Romney Frontloaded Friendly States
Romney supporters on the Republican National Committee manipulated the calendar to front-load several of the states that were favorable towards him. That was beneficial to his early lead in the delegate count, however it is problematic for him as the race continues and moves towards less friendly states. This is one of the reasons that they have been emphasizing their fuzzy delegate math after Super Tuesday.
Race Moves towards Santorum's Strength
The race for the nomination will soon start to move towards primaries and caucuses that are more favorable terrain for Rick Santorum. More importantly, the race will eventually move from primaries and caucuses that are often beauty contests to real county and state convention contests where actual delegates to the national convention are elected.
Anyone who knows anything about state conventions knows that the most conservative candidate has a big advantage over a moderate candidate. In many cases, this advantage is overwhelming.
Romney's Delegate Problem
Romney has a delegate problem in that he will have a very hard time getting his moderate supporters elected as delegates in these convention systems. This was evident in Iowa this weekend where the Romney operation collapsed, and Santorum and Paul gained delegates.
The Real Calendar
The Real Calendar (TRC) officially kicked off this weekend in Iowa where activists gathered to begin the process of electing national convention delegates. It is clear to anyone who understands this process that a moderate candidate like Mitt Romney is going to have a difficult time winning as many delegates to the national convention in an Iowa County and State Convention system as the media calculated based on the Open Caucus system that took place in January. This system will play out in state after state, and although there will be hiccups in certain states, on average Rick Santorum will gain far more delegates than Mitt Romney through this delegate election process.
The Real Count
The count largely depends on how you calculate the delegates in states such as Iowa that have not yet elected their National Convention Delegates. For example, the RNC currently gives Santorum 0 delegates for Iowa, the media gives him 7. We believe he will end up with more than 7 delegates as the process plays out. We also believe that Romney will receive less.
Most of the publicly available delegate counts are fundamentally flawed because none of them have taken into account that conservative grassroots activists at county and state conventions will elect more Santorum delegates than a primary or even caucus beauty contest in the same respective state would allocate. Therefore, the Real Counts are far better than the projected counts and will continue to improve as the National Convention approaches and states elect their actual convention delegates. The Santorum campaign will keep a tally called the Real Count moving forward. It will be based on the results of both the Real Calendar and the Traditional Calendar.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, January 09, 2012
A treatise on the views (and concerns) of the Social Conservative
I often get the question regarding the sanctity of life, and marriage, "well why do you want to impose your views on others?" This post is written to explain some of these false premises that are often peddled by the left, and how "impose" is a gross misapplication of the definition. While no expert, I think I understand enough of what Rick Santorum is seeking, and you will hopefully see why he has the clearest vision and is the best choice for the country.
Here is the situation we have going on today in America. 1st of all, let's tackle the "Life" vs "Choice" arguments:
"Roe v. Wade" was decided by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. The presumption here is that this case settled the woman i.e. "female" right to choose to terminate her pregnancy i.e. "life". Let's explore this in a bit more detail.
Since "Roe v. Wade", technology gave us a deep understanding of what pregnancy i.e. "life" is defined as. We now know that upon the moment of conception, we essentially have an entirely new individual (person?) with its own unique DNA.
Great! Now let's ask them how they feel about whether they want to be aborted or not. (See how this is no longer as simple an understanding as it used to be?) if this new individual is a female, doesn't this essentially contradict the ruling? Where is her "right to choose"?
DEFINITION 1: "PERSONS"
The Constitution uses the term "persons" to define each of us. When the Constitution was written, there was a primitive understanding of pregnancy and all of its various complexities. Certainly, we must assume, had our forefathers known, the incredible level of detail that comes with conception, they would have expanded the definition of "persons" so it would not be left to the COURTS TO DECIDE, i.e. "Roe v Wade".
We are committing gross negligence to our country's future generations here, not to mention the spirit of the Constitution, by leaving this incredibly complex issue to SCOTUS who themselves are as archaic as the forefather's understanding of conception!
Rick Santorum is sounding the alarm bells with this issue. If we allow the Courts to decide when we're defined as a "person" upon conception, then we're also allowing the Courts to decide when we are a "person" upon near death too!
I think we can all agree that's not what we want. Rick Santorum isn't necessarily saying "Roe v Wade" was wrong. He's saying based upon new understanding of conception, IT'S OUTDATED, and we need to have a National Forum and discussion to debate, at what point does the Constitution define us as a "person"? This needs standardization by the Constitution, not tyrannical Kangaroo Courts making grossly inconsistent rulings.
DEFINITION 2: "MARRIAGE"
This one is trickier, but I'll do my very best to explain it.
Simply put, the purpose of marriage thru the ages (time immemorial) has been to bear & raise children, aka "nuclear family". Whether you are a religious person or not, no one can argue that we're designed to be connected as one man, one woman. This is also known to be described as NATURAL LAW. Any other relationship is social experimentation and therefore non-natural.
Marriage is not just a contractual relationship between people so good hair trial lawyers like John Edwards can swoop in like vultures to suck us dry upon divorce. To the majority of Americans, it's a form of religious expression that should be recognized under the 1st Amendment. In traditional Judeo-Christian upbringing, marriage brings with it sacred responsibilities that far and away exceed the minimalist file-clerk-at-the-county-seat window view. Attempting to redefine marriage is a form of hostility, marginalization towards Judeo-Christian beliefs for the sake of satisfying political opponents.
There is a very easy alternative solution for this. Allow Civil Unions at the State level. If your State wants to recognize Civil Unions, by all means, pay the County Clerk $60, take your union certificate and be sure you know a good divorce attorney (never let it be said I'm not pro-Union!)
Moving on...
As Rick Santorum has pointed out, using a Brookings Institute (a liberal think tank!) study as a reference, the overwhelmingly, statistically-evidenced best opportunity for success a child has is being part of a nuclear family. We must encourage parents to get married (or stay married). Orphans should be placed w/ married couples as much as is allowable.
Now of course the next question is "why not let gays adopt?" in my personal view, every American child deserves the best opportunity to be nurtured for success. The child deserves a natural upbringing, not a social experiment.
Before you bludgeon me with labels, you have to understand that our Country needs to have a National Forum of discussion on this too. Do we have a Federal level responsibility to insure a minimum opportunity of success for each child or not? Do we allow States to decide the minimum level of parentless child placement?
Can gay couples achieve such an upbringing with a high rate of success over long historical periods? If not, should we require the couple have a strong mentor of the opposite sex actively involved in the child's life to insure this occur? Do we address an item like this at the Federal level, or do we let the States handle it? I don't have those answers, what I have is more questions.
This is why we need legal framework. It's not an imposition, the idea is quite the opposite, to prevent rogue Judicial verdicts & rulings from taking a child's best available opportunity for achieving their own success. Leaving the Courts to decide this is a Dereliction of our Patriotic Duty!
DEFINITION 3: PARENTAL RIGHTS
While many of us have been delving into how much we can avoid upsetting our liberal friends, those of us that have avoided this are seeing a disturbing trend at the local & state levels. Parental rights are being destroyed at alarming rate, mostly in our court system. Case Law for parents is now just a form of Governmental intimidation & fear. If your kid is fat, the State can take him/her from you. This is tyrannical in every sense of the word. Good parents shouldn't have to be afraid of feeding their children a diet not approved by the DCS Gestapo, or worse, the WH imposed diet.
The Court system is deciding "parental rights" in America right now. We need to resolve this at the Federal level as well. Parental Rights needs to be a universally accepted concept, not wild suppositions by incompetent Courts at the local level that keep adding to the "Case Law" meme. Federal Law or Constitutional Amendment needs to provide framework so State/Local Governments don't exceed their authority on parental rights, lest we continue ruining the lives of American children that need reliable parental nurturing, not Judicial neglect and tyranny.
Future generations are depending on us, so we can depend on them. It is they who will eventually care for our needs as we grow older. Keep neglecting them, butchering them, abusing them, and they won't be around for us when we need them most. God Bless America!
Here is the situation we have going on today in America. 1st of all, let's tackle the "Life" vs "Choice" arguments:
"Roe v. Wade" was decided by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. The presumption here is that this case settled the woman i.e. "female" right to choose to terminate her pregnancy i.e. "life". Let's explore this in a bit more detail.
Since "Roe v. Wade", technology gave us a deep understanding of what pregnancy i.e. "life" is defined as. We now know that upon the moment of conception, we essentially have an entirely new individual (person?) with its own unique DNA.
Great! Now let's ask them how they feel about whether they want to be aborted or not. (See how this is no longer as simple an understanding as it used to be?) if this new individual is a female, doesn't this essentially contradict the ruling? Where is her "right to choose"?
DEFINITION 1: "PERSONS"
The Constitution uses the term "persons" to define each of us. When the Constitution was written, there was a primitive understanding of pregnancy and all of its various complexities. Certainly, we must assume, had our forefathers known, the incredible level of detail that comes with conception, they would have expanded the definition of "persons" so it would not be left to the COURTS TO DECIDE, i.e. "Roe v Wade".
We are committing gross negligence to our country's future generations here, not to mention the spirit of the Constitution, by leaving this incredibly complex issue to SCOTUS who themselves are as archaic as the forefather's understanding of conception!
Rick Santorum is sounding the alarm bells with this issue. If we allow the Courts to decide when we're defined as a "person" upon conception, then we're also allowing the Courts to decide when we are a "person" upon near death too!
I think we can all agree that's not what we want. Rick Santorum isn't necessarily saying "Roe v Wade" was wrong. He's saying based upon new understanding of conception, IT'S OUTDATED, and we need to have a National Forum and discussion to debate, at what point does the Constitution define us as a "person"? This needs standardization by the Constitution, not tyrannical Kangaroo Courts making grossly inconsistent rulings.
DEFINITION 2: "MARRIAGE"
This one is trickier, but I'll do my very best to explain it.
Simply put, the purpose of marriage thru the ages (time immemorial) has been to bear & raise children, aka "nuclear family". Whether you are a religious person or not, no one can argue that we're designed to be connected as one man, one woman. This is also known to be described as NATURAL LAW. Any other relationship is social experimentation and therefore non-natural.
Marriage is not just a contractual relationship between people so good hair trial lawyers like John Edwards can swoop in like vultures to suck us dry upon divorce. To the majority of Americans, it's a form of religious expression that should be recognized under the 1st Amendment. In traditional Judeo-Christian upbringing, marriage brings with it sacred responsibilities that far and away exceed the minimalist file-clerk-at-the-county-seat window view. Attempting to redefine marriage is a form of hostility, marginalization towards Judeo-Christian beliefs for the sake of satisfying political opponents.
There is a very easy alternative solution for this. Allow Civil Unions at the State level. If your State wants to recognize Civil Unions, by all means, pay the County Clerk $60, take your union certificate and be sure you know a good divorce attorney (never let it be said I'm not pro-Union!)
Moving on...
As Rick Santorum has pointed out, using a Brookings Institute (a liberal think tank!) study as a reference, the overwhelmingly, statistically-evidenced best opportunity for success a child has is being part of a nuclear family. We must encourage parents to get married (or stay married). Orphans should be placed w/ married couples as much as is allowable.
Now of course the next question is "why not let gays adopt?" in my personal view, every American child deserves the best opportunity to be nurtured for success. The child deserves a natural upbringing, not a social experiment.
Before you bludgeon me with labels, you have to understand that our Country needs to have a National Forum of discussion on this too. Do we have a Federal level responsibility to insure a minimum opportunity of success for each child or not? Do we allow States to decide the minimum level of parentless child placement?
Can gay couples achieve such an upbringing with a high rate of success over long historical periods? If not, should we require the couple have a strong mentor of the opposite sex actively involved in the child's life to insure this occur? Do we address an item like this at the Federal level, or do we let the States handle it? I don't have those answers, what I have is more questions.
This is why we need legal framework. It's not an imposition, the idea is quite the opposite, to prevent rogue Judicial verdicts & rulings from taking a child's best available opportunity for achieving their own success. Leaving the Courts to decide this is a Dereliction of our Patriotic Duty!
DEFINITION 3: PARENTAL RIGHTS
While many of us have been delving into how much we can avoid upsetting our liberal friends, those of us that have avoided this are seeing a disturbing trend at the local & state levels. Parental rights are being destroyed at alarming rate, mostly in our court system. Case Law for parents is now just a form of Governmental intimidation & fear. If your kid is fat, the State can take him/her from you. This is tyrannical in every sense of the word. Good parents shouldn't have to be afraid of feeding their children a diet not approved by the DCS Gestapo, or worse, the WH imposed diet.
The Court system is deciding "parental rights" in America right now. We need to resolve this at the Federal level as well. Parental Rights needs to be a universally accepted concept, not wild suppositions by incompetent Courts at the local level that keep adding to the "Case Law" meme. Federal Law or Constitutional Amendment needs to provide framework so State/Local Governments don't exceed their authority on parental rights, lest we continue ruining the lives of American children that need reliable parental nurturing, not Judicial neglect and tyranny.
Future generations are depending on us, so we can depend on them. It is they who will eventually care for our needs as we grow older. Keep neglecting them, butchering them, abusing them, and they won't be around for us when we need them most. God Bless America!
Monday, November 21, 2011
Tony Stewart just pulled off a Babe Ruth. Or was it a Joe Namath? #NASCAR
If you watched the entire Chase like I did, and you're a bit of a prognosticator like I am, you would've likely predicted, as I did, that Carl Edwards was going to win the NASCAR Sprint Cup Chase title.
And you'd have been wrong.
When Tony Stewart said "Carl Edwards better not sleep the next 3 weeks", he threw down the gauntlet, the rarest of challenges, the one that everyone knows are impossible to follow thru with.
Or are they?
This is the stuff of legend. I didn't think team 14 had the moxie to do it. They didn't race all that well in the regular season, the past would eventually catch up to them, right?
This is what made Babe Ruth a name cemented in history. I watched enough NFL films to know about Joe Namath and his infamous guarantee. Yes, I saw the ESPN special on the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey team, the one that had no chance against the menacing expert Russians.
What Tony Stewart did this Chase was all that, and much more. Winning 5 Chase races? Most of the better drivers struggle for just 1 in the regular season! Winning a tiebreaker? That's doing it by a hair on your chinny chin-chin.
This is historic, will not likely ever happen again.
And you'd have been wrong.
When Tony Stewart said "Carl Edwards better not sleep the next 3 weeks", he threw down the gauntlet, the rarest of challenges, the one that everyone knows are impossible to follow thru with.
Or are they?
This is the stuff of legend. I didn't think team 14 had the moxie to do it. They didn't race all that well in the regular season, the past would eventually catch up to them, right?
This is what made Babe Ruth a name cemented in history. I watched enough NFL films to know about Joe Namath and his infamous guarantee. Yes, I saw the ESPN special on the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey team, the one that had no chance against the menacing expert Russians.
What Tony Stewart did this Chase was all that, and much more. Winning 5 Chase races? Most of the better drivers struggle for just 1 in the regular season! Winning a tiebreaker? That's doing it by a hair on your chinny chin-chin.
This is historic, will not likely ever happen again.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Is the Osama Bin Laden strike just the latest example of Cloward-Piven?
I was listening to Rush go over all the various media reactions to Obama's appearance at Ground Zero. Rush made some great points along the way. The media is covering up for Obama, and in doing so, has to praise President Bush in the process.
Then he brought up Alan Dershowitz: It's not important who was killed [in Abottabad] but HOW they were killed." Note the emphasis on "How". Dershowitz was clearly outlining an argument for potential criminal wrongdoing by the Administration or the Military. As Rush continued to point out, 9/11 interviews and investigations are still going on. This is something the radical left feeds on, lives for.
What was going on before Bin Laden, before Trump? LIBYA. Dennis Kucinich & Vice President Joe Biden were asked by the media about Obama's strike on Gahdafi being Constitutional. They promptly responded that Striking another nation which is not an immediate threat to the United States, without Congressional approval, is an impeachable offense. Furthermore, a well-known Attorney in Republican circles has drafted articles of Impeachment based on this very item and submitted them to Congress recently.
So now I wonder, was this just another one of Obama's attempts to overwhelm the Justice system, Cloward-Piven style? He's keeping the far left busy with outrage and a burning desire to put someone's head on a platter with all this War Obama's commiting.
This attack overwhelms the system with investigations, interviews and interrogations. I doubt the left will have enough time to sort out all the wrongs committed by this White House before 2012.
Then he brought up Alan Dershowitz: It's not important who was killed [in Abottabad] but HOW they were killed." Note the emphasis on "How". Dershowitz was clearly outlining an argument for potential criminal wrongdoing by the Administration or the Military. As Rush continued to point out, 9/11 interviews and investigations are still going on. This is something the radical left feeds on, lives for.
What was going on before Bin Laden, before Trump? LIBYA. Dennis Kucinich & Vice President Joe Biden were asked by the media about Obama's strike on Gahdafi being Constitutional. They promptly responded that Striking another nation which is not an immediate threat to the United States, without Congressional approval, is an impeachable offense. Furthermore, a well-known Attorney in Republican circles has drafted articles of Impeachment based on this very item and submitted them to Congress recently.
So now I wonder, was this just another one of Obama's attempts to overwhelm the Justice system, Cloward-Piven style? He's keeping the far left busy with outrage and a burning desire to put someone's head on a platter with all this War Obama's commiting.
This attack overwhelms the system with investigations, interviews and interrogations. I doubt the left will have enough time to sort out all the wrongs committed by this White House before 2012.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
It's not about Muslim sensitivities, it's about #oil silly!
Both political sides of the airwaves are discussing all the minutiae of the Osama death. Did Hillary order it? Was it really a 16 hour decision? Did Panetta actually say waterboarding did the trick? How much did Pakistan avoid telling us? Blah blah blah...
One item of particular interest is this death picture release. The White House is making all kinds of hay about "Muslim sensitivities". Let me tell you, this White House could care less about offending anyone. They do it all the time. Now, all of a sudden they're concerned about Muslim feelings? If you were so concerned about Muslim feelings, then why'd you strike him in the 1st place? He's a Muslim hero is he not?
Then it hit me. The Bin Laden family isn't known for being Muslim superstars. They're known for one thing and one thing only: OIL. The Obama administration has made it clear that terror is not a threat in their minds. Saying you're not striking him as a Muslim means there was another reason entirely.
On the political homefront, Obama gets to prevent LIBERAL sensitivities from being hurt, by treating wealthy oil barons as scourge, and keeping his call for green initiatives intact.
This goes to another template that liberals have held about the Bush era that explains liberal reasoning. The Bush era was always an illegitimate Presidency to liberals. Why? Because Gore got the popular vote. Everything that happened during the Bush years needs to be treated with disdain, including a solid foundation for the War on Terror. This attack goes against the Bush doctrine. What does this mean with respect to Osama? Well, before the Bush era, the "Bin Laden" name was known for OIL OIL OIL not Islam! To Obama, all Bin Ladens are the same!
The White House message is CRYSTAL CLEAR: Get the barrel price down, or we'll violate your sovereignty too!
Also of note is all the noise being made by Donald Trump. "Birth Certificate! China! OPEC!" Let's go down Trump's list shall we?
1) Birth Certificate. CHECK!
2) OPEC. CHECK!
3) China. WORKING ON IT!
Here we go. What does Obama do about China? Taiwan? Tibet? Tariffs? Whatever choice Obama makes will be predicated on how it will boost his poll numbers. What do you think that will be? Please feel free to comment.
Let me add another caveat to this situation. Panetta said "We have a TREASURE TROVE of information" from Osama's computers. This is a veiled threat to the Saudi royal family. How much did you know about Osama's actions and whereabouts? This scenario is playing out very interesting indeed.
One item of particular interest is this death picture release. The White House is making all kinds of hay about "Muslim sensitivities". Let me tell you, this White House could care less about offending anyone. They do it all the time. Now, all of a sudden they're concerned about Muslim feelings? If you were so concerned about Muslim feelings, then why'd you strike him in the 1st place? He's a Muslim hero is he not?
Then it hit me. The Bin Laden family isn't known for being Muslim superstars. They're known for one thing and one thing only: OIL. The Obama administration has made it clear that terror is not a threat in their minds. Saying you're not striking him as a Muslim means there was another reason entirely.
On the political homefront, Obama gets to prevent LIBERAL sensitivities from being hurt, by treating wealthy oil barons as scourge, and keeping his call for green initiatives intact.
This goes to another template that liberals have held about the Bush era that explains liberal reasoning. The Bush era was always an illegitimate Presidency to liberals. Why? Because Gore got the popular vote. Everything that happened during the Bush years needs to be treated with disdain, including a solid foundation for the War on Terror. This attack goes against the Bush doctrine. What does this mean with respect to Osama? Well, before the Bush era, the "Bin Laden" name was known for OIL OIL OIL not Islam! To Obama, all Bin Ladens are the same!
The White House message is CRYSTAL CLEAR: Get the barrel price down, or we'll violate your sovereignty too!
Also of note is all the noise being made by Donald Trump. "Birth Certificate! China! OPEC!" Let's go down Trump's list shall we?
1) Birth Certificate. CHECK!
2) OPEC. CHECK!
3) China. WORKING ON IT!
Here we go. What does Obama do about China? Taiwan? Tibet? Tariffs? Whatever choice Obama makes will be predicated on how it will boost his poll numbers. What do you think that will be? Please feel free to comment.
Let me add another caveat to this situation. Panetta said "We have a TREASURE TROVE of information" from Osama's computers. This is a veiled threat to the Saudi royal family. How much did you know about Osama's actions and whereabouts? This scenario is playing out very interesting indeed.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
What the birth certificate tells us about Barack Hussein #Obama
The birth certificate proves something very important about our so-called President. I know many pundits on the right (as well as the left) see the whole issue and scoff at it. For a long time I angered at them too, as Obama continued to ignore the rest of us with the issue of his birth. I'm going to explain, in more detail, why it is important that conservatives address the issue of his birth certificate.
The request for the birth certificate from some of us so-called "birthers" was never about him being Kenyan, Canadian, Hawaiian, Communist, Keynesian, or even about transparency. It was about his CHARACTER plain and simple. He wanted to lead our nation in a time of War. He wanted to lead our nation in a time of economic turbulence. The least he could do was calm the electorate waters by releasing it so we could trust him, just as we release our information upon request to any Government official with sufficient authority.
In the midst of all our turmoil, then-candidate Obama chose a path that was petty and bitter, He ignored & ridiculed those of us that requested from him some of the most basic information about any of us. Why hide it? You want to be President? Be open, honest, and humble about it, maybe I would vote for you. Personally, I disdained McCain. I'm not saying I would've voted for Obama, but I might not have voted for McCain given that Obama was forthright with me.
The release of the birth certificate at this moment in time expands on Barack Hussein Obama's behavior during the "Beer Summit". Let us recall how quick Obama was to judge the police wrongly, and how he never, NEVER accepted that he did anything wrong. He offered up racism AND elitism towards the "poor white cop" with a beer at the White House, Obama's way of responding to wrongly judging the officer who DID HIS JOB, responsibly I might add. It is thug-like behavior.
The birth certificate further evidences Obama's obvious elitism towards the rest of us "little people". Obama views us all as little more than serfs that don't deserve even a simple gesture of goodwill by allowing us to see his birth information. In his mind, only a wealthy Democrat contributor can even bother him to pick up the phone and call his minions to do the "work" of making the long form public. Remember the middle finger at the campaign rally? Or how about the way he used his dying grandmother for political gain? Ah, the many examples of Obama bitterness, let me count the ways...
What makes the birth certificate issue all the more tragic about Barack Obama, the man, is that he dwells on insignificant pissing contests with others that he sees as his social level of adversary. He is a pitiful soul! In this case, with Donald Trump, who has been harping on the lack of Obama's birth certificate for 3 or so weeks now, Obama did not release the document for our benefit. He sees Donald Trump as the "rich guy" that is the enemy Obama champions as the evil of the world his entire adult life, and seeks to humiliate Trump by fish hooking us (more elitism by Obama) with the birth certificate: See peasants? Donald Trump is wrong. I am worthy!
Obama did something here that validated all his critics. I actually think it would've been better for him to keep the birth cert under lock and key. This isn't just "Here it is, now go away" like Obama wants it to be. This has a Nixon-Watergate tone to it. Obama engaged in obstruction and if Watergate is any indication, there will be calls for Obama to resign. Remember that what forced Nixon's resignation was the fact that he held on to the circumstances of the Watergate hotel break-in until the pressure of impeachment became apparent and inevitable.
Barack Hussein Obama, the man, has not, nor ever will be, fit for office. He is a walking, living, breathing calamity, and the recent release of the long form birth certificate is more proof of that.
The request for the birth certificate from some of us so-called "birthers" was never about him being Kenyan, Canadian, Hawaiian, Communist, Keynesian, or even about transparency. It was about his CHARACTER plain and simple. He wanted to lead our nation in a time of War. He wanted to lead our nation in a time of economic turbulence. The least he could do was calm the electorate waters by releasing it so we could trust him, just as we release our information upon request to any Government official with sufficient authority.
In the midst of all our turmoil, then-candidate Obama chose a path that was petty and bitter, He ignored & ridiculed those of us that requested from him some of the most basic information about any of us. Why hide it? You want to be President? Be open, honest, and humble about it, maybe I would vote for you. Personally, I disdained McCain. I'm not saying I would've voted for Obama, but I might not have voted for McCain given that Obama was forthright with me.
The release of the birth certificate at this moment in time expands on Barack Hussein Obama's behavior during the "Beer Summit". Let us recall how quick Obama was to judge the police wrongly, and how he never, NEVER accepted that he did anything wrong. He offered up racism AND elitism towards the "poor white cop" with a beer at the White House, Obama's way of responding to wrongly judging the officer who DID HIS JOB, responsibly I might add. It is thug-like behavior.
The birth certificate further evidences Obama's obvious elitism towards the rest of us "little people". Obama views us all as little more than serfs that don't deserve even a simple gesture of goodwill by allowing us to see his birth information. In his mind, only a wealthy Democrat contributor can even bother him to pick up the phone and call his minions to do the "work" of making the long form public. Remember the middle finger at the campaign rally? Or how about the way he used his dying grandmother for political gain? Ah, the many examples of Obama bitterness, let me count the ways...
What makes the birth certificate issue all the more tragic about Barack Obama, the man, is that he dwells on insignificant pissing contests with others that he sees as his social level of adversary. He is a pitiful soul! In this case, with Donald Trump, who has been harping on the lack of Obama's birth certificate for 3 or so weeks now, Obama did not release the document for our benefit. He sees Donald Trump as the "rich guy" that is the enemy Obama champions as the evil of the world his entire adult life, and seeks to humiliate Trump by fish hooking us (more elitism by Obama) with the birth certificate: See peasants? Donald Trump is wrong. I am worthy!
Obama did something here that validated all his critics. I actually think it would've been better for him to keep the birth cert under lock and key. This isn't just "Here it is, now go away" like Obama wants it to be. This has a Nixon-Watergate tone to it. Obama engaged in obstruction and if Watergate is any indication, there will be calls for Obama to resign. Remember that what forced Nixon's resignation was the fact that he held on to the circumstances of the Watergate hotel break-in until the pressure of impeachment became apparent and inevitable.
Barack Hussein Obama, the man, has not, nor ever will be, fit for office. He is a walking, living, breathing calamity, and the recent release of the long form birth certificate is more proof of that.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Media & flawed perceptions resulting from interviews with so-called "experts"
I know, I know. We could write an entire encyclopaedia on all the awful bias the media spills on on us every day. We have to spend hours sifting thru reports that are full of crap, just to get to the 15 seconds of facts that are really the only things that matter. They have to constantly infuse their own spin on the news, to satisfy whatever hysteria they're feeling at the moment. This one, however, is quite serious.
Yes, of course, I'm fully aware that a major disaster is quite likely in the event the Japan Reactors melt. Barring all this, one has to keep in mind that ALL energy sources worthy of use come with their own level of danger. Nuclear power is clean, safe, & limitless ... when it's properly contained. That very characteristic comes with an equal disadvantage: The danger of nuclear poisoning.
I just saw FOX News do an interview with Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", so FOX could report his comments on the Nuclear situation going on in Japan. Mr. Nye was classified as a "Mechanical Engineer". Now, while I'm certain Mr. Nye has extensive fundamental knowledge on how to design a cooling system for a majority of mechanical applications, I would like to know, when was the last time Mr. Nye certified a set of plans for a cooling system design on a nuclear reactor? Better yet, when was the last time Mr. Nye certified a set of plans on ANY mechanical design project? Where are his Nuclear credentials?
FOX didn't bother giving us his most recent resume. The last time I saw "The Science Guy", he was too busy pitching GLOBAL WARMING as a valid scientific theory. That right there told me Mr. Nye "The Science Guy" is nothing more than another TV everyone-love-me hack. He is absolutely clueless as to how to aid in nuclear containment, so his automatic response was "too many variables to use nuclear technology". That's not engineering Mr. Nye, that's giving up before you try. Are you an ENGINEER or a NOT? Don't use your engineering credentials if YOU DON'T ACTIVELY PRACTICE IT.
This is irresponsible, to say the least. "Fairless & Imbalanced" is what I think of FOX, and interviews like this prove that FOX openly accepts TV hackery to gain viewers. Not worth the bandwidth they absorb. Stick to radio & trusted news Internet sites, where facts & truth prevail.
Yes, of course, I'm fully aware that a major disaster is quite likely in the event the Japan Reactors melt. Barring all this, one has to keep in mind that ALL energy sources worthy of use come with their own level of danger. Nuclear power is clean, safe, & limitless ... when it's properly contained. That very characteristic comes with an equal disadvantage: The danger of nuclear poisoning.
I just saw FOX News do an interview with Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", so FOX could report his comments on the Nuclear situation going on in Japan. Mr. Nye was classified as a "Mechanical Engineer". Now, while I'm certain Mr. Nye has extensive fundamental knowledge on how to design a cooling system for a majority of mechanical applications, I would like to know, when was the last time Mr. Nye certified a set of plans for a cooling system design on a nuclear reactor? Better yet, when was the last time Mr. Nye certified a set of plans on ANY mechanical design project? Where are his Nuclear credentials?
FOX didn't bother giving us his most recent resume. The last time I saw "The Science Guy", he was too busy pitching GLOBAL WARMING as a valid scientific theory. That right there told me Mr. Nye "The Science Guy" is nothing more than another TV everyone-love-me hack. He is absolutely clueless as to how to aid in nuclear containment, so his automatic response was "too many variables to use nuclear technology". That's not engineering Mr. Nye, that's giving up before you try. Are you an ENGINEER or a NOT? Don't use your engineering credentials if YOU DON'T ACTIVELY PRACTICE IT.
This is irresponsible, to say the least. "Fairless & Imbalanced" is what I think of FOX, and interviews like this prove that FOX openly accepts TV hackery to gain viewers. Not worth the bandwidth they absorb. Stick to radio & trusted news Internet sites, where facts & truth prevail.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Big Brother is targeting Smartphones
Have you heard any of the latest news clips on radio or TV regarding smartphone usage? The goody-too-shoes media is starting to report this, heavily I might add.
The latest report was some "expert" saying that "cellphones" (effing morons; they don't even know the proper name of the offending device) shouldn't be used "at dinner, bank tellers, at church, and PUBLIC BATHROOMS!"
Since when did the media care that we use our smartphones at church? The media is anti-Christian as part of their agenda, one would think they would be targeting the church for preventing attendees from using them, recommending lawyers for lawsuits even.
Woah! How criminal! I can't use my phone for my duty while I do my doody. How effing jealous are these liberals? Now they want a toilet police to monitor your smartphone usage on the can?
Let's tell it like it is. The media is PANICKED that we can very easily bypass THEM by texting or tweeting what we hear & know to each other. How dare we tell each other things without media input? We might give each other advice the media would otherwise be giving us!
Hey media ninnies, shut the f*ck up! You don't like me tweeting on my tush? KISS MY ASS!!!!
The latest report was some "expert" saying that "cellphones" (effing morons; they don't even know the proper name of the offending device) shouldn't be used "at dinner, bank tellers, at church, and PUBLIC BATHROOMS!"
Since when did the media care that we use our smartphones at church? The media is anti-Christian as part of their agenda, one would think they would be targeting the church for preventing attendees from using them, recommending lawyers for lawsuits even.
Woah! How criminal! I can't use my phone for my duty while I do my doody. How effing jealous are these liberals? Now they want a toilet police to monitor your smartphone usage on the can?
Let's tell it like it is. The media is PANICKED that we can very easily bypass THEM by texting or tweeting what we hear & know to each other. How dare we tell each other things without media input? We might give each other advice the media would otherwise be giving us!
Hey media ninnies, shut the f*ck up! You don't like me tweeting on my tush? KISS MY ASS!!!!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Don't buy into the oil "crisis" just yet...
I'm not buying all this OIL OH MY GOSH CHICKEN LITTLE IS FALLING OUT OF THE SKY bit just yet. Oil prices above $100 a barrel? Really? You mean to tell me we've consumed that much more oil in the past year & a half? Let's consider some recent history regarding oil & the prices that are being set for it.
First of all, back in 2008, oil speculators drove the price up to about $150 a barrel, for reasons a financial layman such as myself still have yet to fully understand. What I do recall is that the economy went into the tank, leaving no room for gasoline (pun intended).
What was the result? America began naturally to scale back, and SUBSTANTIALLY I might add. Oil investors & producers were being being left with oil GLUTS. In other words, there were plenty of available barrels of oil WITH NO ONE TO BUY THEM.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens to a commodity that loses demand when market forces take over. Oil dropped to almost $30 a barrel in the next several months. America chose to pass on high oil prices in large quantities.
Let's keep in mind, prior to all of this, prior to the start of the Iraq & Afgahn wars, European corporatists invested in oil were profiting on the backs of oppressed Iraqis for $11 A BARREL. How was this possible? Syria was funneling black market oil from countries like Iraq for people like Soros to then turn around & sell for almost 4 times their price! European corporatists were a bit pissed off when we invaded Iraq, to say the least. This must be payback.
Back to the present. America's oil consumption HAS NOT INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY since the $30 a barrel price drop. The world, in fact, is going thru one recession after another, just like we are.And how did OPEC react? "We're going to DROP oil production to offset reduced consumption." Oil gluts ARE STILL OCCURRING TODAY.
Reduced oil production means reduced workforce, and reduced work hours. THAT'S what's contributing to the unrest in the Middle East. America is nowhere near consumption levels of 4 or more years ago, and combined with recent inflation of basic goods (Thanks Geithner & QE2), has caused hunger & poverty of epic proportions. Foreign oil barons are willing to let production suffer to offset losses attributed to recession & the Iraq war.
We're experiencing an oil price "shell game". The fact is we're all at the mercy of foreign oil corporatists (and a virtually non-existent shelf-life), that want to keep the barrel of oil at a exorbitantly above-market price. They have stored oil that they refuse to sell for less than a determined price, are willing to put employment for oil production out to pasture to do so. "Quantitative easing" only contributes to the idea of accepting oil at a $150+ a barrel price range as the norm. We're being punished for defending the innocent in Iraq, not just by our own liberals, but by oil fascists abroad.
We need to keep our wits about us. This is a game we can win, this is still America. Get Obama out and send the oil fascists with him.
First of all, back in 2008, oil speculators drove the price up to about $150 a barrel, for reasons a financial layman such as myself still have yet to fully understand. What I do recall is that the economy went into the tank, leaving no room for gasoline (pun intended).
What was the result? America began naturally to scale back, and SUBSTANTIALLY I might add. Oil investors & producers were being being left with oil GLUTS. In other words, there were plenty of available barrels of oil WITH NO ONE TO BUY THEM.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens to a commodity that loses demand when market forces take over. Oil dropped to almost $30 a barrel in the next several months. America chose to pass on high oil prices in large quantities.
Let's keep in mind, prior to all of this, prior to the start of the Iraq & Afgahn wars, European corporatists invested in oil were profiting on the backs of oppressed Iraqis for $11 A BARREL. How was this possible? Syria was funneling black market oil from countries like Iraq for people like Soros to then turn around & sell for almost 4 times their price! European corporatists were a bit pissed off when we invaded Iraq, to say the least. This must be payback.
Back to the present. America's oil consumption HAS NOT INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY since the $30 a barrel price drop. The world, in fact, is going thru one recession after another, just like we are.And how did OPEC react? "We're going to DROP oil production to offset reduced consumption." Oil gluts ARE STILL OCCURRING TODAY.
Reduced oil production means reduced workforce, and reduced work hours. THAT'S what's contributing to the unrest in the Middle East. America is nowhere near consumption levels of 4 or more years ago, and combined with recent inflation of basic goods (Thanks Geithner & QE2), has caused hunger & poverty of epic proportions. Foreign oil barons are willing to let production suffer to offset losses attributed to recession & the Iraq war.
We're experiencing an oil price "shell game". The fact is we're all at the mercy of foreign oil corporatists (and a virtually non-existent shelf-life), that want to keep the barrel of oil at a exorbitantly above-market price. They have stored oil that they refuse to sell for less than a determined price, are willing to put employment for oil production out to pasture to do so. "Quantitative easing" only contributes to the idea of accepting oil at a $150+ a barrel price range as the norm. We're being punished for defending the innocent in Iraq, not just by our own liberals, but by oil fascists abroad.
We need to keep our wits about us. This is a game we can win, this is still America. Get Obama out and send the oil fascists with him.
Friday, February 11, 2011
CPAC got what it deserved ... and then some
The new and improved CPAC gave way to a whole lot of entertainment, not unlike a circus show that strolled into town.
What do I mean? Well, 1st off, let's take for example how they recklessly snubbed their longtime religious support by allowing groups such as GOProud entry. While I'm not any-phobic, the idea that a group is formed based on what is, for all intents and purposes, a non-natural behavior, is incompatible with authentic conservatism, and has no true foundation.
Also, the Ron Paul-ers ruined the evening. They couldn't wait to jeer & mock Donald Rumsfeld &, by default, Dick Cheney, making for a mockery of the entire event. It got to the point that longtime Hillary Clinton supporter Donald Trump (& maybe liberal mole) had to tell the Paul-ers their candidate is "unelectable". It seems appropriate that Trump's somewhat clownish character on TV was appropriate for this year's CPAC.
Add to the fact that they scheduled, and I think intentionally, their event directly opposite NASCAR media day. I know some will say "why does that matter?" It matters because while CPAC is entertaining anti-family groups such as GOProud, they are snubbing REAL FAMILIES that want to spend time doing something wholesome with their children, CPAC need not apply.
Why did this happen? Ignorance. I'm watching many conservatives make the same mistakes that brought us a Democrat majority & an Obama victory. You can't snub traditional support to try to "big tent" yourself with fringe political groups like the Ron Paul-ers, GOProud & the pro-aborters.
We have a fractured coalition of alarmists too! We have the Glenn Beck alarmists vs. the Ron Paul/Alex Jones conspiracy theorists. Wonderful! I can't wait to big tent myself with the mothership!
Mind you, none of this is a good sign for a relationship with the Tea Party. Tea Party folks are family oriented. If this is what the GOP thinks will win them 2012, I got news for you: the Tea Party will abandon you in a heartbeat. If this keeps up, we will have a whole lot of 3 way races, mark my words.
There are two groups driving this movement: former liberals & libertarians that have had there eyes opened recently, & wet-behind-the-ears young-uns (some that get their paychecks from the GOP establishment). Their purpose for this event was more about their personal need for social interaction than truly advancing conservative causes.
I even had a friend tell me "THESE ARE HARD CORE CONSERVATIVES!" Really? Where was Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Did Ronald Reagan get honest mention? Yeah OK. This was more like a loony libertarian freak show. This is what happens when you let "new conservatives" run the show. They revert to trying to bring in all the groups that either willfully or ignorantly wind up voting Democrat.
So there you have it. Let's try to make CPAC12 about CONSERVATISM instead of BIGTENTISM shall we?
What do I mean? Well, 1st off, let's take for example how they recklessly snubbed their longtime religious support by allowing groups such as GOProud entry. While I'm not any-phobic, the idea that a group is formed based on what is, for all intents and purposes, a non-natural behavior, is incompatible with authentic conservatism, and has no true foundation.
Also, the Ron Paul-ers ruined the evening. They couldn't wait to jeer & mock Donald Rumsfeld &, by default, Dick Cheney, making for a mockery of the entire event. It got to the point that longtime Hillary Clinton supporter Donald Trump (& maybe liberal mole) had to tell the Paul-ers their candidate is "unelectable". It seems appropriate that Trump's somewhat clownish character on TV was appropriate for this year's CPAC.
Add to the fact that they scheduled, and I think intentionally, their event directly opposite NASCAR media day. I know some will say "why does that matter?" It matters because while CPAC is entertaining anti-family groups such as GOProud, they are snubbing REAL FAMILIES that want to spend time doing something wholesome with their children, CPAC need not apply.
Why did this happen? Ignorance. I'm watching many conservatives make the same mistakes that brought us a Democrat majority & an Obama victory. You can't snub traditional support to try to "big tent" yourself with fringe political groups like the Ron Paul-ers, GOProud & the pro-aborters.
We have a fractured coalition of alarmists too! We have the Glenn Beck alarmists vs. the Ron Paul/Alex Jones conspiracy theorists. Wonderful! I can't wait to big tent myself with the mothership!
Mind you, none of this is a good sign for a relationship with the Tea Party. Tea Party folks are family oriented. If this is what the GOP thinks will win them 2012, I got news for you: the Tea Party will abandon you in a heartbeat. If this keeps up, we will have a whole lot of 3 way races, mark my words.
There are two groups driving this movement: former liberals & libertarians that have had there eyes opened recently, & wet-behind-the-ears young-uns (some that get their paychecks from the GOP establishment). Their purpose for this event was more about their personal need for social interaction than truly advancing conservative causes.
I even had a friend tell me "THESE ARE HARD CORE CONSERVATIVES!" Really? Where was Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Did Ronald Reagan get honest mention? Yeah OK. This was more like a loony libertarian freak show. This is what happens when you let "new conservatives" run the show. They revert to trying to bring in all the groups that either willfully or ignorantly wind up voting Democrat.
So there you have it. Let's try to make CPAC12 about CONSERVATISM instead of BIGTENTISM shall we?
Saturday, February 05, 2011
If I were a Nigerian scam artist ...
Respected - Dear,
Good-Day!
How are you this morning? I know that you might see my mail coming to you as one of the mails you receives and you are not being surprise, with how you are going to be feeling over my mail message, please even we never knew before or meet through any means like (phone conversation or in person) consider this message as a request from a woman in dare need of your help, to relocate your President's birth certificate so I can live a new life.
I also find it very difficult to trust people but I have to use this medium to contact you for your co-operations and for security reason to avoid suspicions which I will disclose in due course and you will know me more, I know you might not trust my mail.
I am located in Kenya which I will disclose to you once am sure of your willingness to help me with this and really sure of your, Trust worthiness, Accountability and confidentiality.
I have a proposition for you which involve $18,500,000 Millions of US Dollar I have been offered for the sale of your President's birth certificate, Can I trust you to help me move this birth certificate?. All I need of you is assistance with Banking and Investment of any profitable Investment you may deem okay to help me transfer the sale of said birth certificate through you in your country.
I would like you to give this matter your deep immediate thought and looking forward to your response. Do have in mind that is going to be legitimate transaction but absolute confidentiality.
Best regards, and have a great day.
Ms.O.L
Good-Day!
How are you this morning? I know that you might see my mail coming to you as one of the mails you receives and you are not being surprise, with how you are going to be feeling over my mail message, please even we never knew before or meet through any means like (phone conversation or in person) consider this message as a request from a woman in dare need of your help, to relocate your President's birth certificate so I can live a new life.
I also find it very difficult to trust people but I have to use this medium to contact you for your co-operations and for security reason to avoid suspicions which I will disclose in due course and you will know me more, I know you might not trust my mail.
I am located in Kenya which I will disclose to you once am sure of your willingness to help me with this and really sure of your, Trust worthiness, Accountability and confidentiality.
I have a proposition for you which involve $18,500,000 Millions of US Dollar I have been offered for the sale of your President's birth certificate, Can I trust you to help me move this birth certificate?. All I need of you is assistance with Banking and Investment of any profitable Investment you may deem okay to help me transfer the sale of said birth certificate through you in your country.
I would like you to give this matter your deep immediate thought and looking forward to your response. Do have in mind that is going to be legitimate transaction but absolute confidentiality.
Best regards, and have a great day.
Ms.O.L
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Will the REAL Egypt please stand up?
It turns out, after all this time, that the stories of the "Muslim takeover" of Egypt, "Persian invasion", Ahmedinjad, Iran, blah blah blah, are nothing more than media hype.
They are Obama media creations, something that we should be getting used to by now, but somehow we seem to think CNN FOX NBC CBS ABC are in the truth business. We need to get used to the fact that every BIG story by our media is a LIE, a big fat LIE, every day, all the time.
The REAL Egypt, as it turns out, is nothing at all like we're being "cattle fed". The real story is about Government eltitlements! See here: http://bit.ly/dEyuN5
Hosni Mubarak, at the behest of his wife (even he was reluctant to the idea), was grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, as successor, while Egyptian army commanders were vacationing in WASHINGTON DC, As if this story can get any more suspicious towards Obama.
I'm just now reading that Anderson Cooper was "attacked" by pro-Mubarak protesters. How staged is this?
Something is amiss, and Obama has a lot to answer for ...
They are Obama media creations, something that we should be getting used to by now, but somehow we seem to think CNN FOX NBC CBS ABC are in the truth business. We need to get used to the fact that every BIG story by our media is a LIE, a big fat LIE, every day, all the time.
The REAL Egypt, as it turns out, is nothing at all like we're being "cattle fed". The real story is about Government eltitlements! See here: http://bit.ly/dEyuN5
Hosni Mubarak, at the behest of his wife (even he was reluctant to the idea), was grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, as successor, while Egyptian army commanders were vacationing in WASHINGTON DC, As if this story can get any more suspicious towards Obama.
I'm just now reading that Anderson Cooper was "attacked" by pro-Mubarak protesters. How staged is this?
Something is amiss, and Obama has a lot to answer for ...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Declaration of Independence? pffft ...
I read many posts where Patriots reassert the what they believe to be the document that Obama is seeking to invalidate, the Declaration of Independence. We scream about it from digital mountaintops. We're putting it on protest signs. We email our Congressmen about it. Soon, we'll be making video games about it.
As we continue down Obama's merry monarchistic path, observing his behavior, his associations, and his clouded personal history, I've concluded that it's not the Declaration of Independence he seeks to invalidate.
His beliefs aren't simply anti-American. Western culture as a whole seems to be Obama's target. His mentors must've really done quite a number on him. The term that Newt Gingrich gave for this phenomenon was "anti-colonialism", which does partly describe it, but it seems to go deeper with Obama.
Whoever his mentor was, he certainly did not believe in a free man of ANY kind, let alone those that championed the colonial era, which gave rise to America as we understand it today, at least, those of us that understand what it really means. It appears to me that his mentor must've viewed himself as being a part of some sort of distant royalty, probably African, and views the exploration of Liberty that America represents as the true villain. A bitterness that lies in the era of the British Empire, which also explains his desire to spurn the UK.
Obama goes waaaay back. He's not just anti-American. He's not just anti-colonial. He's anti-FREEman, as is described in a document that goes back 500 years prior to the Declaration of Independence. To place the Declaration of Independence as the core document in Obama's crosshairs isn't entirely accurate, in my opinion.
Those of you that have been to the National Archives know which document I'm referring to. It's the document that's displayed in the tour prior to the Declaration of Independence.
It's called the MAGNA CARTA. If you observe & examine Obama's behavior & carefully examine his speeches, and view it through that lens, the picture becomes clearer. Obama seeks to undo all the influence the British Empire had in the world prior to America. Obama views this as some twisted necessary burden to avenge those that were de-throned in his apparent ancestry, which we STILL can't entirely pinpoint.
Please feel free to comment. Thanks for reading.
As we continue down Obama's merry monarchistic path, observing his behavior, his associations, and his clouded personal history, I've concluded that it's not the Declaration of Independence he seeks to invalidate.
His beliefs aren't simply anti-American. Western culture as a whole seems to be Obama's target. His mentors must've really done quite a number on him. The term that Newt Gingrich gave for this phenomenon was "anti-colonialism", which does partly describe it, but it seems to go deeper with Obama.
Whoever his mentor was, he certainly did not believe in a free man of ANY kind, let alone those that championed the colonial era, which gave rise to America as we understand it today, at least, those of us that understand what it really means. It appears to me that his mentor must've viewed himself as being a part of some sort of distant royalty, probably African, and views the exploration of Liberty that America represents as the true villain. A bitterness that lies in the era of the British Empire, which also explains his desire to spurn the UK.
Obama goes waaaay back. He's not just anti-American. He's not just anti-colonial. He's anti-FREEman, as is described in a document that goes back 500 years prior to the Declaration of Independence. To place the Declaration of Independence as the core document in Obama's crosshairs isn't entirely accurate, in my opinion.
Those of you that have been to the National Archives know which document I'm referring to. It's the document that's displayed in the tour prior to the Declaration of Independence.
It's called the MAGNA CARTA. If you observe & examine Obama's behavior & carefully examine his speeches, and view it through that lens, the picture becomes clearer. Obama seeks to undo all the influence the British Empire had in the world prior to America. Obama views this as some twisted necessary burden to avenge those that were de-throned in his apparent ancestry, which we STILL can't entirely pinpoint.
Please feel free to comment. Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
GM sales in China don't make for a prosperous America
WOW! Great headline! GM almost outsells Toyota! Exciting! All those GM execs must be thrilled!
But wait! 2nd headline: GM sales in China outpace U.S. sales. And thus the GM good news train goes flying off the rails.
You might be thinking a pro-capitalist like me is being contradictory. But you'd be wrong. The devil is in the details.
Let's consider for a moment that Americans have been raging at corporations for exporting jobs overseas the last few decades, and I mean high profile jobs. Where have many of those jobs been going? You guessed it: CHINA!
While that's been going on, the unions have been actively preventing, thru political and social muscle, the right for the average American of obtaining employment free of hardship obligations external to his or her employer. Unions want to make the establishment of a job a PRIVILEGE that unions dole out.
Where does that leave us? Jobs Americans need are set up in China, while jobs Americans can't afford are in the hands of union mob bosses.
This all spells high profit & riches for executives, while the average American is left on the unemployment line. This is inherently un-American and leaves us with significantly less opportunities & less prosperity. A union controlled jobless market doesn't qualify.
But wait! 2nd headline: GM sales in China outpace U.S. sales. And thus the GM good news train goes flying off the rails.
You might be thinking a pro-capitalist like me is being contradictory. But you'd be wrong. The devil is in the details.
Let's consider for a moment that Americans have been raging at corporations for exporting jobs overseas the last few decades, and I mean high profile jobs. Where have many of those jobs been going? You guessed it: CHINA!
While that's been going on, the unions have been actively preventing, thru political and social muscle, the right for the average American of obtaining employment free of hardship obligations external to his or her employer. Unions want to make the establishment of a job a PRIVILEGE that unions dole out.
Where does that leave us? Jobs Americans need are set up in China, while jobs Americans can't afford are in the hands of union mob bosses.
This all spells high profit & riches for executives, while the average American is left on the unemployment line. This is inherently un-American and leaves us with significantly less opportunities & less prosperity. A union controlled jobless market doesn't qualify.
Monday, January 24, 2011
What is the DOD doing with our GPS systems?
No broad, public announcement of any kind, here is a clip from an email I just recieved:
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE FEDS! I DO NOT KNOW JUST HOW THIS WILL IMPACT US BUT BE AWARE>
The Department of Defense will conduct GPS tests on January 20th through February
22nd, 2011. During testing, the GPS signal may be unreliable or unavailable.
A. Location: Centered at 304906N/0802811W or the location know as 105.25
degrees and 52.1 NM from the SSI VOR.
B. Dates and times: GPS testing is scheduled on January 20th through February 11th,
2011 from 0000-0245 UTC daily and February 15th through February 22nd, 2011
from 0000-0245 UTC daily. These tests may not be concurrent so pilots are
advised to check NOTAMS frequently for possible changes prior to operating in the
area.
C. Duration: Several test events will be conducted and will be active for 45 minutes
followed by 15 minutes of off time.
D. During testing, GPS will be unreliable and may be unavailable with in a circle with
a radius of 370NM and centered at 304906N/0802811W or the location known as
105.25 degrees and 52.1 NM from the SSI VOR at FL400; decreasing in area with
a decrease in altitude to a circle with a radius of 325NM at FL250; a circle with a
radius of 260NM at 10,000FT MSL and a circle with a radius of 215NM at 4,000FT
AGL.
E. Pilots are highly recommended to report anomalies during testing to the
appropriate ARTCC to assist in the determination of the extent of GPS degradation
during tests.
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE FEDS! I DO NOT KNOW JUST HOW THIS WILL IMPACT US BUT BE AWARE>
The Department of Defense will conduct GPS tests on January 20th through February
22nd, 2011. During testing, the GPS signal may be unreliable or unavailable.
A. Location: Centered at 304906N/0802811W or the location know as 105.25
degrees and 52.1 NM from the SSI VOR.
B. Dates and times: GPS testing is scheduled on January 20th through February 11th,
2011 from 0000-0245 UTC daily and February 15th through February 22nd, 2011
from 0000-0245 UTC daily. These tests may not be concurrent so pilots are
advised to check NOTAMS frequently for possible changes prior to operating in the
area.
C. Duration: Several test events will be conducted and will be active for 45 minutes
followed by 15 minutes of off time.
D. During testing, GPS will be unreliable and may be unavailable with in a circle with
a radius of 370NM and centered at 304906N/0802811W or the location known as
105.25 degrees and 52.1 NM from the SSI VOR at FL400; decreasing in area with
a decrease in altitude to a circle with a radius of 325NM at FL250; a circle with a
radius of 260NM at 10,000FT MSL and a circle with a radius of 215NM at 4,000FT
AGL.
E. Pilots are highly recommended to report anomalies during testing to the
appropriate ARTCC to assist in the determination of the extent of GPS degradation
during tests.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Automobiles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment
We all know that a crucial part of the Government's "rah, rah, go green!" campaign is the use of automobiles. "Oil is bad! The earth is harmed! No more gasoline!" they tell us. The solutions they give us, however, lead to a hidden, undisclosed agenda.
The two most prominent alternative fuel sources are bio-fuels (ethanol) & electric motors (large blenders). As we move towards both of these, we begin to notice that bio-fuels are the preferred choice for private sector fuel companies. Have you seen the Mobil ads? "Biofuel breakthroughs" & the like.
As for electric motors, it's crystal clear what OBAMA wants for all of us to be driving: a blender-on-wheels. After the takeover of General Motors, the White House has made a concerted effort to encourage the purchase of the Chevrolet Volt, a 40-mile-a-charge, $40k, overpriced, failed attempt at getting us to buy "electric".
Also, let's remember that Obama gave $2 billion to Brazil for their own oil exploration, a country that is more advanced in bio-fuel technology than we are. A country that uses ethanol more regularly.
Let's not forget the uber-Government UN's negative view towards ethanol. They, too, have disdain for what amounts to, for all intents & purposes, an ALTERNATIVE liquid fuel component, one that might actually help alleviate the coming oil crisis.
We also have this "food-safety" bill that was forced upon us by the 111th Senate, a very unpopular bill that will affect the production of ETHANOL. This may explain the reason Harry Reid deemed it so vital, it had to pass before the new Congress took effect.
I began to wonder about all of this. We have a "go green" mentality, but there are two distinctly different goals here. Why is the Government not openly supporting bio-fuels? What happened to GREEN?
The difference between a liquid fuel & an electric motor, is that, at some level, electric motors will be made in concert with computer manufacturers. Liquid fuels allow indepedent manufacturing of non-computerized engines. In other words, the former is apples to apples, the latter is apples to oranges.
Another piece to this puzzle sheds some light on the true Government agenda. Not long ago, Google did a computer-GPS automobile control test run with one of their devices. Google deemed it a success, and inevitably will begin to find ways to sell this product.
Keeping in mind that Google & the White House have an unnatural relationship, it begs the question: Does the Government intend for us to ride in Government mandated, computer controlled vehicles? With such technology, an authoritarian will say to himself: "They don't NEED a car. They're helpless cattle. We need a super-computer with this Google GPS technology to eliminate automobile ownership. If they need to go somewhere, WE will provide a centralized Google brain that will eliminate day-to-day drivers. Need to go to the voting booth? Press a button, and your OBAMA car will be at your squat in half-an-hour, just like Domino's!"
Seriously, though, the Government wants to mandate computer controlled emergency braking on ALL vehicles. This is telling. Government wants to END automobile ownership. The clues are there. One simply has to put them together.
The two most prominent alternative fuel sources are bio-fuels (ethanol) & electric motors (large blenders). As we move towards both of these, we begin to notice that bio-fuels are the preferred choice for private sector fuel companies. Have you seen the Mobil ads? "Biofuel breakthroughs" & the like.
As for electric motors, it's crystal clear what OBAMA wants for all of us to be driving: a blender-on-wheels. After the takeover of General Motors, the White House has made a concerted effort to encourage the purchase of the Chevrolet Volt, a 40-mile-a-charge, $40k, overpriced, failed attempt at getting us to buy "electric".
Also, let's remember that Obama gave $2 billion to Brazil for their own oil exploration, a country that is more advanced in bio-fuel technology than we are. A country that uses ethanol more regularly.
Let's not forget the uber-Government UN's negative view towards ethanol. They, too, have disdain for what amounts to, for all intents & purposes, an ALTERNATIVE liquid fuel component, one that might actually help alleviate the coming oil crisis.
We also have this "food-safety" bill that was forced upon us by the 111th Senate, a very unpopular bill that will affect the production of ETHANOL. This may explain the reason Harry Reid deemed it so vital, it had to pass before the new Congress took effect.
I began to wonder about all of this. We have a "go green" mentality, but there are two distinctly different goals here. Why is the Government not openly supporting bio-fuels? What happened to GREEN?
The difference between a liquid fuel & an electric motor, is that, at some level, electric motors will be made in concert with computer manufacturers. Liquid fuels allow indepedent manufacturing of non-computerized engines. In other words, the former is apples to apples, the latter is apples to oranges.
Another piece to this puzzle sheds some light on the true Government agenda. Not long ago, Google did a computer-GPS automobile control test run with one of their devices. Google deemed it a success, and inevitably will begin to find ways to sell this product.
Keeping in mind that Google & the White House have an unnatural relationship, it begs the question: Does the Government intend for us to ride in Government mandated, computer controlled vehicles? With such technology, an authoritarian will say to himself: "They don't NEED a car. They're helpless cattle. We need a super-computer with this Google GPS technology to eliminate automobile ownership. If they need to go somewhere, WE will provide a centralized Google brain that will eliminate day-to-day drivers. Need to go to the voting booth? Press a button, and your OBAMA car will be at your squat in half-an-hour, just like Domino's!"
Seriously, though, the Government wants to mandate computer controlled emergency braking on ALL vehicles. This is telling. Government wants to END automobile ownership. The clues are there. One simply has to put them together.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Liberal thinking 101 (my oldie but goodie)
A. AIDS is not the fault of decadent behaviour of those afflicted. It is the fault of greedy people that don't want the government to steal their money for the research to cure it
B. It is more important to determine at conception who is prone to a genetic disease than it is to cure it. Society needn't be financially burdened with humans that need constant medical care. Encourage or force mothers to abort, even partial-birth
C. Victims of genetically acquired diseases don't deserve mercy. Their mothers are responsible for not aborting them
D. The elderly have outlived their usefulness. Their resources must be confiscated and their health care eliminated
E. Wars happen because evil nations try to defend themselves
F. God may or may not exist, but Government is certain and must be given authority to control our lives
G. People that have the audacity to better their lives and those around them need to be punished. How dare they even think they can make the world better?
H. Worsen the lives of those around you. No matter how bad life gets, you have the comfort of knowing your neighbor is suffering, too.
B. It is more important to determine at conception who is prone to a genetic disease than it is to cure it. Society needn't be financially burdened with humans that need constant medical care. Encourage or force mothers to abort, even partial-birth
C. Victims of genetically acquired diseases don't deserve mercy. Their mothers are responsible for not aborting them
D. The elderly have outlived their usefulness. Their resources must be confiscated and their health care eliminated
E. Wars happen because evil nations try to defend themselves
F. God may or may not exist, but Government is certain and must be given authority to control our lives
G. People that have the audacity to better their lives and those around them need to be punished. How dare they even think they can make the world better?
H. Worsen the lives of those around you. No matter how bad life gets, you have the comfort of knowing your neighbor is suffering, too.
Monday, December 27, 2010
The case for Ken Cuccinelli
Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, even Rick Perry & Marco Rubio have been mentioned.
And yes, I'm sure half-a-dozen of you are upset that I left out your choice for the 2012 election. I'm sorry, OK? How was I to know we would be facing all this chaos?
But I digress. This, being a rare post for me, is about why I think Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli is easily the most qualified potential candidate for POTUS in 2012. Let's start a campaign. "KC & the Sunshine plan". Something like that. I don't do that sort of stuff, but maybe one of you can.
1st, lemme try to cover the other top candidates as briefly as possible. Let's start with Romney.
Romey's Dad was George Romney who is credited with attaining wealth from the auto industry, who subsequently put that into the Hotel industry. Glenn Beck likes him, had a nice story about him in 08, etc.
My take? Romney is a silver-spooner. It's not that he's a bad guy, but that experiment in Massachusetts with socialized health care puts him out to pasture.
Sarah Palin. Need I say more? I don't have a knock on her. I pulled the lever for her in 08. Nothing's changed here. My concern is that the extra-curricular stuff could be used to falsley portray her as some sort of zealot. Liberals are so jealous of her they can't see straight.
Pawlenty & Huckabee are too soft towards liberals. I see confusion, or lack of pure conviction, in both of them.
Boehner has made some boo-boos along the way, and at times appears to be easily confused. The crying thing I had no problem with, but potential voters might. His strength is his ability to endure. I'm impressed he's survived thru the Gingrich & Pelosi years to be Speaker now.
Which brings me to Newt. Ahhh, Newt. You broke our hearts when you supported Scozzafava. I'm sorry, but that fiasco exposed your desire to stay in the establishment fray. No way Newt-ay.
Rubio & Perry both need to be seen in action. Let's see what they're made of. Perry's been in for a little while, so far, so good.
What I know of Daniels makes him my 3rd choice.
Which brings me to the Virginia AG, Ken Cuccinelli. While all of the other potential candidates have seen action with mixed results, this individual has done something all of the others have yet to accomplish: he DEFEATED the Obama agenda, head on, IN HIS FIRST ATTEMPT.
What's the significance of this? Consider all of the lawsuits that have been brought to the Federal courts by various individuals in the last year or so and have failed & had to be appealed. Yes, I know we have hack judges in the system, yadda yadda yadda. But this also exemplifies the command of the Constitution by the various suing parties.
Go to YouTube & watch a few of Cuccinelli's press conferences, interviews, etc. I have yet to see an individual with the command of COTUS that Ken Cuccinelli has. Also, he is an authentic, classic, Ben Franklin libertarian. We, the glorious United States of America, need someone with instant command of COTUS to correct the horrific legal mess created by the current administration. I believe Ken Cuccinelli is the best Patriot for the job.
That's my case & I'm sticking to it (Someone make pins & T-shirts already).
And yes, I'm sure half-a-dozen of you are upset that I left out your choice for the 2012 election. I'm sorry, OK? How was I to know we would be facing all this chaos?
But I digress. This, being a rare post for me, is about why I think Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli is easily the most qualified potential candidate for POTUS in 2012. Let's start a campaign. "KC & the Sunshine plan". Something like that. I don't do that sort of stuff, but maybe one of you can.
1st, lemme try to cover the other top candidates as briefly as possible. Let's start with Romney.
Romey's Dad was George Romney who is credited with attaining wealth from the auto industry, who subsequently put that into the Hotel industry. Glenn Beck likes him, had a nice story about him in 08, etc.
My take? Romney is a silver-spooner. It's not that he's a bad guy, but that experiment in Massachusetts with socialized health care puts him out to pasture.
Sarah Palin. Need I say more? I don't have a knock on her. I pulled the lever for her in 08. Nothing's changed here. My concern is that the extra-curricular stuff could be used to falsley portray her as some sort of zealot. Liberals are so jealous of her they can't see straight.
Pawlenty & Huckabee are too soft towards liberals. I see confusion, or lack of pure conviction, in both of them.
Boehner has made some boo-boos along the way, and at times appears to be easily confused. The crying thing I had no problem with, but potential voters might. His strength is his ability to endure. I'm impressed he's survived thru the Gingrich & Pelosi years to be Speaker now.
Which brings me to Newt. Ahhh, Newt. You broke our hearts when you supported Scozzafava. I'm sorry, but that fiasco exposed your desire to stay in the establishment fray. No way Newt-ay.
Rubio & Perry both need to be seen in action. Let's see what they're made of. Perry's been in for a little while, so far, so good.
What I know of Daniels makes him my 3rd choice.
Which brings me to the Virginia AG, Ken Cuccinelli. While all of the other potential candidates have seen action with mixed results, this individual has done something all of the others have yet to accomplish: he DEFEATED the Obama agenda, head on, IN HIS FIRST ATTEMPT.
What's the significance of this? Consider all of the lawsuits that have been brought to the Federal courts by various individuals in the last year or so and have failed & had to be appealed. Yes, I know we have hack judges in the system, yadda yadda yadda. But this also exemplifies the command of the Constitution by the various suing parties.
Go to YouTube & watch a few of Cuccinelli's press conferences, interviews, etc. I have yet to see an individual with the command of COTUS that Ken Cuccinelli has. Also, he is an authentic, classic, Ben Franklin libertarian. We, the glorious United States of America, need someone with instant command of COTUS to correct the horrific legal mess created by the current administration. I believe Ken Cuccinelli is the best Patriot for the job.
That's my case & I'm sticking to it (Someone make pins & T-shirts already).
Thursday, October 14, 2010
CHRYSLER: A Very Dirty Story
Sooner or later it will all come to light!
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison.
Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed?
Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs."
Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is.
Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this list of dealerships'. Not true!
The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed?
Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection.
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government, 788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky "coincidence," we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky "coincidence."
On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri .. It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson.
Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier.
These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one! While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were!
Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Workers union! Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market.
Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America, it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda.
This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done.
Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation into this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom.
According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future."
By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ....
Uh-oh!
But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really?
Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!
Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family."
Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,"... as Tim Geithner likes to say!
SOOOOO. HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?..
Check it out at the following websites.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
This goes from beyond corruption in high places - to gross criminal actions on the part of our government!
I hope you will spread this far and wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that transparency we were promised...... followed by criminal prosecution of the perpetrators!
What a crooked government, we have!!!!!
Vote 'em all out... November, 2010!
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison.
Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed?
Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs."
Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is.
Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this list of dealerships'. Not true!
The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed?
Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection.
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government, 788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky "coincidence," we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky "coincidence."
On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri .. It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson.
Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier.
These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one! While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were!
Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Workers union! Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market.
Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America, it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda.
This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done.
Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation into this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom.
According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future."
By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ....
Uh-oh!
But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really?
Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!
Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family."
Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,"... as Tim Geithner likes to say!
SOOOOO. HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?..
Check it out at the following websites.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
This goes from beyond corruption in high places - to gross criminal actions on the part of our government!
I hope you will spread this far and wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that transparency we were promised...... followed by criminal prosecution of the perpetrators!
What a crooked government, we have!!!!!
Vote 'em all out... November, 2010!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
