Saturday, June 27, 2009

The True Nature of Barack Obama.

The words of this Nigerian woman WILL disturb you. Good!

June 25, 2009

Obama, the African Colonial
by L.E. Ikenga

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.

Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.

The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.

Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria....

**read the rest of this disturbing piece from the American Thinker, visit their site, and buy from their advertisers! Thanks)

Monday, June 22, 2009

Where the Hell Is Barack Obama?!!!!

The good people of Iran are in open revolt.

WHERE oh WHERE is the "leader of the free world"?

Where the hell is Barack Obama?!!!

Our President has the world's biggest microphone, why isn't he using it to help topple the evil terrorist regime in Iran? The brave people of Iran are coming out in the hundreds of thousands-possibly MILLIONS-and we aren't even giving them MORAL SUPPORT! What the hell is wrong with this White House? This could be Barack's "tear down this wall" moment and he's letting it pass for fear of being seen as a "meddler."

This is our chance to topple the world's terror masters without firing a shot, so once again I ask----WHERE THE HELL IS BARACK OBAMA?!!!!

Saturday, June 13, 2009

On Rights and Health Care

What is a "right"?

The Free Legal Dictionary says: In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law.

In other words, a right is something to which you have a just claim, and it's enforceable by law.

Radio talk show host Neal Boortz wrote:

"Logic cannot support the premise that health care is a right. Health care is a service that is administered by another human being with the requisite skills and knowledge. To claim that health care is a "right" is to claim a right to the services of the health-care provider. In effect, this means you are claiming a "right" to a portion of that person's life – both a portion of the time already spent developing his skills, and a portion of the time spent practicing those skills on you.Only through a mutual agreement, a contract, can one person claim a right to a portion of another person's life. Anything beyond that is either charity or slavery."

Neal failed to mention that the person who uses "free" health care is also claiming a right to a portion of a total stranger's life, just another taxpayer. That stranger who pays confiscatory taxes to finance the knee surgery done on the recipient of the service has been ABUSED by the government on behalf of the person who had the surgery. His property, in the form of insanely high taxes (representing a portion of his life) has been unjustly seized to provide medical care for a total stranger.

To claim that you have a "right" to free health care, means that you are also claiming a "right" to a goodly portion of another person's life. There's no getting around that simple and obscene truth.

There's a reason that I've focused on the morality of the matter. Once the moral principle has been abandoned, the door is open for all matter of misuse, malfeasance, and eventual catastrophic failure. When the principle is abandoned we stop asking "should we even provide national free health care" and begin devising the best and most effective means for doing just that.

The poster Chuck is a smart conservative blogger ( ) and a registered nurse. He has probably forgotten more about health care than most of us will ever know. He wrote:

"I don't think right is a good word to use. I think there is maybe a moral obligation to ensure that people do not die of a treatable illness irregardless of ability to pay. It has always been my opinion that we would save money giving people basic health insurance. Anyone who does not think we already have universal health care is fooling themselves. People that do not have insurance wait until they are sick and then go to the Emergency Room (where I work). Their care then costs us considerably more. We pay for this either through government programs or by writing off the cost of the visit. Either way it is using resources."

As an conscientious ER nurse, Chuck has skipped ahead as a matter of practicality and thinks that providing health insurance will save money. I disagree for two reasons. Insurance for the medically indigent will morph out of control for political reasons in no time flat! EVERY Democrat politician--and half the Republicans--will promise to fatten the state provided benefits to buy votes. It's just as predictable as gravity.

By providing the medically indigent with health insurance we've induced the moral hazard. Both the politician who ultimately controls the purse strings, and the non-paying patient have something to gain by gaming the "free" health insurance system.

There MUST be some sort of co-pay involved with walking into the ER for health care that is commensurate with services rendered.

I've only scratched the surface of the socialized debate by focusing on the moral principles involved. In the coming days as this debate heats up it will be ESSENTIAL to remember what's motivating the politicians who are trying to sell you socialized medicine.

Power-Once the politician controls your health care he also controls you. The person who feels indebted to a politician will cast his vote for that same gutter-dwelling scallywag. How do you think a pile of rancid human debris like Ted Kennedy maintains his Senate seat?

A socialized medical system will permanently empower the Democrat Party and will cause a death spiral of our economy into socialism. Nothing less than the future of our country is at stake in this debate.

Where do you stand?

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

A Poll Question About Socialized Medicine

Do you have a RIGHT to healthcare and prescription drugs?

If yes, please explain why you have that RIGHT.

If no, tell me why.


Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Public Enemy #1, The ACLU!

I wrote this approximately five years ago while recuperating from a bad accident. So I had some time on my hands to watch the news and fume--through a cloud of pain killers of course. :-) While some of the details may have changed over time, the fact remains that the ACLU--and it's activist friends on the bench--are doing real and severe damage to our country.

The American Civil Liberties Union is at war with the United States of America. On their own website they claim to be "our nations guardian of liberty." They also claim,"our job is to conserve America's original civic values-the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

If you are an illegal alien trying to get a drivers license or welfare benefits, a local deviant attempting to view internet pornography at a public library, a Muslim radical hell-bent on the mass murder of U.S. citizens, an American left-wing radical calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, a supporter of racial discrimination (aka "Affirmative Action"), or a child molesting member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association you can count on the support of the ACLU. They got your back !

In February of 2005 U.S. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner(R-Wis) cosponsored H.R.418, the REAL ID Act. Along with the construction of a border fence between San Diego and Mexico, the bill calls for federalizing rules for obtaining drivers licenses. It requires states to demand proof of legal residence before issuing a drivers license. By limiting access to licenses, illegal aliens will have a more difficult time defrauding the state and federal welfare system or voting in U.S. elections.

H.R.418 also makes it far more difficult for terrorists to get a license due to information sharing agreements between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that are built into the bill. The September 11 terrorists had more than thirty driver's licenses between them, which they routinely used in preparations for the attacks on Washington and New York.

The ACLU started a letter writing campaign to stop H.R.418 calling it "anti-immigrant." The absurdity of such a statement is mind-boggling! They claim that nationwide driver's license standards and information sharing between states violates the "rights" of illegal aliens ("undocumented workers" to the ACLU) and terrorist suspects (Muslim victims of American imperialism no doubt). Just what "rights" do illegals and terrorists have ?

They also claim that the new license will be used as a national ID card against U.S. citizens. That's a problem that can be addressed seperately in committee or by the amendment process.
The ACLU's timing is suspect though. When Democrats or the UN call for gun registration lists, the ACLU is no where to be found ! No surprise. They don't believe in the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. The only people who bring their weapons in for registration and inevitable confiscation are law-abiding citizens. The ACLU doesn't seem to have any time for them. I guess it depends on what list you appear.

Securing our borders and shutting down illegal immigration and access to the American welfare system is step one in winning the war on Islamic terrorism. The ACLU will probably fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

"I don't believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support."

Lynn Stewart said this in an interview with the New York Times in 1995. Ms. Stewart is a lawyer and a self-described radical leftist/revolutionary, and if you removed the words "racism" and "sexism" from her statement, and substituted "Zionism" and "Christianity", Osama Bin Laden could have written the EXACT same thing ! She is associated with the Center for Constitutional Rights. They are a radical left-wing group of lawyers commited to anti-American causes.

According to David Horowitz (a former leader of the New Left movement), their agenda is to dismantle the U.S. Constitution in a revolutionary future, but also to use it in the present as a radical weapon to weaken the American state.

This goes far in explaining why liberals see 1st Amendment issues in submerging crucifixes in jars of urine and throwing "AIDS" tainted blood on audiences. While at the same time, they can't seem to find their voice to oppose the McCain-Feingold Act, which limited actual political free spech. But I digress. Back to Lynn Stewart.

The mastermind and religious leader behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was the "blind sheik", Omar Abdel Rahman. In his book "Unholy Alliance", David Horowitz tells us that Stewart's fellow radicals William Kunstler and Ramsey Clark (an attorney for Saddam Hussein) convinced Lynn Stewart to represent the blind skeik. Ms. Stewart was later convicted of aiding and abetting a terrorist by smuggling messages between Mr. Rahman and his terrorist followers in Egypt. Thankfully we were spared the gory details.

Enter the ACLU, who immediately issued press releases in her defense, calling her a "persecuted civil libertarian." To this day the ACLU continues to call Lynn Stewart's conviction a "troubling precedent."

I suppose to the ACLU there is no such thing as treason!

Extraordinary Rendition is a policy started by the Clinton Administration (and continued by the Bush Administration) where we round up terrorists and those suspected of terrorism and send them to another country for more aggressive questioning than we are willing to do ourselves. Cofer Block, former U.S. coordinator for counter-terrorism said in 2003 that with more than 3000 al-Qaida terrorists in prison in over 100 countries, countless attacks were stopped.

I wonder how those countries got the information to stop those attacks ? Do you think the terrorists gave up the useful intelligence after losing a friendly game of rock-paper-scissors? George Tenet, former CIA director, admitted to the rendition of at least 70 terrorists. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have no moral objections to torture, and recieve a treasure trove of useful information from these terrorists.

In America we weigh our objections to this practice against the very real possibility of mass murder inflicted by these monsters on an American city! The rendition policy is far from perfect, but given the circumstances it's the ONLY responsible choice to make.

The ACLU of course vehemently opposes this "outsourcing of torture." On March 1st, 2005 they filed a lawsuit in Illinois against Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on behalf four Iraqis and four Afghans. The ACLU calls them "victims of torture" in U.S. run facilities like Abu Ghraib. It's possible that our rendition policy and the Abu Ghraib "offense of Muslim manhood" policy have saved tens of thousands of American lives due to the information we have recieved. Thankfully we will never know. Maybe these policies enable us to "connect the dots." Do you remember that insipid little refrain being pompously spouted by Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick ? Gorelick was the architect of the wall that prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing terroist related intelligence prior to September 11. Well, we are now connecting the dots.

The ACLU also supports and defends the rights of the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Radio talk show host Neal Boortz calls him "Osama Bin Lopez." A convert to Islam, Senor Padilla recieved al-Qaida training on how to wire dirty bombs. This is a combination of traditional high explosives and highly radioactive material. U.S. authorities were convinced Padilla intended to build one of these bombs when he was arrested on May 8, 2002 at O'Hare airport in Chicago. Properly utilized, these radiological bombs can cause a staggering number of deaths ! Former Attorney General John Ashcroft arrested him and held him indefinitely as an enemy combatant.

The ACLU's response ? They were far more concerned that Mr. Padilla's due process rights were being violated. They continue to insist that because he's an American citizen he has rights that other terrorists do not. Novel reasoning, coming from the ACLU.

On their own website the ACLU airs New York Times editorials calling for the release of all Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detainees, claiming that they were "illegally detained and tortured." These bad guys were caught on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan wearing their pajamas, which is not a national military uniform last I checked. Therefore the protections of the Geneva Convention DO NOT apply to them. It is arguably legal to shoot them on site.

The ACLU is actively pursuing the "case" of these terrorist detainees at Gitmo.

Freedom loving Cubans are routinely shot by Fidel Castro's henchmen as they attempt to swim to the freedom of the U.S military base at Gitmo. The ACLU's murderous Muslim "clients" are dying to kill Americans, while nearby Cubans are dying to become Americans. I'll bet the irony is lost on ACLU and their "Uncle Fidel."

Right now the ACLU is hard at work helping radical Islamists everywhere beat the American legal system. In their myopic anti-American zeal, the ACLU and their friends in the world left fail to see the big picture...If radical Islam succeeds in destroying America, the ACLU and their atheistic fellow travelers will be the first group lined up and shot! Or beheaded, as radical Muslim preferences would have it. They'd be followed quickly by all "non-essential" Christians and Jews.

If the ACLU were a touch more prescient they would occassionally support the American system that actually allows their form of sedition. No such luck.

In the 1960's and 70's people of conscience everywhere fought hard to end racial and sexual discrimination in hiring practices. It was an essential feature of the overall civil rights movement. In the immortal words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.,"we should not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character."

Who can possibly improve on that ?

In that spirit, a black man named Ward Connerly, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, spearheaded the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) in 1996. Proposition 209 prohibited all state universities and private institutions that recieve government grants from considering race, sex or ethnicity for admission purposes or hiring. The voters of California overwhelmingly approved it.

Doesn't this sound like the epitome of fairness ? Not to the ACLU. They immediately attacked Prop. 209 and filed suit against it on behalf of the bills opponents on the far left. Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said that Prop. 209 "doesn't just move minorities and women to the back of the bus, it boots them off altogether." WHAT ?!

The ACLU and it's comrades actively support a system of racial and sexual discrimination against white and Asian men. This policy is euphemistically called "Affirmative Action." To this day they continue to fight Prop. 209 and fight FOR racial and sexual discrimination (Affirmative Action) whenever it rears it's ugly head. So much for their claim to be the "champion of civil rights."

In recent years there has been an uproar concerning the availablity of hard-core pornography on the internet at the public libraries. In an attempt to limit children's exposure (pardon the pun) to public library porno, citizen's groups and congress have pushed to install porn-blocking software in many public libraries around the country.

In 2003 the ACLU filed suit against the installation of porn blocking software on behalf of a group of librarians (no kidding) and a Rhode Island based health information website which was blocked. The ACLU claimed that the installation of porn blocking software denied citizens (children included) access to some "men's health websites" and raised "serious 1st Amendment issues." How dare those citizens block acces to Robert Maplethorpe's "bullwhip diaries"!

The Supreme Court ruled against the ACLU and found that the blocking software should stay in place on the condition that the filters are deactivated for any adult user who asks.

Are the Rhode Island peep show owners going to picket outside of the libraries protesting the loss of business? Do Rhode Islanders now have to pass a law that states that all adult porn viewers at public libraries must keep BOTH hands above the keyboards at all times ? The ACLU would probably fight that one based on freedom of "expression."

Thanks to the ACLU, children are no longer safe in some libraries.

By supporting children's "1st Amendment rights" to view internet porn, the ACLU has progressed from being merely anti-American, to viciously anti-social.

Of all the outrages commited by the ACLU, this one is the most horrifying. They are now defending the North American Man/Boy Love Association. On the NAMBLA website they claim to be a political, civil rights and educational organization, helping to educate society about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love.

Before I wretch, let me explain who they really are. They're homosexual child rapists. This is an organization of homosexual men who meet to share information and new techniques on the best way to "abuse" young boys. They are monsters to the very core. The English language is inadequate to describe the abject horror of this behavior. It would require the invention of new adjectives. For now your gut feeling will have to suffice.

On October 1, 1997 Charles Jaynes 25, and Salvatore Sicari 24, raped and murdered 10 year old Jeffery Curly of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

After these animals were convicted, the boys' family sued NAMBLA. The family claimed that NAMBLA and it's website incited the molestation and murder of Jeffery. Mr. Jaynes reportedly viewed the NAMBLA website just before killing the boy. He also had NAMBLA publications in his possession.

Enter the ACLU. John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU says, "for us it's a fundamental 1st Amendment case, it has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

Oh really ? Even in the liberal cesspool of moral relativism known as Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts, promoting child molestation is against the law !

The boy's parents wanted access to NAMBLA membership lists, which the ACLU is trying to block. If the ACLU sends some staffers to New York, there's a Senator who would gladly lend them a few paper shredders to take care of those pesky membership lists. Even more outrageous, the ACLU will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing it's members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous! Just in case you weren't furious already. The Curleys were awarded $328 million by a superior court jury in a civil suit against Jaynes and Sicari. No telling how they will collect.

In medieval times the radicals and child molesters defended by the ACLU would probably be impaled on stakes outside the city walls or end up swinging on the gallows. How we deal with them today will be a determining factor in the future of our great republic.

By defending the "rights" of illegal aliens, communist radicals, "affirmative action" racists and Muslim radicals intending mass murder, the ACLU only exposes itself as anti-American...highly unpatriotic if you will.

By fighting hard to allow children access to Internet pornography, and defending a group of homosexual abusers of boys (NAMBLA), the ACLU descends into the murky abyss of inhumanity. This is the most explicit example of the degree to which the ACLU is at war with our country.

To ancient Hebrews (and some modern Jews) the worst possible fate that could befall a person was to die before accepting God. Their soul would be relegated to the valley of Gei Hinnom to be without God's presence. To later Christians, hell-fire and eternal damnation was the worst possible outcome.

They never met the ACLU!

Monday, June 8, 2009

Slouching Toward Utopia, by Deborah On the Bayside

Intended Consequences of the Pay Czar

Your humble laureate is well schooled in history and economy. So buckle up and hold on tight - here comes another tsunami.

O ye doyens of industry
O'er your heart put a patrol.
For you might rein in the Beltway
When you practice self control.

And when Leviathan's levellers come knocking
You'd better be clean and walk it!
Or you'll rue the day that Barry's fingers
Came sidling in your pocket.

You greedy people always talk
About keeping all your money.
But I've a higher and better plan,
So fork it over, honey.

So what, if you the jobs shall make
For all the Forgotten Men.
It's unfair. Your getting all the bucks
Embitters me no end.

What matters if the little guy
Gets naught or's made a bigger debtor?
When I take down the rich a notch,
Then I feel better.

Well new pardners, of you now
I've got a piece. But hey
The market's just a great excuse
To do what I wanted anyway.

It's not only just the dough that enrages me to myopia.
It's that sweet, sweet, sweet control. Yes! I'll usher in utopia.

...with homage to Amity Shlaes whose beautiful Forgotten Man shines a light on the treacherous path we're on.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Wanna-Be Dictator Obama to Appoint Executive Pay Czar.

From Fox News and the Wall Street Journal...

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.

President Obama once complained in a 2001 radio interview that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a charter of "negative" freedoms and liberties. He whined that it limits what the government can "do to you, rather than what it can do for you." It's clear that our radical new President sees the U.S. Constitution as a bump in the road to his fascistic plans.

A while ago I posed the question, what is Obama after? The answer is becoming clearer by the day. He seems to have two goals:

1. Power-no matter what form it takes. Obama seems to prefer corporate fascism. Broadly defined, he's using private money and ownership of industry, and exerting GOVERNMENT control via the bailout loans. The Obama administration has learned from Juan Peron and Benito Mussolini how to take control over private enterprise and the free market without completely killing them. Look what's happened to the banking and auto sectors. He's also empowering his union goons (allies) in every sector of government business. Regular poster Fairwitness noted:

I think the Obama Administration and its fast-moving implementation of socialist policies is much, much bigger than the new President. This is an orchestrated machine which had detailed plans in place, step-by-step "to do" lists, if you will, ready to go the minute Obama was sworn into office.

Her private aircraft business has been targeted by the administration because they aren't unionized! The Italian word "fascisti" means bundles or unions!

2. Damage-I can't shake the feeling that Obama and his henchmen are getting even with the country they view as inherently unequal; and to a leftist like Obama that means America is inherently EVIL! Witness the staggering level of debt that the left has caused in the last three months. They must know that this is generational theft, they cannot be unaware of it's consequences. I think this is a natural leftist impulse, and the only thing that normally keeps it in check is the desire to be re-elected. That's a distant third for Obama.

President Obama seems hell-bent on his course to "nationalize" everything he can, as quickly as he can, regardless of the consequences. In his wake will be tremendous damage....and that's EXACTLY what he wants!

Barack Obama Sr. and Saul Alinsky are probably doing high fives in Hell right now.