Obama makes himself the black candidate

Despite the months long media silence as to the background of one of the two leftists running for the Democratic Party’s nomination, Senator Obama has unwittingly been the victim of a firestorm caused by his pastor’s recorded sermons. Senator Clinton, who until this week has been silent, is now all too willing to start talking about this in an attempt to divert attention from her again being exposed as a prevaricator. But back to Obama; As a “gen-x’er” I grew up with admiration for the words and public deeds of Martin Luther King, the other clergy and the regular citizens who risked their well being and, in some cases, gave their lives to the cause of equality of freedom. And with full disregard for the leftist undercurrent by some in the movement, I still find the basic cause laudable and what any person who believes in liberty and our founding principles must support. As such, I am of a belief that one needs to take people at “face-value” short of any other information. And that is the way I believe I have conducted myself through the years in my dealing with people of all backgrounds. It is this mindset, which really equates to fairness and honesty that underlie the only precepts we should expect our government to ensure. And it is that which I believe is the least we should expect our candidates for president to believe in. But this seems not to be the case with the Senator from Illinois. I believe that, aside from the need for political credibility among the disaffected Africa-Americans in his state, which would be bolstered by being a congregant in such a church as he was, Reverend Wright’s sermons were the Obama’s kind of message anyway. The Senator has been caught off guard at the second worst time (for himself) possible. He has tried to convince us that he was never in church when certain incendiary statements were made. For “white” Americans this seems incredible. Few in the white community would tell you that the statements made by Reverend Wright wouldn’t be the talk of the town for months afterward. And we are to further believe that with the number of congregants that church has, someone else wouldn’t have telephoned “The rising star of the Democratic Party” to tell him that he had better keep a healthy distance from the Reverend? All this has given many good Democrats and those who for some reason just find it exciting to vote for an African-American, great pause. These people are now wondering if this is the way all African-Americans view this country and the people in it. One thing good Americans will not countenance, it is being called racist. The average American still understands we have spent more than our share of blood and treasure feeding, freeing, healing, housing, clothing and defending millions of people here and around the world who are much different than we in many ways. And for all Democrats, save the hardcore leftists with B.D.S. (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and other conspiracy disorders, the Reverend attacked the “righteousness of our government’s intervention and control”, blasphemy to even moderate Democrats. So the effect inside the Democratic Party will be to re-relegate the “black” vote to simply another factional appendage they just have to keep marginally satisfied.

Those who were going to vote for Obama, for reasons other than he was the better leftist, would have voted for him because he was the first black candidate who didn’t constantly remind them about race, as they said, “he transcended race”. And, as white Americans seem to now be precluded from talking about the problems in the poor black communities, this suited most of Obama’s supporters just fine; their inability to speak about these issues had been conveniently supplanted by people like Bill Cosby and his willingness to take it on and be called names instead. Thus making it in the minds of many whites: “the black’s problem now.”

But again we, the people, are the victims of the media industrial complex. The national media has been silent about the questions and issues posed by Obama’s Republican opponent in his senatorial bid, Alan Keyes. Had Barack Obama’s background as well as his limited yet fully left leaning votes and policy remarks been looked at more closely and disseminated months ago, he may not have been foisted on all the well meaning Democrats by the absolute leftists who now control the party. This serves neither Democrats nor Republicans well. And while it will serve John McCain, it doesn’t reflect the proper average mindset and will thereby produce a result similar to that which we have seen in recent years in places like France and Holland where a “radical” candidate is pitted against the “moderate” in a sweeping runoff election only to lose big. This election may prove to be not much different than John Kerry’s loss in 2004 by four million votes.

I understand many in this society cannot yet take the African-American at face value. I believe suspicion about affirmative action playing a role in one’s position is always on the minds of people of all persuasions. This aside, Barack Obama has done the cause of a color-blind society a great disservice in first defending his pastor and next telling all about his grandmother’s private but “racist” undertones. And for many of us long ready to get beyond race and see only the content of one’s character, it will now probably take another decade to get past the myriad of factors which brought us Senator Obama’s message that race is on “his people’s” minds and should be on ours.

Kerry's Loss Kills Liberals

Days after the 2004 Presidental election a 26 old man killed himself in NYC at the WTC site. As the media reported, "because he was despondent over the win of George Bush." It is funny I do not remember any other election where people killed themselves because a certain candidate won or lost. At Kerry's concession speech, it was at first entertaining and then disturbing to see the so many young Kerry supporters balling over his loss. By this scene you would conclude the world was coming to an end. Then followed reports of Kerry supporters not eating for days, staying in bed for days, walking around like zombies and finally looking into moving toCanada. A multitude of "man on the street" interviews by local and national media outlets of urbanites professing their DISGUST and HORROR that people in this country would vote for Bush. But in this election the Dem's have run a shameful campaign filled with hatred and intolerance. They seemed to have pinned their hope for success to the naivety of the youth and other impressionistic political virgins, or morons. These"children" do not seem know that the Dem's ran virtually all of government for over 40 years. Furthermore, they are not nearly old enough or well enough informed to know real political history; The constant threat of nuclear war and the march of the most intolerant, the Communist killing machine. Many are not even old enough to have a cogent memory of the fall of the Berlin wall. This is why they think the greatest "civil rights" struggle is national healthcare and the the right for gays to marry. They certainly will never learn in the public schools that only a determined Ronald Regan, who was called a dangerous lunatic by the left, would bring down Soviet Communism. So today these "children" of excess and prosperity, fear and complain that their county might ask them to do something to defend themselves while they should do nothing but expect their government to "give" them health care and "more rights". It is readily apparent that the Dem's do not mind running on fear and hatred as a platform. They have a narrow view of "their world" with little regard for the rest of us. Shame, shame, shame on them!

Homeland Security Money Buys a Garbage Truck

Hope you all are feeling safer because of the infinite wisdom of our National representatives. Here are just two examples of how the "Homeland Security"money is being spend: 1. A 40' fire boat for Perth Amboy, NJ. http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS01/512210393/1005/NEWS01 2. New garbage trucks for Newark, NJ http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/Public_Information/Press_Releases.asp?id=297 Rest assured that the terrorist will not be able toset the Raritan Bay on fire and they will not be able to hide behind piles of garbage in Newark. Remember, with this enhancement to our security, there is no reason the President should have to listen in on international telephone calls or track terrorist's financial transactions!

NPR Misrepresents Again

Recently on our local NPR station, (yes, I listen to NPR quite frequently) the newscaster said "...The Gold Star Mothers Club (a group ofmothers of U.S. soldiers who have lost their sons & daughters in combat) had prohibited a women who lost her son in combat from joining the group because she was born in the Philippines". As you may know, entrance to the organization was restricted on the basis of her not being a citizen, NOT because she was born in the Philippines. The point of the story was that the organization voted yesterday to lift the citizenship restriction, which the newscaster never said, rather she said that they had voted to change their admission policy. But that was not imparted, instead she took a solid shot at the group by implying it was racist for not letting a Filipino join. Last week the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the funding arm of PBS/NPR, decried Congressional cuts to their budget saying they were lauded by others forbeing so neutral in their news reporting. And yes, I must say that they blame the U.S.A. just as much as they blame other "conservative" governments and countries with capitalist economies for a myriad of problems in the world. I have always found convenient omissions and flagrant misrepresentations in their news. I guess this is what we can call entertainment; since it is far from news.

Tolerance Kills 3 Children

Camden, NJ June 2005- A horrible death befalls three boys ages5-11. The three were found dead from suffocation intrunk of abandoned car on an empty lot 3 days after they went missing. As a matter of background, Camden New Jersey is the poorest city in New Jersey and has had the highest murder rate in recent times. I can remember when old refrigerators with locking doors would trap a child playing inside and he would be discovered by someone after it was too late. Today the new urban menace is the abandoned car which isprevalent in poor areas. The most disturbing feature of this story is that NOBODY checked this car even though it was exactly where the children were last seen playing and it was just across the street from their home. Where should the blame of incompetencebe started? The next question that must be asked is whose car is this and why was it abandoned in an empty lot? Could this be a stolen car that the police never got around to checking on? Was it a neighbors car who could not afford to repair it? In some neighborhoods anything goes, while in others the police will tow an unregistered car right out of the owners driveway. This is just another example of our modern sense of tolerance which calls for a non-judgmental position in regard to quality of life issues. However, the tolerance of this simple quality of life issue most certainly had a hand in killing these three children.

Why Environmentalist hate nuclear power.

While speaking with a student recently, I broached the subject of the positive aspects of nuclear power. He immediately asked what we would do with all of the nuclear waste? I asked him “all of what waste”? This is essentially the rejoinder most people should be asked when they mention nuclear waste. It shocked the young man when I told him that all the nuclear waste generated in the U.S. for the next 100 years could fit in the hole left by one days coal mining. This is but one of many facts that show the environmental movement for who they are; more on that point later. Nuclear power has so many environmental advantages over all other sources of energy it is no longer deniable by the more self-effacing honest people in the environmental movement. Unfortunately fear mongering and the politics of environmentalism have held the facts about nuclear energy hostage. It is a fact that burning any coal will release more radioactive particles into the atmosphere than all the U.S. nuclear plants put together. It is also true that one pound of nuclear fuel releases the same amount of energy as nearly three hundred tons of coal. It is also a fact that the electric generating plants in the U.S. produce over two billion pounds of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) every day as well as oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, mercury, carbon monoxide as well as radioactive particulate. These and other carcinogenic (cancer causing) and mutagenic (can change your gene structure and affect you offspring as well as you) compounds are released into the atmosphere daily. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html While nuclear power plants emit essentially none of these compounds in their power generating tasks. The environmental impact of the afore mention emissions should be enough to make any thinking person clamor for nuclear power. The only argument remaining is safety especially as it pertains to melt-down as is what happened at Chirnobyl. New pebble bed reactors now make meltdown impossible.

Given this, one is left to wonder why the bulk of the environmental movement cannot get behind this seemingly perfect solution to our energy needs. But there-in lies part of the answer. Some in the environmental movement are actually jealous leftists who despise and abhor the American lifestyle even though they live like the majority of the people in the country and not anything like H.D. Thoreau asthey would like you to believe. The second major pillar to their opposition is that in this country private companies would build and operate these plants. These leftists have violent reaction to the phrase “privately operated nuclear power plant”. For that matter they have a violent reaction to anything privately held. Lastly, so many people are misinformed about nuclear energy that public opinion has been with the environmental left for over thirty years. It is my hope that their duplicity show through to at least you the reader and those you can now inform. As it seems for all their talk about the environmental, they would rather subject the rest of us to asthma, radiation, silicosis, mercury and greenhouse gases than allow the building of any more nuclear power plants. This anti-humanitarian position gives them no credibility in the public discourse and it is up to us, those who are truley environmentalist, to show them for who they are.

Democratic sycophants: Duplicitous or just dumb?

Democratic sycophants: Duplicitous or just dumb? At the "Take Back America" conference, AKA “We Still Hate the U.S. Bongo Fest”, former Presidential waffler and Boston Brahman, John Kerry (AKA-“Is this where I buy me a hunt’in license?”) along with several other liberal intellegencia notables received an avalanche of cheers when they called for a date to be set for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Movie star/Foreign-Service lightweight Joe Wilson called for this as well but cautioned Democrats from being baited into a vote for immediate withdrawal in a pending House Resolution. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060615c.html

Ironically, left-wing darling Hillary Clinton seems to be taking the moderate position of agreeing with the President in not setting a definite date for essentially the same reasons that Bush has continually iterated. The logic of this seems to not be able to penetrate the hard-core leftists' hatred of Bush as they booed her on this single point at the conference. But logic and consistency is not one of their strong points, as a matter of fact, I believe it would be considered a disability, possibly covered by the ADA. Case-in-point would be Kerry’s waffling since the election of 2004 on his vote for the war in Iraq. At the conference he now apologizes for his vote; As no one who takes his own political philosophy and views seriously can be anything but amused by a person such as Kerry, one can only be entertained by his continual “nuancing”. Despite the entertainment value of watching the rutterless, graceless leftwing wax disingenuously about their motives for their otherwise duplicitous positions, one must keep in mind the left’s investment in our failure in all we do while anyone other than a Democrat has any say in foreign or domestic policy. Unfortunately real American lives are at stake while the subversive rhetoric is promulgated. Now we are beginning to learn that Zarqawi himself said the American media gave his operation more credit and standing than he himself thinks he deserved; And if what is beginning to come out is true, he seemed to think his efforts were faltering. This is outright scandalous when set against the remarks of many Democrats and media outlets of the past two years. This same aid and comfort 35 years ago by the media and leftist politicos is exactly what a Vietnamese General recently attributed their takeover of South Vietnam to. Conservative estimates for those killed directly and indirectly by the Vietcong after they took over the South are 1.5 million. John Kerry in the 1971 debate with Paul O’Neill on the Dick Cavett Show (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040510083458318 ) claimed 4 or 5 thousand people might be killed in political retribution if we left Vietnam. As history proves again, these leftist ideologues never get it right. Knowing this, there is only this question: Are their subversive statements political investments or mere stupidity? The former is certainly treasonous, but their logic leads me to believe their motives are half opportunistic and half stupidity. (The opportunism part counts on the stupidity of others.) Thomas Payne argued against the appeasement of the British, Lincoln would not appease the rebelling states, Churchill argued against the appeasement of the Nazi’s and Reagan refused to appease the Russian Communists. If these facts do not sufficiently persuade someone as to what free, thinking people think about appeasement then remember the fact that the U.S. allowed the appeasers to guide us out of Vietnam and millions died without an apology from a single vocal leftist.

Notes to self:
1. Don’t hide $90,000 in the freezer of your legislative office.
2. Don’t allow defense contractors to buy you a yacht or a condo.
3. Crashing your car, killing or raping someone or punching Congressional Security Staff in the face is not a criminal offense when you’re named Kennedy.
4. Change your name to Kennedy.

Snopes.com The liberal truth is easy...

This is an excerpt from an email I received from DS(J.D.) as a result of discussing misguided liberals/leftists. DS exposes the outright and expansive nature of leftwing apologies pedaled by Snopes.com :

Perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 45-pound cat someone emailed you isn’t a doctored photo. Maybe you want to know if Proctor & Gamble’s logo is really satanic. Snopes.com (hereafter “snopes”) is good for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don’t count on them being “fair and balanced” when it comes to anything political or religious. Although Snopes hasn’t any political philosophy explicitly stated on the website, snopes’ selectivity and analysis of political emails oozes with partisanship. Religious emails don’t fare much better and typically get a liberal hatchet job. In a nutshell, although snopes has to reluctantly admit that most of the conservative political and religious emails are “true” as far as snopes can determine, there is always a caveat, disclaimer, footnote, or lengthy oratory explaining why everything from crime statistics to reports from Iraq must be viewed and understood through snopes’ lens. Some examples and links follow:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
An email made its way around the country recently showing a picture of John Kerry at an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda. If a picture is worth a thousand words, Snopes thinks ten thousand words is the only antidote to spinning this photo that Snopes had to admit was true. Indeed, Snopes has gone into high gear to rescue John Kerry from being associated with the extreme left. Snopes uses extensive quotes from Jane Fonda to demonstrate that John Kerry was not as much of a foaming at the mouth liberal as she herself was [is]. Snopes also quotes extensively from New York Times (and thought better perhaps of using their sources at Pravda and Granma) to prove what the “atmosphere” was like at these love-fests that Kerry participated in and spoke at. A small unexplained B&W photo appears on the right hand side of the screen depicting a cleaner-cut John Kerry being decorated in an apparent attempt to show he did in fact do something noteworthy and wasn’t simply a hippie as depicted in the larger, color photo.
Snopes said the derogatory photo “purports” to show John Kerry, only to reluctantly admit in the next sentence that indeed the photo is real. Get your index finger and mouse ready to scroll down the pages and pages of voluminous material on Snopes beseeching you to ignore the photo and get to know the real John Kerry.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp
Snopes seems to have been exhausted by all the time it spent trying to exonerate Kerry that it lacked the energy to investigate a photo that is also real. In a photo depicting a soldier shaking hands with Hillary Clinton, the soldier crossed his fingers (visible in the photo) to memorialize his displeasure with being used in a photo-op by the hippie-turned-senator. Try crossing your finger right now the way the soldier did it in the photo. It’s not a reflexive position and must have been deliberate on part of the soldier. Hillary made only one trip to see our troops, so it is not a Herculean task to track down the person who took the photo as well as the soldier in it.

Some more food for thought:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Verifies quotes from democrats were true but
goes on and on trying to defend democrats.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/mystic.asp
Attempts to speak to veracity of email urging boycott of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins’ movies since they are Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden sympathizers. Snopes says “still under investigation Nov 2003.” I could wrap that investigation up in about 2 minutes. Those 2 are bona fide liberals and whackos (or is that redundant?)

You may have received this email yourself. It is an amazing and true litany of accomplishments of the US military in Iraq. Snopes can’t seem to utter the words “it’s true” so it gets a half green, half red light. It’s truth is called into question by “an Iraqi citizen” A link to the criticism is provided, and just to prove to yourself how absurd it is, you should click on it. A sample: the pro military email rightfully asserts one accomplishment as: the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. The rebuttal to this fact: “We certainly hope so, but no one is sure about that yet.” This invincible evidence seems to be enough to persuade snopes.com that the whole email is suspect and worthy of caution. Another example: Email lists another accomplishment of the US military as: “All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.” To which the best argument the detractor can come up with is:
“That’s true. But every now and then, a school gets a warning about a bomb, so many parents are afraid to send their kids to schools, and when they do so, they will be deeply worried.” Again this vague and fuzzy “counter argument” is flawless logic and enough to satisfy the good people at snopes.com that the whole email is dubious and, to be on the safe side, the hapless visitor to snopes.com should remain anti-war and believe that nothing has been accomplished in Iraq. Visit snopes.com for yourself to really laugh out loud. I simply can’t do it justice here.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
A very similar email went around with quotes from leading Democrats attesting to their belief that Sadaam Hussein did in fact have WMD. Snopes naturally had to admit the quotes were true, but always with the caveat, quickly opined that, “some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them.”
Please! We’ve all gotten emails like this. You use a quote to get a point across. You can’t make people on your email forward list sift 35 pages of Medeline Albright in order to put her quote “in context” Just another example of snopes’ “bend-over-backwards” policy to rescue Democrats from their own words.
Meanwhile, don’t expect an snopes investigation to proceed much further, snopes is busy crafting explanations for Kerry’s $25 million worth of real estate which is one of the biggest whoppers this web site unashamedly pulls.

Like baptism, being a liberal cleanses you from all stain in the mind of snopes. Former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd got just such a catharsis and gets an open mic on snopes. Email snopes was “investigating” was “Senator Robert Byrd delivered a fiery floor speech condemning President Bush's calls for military action against Iraq.” Was it true? Sure was, says snopes, which then proceeds to reproduce the whole speech (for the 9 people in America who want to read it). Instead of a caveat, such as ALL conservative emails get as a matter of course from Snopes, snopes can’t contain itself and adds it’s own 2 cents, “[Byrd’s] eloquence in putting forth his opinions and arguments on this issue has captivated many like-minded members of the anti-war movement.” I see a hyperlink to MotherJones.com coming any day now.

Many emails are forwards from soldiers, judges, or military officers who are, or were, in Iraq. They all have the individual’s name, hometown etc. in the email. Sue enough, snopes investigates and finds out the person exists and the email is true, but, never quite happy, snopes adds the disclaimer: “although true, the email resembles another email sent by someone else” etc. The reader is left to conclude that plagiarism or some form of falsification has occurred. Nonsense. With thousands of our servicemen and civilians in Iraq, many are bound to witness the same events or accomplishments and report on them individually. Snopes needs a basic course on hermeneutics.




In AGOSTON v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
340 U.S. 844 Oct 09, 1950

“Denial by Supreme Court of a writ of certiorari merely means that as a matter of sound judicial discretion fewer than four members of the court deemed it desirable to review a decision of a lower court and such denial imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.”