Sunday, January 31, 2010
If this isn't disturbing enough, check out the below link to see where Organizing For America (formerly mybarackobama.com) has infiltrated U.S. High Schools with their applications for volunteer programs. These indoctrination programs have the following books listed as recommended reading by the students:
Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky
The New Organizers by Zac Exley
Dreams of My Father Chicago Chapters by Barack Obama
Anyone still have their head in the sand??
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Obama Speaks to a Sixth-Grade Classroom|
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Monday, January 25, 2010
The video speaks for itself. Seriously, California...you can't find someone better than this to represent your state??? I wouldn't hire her to run a Pizza Hut, yet she is Speaker of the House.
Not to be forgotten is that this is not an isolated incident. Ms. Nancy has a history of pampering herself on our hard earned tax dollars. In early 2009, Department of Defense emails were released which detailed interactions between military officials and staffers for Queen Nancy. They painted quite a picture of the Speaker and her minions treating the Air Force as her and her families' personal taxi service. I have included the link to the article from judicial watch below.
Her Highness, Ms. Pelosi, is up for election this year. California, more specifically San Francisco...is this really who you believe represents your beliefs?? Unfortunately, polling would show that she does. It is hard to believe that there is an entire district of people that far out of touch with reality.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
In discussing senate races, it would only be fitting to first discuss what has become quite a race in MA. The fact that Scott Brown (R) is within single digits of Martha Coakley (D) says wonders about how fed up Americans are getting with the liberal-statist majority. Most polling has the two in a dead heat at this point.
It cannot be overstated how important this race is. If Brown could pull off the upset on January 19th he would eliminate the filibuster-proof majority the democrats have in the senate. The only question at that point would be whether the liberals delay his swearing-in in order to pass their unconstitutional healthcare plan.
Here is where they stand on the issues:
SCOTT BROWN (R)
Healthcare- Supports healthcare reform, but against Obamacare.
Economy- Supports lower taxes and free market
Energy and Environment- Supports alternative energy development, is against Cap and Trade Legislation.
Education- Supports choice throught charter programs and METCO, providing lower income students with more educational opportunities.
Immigration- Opposes amnesty, and believes in strengthening border enforcement. Supports legal immigration.
Veterans- Supports better benefits for returning service members and for family members of those killed in action.
Guns- Supports the 2nd Amendment
Death Penalty- Believes in Capital Punishment
Abortion- Pro-Choice, against partial-birth abortions and supports parental consent and notification.
Marriage- Believes in traditional marriage, but believes individual states should be allowed to decide for themselves.
Israel- Supports Israel, supports a two state solution
Iran- Believes in isolating leader as an outcast until he gives up nuclear ambitions.
MARTHA COAKLEY (D)
Healthcare- Supports Obamacare
Economy- investments in health care, energy and education; and restoring fiscal accountability to government spending, believes in mroe financial regulation and laws to rpohibit predatory lending.
Energy and Environment- Believes in global warming and supports Cap and Trade legislation.
Education- Supports improving teacher compensation, supports changing the charter system
Veterans- Supports better benefits for returning service members and for family members of those killed in action.
Death Penalty- Opposes the death penalty
Marriage- Supports government recognized same sex marriage
Israel- Supports Israel, supports a two state solution
Iran- Supports bilateral talks with Iranian leader
I could not find a firm stance on immigration or gun control on her webpage.
From a conservative standpoint the choice here is obvious...LET'S GET SCOTT BROWN IN THE SENATE MASSACHUSETTS!!!
Martha Coakley can't even spell M-A-S-S-A-C-H-U-S-E-T-T-S
By the way, I just love negative attack ads which make idiotic statements like, "candidate umptyfratz will deny medical care to rape victims." REALLY!!! HONESTLY!!! Does anyone seriously believe any candidate, democrat or republican, would support such a thing??? How stupid do politicians really think we are??
Monday, January 11, 2010
I am going to do my best over the next month or so to detail the individual senate campaigns for the upcoming elections. Thanks to a reader (Matt) who asked for a good site to find this information. If anyone knows of any out there please let me know so that I might not re-invent the wheel. More later this afternoon
Thursday, January 7, 2010
All House seats are up for re-election
Contested Senate Seats In 2010 Election
Ted Kaufman (D) of Delaware
Kit Bond (R) of Missouri
Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas
Mel Martinez (R) of Florida
George Voinovich (R) of Ohio
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Barbara Boxer of California
Michael Bennet of Colorado
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Roland Burris of Illinois
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Harry Reid of Nevada
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Chuck Schumer of New York
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Patty Murray of Washington
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Richard Shelby of Alabama
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
John McCain of Arizona
Johnny Isakson of Georgia
Mike Crapo of Idaho
Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
David Vitter of Louisiana
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
Jim DeMint of South Carolina
John Thune of South Dakota
Bob Bennett of Utah
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.
In my post yesterday I mentioned that a so-called conservative friend on my facebook page had posted a video from The Iraqi Veterans Against War website which displayed an Iraqi veteran ranting about the illegal war he was forced to take part in and his belief that this war was some conspiracy by the rich corporate types to keep poor people in their place. I don't remember all of it off the top of my head as I was slightly agitated by the stupidity of his claims, but it did make me want to research his pacifist belief system and comment on it a bit.
Pacifism, in and of itself, doesn't sound like a bad idea. In fact, I would be happy to support pacifism and become a pacifist myself at the point that I could be assured all evil in the world had been eliminated and that every other member of this world was now also a pacifist. As soon as the U.S. Pacifist Party can confirm this to me I am onboard. Until then, I contend that the entire philosophy is dangerously flawed. The bumper sticker type logo displayed on the Party's website states:
"Defense By Nonviolent Resistance"
My question is this...what type of defense would this be?
Let's say that another country dislikes us, I know, I know, try to use your imagination. Let's say this country begins building up their armies and their weaponry...just for the sake of the purely hypothetical example, let's call this country...Iran. Imagine they start making threatening statements about our pacifist nation. We now, as a pacifist nation must implement our "defense by nonviolent resistance." Would this defense include attempting to speak to them and convince them that we mean no harm? I know this is a stretch, but let's imagine this doesn't deter their aggression.
They are now threatening to invade and/or destroy us with a nuclear device. What is our next step in the "defense by nonviolent resistance" ladder of escalation? Would we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya as they invaded, in the hopes that they might see us not resisting and feel guilty. I honestly have no idea how this would work, so I decided to take a look at the party platform for the last election. Certainly this will clear things up and show how pacifism will succeed. This is what they have listed:
"Preparation for nonviolent resistance against possible invasion and occupation attempts; This would include establishment of a national Department of Peace, and an unarmed service corps trained in strategic nonviolent defense and equipped for mobilization anywhere in the world"
Ahhhh!! Now I feel safer about the whole situation. We would establish a national Department of Peace. Maybe we would even have a Secretary of Peace that would certainly deter aggression. Furthermore, we would have a Service Corps which would be trained in strategic nonviolent defense and equipped for mobilization. My first thought is...what are they to be equipped with? Happy face stickers? Make Love Not War signs? Seriously, what does a nonviolent Service Corps deploy with? How well would you sleep at night knowing that an unarmed corps of peace advocates stand ready to defend you and your family? Furthermore, what type of training is included in their "strategic nonviolent defense" schooling? Strategic surrender 101? Laying in Front of Tanks 201??
As I stated before, pacifism itself is a nice idea, but it is based on the flawed theory that with enough education and enlightenment, human beings will eventually evolve to the point that they will no longer have any selfish desires which would cause a want of power or greed. I do not find this to be a realistic possibility whatsoever, and this is ultimately what will cause pacifism to fail in every setting.
I believe C.S. Lewis explained the flaws better than any:
"We must increase by propaganda the number of Pacifists in each nation until it becomes great enough to deter that nation from going to war. This seems to me wild work. Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbor who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists."
~C.S. Lewis, "Why I Am Not a Pacifist", The Weight of Glory (1949)
Armies which stand ready to do battle in defense of freedom are the only deterrent to others who would want to take it away. That is the reality of it, whether you like it or not.
"The dustbin of history is littered with remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget...in the final analysis...that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger." President Ronald Wilson Reagan
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Throughout 2009, as President Obama and the liberal congress made it increasingly obvious that the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution of The United States meant nothing to them, a movement began which has been dubbed the “Tea Party Movement.” As the movement grew and gained popularity as a strong attempt to reclaim conservative values based upon the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets, many different viewpoints and, in some cases “fringe” elements have attempted to attach their causes to the coattails of this movement. Let’s examine some of the different schools of thought I come in contact with daily:
Those that contend the President and the liberal-run congress support policies that are socialist in nature, and therefore are not supported by our Constitution. I would say the vast majority of conservatives, myself included, believe this is true.
Those that contend the President and the liberal-run congress are enacting reckless spending policies on purpose in order to cause a catastrophic failure of the free market in order to enact a new socialist government…see Cloward/Piven Strategy. Quite a few are beginning to accept this theory, and I consider it to be a possibility. Whether you believe this is true or not, the problem here is that this thought process begins to lend itself to the conspiracy theorist crowd, which loves to take a small fact or truth, and run with it to the point that it becomes laughable.
The libertarian school of thought has been more widely accepted as of late, and a great many conservatives find themselves having “common ground” with the libertarians’ strict views of limited government and personal liberty. The problem with becoming too cozy with libertarian philosophy is the broad spectrum it encompasses. Some libertarians take limited government and go so far as to desire the abolition of the state completely. This school of thought seems to vilify all government representation as evil and an enemy of individual rights. Their “live and let live” philosophy is a close cousin to pacifism, which is typically espoused by liberal fringe groups…thus, completely perverting the initial belief system 180 degrees, and allowing persons who do not represent conservatism in any way a perceived voice in the discord.
For example, I have made many friends in the last year writing my blog and have utilized facebook as a mechanism for keeping up with these alleged like-minded thinkers. I recently witnessed disturbing articles and videos from some of these self-avowed fellow tea party patriots which were in no way based in conservatism or the Constitution. Everything from anti-war veterans speaking of how evil corporate fatcats forced them to take part in unjust wars to schizophrenic 9/11 “truthers” were included. Needless to say they are no longer on my friend list.
Overall, the Tea Party Movement has done a great deal to fight the statist policies that threaten to bring this wonderful republic to its knees. I am a staunch supporter of it and would march in every event they coordinated if my status as a U.S. Marine allowed for it. My concern in this article is to point out that as this movement continues to grow at such a brisk pace, it will be important to ensure that the leaders of the movement are policing the ranks for those that would misrepresent the principles the movement stands for.
Tomorrow I will go more in depth on Pacifists, as I have some very strong viewpoints on this crowd.