his head wasn't the real Presidential copter, and that the real ones were fine except for the getting old and falling apart thing.
The local paper thought the most important quote from Obama was "The time to secure our future is here". The only thing more trite would be if he said "The time to secure our future is now" -- which at least would have had the advantage of showing the President knows how to use English. Really: The time is HERE? And I guess he is now.
But Obama is trying to look more experienced by appointing inexperienced, unqualified people to his cabinet (in retrospect, Clinton as Secretary of State looks positively golden, and she had never held a single position working with foreign issues before her appointment).
But the Democrats in congress will cover for him. I loved this comment about Carl Levin from Defense Daily:
{Carl} Levin says he “can’t foresee” opposing nominee for top Pentagon procurement post, but adds it’s “perfectly legitimate” to question Carter’s lack of acquisition experience at upcoming confirmation hearing.
Thanks, Carl, for suggesting that it's OK to ask why the nominee has never done the job he is being nominated for. Was there NO person in the aquisition department that was ready to take over the top job?
For Commerse, we now has former Governor Locke, who apparently has no commerce experience, but is another lobbyist. Remember when Obama was opposed to lobbyists, back when he was trying to get elected? Now it seems that lobbyists are the only people qualified to work in his administration.
When Obama DID nominated a qualified person for Commerse (Senator Gregg), he then drove him off by taking away all the department's responsibilities and essentially explaining that Gregg would be the "token experienced person".
Don't forget the Treasury secretary who didn't know how to do his taxes. That's good for a laugh, except then he had no idea what his plan was for saving the banks -- way to go, yes we can, ruin the economy.
When Obama said yesterday that he had never been in a helicopter, so he didn't know why he would need new Presidential copters, someone had to explain to him that the beanie with the propeller on his head wasn't the real Presidential copter, and that the real ones were fine except for the getting old and falling apart thing.
The hazard of overreaching
My column this week in the Manassas Journal Messenger is about overreaching in the illegal immigration policy debate.
Both sides are guilty of it. Mr. Sign Guy might be learning that by flouting the law, he does his cause great disservice. The HSM folks may someday learn that by pushing draconian rules that can't in the end be enforced and which eventually are revoked, they just make things worse.
The most recent example is Bob Marshall's attempt to put into law a requirement for proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Unfortunately, because Bob was smart enough to know we couldn't retroactively force millions of Virginia citizens to re-register with proof of their citizenship, the anti-illegal crowd falsely labelled him "pro-amnesty", and joined forces with the pro-amnesty folks to defeat his bill.
The fact is that if the anti-illegal folks had their way with this bill, in a year they would have so many people mad at them that it would greatly hurt the cause of the anti-illegal movement, much like the overreaching on the local business license rule has led to gutting the rule and leaving us worse off than before.
Because, make no mistake about it, even those who hate the idea of illegals voting would have been pissed off at having to take time out of their own busy schedules to prove to the government that they were legal citizens.
If we had passed Marshall's bill, we would have stopped illegals from registering. Then we could have taken the next step, which would be to allow the registrar to revoke registrations when it was found that the registrant was not a legal resident. We didn't need to force everybody to prove their innocence -- over time, it all would have settled out.
But because of their stupidity, we have no bill, and illegals can still register to vote, so long as they are willing to say they are legally here.
Both sides are guilty of it. Mr. Sign Guy might be learning that by flouting the law, he does his cause great disservice. The HSM folks may someday learn that by pushing draconian rules that can't in the end be enforced and which eventually are revoked, they just make things worse.
The most recent example is Bob Marshall's attempt to put into law a requirement for proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Unfortunately, because Bob was smart enough to know we couldn't retroactively force millions of Virginia citizens to re-register with proof of their citizenship, the anti-illegal crowd falsely labelled him "pro-amnesty", and joined forces with the pro-amnesty folks to defeat his bill.
The fact is that if the anti-illegal folks had their way with this bill, in a year they would have so many people mad at them that it would greatly hurt the cause of the anti-illegal movement, much like the overreaching on the local business license rule has led to gutting the rule and leaving us worse off than before.
Because, make no mistake about it, even those who hate the idea of illegals voting would have been pissed off at having to take time out of their own busy schedules to prove to the government that they were legal citizens.
If we had passed Marshall's bill, we would have stopped illegals from registering. Then we could have taken the next step, which would be to allow the registrar to revoke registrations when it was found that the registrant was not a legal resident. We didn't need to force everybody to prove their innocence -- over time, it all would have settled out.
But because of their stupidity, we have no bill, and illegals can still register to vote, so long as they are willing to say they are legally here.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Who is Obessed with Race?
This past week Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed that, when it comes to race, we are a "nation of cowards".
While it is unfortunate that our country's AG is so quick to generalize and stereotype, it is certainly true that a good number of people in our country are scared to death when it comes to race.
And incidents like this week's flare-up over a New York Post cartoon attacking the stimulus package are a good reason why.
See, over the past two months, the Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by Congressman David Obey, have crafted a horrible attack on the foundations of American Society, which they called the "stimulus" bill.
And the New York Post knows that this bill is a piece of garbage which will do little if anything to help our economy, except for the general good that spending an extra trillion dollars would do to ANY economy.
And also this past week, a woman was mauled by a chimpanzee, which had to be killed. And a New York Post cartoonist noticed that, much like the woman was mauled by a chimpanzee, our nation has been mauled by the democrats who wrote the stimulus package.
And since the chimpanzee was shot to death by police, the cartoonist drew a picture of the chimp being shot by two police, with a caption suggesting we needed someone else to write the NEXT stimulus bill.
Now, if this were 2004, with republicans controlling government and Bush in the white house, such a cartoon would be well-accepted. Heck, people drew all sorts of cartoons with chimps, and baboons, and other animals to depict various members of the republican party, including Bush, Powell, Rice, and other members of the administration.
But now we have a "Black President". And apparently, some dimwits think that this "Black President" actually wrote the "stimulus package", when in fact he had nothing to do with it. And further, these people (who supposedly are the "enlightened" people) equate black people with monkeys, so when they saw a monkey in a cartoon, they immediately thought of Obama, even though he is neither a monkey nor the author of a stimulus package.
And then they attacked the cartoonist for "being racist", when it was these people who were the racists for thinking Obama was a chimpanzee, and idiots for thinking he wrote the stimulus package.
So, when Eric Holder says we are cowards when it comes to race, he should look at this incident, and realise that no white person alive is "comfortable" with ANYTHING having to do with race, since anything a white person does will be misconstrued as "racist".
We will NOT have a proper colorblind society so long as people define themselves by their color, expect to be treated special because of their color, think that acheivement should be measured by their color, want handouts and laws favoring them because of their color, and so long as any person of color feels comfortable launching vile, unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on white people's character simply because they are white.
We could start with the notion that black people need blacks representing them in politics. It's time to stop drawing congressional districts to ensure "black people" get elected. The nation, which is 80% NOT BLACK, just elected a "Black Man" as president. If blacks can't be represented by white people, then how are 80% of the people of this country represented by a "Black Man"?
Fact is, white people learned long ago that the "Black Man" could well represent them. And given that the Democratic Party can only find it in it's heart to allow ONE "Black Man" to sit in the U.S. Senate (and they may be trying to throw him out now), I'm thinking the minorities in the Democratic Party are quite used to being represented by rich white fools.
While it is unfortunate that our country's AG is so quick to generalize and stereotype, it is certainly true that a good number of people in our country are scared to death when it comes to race.
And incidents like this week's flare-up over a New York Post cartoon attacking the stimulus package are a good reason why.
See, over the past two months, the Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by Congressman David Obey, have crafted a horrible attack on the foundations of American Society, which they called the "stimulus" bill.
And the New York Post knows that this bill is a piece of garbage which will do little if anything to help our economy, except for the general good that spending an extra trillion dollars would do to ANY economy.
And also this past week, a woman was mauled by a chimpanzee, which had to be killed. And a New York Post cartoonist noticed that, much like the woman was mauled by a chimpanzee, our nation has been mauled by the democrats who wrote the stimulus package.
And since the chimpanzee was shot to death by police, the cartoonist drew a picture of the chimp being shot by two police, with a caption suggesting we needed someone else to write the NEXT stimulus bill.
Now, if this were 2004, with republicans controlling government and Bush in the white house, such a cartoon would be well-accepted. Heck, people drew all sorts of cartoons with chimps, and baboons, and other animals to depict various members of the republican party, including Bush, Powell, Rice, and other members of the administration.
But now we have a "Black President". And apparently, some dimwits think that this "Black President" actually wrote the "stimulus package", when in fact he had nothing to do with it. And further, these people (who supposedly are the "enlightened" people) equate black people with monkeys, so when they saw a monkey in a cartoon, they immediately thought of Obama, even though he is neither a monkey nor the author of a stimulus package.
And then they attacked the cartoonist for "being racist", when it was these people who were the racists for thinking Obama was a chimpanzee, and idiots for thinking he wrote the stimulus package.
So, when Eric Holder says we are cowards when it comes to race, he should look at this incident, and realise that no white person alive is "comfortable" with ANYTHING having to do with race, since anything a white person does will be misconstrued as "racist".
We will NOT have a proper colorblind society so long as people define themselves by their color, expect to be treated special because of their color, think that acheivement should be measured by their color, want handouts and laws favoring them because of their color, and so long as any person of color feels comfortable launching vile, unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on white people's character simply because they are white.
We could start with the notion that black people need blacks representing them in politics. It's time to stop drawing congressional districts to ensure "black people" get elected. The nation, which is 80% NOT BLACK, just elected a "Black Man" as president. If blacks can't be represented by white people, then how are 80% of the people of this country represented by a "Black Man"?
Fact is, white people learned long ago that the "Black Man" could well represent them. And given that the Democratic Party can only find it in it's heart to allow ONE "Black Man" to sit in the U.S. Senate (and they may be trying to throw him out now), I'm thinking the minorities in the Democratic Party are quite used to being represented by rich white fools.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
God will not condone taking innocent life
Today Barack Obama made a statement that is true, even though Obama doesn't appear to understand the truth of what he said:
Here is the video:
The One True God does not condone the taking of innocent life (as this is not a religious discussion, we will gloss over the inconvenient truth that "none are righteous, no not one").
But surely there is none as close to "innocence" as those humans who have yet to breathe their first independent breath -- and these are the very ones who Obama has worked so hard to kill.
Further, it is interesting that he invokes this claim as a way of suggesting that all religions are good. But in fact we KNOW that there are people who, in the name of their religion, kill innocent people, and who even use their scriptures to condone this.
So Obama is using his imperfect concept of God and innocence and religion to espouse a world view that is false. And he seems to be formulating a foreign policy based on his misguided, religious notion of the basic goodness of humanity.
If this were a conservative Christian, the ACLU and the anti-religious forces would be up in arms over a President who used his misguided religious beliefs to guide his actions.
The truth is that there are religions which want us dead. And Obama, like it or not, is our President, and as our President he has an obligation and a duty to protect us from those people who follow religions which want us dead.
And, like it or not, President Obama, it is your constitutional duty to wage war against those forces of religions which seek to destroy our country -- not to try to play nice under some dangerous and naive notion that "people of faith" can't possibly do us harm.
How many of us will have to die before Obama wises up? Fortunately, we are still relatively safe in our country. Unfortunately, allies like Israel may suffer tremendously at the hands of those anti-innocent religious fanatics who will kill them, while Obama tries to make nice.
I feel like I'm in one of those movies where people are being killed left and right, and the poor misguided non-hero is standing there in the middle of it all, looking around in bewilderment, and saying "but they are a PEACEFUL PEOPLE".....
Summary: Obama knows that the one True God will not condone killing the innocent. But in his misguided naivete, he will refuse to protect the truly innocent unborn children from the evil hands of doctors who will torture and brutally murder them with the permission of their ignorant mothers, while he makes nice with "people of faith" who will seek to do the same to the rest of us.
We know there is no God who condones the killing of an innocent human being.
Here is the video:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The One True God does not condone the taking of innocent life (as this is not a religious discussion, we will gloss over the inconvenient truth that "none are righteous, no not one").
But surely there is none as close to "innocence" as those humans who have yet to breathe their first independent breath -- and these are the very ones who Obama has worked so hard to kill.
Further, it is interesting that he invokes this claim as a way of suggesting that all religions are good. But in fact we KNOW that there are people who, in the name of their religion, kill innocent people, and who even use their scriptures to condone this.
So Obama is using his imperfect concept of God and innocence and religion to espouse a world view that is false. And he seems to be formulating a foreign policy based on his misguided, religious notion of the basic goodness of humanity.
If this were a conservative Christian, the ACLU and the anti-religious forces would be up in arms over a President who used his misguided religious beliefs to guide his actions.
The truth is that there are religions which want us dead. And Obama, like it or not, is our President, and as our President he has an obligation and a duty to protect us from those people who follow religions which want us dead.
And, like it or not, President Obama, it is your constitutional duty to wage war against those forces of religions which seek to destroy our country -- not to try to play nice under some dangerous and naive notion that "people of faith" can't possibly do us harm.
How many of us will have to die before Obama wises up? Fortunately, we are still relatively safe in our country. Unfortunately, allies like Israel may suffer tremendously at the hands of those anti-innocent religious fanatics who will kill them, while Obama tries to make nice.
I feel like I'm in one of those movies where people are being killed left and right, and the poor misguided non-hero is standing there in the middle of it all, looking around in bewilderment, and saying "but they are a PEACEFUL PEOPLE".....
Summary: Obama knows that the one True God will not condone killing the innocent. But in his misguided naivete, he will refuse to protect the truly innocent unborn children from the evil hands of doctors who will torture and brutally murder them with the permission of their ignorant mothers, while he makes nice with "people of faith" who will seek to do the same to the rest of us.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Should a president be burned out after two weeks?
I realise these are trying times. However, a young, well-fit President like Obama should be able to last more than two weeks, even if he wasn't taking time off for super bowl parties and roasts.
Sometimes I get burned out at work, and just use a half-day of vacation to get out and get some fresh air. But I'm pretty sure I didn't do this two weeks after I started the job.
But today, exactly 14 days after taking the oath of office, Obama had had enough of all the pressure of defending democrats who failed to pay their taxes, so he and his wife ran off to read books at a local elementary school.
Oddly, no news media made fun of him for doing so, not at all like they treated Bush when he had a scheduled elementary school reading that was interrupted by the 9/11 attacks.
Obama of course is in a critical time for his new administration, trying to figure out if government can do anything right for the economy. But already he's managed to pick 3 nominees that had to quit, he's made fun of the DC school system for not risking it's children on icy roads, and held a super bowl party while millions of hard-working americans were losing their jobs.
He also found time to attend a private comedy roast.
And now, to escape the heat of the oval office, he hid with a bunch of school kids, who were rightly happy to have him.
And when Obama was asked why he was there, and not doing his job, Obama said:
I know a lot of people who are tired of Obama being in the White House. But my goodness, it's only been 14 days. I think Clinton lasted longer before he threw up his hands and said he had never worked harder but he just couldn't keep his campaign promise and give a child tax credit.
And it's not like Obama has been working 24/7. One day he was just wandering around and stumbled into the press office, only to leave after they had the audacity to ask him why he was there. And he threw a grand Super bowl party, which the media spun as showing how much better he was than Bush, since Bush would have gone to bed early instead of spending taxpayer dollars on beer and pretzels.
OK, I don't know if they had beer and pretzels.
Oh, and last week he had a coctail party. This is supposedly part of his plan to "return the white house to the people". Of course, we aren't invited to his parties, only elected politicians and people he can try to bribe into supporting his agenda. Somehow this is more "open" than the Bush policy of actually living in his house.
A President has to have a social life as well, and I don't begrudge a man the superbowl. But 3 parties, a half-dozen fluff interviews, and a reading trip all in the first two weeks?
Sometimes I get burned out at work, and just use a half-day of vacation to get out and get some fresh air. But I'm pretty sure I didn't do this two weeks after I started the job.
But today, exactly 14 days after taking the oath of office, Obama had had enough of all the pressure of defending democrats who failed to pay their taxes, so he and his wife ran off to read books at a local elementary school.
Oddly, no news media made fun of him for doing so, not at all like they treated Bush when he had a scheduled elementary school reading that was interrupted by the 9/11 attacks.
Obama of course is in a critical time for his new administration, trying to figure out if government can do anything right for the economy. But already he's managed to pick 3 nominees that had to quit, he's made fun of the DC school system for not risking it's children on icy roads, and held a super bowl party while millions of hard-working americans were losing their jobs.
He also found time to attend a private comedy roast.
And now, to escape the heat of the oval office, he hid with a bunch of school kids, who were rightly happy to have him.
And when Obama was asked why he was there, and not doing his job, Obama said:
"We were just tired of being in the White House."
I know a lot of people who are tired of Obama being in the White House. But my goodness, it's only been 14 days. I think Clinton lasted longer before he threw up his hands and said he had never worked harder but he just couldn't keep his campaign promise and give a child tax credit.
And it's not like Obama has been working 24/7. One day he was just wandering around and stumbled into the press office, only to leave after they had the audacity to ask him why he was there. And he threw a grand Super bowl party, which the media spun as showing how much better he was than Bush, since Bush would have gone to bed early instead of spending taxpayer dollars on beer and pretzels.
OK, I don't know if they had beer and pretzels.
Oh, and last week he had a coctail party. This is supposedly part of his plan to "return the white house to the people". Of course, we aren't invited to his parties, only elected politicians and people he can try to bribe into supporting his agenda. Somehow this is more "open" than the Bush policy of actually living in his house.
A President has to have a social life as well, and I don't begrudge a man the superbowl. But 3 parties, a half-dozen fluff interviews, and a reading trip all in the first two weeks?
Monday, January 12, 2009
For Gene Robinson, "Gay" means more than "Christian".
How else to interpret his comments about being chosen to lead prayer at the We are One event:
I'm betting Rick Warren, who has been castigated for being chosen to give an invoation, would never say he was representing "the heterosexual community". Real Christian pastors know that they represent Jesus Christ to the world. That Gene thinks his job is to represent a sinful lifestyle is more indication of how incompatable his prediliction is with his so-called calling.
Lest we misunderstood his statement, Gene makes it clear that he has no intention of representing the Lord Jesus Christ:
Since he makes it a point not to be especially Christian in his life, it's not surprising his prayers won't be Christian. And of course, it's also clear his prayers will be meaningless.
Some people seem to think that the mere act of "prayer" provides some efficacy. They are sadly mistaken. Prayer is only useful to the degree it provides supplication to the One who created us, through the one who died to save us. There is no such thing as a non-christian "prayer", at least not in a useful sense.
Better to not have public prayer at all, then to make a mockery of the act by inviting a man who has so little faith in his own "God" that he neither trusts God to save him from his sin, to help him turn from his sin, or to suffer the slings and barbs by openly professing his faith through his prayer.
"It is also an indication of the new president's commitment to being the President of all the people. "...[I]t will be my great honor to be there representing... all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community" Robinson said.
I'm betting Rick Warren, who has been castigated for being chosen to give an invoation, would never say he was representing "the heterosexual community". Real Christian pastors know that they represent Jesus Christ to the world. That Gene thinks his job is to represent a sinful lifestyle is more indication of how incompatable his prediliction is with his so-called calling.
Lest we misunderstood his statement, Gene makes it clear that he has no intention of representing the Lord Jesus Christ:
"I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer.'"
Since he makes it a point not to be especially Christian in his life, it's not surprising his prayers won't be Christian. And of course, it's also clear his prayers will be meaningless.
Some people seem to think that the mere act of "prayer" provides some efficacy. They are sadly mistaken. Prayer is only useful to the degree it provides supplication to the One who created us, through the one who died to save us. There is no such thing as a non-christian "prayer", at least not in a useful sense.
Better to not have public prayer at all, then to make a mockery of the act by inviting a man who has so little faith in his own "God" that he neither trusts God to save him from his sin, to help him turn from his sin, or to suffer the slings and barbs by openly professing his faith through his prayer.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
28,636 Christmas Lights.
I've finished installing my christmas lights for 2008. I believe I have 28,636 lights this year, although I could have lost count somewhere so I could be off by a few hundred one way or another.
I guess I could demand a recount.
I guess I could demand a recount.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Coming to Kings Dominion
One side-effect of being a theme park junkie is that new rides are not always so new.
In 2007, we spent two days at Geauga Lake in Ohio. It was a lovely little park -- I even wrote a column about it.
At the end of that season, Cedar Fair Properties (which owns many parks) shut down the Geauga Lake theme park, leaving only the Wildwater Kingdom water park.
They actually had been sending rides from Geauga to other parks even before they shut it down, but in 2008 Kings Dominion got the "Dominator" roller coaster, which we had already ridden in GL.
This year, Kings Dominion will get, for the first time ever, a ferris wheel. When Kings Dominion first opened, they vowed to never have a ferris wheel, which they associated with country fairs. I love ferris wheels, so I always wished they had one.
This spring KD will get the ferris wheel from Geauga Lake, along with another interesting ride shaped like a huge Cadillac.
Here is a picture I took of the ferris wheel when we visited GL:
In 2007, we spent two days at Geauga Lake in Ohio. It was a lovely little park -- I even wrote a column about it.
At the end of that season, Cedar Fair Properties (which owns many parks) shut down the Geauga Lake theme park, leaving only the Wildwater Kingdom water park.
They actually had been sending rides from Geauga to other parks even before they shut it down, but in 2008 Kings Dominion got the "Dominator" roller coaster, which we had already ridden in GL.
This year, Kings Dominion will get, for the first time ever, a ferris wheel. When Kings Dominion first opened, they vowed to never have a ferris wheel, which they associated with country fairs. I love ferris wheels, so I always wished they had one.
This spring KD will get the ferris wheel from Geauga Lake, along with another interesting ride shaped like a huge Cadillac.
Here is a picture I took of the ferris wheel when we visited GL:
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
How the Democrats will steal the Minnesota Senate seat.
It seems that the recount in the Minnesota Senate race will conclude with Norm Coleman still up by a couple hundred votes.
Further, while the Al Franken team will make a big deal about absentee ballots, it is unlikely the courts will agree to count ballots which clearly do not meet the legal requirements for acceptance.
But I don't think Franken really cares. I mean, it would be easier for the Democrats if he could manufacture enough votes in the recount to win, but they have a plan which will work in any case.
The first part of the plan has already succeeded. Al Franken got a judge to violate the sacrosanct rule of the "secret ballot", providing the Franken campaign with the names, and addresses of every absentee ballot that was rejected.
Franken's team has now contacted all those people, asking them if they were Franken supporters. No doubt they are finding Coleman people, but they will be ignored.
The next step will be for Franken's team to get every Franken voter to sign an affidavit asserting that they voted for Al Franken in the election.
Simple probability suggests that about half the rejected ballots will be Franken supporters, so they should easily be able to find over 3000 people to sign.
Normally, this wouldn't be any help. I mean, you could also call registered voters, and ask if they voted, and if not, get them to sign affidavits that they WANTED to vote and WOULD have voted for Al Franken. The courts still wouldn't accept them as actual votes.
But that's not the point. See, the Democrats have control over the Senate. And the constitution puts the Senate as the final arbiter of elections for the Senate.
So next January, when it's time to seat the new Senators, the Senate Democrats will note "irregularities" in Minnesota, and will bring the question up for a vote. And then the affidavits will be presented. And the DEmocrats will note that, while the law in Minnesota didn't allow those votes to be counted, it is CLEAR that those votes WERE cast and were for Franken.
And since the Senate doesn't have to abide by the Minnesota law, the Democrats will vote to count the extra ballots, and award the election to Franken. It won't matter that nobody checked the OTHER absentee ballots. The Media will go along with what the Democrats do, so there won't even be an outrage.
It's happened before -- the Democrats once refused to seat a republican House candidate winner, putting in the losing Democrat instead. And nobody batted an eye.
I suppose the Coleman camp could try to counter this by calling all the absentee names and getting THEIR supporters to sign affidavits. But there's no reason to suspect the Democrats in the Senate would accept them.
Further, while the Al Franken team will make a big deal about absentee ballots, it is unlikely the courts will agree to count ballots which clearly do not meet the legal requirements for acceptance.
But I don't think Franken really cares. I mean, it would be easier for the Democrats if he could manufacture enough votes in the recount to win, but they have a plan which will work in any case.
The first part of the plan has already succeeded. Al Franken got a judge to violate the sacrosanct rule of the "secret ballot", providing the Franken campaign with the names, and addresses of every absentee ballot that was rejected.
Franken's team has now contacted all those people, asking them if they were Franken supporters. No doubt they are finding Coleman people, but they will be ignored.
The next step will be for Franken's team to get every Franken voter to sign an affidavit asserting that they voted for Al Franken in the election.
Simple probability suggests that about half the rejected ballots will be Franken supporters, so they should easily be able to find over 3000 people to sign.
Normally, this wouldn't be any help. I mean, you could also call registered voters, and ask if they voted, and if not, get them to sign affidavits that they WANTED to vote and WOULD have voted for Al Franken. The courts still wouldn't accept them as actual votes.
But that's not the point. See, the Democrats have control over the Senate. And the constitution puts the Senate as the final arbiter of elections for the Senate.
So next January, when it's time to seat the new Senators, the Senate Democrats will note "irregularities" in Minnesota, and will bring the question up for a vote. And then the affidavits will be presented. And the DEmocrats will note that, while the law in Minnesota didn't allow those votes to be counted, it is CLEAR that those votes WERE cast and were for Franken.
And since the Senate doesn't have to abide by the Minnesota law, the Democrats will vote to count the extra ballots, and award the election to Franken. It won't matter that nobody checked the OTHER absentee ballots. The Media will go along with what the Democrats do, so there won't even be an outrage.
It's happened before -- the Democrats once refused to seat a republican House candidate winner, putting in the losing Democrat instead. And nobody batted an eye.
I suppose the Coleman camp could try to counter this by calling all the absentee names and getting THEIR supporters to sign affidavits. But there's no reason to suspect the Democrats in the Senate would accept them.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Twilight
I'm just back from seeing the movie "Twilight". I'm not going to give away the movie or the book plot, but if you don't like people commenting on the nuts and bolts, you can skip this anyway.
I didn't think I'd like the Bella character after watching the trailers, but I liked her in the movie.
I also liked Alice, and we didn't see enough of her. If there are "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob" (and apparently a warped "Team James"), I'm definitely "Team Alice".
Characters weren't very developed in the movie. One of the things I liked about the book was the character development -- it wasn't deep, but I felt like I got the essense of the characters. That was not well-translated to the movie. I don't feel like I really know any of the people based on the movie.
They ignored Jasper, which given how little development any other characters got isn't so surprising, but I would have hated to have been given that role hoping to make it into something.
I don't like spinning camera shots. I got dizzy a couple of times in the movie -- in both cases NOT during "action" sequences, but when the characters were basically standing or lying still.
In general, I felt the book survived the movie. My son, who has not read the book, said he got lost in the movie, and I guess there are times where having read the book is probably necessary to really understand what is happening.
Sparkling Edward could have used some better CGI or something. I know I'm a guy, but my daughter agrees that he looked worse sparkling, when it was supposed to be "magnificent".
In general, I think they could have spent more money on makeup. The vampires too often looked like people with way too much makeup. I actually think Powder made the guy white better than they did in this movie.
There were a few things that simply didn't match what my mind had imagined when reading the book. The two biggest are that I pictured Bella's house to be in the woods a bit, not on a street with curbs; and I pictured the school as being out on a plain and being a bunch of small buildings you had to walk outside to get from one class to another -- not an urban-looking building in the heart of the "city".
They did catch the essence of the "dreary small-town" otherwise. I loved the logging truck.
I thought Edward's car was sufficiently cool, but my daughter did not.
I didn't think I'd like the Bella character after watching the trailers, but I liked her in the movie.
I also liked Alice, and we didn't see enough of her. If there are "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob" (and apparently a warped "Team James"), I'm definitely "Team Alice".
Characters weren't very developed in the movie. One of the things I liked about the book was the character development -- it wasn't deep, but I felt like I got the essense of the characters. That was not well-translated to the movie. I don't feel like I really know any of the people based on the movie.
They ignored Jasper, which given how little development any other characters got isn't so surprising, but I would have hated to have been given that role hoping to make it into something.
I don't like spinning camera shots. I got dizzy a couple of times in the movie -- in both cases NOT during "action" sequences, but when the characters were basically standing or lying still.
In general, I felt the book survived the movie. My son, who has not read the book, said he got lost in the movie, and I guess there are times where having read the book is probably necessary to really understand what is happening.
Sparkling Edward could have used some better CGI or something. I know I'm a guy, but my daughter agrees that he looked worse sparkling, when it was supposed to be "magnificent".
In general, I think they could have spent more money on makeup. The vampires too often looked like people with way too much makeup. I actually think Powder made the guy white better than they did in this movie.
There were a few things that simply didn't match what my mind had imagined when reading the book. The two biggest are that I pictured Bella's house to be in the woods a bit, not on a street with curbs; and I pictured the school as being out on a plain and being a bunch of small buildings you had to walk outside to get from one class to another -- not an urban-looking building in the heart of the "city".
They did catch the essence of the "dreary small-town" otherwise. I loved the logging truck.
I thought Edward's car was sufficiently cool, but my daughter did not.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Vote McCain -- Obama 1.5 hours late for his rally.
McCain is no conservative, and I disagree with him on a lot of issues. He loves to work with Democrats, and to compromise, and to do all those things that the media always tells us are important in a good leader.
I disagree with Obama on everything, and he's a liberal who never works with Republicans on anything, and would if he was republican be dismissed as a far-right extremist.
But because the media wants a Democrat, they pretend McCain is out of the mainstream and they hide everything about Obama so people might think Obama is just an ordinary moderate.
Vote McCain.
I'm stuck here within a mile of Obama's "final rally", I've had to listen to their music, and all their speeches. Obama was supposed to be here at 9pm, but it's 10:30 and he's not there yet.
Obama can't even show up on time for his own rallies. He is no way ready to be President.
I disagree with Obama on everything, and he's a liberal who never works with Republicans on anything, and would if he was republican be dismissed as a far-right extremist.
But because the media wants a Democrat, they pretend McCain is out of the mainstream and they hide everything about Obama so people might think Obama is just an ordinary moderate.
Vote McCain.
I'm stuck here within a mile of Obama's "final rally", I've had to listen to their music, and all their speeches. Obama was supposed to be here at 9pm, but it's 10:30 and he's not there yet.
Obama can't even show up on time for his own rallies. He is no way ready to be President.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Minutemen get it.
Unlike some people who seem too full of themselves to understand what is at stake in the November elections, the Minutemen show that they know exactly what needs to be done for the good of the country. From an e-mail alert:
They are right. You don't have to like McCain's position on Illegal Immigrants to know that Obama will be worse. in 2006, too many voters decided to turn their back on conservatives and republicans and elect Democrats, figuring the republicans needed to be taught a lesson.
Now we can look back at the last two years, and see all the "lessons" we taught -- to our selves.
Now is no time to teach any more lessons. We cannot afford 4 years of Barack Obama with a Democratic congress.
Fellow Patriots,
Early in the presidential race we announced our intentions not to endorse anyone for president. And we’ve strictly adhered to that policy throughout this long and arduous process.
But . . .
What we did NOT announce is any intention to refrain from opposing a particular candidate for president! It has been clear from DAY ONE that we have in Sen. McCain a potential president who -- at the very best -- would be indifferent to the dire need to secure our borders.
And -- at the worst -- McCain would be a rubber stamp for a blanket amnesty program from the leftist Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Despite McCain’s recent proclamations regarding securing the border as a first priority -- as the saying goes -- his actions speak so loudly, we can’t hear a word he’s saying.
. . . So an endorsement for McCain is absolutely out of the question!
That said, recent and VERY ALARMING DETAILS have surfaced about Sen. Barack Obama’s plans for our country, should he be elected president on Nov. 4th.
HELP US DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA'S SECRET AMNESTY PLAN! Click here!
These radical socialist plans include the following:
*Giving drivers licenses to ALL illegal aliens in the U.S.
*Passing a sweeping amnesty program, giving citizenship to 12 million illegal aliens
*Giving a tax rebate [i.e. free money] to illegal workers here in the U.S.
*Dialoguing with terrorist nations and regimes without precondition
*Forcing banks to lend money to illegal aliens
*Registering illegal aliens to vote in EVERY state of the union
. . . And those are just the details we know about so far!
My fellow patriots, we CANNOT afford an Obama presidency! Barack Obama’s unapologetic association with known terrorists, racists, criminals, and the politically corrupt may be the final nail in the coffin of our once great republic.
BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO STAND BY AND LET IT HAPPEN! NOT ON OUR WATCH!!!
The Minuteman PAC has already invested key independent expenditures (IEs) in several of the battleground states to aid efforts to inform voters about Obama's true socialist agenda.
AND, we are making serious headway! Polls have suggested that Obama’s approval rating is set to drop back down in the days preceding the election! That’s why we need your help! NOW!!!
HELP US STOP THE SOCIALIST MARCH TO WASHINGTON! Click Here!
It’s hard to imagine the United States under an Obama administration. But, make no mistake! Barack Obama will stop at nothing to throw our national sovereignty and security under the bus...
If Obama is elected:
-We can say goodbye to secure borders . . .
-We can forget any last vestige of national sovereignty . . .
-We can expect more terrorist attacks on our own soil . . .
-We can kiss away our individual freedom and free enterprise . . .
-And we can toss the 10th Amendment into the dust bin of history . . .
In short, when Barack Obama leaves the White House, the U.S. will resemble France more than the republic for which our founders sacrificed their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”
In fact, everything the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord fought for will be lost!!!
That’s why in these last weeks and days before the election, we need your help more than ever! Many of you have given to the Minuteman PAC efforts time and again, just as the Minutemen patriots of 1776 fought battle after battle.
HELP US MAKE A STAND AGAINST OBAMA'S ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA!
FIGHT WITH US! Click Here!
We have to stand firm against the forces of the left, just as our forefathers stood against the tyranny of the Red Coats!!!
Nothing less than the future of our republic is at stake! THERE ARE LESS THAN 3 WEEKS LEFT!
Please stand with us now and fight alongside the Minuteman PAC! We MUST put everything on the line NOW!
For America,
Brett Farley
Executive Director
Minuteman PAC
P.S. Barack Obama’s radical agenda of open borders, drivers licenses to illegal aliens, free money to illegal aliens, sweeping amnesty, and appeasement for terrorists is marching toward victory on Nov. 4th. But we’re already engaged in an entrenched battle to stop him! We need your urgent help to reveal the truth about Obama to voters in key battleground states.
EVERYTHING is at stake this election. Please join us now!
They are right. You don't have to like McCain's position on Illegal Immigrants to know that Obama will be worse. in 2006, too many voters decided to turn their back on conservatives and republicans and elect Democrats, figuring the republicans needed to be taught a lesson.
Now we can look back at the last two years, and see all the "lessons" we taught -- to our selves.
Now is no time to teach any more lessons. We cannot afford 4 years of Barack Obama with a Democratic congress.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Temporary Blindness
Well, not quite.
I had a minor tear in my right retina. I noticed the blood on Wednesday, and they lasered it Wednesday night (Wonderful doctor). It tore a tiny bit more Friday night, and I got a little more laser treatment Saturday morning.
I'm not allowed to do computers much at all, so I've dropped off the net. I hope to be back by this weekend.
I had a minor tear in my right retina. I noticed the blood on Wednesday, and they lasered it Wednesday night (Wonderful doctor). It tore a tiny bit more Friday night, and I got a little more laser treatment Saturday morning.
I'm not allowed to do computers much at all, so I've dropped off the net. I hope to be back by this weekend.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The difference between a leader and the Obama succubus.
Obama is a succubus, doing nothing except living off of the acheivements and ideas of others. If anything good happens, he takes credit. If something bad happens, he has no idea what you are talking about.
McCain is a leader.
You can see this on the bailout. When McCain is asked if he should get credit for the final bill (and believe me, he deserves all the credit for backing the house Republicans and making this a much better bill, AND bringing everybody to the table to make it happen), McCain refused to give himself any credit.
Meanwhile, Obama not only takes all the credit, but he specifically says McCain doesn't deserve any credit.
Obama never learned about not blowing your own horn. Obama is his own orchestra. Obama needs more hands so he can slap himself on the back more.
Fox News covers the ever-bragging, never-acheiving Obama:
The sad thing for Obama is that, if he just waited a day, the Media would give him all the credit anyway, because the media is entirely in the tank for Obama. He didn't HAVE to falsely claim credit, the Media would have done the work and he could has said "oh, shucks", except I doubt he even knows what that means.
The story instead slaps Obama down for his self-aggrandizement:
Obama asked for what everybody wanted. That's what Obama does -- he never seems to do the hard thing.
Meanwhile, McCain is being a true leader, from This Week:
McCain came to Washington when Obama said "call me if you need me". The democrats realized Obama was making a fool of himself, and called him in to "speak" for them. That nearly derailed the meeting and the bailout. It took serious work by McCain to undo the damage, while the democrats ran around playing politics. Eventually, we got rid of all the left's playtoys, and McCain deserves all the credit, even though he won't take it.
McCain is a leader.
You can see this on the bailout. When McCain is asked if he should get credit for the final bill (and believe me, he deserves all the credit for backing the house Republicans and making this a much better bill, AND bringing everybody to the table to make it happen), McCain refused to give himself any credit.
Meanwhile, Obama not only takes all the credit, but he specifically says McCain doesn't deserve any credit.
Obama never learned about not blowing your own horn. Obama is his own orchestra. Obama needs more hands so he can slap himself on the back more.
Fox News covers the ever-bragging, never-acheiving Obama:
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Sunday his Republican rival deserves no credit for helping to forge a tentative agreement on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
Instead, Obama said he deserves credit for making sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.
The sad thing for Obama is that, if he just waited a day, the Media would give him all the credit anyway, because the media is entirely in the tank for Obama. He didn't HAVE to falsely claim credit, the Media would have done the work and he could has said "oh, shucks", except I doubt he even knows what that means.
The story instead slaps Obama down for his self-aggrandizement:
The safeguards were supported by many in Congress, including Democrats and Republicans.
Obama asked for what everybody wanted. That's what Obama does -- he never seems to do the hard thing.
Meanwhile, McCain is being a true leader, from This Week:
Stephanopoulos: "What role did you play? How were you helpful do you believe in the process?"
John McCain: "I will let you and others be the judge of that. I did the best that I could. I came back because I wasn't going to phone it in. America is in a crisis of almost unprecedented proportions. I should be doing whatever little I can to help this process. I'm a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I got to get in the arena when America needs it, and if that judgment wants to be made whether I helped or hurt, I'll be glad to accept the judgment of history. But I'm never going to not get engaged when the taxpayers and middle class of America are in danger of losing everything literally that they've worked all their lives for. I'm going to be out working on it. I won't claim a bit of credit, okay, if that makes them feel better. But I'm going to be there working and trying to help solve this crisis. And I'm proud of John Boehner and Roy Blunt and Adam Putnam and all of the guys and men and women, Marsha Blackburn and others who in the House of Representatives stood up and got into these negotiations and became part of the solution."
McCain came to Washington when Obama said "call me if you need me". The democrats realized Obama was making a fool of himself, and called him in to "speak" for them. That nearly derailed the meeting and the bailout. It took serious work by McCain to undo the damage, while the democrats ran around playing politics. Eventually, we got rid of all the left's playtoys, and McCain deserves all the credit, even though he won't take it.
Obama exploits dead soldier against parent's wishes.
In Friday's debate, Obama fumbled repeatedly. The most obvious example is that, when he tried a simple tactic of saying "me to about wearing the bracelet of a dead soldier, he couldn't even remember the man's name.
But now it turns out that the family of that soldier and hero, Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, had asked Obama not to wear their son's bracelet, because they didn't like him using it for his political gain.
From "Family told Obama not to wear bracelet":
Jopek supported the war in Iraq, and he and his family oppose Obama's surrender strategy. The mother gave Obama the bracelet simply so he would remember her son:
Now, of course, Obama exploited their son's death for his own political gain. Obama exploits a lot of people for his own gain. Worse, since the mother actually supports Obama, she's gone into hiding, meaning Obama is exploiting her support as well:
If I can find this story, why can't the Washington Post? Could it be the news media has decided that, whatever it takes, Obama has to win this election?
Update: The Obama camp knows how to put pressure on people. Too bad the media simply ignores this. Nobody will ever know what the Obama campaign did to Jopek's mother, but they got her to come public with a statement that she was happy Obama mentioned her son's name at the debate.
So now the media can ignore all the stories from earlier this year where the family told him to stop talking about him. Because Obama can do no wrong. No matter how many crucial foreign policy issues he messed up at the debate, he's ready to be President. If anybody says otherwise, the Obama gestapo will find some way to make them "see the light".
Update again. OK, turns out AP was a little bit too much in the bag for Obama with their headline about his Jopek's mother being "ectstatic". Here's the AP story now:
So, she confirms that the bracelet was NOT meant as a campaign prop. Obama obviously ignored her wishes, and used it as a Campaign Prop. Now, because she really wants Obama to win, she says she is "satisfied" with how Obama discussed it. What else would she say -- she doesn't want to hurt him, even after Obama has hurt her, her family, and the memory of her son.
But now it turns out that the family of that soldier and hero, Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, had asked Obama not to wear their son's bracelet, because they didn't like him using it for his political gain.
From "Family told Obama not to wear bracelet":
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.
Jopek supported the war in Iraq, and he and his family oppose Obama's surrender strategy. The mother gave Obama the bracelet simply so he would remember her son:
Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.
Now, of course, Obama exploited their son's death for his own political gain. Obama exploits a lot of people for his own gain. Worse, since the mother actually supports Obama, she's gone into hiding, meaning Obama is exploiting her support as well:
To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn't even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier's death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man's Mother who doesn't want to hurt the campaign.
If I can find this story, why can't the Washington Post? Could it be the news media has decided that, whatever it takes, Obama has to win this election?
Update: The Obama camp knows how to put pressure on people. Too bad the media simply ignores this. Nobody will ever know what the Obama campaign did to Jopek's mother, but they got her to come public with a statement that she was happy Obama mentioned her son's name at the debate.
So now the media can ignore all the stories from earlier this year where the family told him to stop talking about him. Because Obama can do no wrong. No matter how many crucial foreign policy issues he messed up at the debate, he's ready to be President. If anybody says otherwise, the Obama gestapo will find some way to make them "see the light".
Update again. OK, turns out AP was a little bit too much in the bag for Obama with their headline about his Jopek's mother being "ectstatic". Here's the AP story now:
MILWAUKEE - After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.
But Jopek told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's satisfied with how Obama discussed it during last week's presidential debate.
So, she confirms that the bracelet was NOT meant as a campaign prop. Obama obviously ignored her wishes, and used it as a Campaign Prop. Now, because she really wants Obama to win, she says she is "satisfied" with how Obama discussed it. What else would she say -- she doesn't want to hurt him, even after Obama has hurt her, her family, and the memory of her son.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Killing 2 Babies to detect 3 Down's babies
Sarah Palin's VP candidacy shines the light of truth on the issue of Down's syndrome babies. Often the discussion focuses only on the hardships for parents, suggesting that Down's babies should be killed to spare the parents the trouble.
Others argue that the Down's baby itself should be killed to save the baby from a lifetime of being a Down's child. Four million living Down's cases today seems a reasonable counter-argument to that bizarre claim that humans would be better off dead than alive.
But now a study in the UK shows that there is a far greater toll exacted by the modern-day biogenicists who seek to breed a more perfect humanity by brow-beating mothers into killing their unborn on the off chance they will be down's children.
From lifesitenews:
Note that the referenced previous findings are actually much worse than 2 deaths for 3 aborted Down's kids.
This is an estimate, because, as the authors note:
If you use the NHS numbers, for every 100 amnios, there would be one dead child. But since they only track dead Down's children, the statistics for healthy babies are hidden from the public.
According to this study:
I remember having the discussion of Amnio for one of our children, because of an "abnormality" detected in an ultrasound which later proved to be a false reading. They did tell us there was a serious risk of losing the baby.
Now, imagine a test on a born child, which detects something for which there will be no treatment, that is done solely for the pleasure of the parent, and which has a 1/100 chance of killing the child.
We'd not only ban the process, we'd banish those who thought to do such a thing.
But because we are talking pre-born children, our medical profession seems to see nothing wrong with killing thousands of healthy, wanted babies in order to enforce their new world order where down's children are wiped off the face of the earth.
Governor Palin chose life for her Down's child. Barack Obama says he wouldn't want his children to be "punished" for a mistake, so he supported killing babies that are already born, if they are born as a result of a botched abortion.
But I wonder if he supports killing thousands of wanted healthy children simply to identify the "undesirable" children to be killed by abortion.
Others argue that the Down's baby itself should be killed to save the baby from a lifetime of being a Down's child. Four million living Down's cases today seems a reasonable counter-argument to that bizarre claim that humans would be better off dead than alive.
But now a study in the UK shows that there is a far greater toll exacted by the modern-day biogenicists who seek to breed a more perfect humanity by brow-beating mothers into killing their unborn on the off chance they will be down's children.
From lifesitenews:
LONDON, September 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The invasive procedures used to detect Down syndrome in unborn children result in the miscarriages of two healthy children for every three Down babies detected, a British study has found.
...
The DSEI research, which authors admit is only an "estimate" of the number of deaths of non-Down children, is backed up by findings published last year by Dr. Hylton Meire. Meire calculated that for every 50 children with Down syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test.
Note that the referenced previous findings are actually much worse than 2 deaths for 3 aborted Down's kids.
This is an estimate, because, as the authors note:
The NHS admits of a miscarriage rate of only one to two percent following the invasive testing. However, the NHS only tracks statistics for Down syndrome children killed by abortion or who subsequently die as a result of miscarriage. The DSEI researchers said that the official statistics do not count the number of healthy children lost to miscarriages caused by the tests.
If you use the NHS numbers, for every 100 amnios, there would be one dead child. But since they only track dead Down's children, the statistics for healthy babies are hidden from the public.
According to this study:
The study's researchers, from the charity Down Syndrome Education International (DSEI), estimate that in the process of detecting and aborting 660 Down babies annually, screening leads to the deaths of 400 babies who do not have the disorder in England and Wales alone. Based upon their findings, the researchers are calling into question the ethical standing of the government's policy of offering screening to all pregnant women.
I remember having the discussion of Amnio for one of our children, because of an "abnormality" detected in an ultrasound which later proved to be a false reading. They did tell us there was a serious risk of losing the baby.
Now, imagine a test on a born child, which detects something for which there will be no treatment, that is done solely for the pleasure of the parent, and which has a 1/100 chance of killing the child.
We'd not only ban the process, we'd banish those who thought to do such a thing.
But because we are talking pre-born children, our medical profession seems to see nothing wrong with killing thousands of healthy, wanted babies in order to enforce their new world order where down's children are wiped off the face of the earth.
Governor Palin chose life for her Down's child. Barack Obama says he wouldn't want his children to be "punished" for a mistake, so he supported killing babies that are already born, if they are born as a result of a botched abortion.
But I wonder if he supports killing thousands of wanted healthy children simply to identify the "undesirable" children to be killed by abortion.
Obama Attacks McCain for TRUE charge McCain did NOT make
I think Obama says so many things wrong so that we can't possibly keep up.
In this latest news, Obama is really upset about an advertisement which truthfully exposes his vote against the Born Alive Act in Illinois, which I wrote about some months ago.
So Obama has lashed out, attacking McCain for "lying" about Obama's position.
Two problems. First, as I've shown before, it's not a lie. Heck, even the Obama campaign itself had to admit it's true he opposed the bill, and that the bill was exactly what was in the Federal bill. And there is tape of Obama specifically saying he opposed the bill because it might force government between the doctor and the patient if a baby is born alive after an abortion -- which clearly shows he's fine with the doctor killing an aborted baby, without interference from the government.
But more importantly, John McCain has NEVER attacked Obama about the Born Alive bill. In fact, the advertisement running against Obama is from a woman who actually WAS born alive, and is paid for by a 527, not the McCain campaign.
But the media has printed Obama's charges against McCain, and not one mainstream media outlet has chosen to inform their readers that Obama can't even listen to a 30-second advertisement without getting it's facts wrong. That's a pretty important thing if you want to be President, and the readers and voters deserve the truth, not the whitewash the media is doing.
In this latest news, Obama is really upset about an advertisement which truthfully exposes his vote against the Born Alive Act in Illinois, which I wrote about some months ago.
So Obama has lashed out, attacking McCain for "lying" about Obama's position.
Two problems. First, as I've shown before, it's not a lie. Heck, even the Obama campaign itself had to admit it's true he opposed the bill, and that the bill was exactly what was in the Federal bill. And there is tape of Obama specifically saying he opposed the bill because it might force government between the doctor and the patient if a baby is born alive after an abortion -- which clearly shows he's fine with the doctor killing an aborted baby, without interference from the government.
But more importantly, John McCain has NEVER attacked Obama about the Born Alive bill. In fact, the advertisement running against Obama is from a woman who actually WAS born alive, and is paid for by a 527, not the McCain campaign.
But the media has printed Obama's charges against McCain, and not one mainstream media outlet has chosen to inform their readers that Obama can't even listen to a 30-second advertisement without getting it's facts wrong. That's a pretty important thing if you want to be President, and the readers and voters deserve the truth, not the whitewash the media is doing.
Obama Scares Seniors, Lies about McCain's plan to save Social Security
The Obama campaign has no plan to save Social Security. Like so many Democrats, and many Republicans, they are content to lie to the American People, promising benefits they can't deliver in exchange for taking people's money.
Obama's only suggestions on this problem are to raise the social security contributions by eliminating the cap. He doesn't say if he would likewise raise the payout limits. Social Security is supposedly an insurance-type program, where people pay in, and then get benefits out. based on how much they put in.
The cap is simply where we decided the benefits were enough. Raising the cap and the benefits won't help the system. Raising the cap without raising benefits makes SS into just another welfare program.
In either case, it won't fix the problem.
But rather than encourage debate on the issue, the Obama campaign has decided to scare our parents with a false advertisement claiming McCain will cut their benefits in half.
The Obama ad is SO OUTRAGEOUS that even factcheck.org, which is owned by the Annaburg foundation, the foundation he is closely associated with and run by his friends, had to call him on it.
From Factcheck.org, harsh words for the candidate who promised he would run a clean, positive campaign, in their article "Scaring Seniors":
That's not "Misleading", that's "Lie".
Remember, on Friday Obama said that in these difficult times, we shouldn't be playing politics, or scaring people with our economic plans.
But now we find out that Obama is quietly running these ads, using the current turmoil to scare our parents, grandparents, and others, by lying about what McCain has supported, and will do as President.
I say "quietly" because apparently Obama's campaign didn't announce these ads. Normally, the campaign makes a big deal about ads. It's clear they knew these ads were false, and they wanted to keep their "distance". As FactCheck says:
Factcheck had to get a recording of the ad. I don't know if that means it isn't on YouTube. If it was NOT put out on YouTube by the campaign, that would be further evidence that the campaign was trying to hide the ad for as long as possible, to take maximum advantage of last week's stock market turmoil to scare seniors, McCain's best voter group, into voting for Obama instead.
Here are the MANY DIFFERENT WAYS that Obama's secret ad lies:
Factcheck also explains that only future higher-income workers would see a reduction in benefits from the current unpayable projections. Low-income people would not have a reduction. And that reduction doesn't include the extra money from the private accounts.
Factcheck then examines the "cut in half", and shows that it's based on a false premise from one of Obama's MANY economic advisors:
Note that they don't even raise the objection of a campaign citing the statement of their own campaign worker as "proof", just that they couldn't even get that right. Now, think about that -- what kind of economic advisor would allow a campaign to misuse his own supposedly scholarly work? Is that the kind of economic advisor we need right now, when our system is teetering precisely because economic advisors allowed the decisionmakers to misuse their scholarly work?
Factcheck closes with an admission that while McCain is TRYING to fix Social Security, Obama is making it harder by playing politics:
Obama's only suggestions on this problem are to raise the social security contributions by eliminating the cap. He doesn't say if he would likewise raise the payout limits. Social Security is supposedly an insurance-type program, where people pay in, and then get benefits out. based on how much they put in.
The cap is simply where we decided the benefits were enough. Raising the cap and the benefits won't help the system. Raising the cap without raising benefits makes SS into just another welfare program.
In either case, it won't fix the problem.
But rather than encourage debate on the issue, the Obama campaign has decided to scare our parents with a false advertisement claiming McCain will cut their benefits in half.
The Obama ad is SO OUTRAGEOUS that even factcheck.org, which is owned by the Annaburg foundation, the foundation he is closely associated with and run by his friends, had to call him on it.
From Factcheck.org, harsh words for the candidate who promised he would run a clean, positive campaign, in their article "Scaring Seniors":
An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!
That's not "Misleading", that's "Lie".
A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.
Remember, on Friday Obama said that in these difficult times, we shouldn't be playing politics, or scaring people with our economic plans.
But now we find out that Obama is quietly running these ads, using the current turmoil to scare our parents, grandparents, and others, by lying about what McCain has supported, and will do as President.
I say "quietly" because apparently Obama's campaign didn't announce these ads. Normally, the campaign makes a big deal about ads. It's clear they knew these ads were false, and they wanted to keep their "distance". As FactCheck says:
The Obama campaign made no announcement of this ad and won't say where they intend to run it. It was first aired on a station in Flint, Mich. on Sept. 16, where it was recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNSI Media Intelligence. According to CMAG, the ad has been running in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Factcheck had to get a recording of the ad. I don't know if that means it isn't on YouTube. If it was NOT put out on YouTube by the campaign, that would be further evidence that the campaign was trying to hide the ad for as long as possible, to take maximum advantage of last week's stock market turmoil to scare seniors, McCain's best voter group, into voting for Obama instead.
Here are the MANY DIFFERENT WAYS that Obama's secret ad lies:
The three votes featured in the ad are from 1998 and 2006. ... None would have actually resulted in changing Social Security without additional, specific legislation.
...
The ad implies that Bush's plan bets the whole lot of Social Security funds on unstable stocks. In fact, it would have "privatized" only a small portion of Social Security taxes that Americans could have invested in private accounts, if they chose to do so.
...
The ad goes on to claim that the Bush (and McCain) plan would cut "benefits in half." This is a rank misrepresentation: Nobody now getting benefits, or even close to retirement, would have seen any reduction in benefits or cost-of-living adjustments under the plan Bush proposed in April, 2005.
Factcheck also explains that only future higher-income workers would see a reduction in benefits from the current unpayable projections. Low-income people would not have a reduction. And that reduction doesn't include the extra money from the private accounts.
Factcheck then examines the "cut in half", and shows that it's based on a false premise from one of Obama's MANY economic advisors:
The Obama-Biden campaign attempts to document their "cutting benefits in half" claim by citing a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities written by Jason Furman, who is currently one of Obama's top economic advisers. This won't do.
What Furman's study actually says is quite different from what the ad claims. Furman's report says that the "progressive price indexing" plan Bush supported would result in benefits for the average worker who retires in 2075 that are 28 percent lower than under the current formula. Obviously 28 percent is not "half."
The Obama-Biden campaign notes that Furman's paper also says that full price indexing of benefits – even for low-income workers – would result in benefits 49 percent lower than the current formula in 2075. But that's not the plan Bush supported, and we find no evidence that McCain ever supported it either. We asked the Obama campaign to show us where McCain has ever supported full price indexing of benefits, but so far they have not done so.
Note that they don't even raise the objection of a campaign citing the statement of their own campaign worker as "proof", just that they couldn't even get that right. Now, think about that -- what kind of economic advisor would allow a campaign to misuse his own supposedly scholarly work? Is that the kind of economic advisor we need right now, when our system is teetering precisely because economic advisors allowed the decisionmakers to misuse their scholarly work?
Factcheck closes with an admission that while McCain is TRYING to fix Social Security, Obama is making it harder by playing politics:
The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits. We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this, however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)