Well, I hope Dan Rather and Chris Mathews are happy -- and Brian Williams and espeically Candy Crowley, who continues to labor at whitewashing White House activities. (Hey, Candy, have you checked? Your phones may be tapped. Or maybe you know they are, and that explains you.) They and many of their cohorts in the national media -- Fox News excluded -- have shown themselves so blindly supportive of this disastrous federal administration that the Whiute House has become completely unfettered in its efforts to control the news and apparently any information related to government activity.
Apart from appropriating the telephone records of apparently a couple hundred AP journalists and editors, the White House -- or the Comrade's henchman, Eric Hold'em at the Dept. of Social Justice -- also "investigated" James Rosen, Fox's chief reporter in Washington. They even "investigated" his parents' telephone records. And it seems that the subpoena they got for this should have assumed some kind of genuinely criminal behavior on Rosen's part -- completely unfounded on anything, and he was never charged with anything.
But wait!! When you illegally "investigate" Rosen, why not double your pleasure and take it to the to the next level? Why stop at one shady subpoena, when DOSJ also "investigated" phone lines throughout the Fox News organization -- all the way up to Roger Ailes.
Similarly, Susan Atkisson, a CBS (I think) news reporter who also criticized the White House -- or actually developed news stories to reveal the truth of its activities -- had her emails or something monitored and scrutinized by the DOSJ.
Puts me in mind of Hugo Chavez, the totalitarian dictator in Venezuela who recently died of cancer -- that his poeple claimed was given to him by the US ambassador there. (These so-caled progressive clowns, wherever in the world they are, believe anything.) When a news outlet in Venezuela protested Chavez's illegal and dictatorial practices there -- his election corruption, terrorizing the Venezuelan legislature, et. al. -- Chavez shut down newspapers that criticized him, along with a TV channel that didn't like his tactics.
For the Comrade, it seems Chavez's actions in Venezuela proved to be a "teachable moment."
Then on the IRS Scandal front, Lois Lerner, who headed up one or another division of the IRS, was summoned to speak at a congressional invesigative hearing today and pleaded the Fifth Amendment. That is, "I refuse to answer the question on grounds that it may inciminate me."
For the last several years, the IRS has been harrassing Tea Parties and other conservative activist organizations who applied for tax exemptions. And in at least one case, they even got OSHA and the ATF to "investigate" one small group that applied -- the group wanted to educate people on the importance of voting. OMG!!! How subversive can you get? Next they'll be driving people to the polls!!! Can America withstand such a violent onslaught?
Lerner was the IRS blockhead who knew the Inspector General's report on the IRS's illegal activities was about to be published, so at a news conference of some kind, she actually planted someone in the audience to ask her about the IRS targeting Tea Parties. She confessed to it and said, gee golly, so sorry about that. Like no one would notice, and certainly the public would forgive such a cute little transgresion -- of the US Constitution and everything this country stands for.
Yeah, Lois, no harm done! Glad to hear you're sorry! We understand. So hard to keep your filthy, lying face out of other's peoples' business. We all have these irresistible impulses to seize dictatorial powers. No harm done, except to 300 million US citizens -- and since they aren't the people in the White House, who really gives a damn?
And interesting for her to stand on the Fifth. That's another kind of confession, isn't it? Her answers may incriminate her? Well, she's a lawyer -- she said she was a lawyer, that's why she isn't good at math -- so she's probably painfully aware of the fact that she probably deserves 10 to 15 at Leavenworth. And hopefully, she'll eventually get it. She'll be abe to wave to Eric Hold'em across the prison yard.
Meanwhile, poor, pathetic Jay Carneybarker, who was actually at one tiume a professional journalist, is spinning so hard at the daily press briefings that he looks like Odette from Swan Lake.
That's it for now. And that's plenty.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Dept of (Social) Justice choses stupidest way to investigate govt leaks
I know it's hard to keep track of the scandals coming out of this White House, but one that especially pissed off the press was the fact that Eric Hold'em's Dept. of (Social) Justice recently seized two months of telephone records from Associated Press in Washington, I assume. The phone records were for hundreds of reporters and editors, and included even their personal phones and cell phones.
The Dept of Social Justice claims they were looking for a "leak." That is, someone in the government who was involved in a highly classified activity, leaked the information to aomeone at AP. AP subsequently -- before publication -- notified the feds that they had the story, and they even agreed to hold publication on it until they got a clearance from the government to go ahead.
But the Dept of Social Justice was still, and probably rightfuly, concerned about who in the federal government is leaking classified information to the press.
So they did some undercover thing, maybe covered by the so-called Patriot Act, and seized all of AP's phone records -- without giving AP any notice. Bear in mind, even with prior notice, there's nothing the AP could do to change or falsify the phone records, which are held by the phone company, after all.
So Eric Hold'em, head of the Dept of Social Justice, says he "recused" himself from this whole thing because he could have been the leaker. He didn't sign the subpoena (if there was one) for the phone records. Eric Hold'em was apparently playing golf with the Comrade that day.
So anyway, this guy name Mike Baker, a Fox contributor, but also a former CIA agent, now owner of a private security company suggested an alternative way to figure out who's leaking without steamrolling over the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.
Baker says that in a highly classified operation, as this one was, apparently, there might a dozen people in the government who know about it. So why not question and/or polygraph those dozen people about leaking -- rather than trampling on the rights and freedoms of about 200 journalists?
So the Comrade crows about how he's protecting 60,000 troops in Afghanistan and tries to justify this misconduct this way. Of course, he didn't really know anything about it until he read about it in the newspaper or heard about it on TV. Because he's right on top of things.
But, I'm sorry, the way the Dept of Social Justice conducted this "investigation" is kind of like what the IRS has been doing the Tea Parties who applied for tax exempt status. I mean, now the DOSJ knows everyone every AP reporter and editor contacted by phone for a couple of months. Everyone. All of their contacts and the reporters themselves have been compromised. Just like the IRS now knows who ever contacted the Tea Parties, donated money, etc etc.
And the AP was a big pal of the Comrade.
Wonder if they still are.
The Dept of Social Justice claims they were looking for a "leak." That is, someone in the government who was involved in a highly classified activity, leaked the information to aomeone at AP. AP subsequently -- before publication -- notified the feds that they had the story, and they even agreed to hold publication on it until they got a clearance from the government to go ahead.
But the Dept of Social Justice was still, and probably rightfuly, concerned about who in the federal government is leaking classified information to the press.
So they did some undercover thing, maybe covered by the so-called Patriot Act, and seized all of AP's phone records -- without giving AP any notice. Bear in mind, even with prior notice, there's nothing the AP could do to change or falsify the phone records, which are held by the phone company, after all.
So Eric Hold'em, head of the Dept of Social Justice, says he "recused" himself from this whole thing because he could have been the leaker. He didn't sign the subpoena (if there was one) for the phone records. Eric Hold'em was apparently playing golf with the Comrade that day.
So anyway, this guy name Mike Baker, a Fox contributor, but also a former CIA agent, now owner of a private security company suggested an alternative way to figure out who's leaking without steamrolling over the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.
Baker says that in a highly classified operation, as this one was, apparently, there might a dozen people in the government who know about it. So why not question and/or polygraph those dozen people about leaking -- rather than trampling on the rights and freedoms of about 200 journalists?
So the Comrade crows about how he's protecting 60,000 troops in Afghanistan and tries to justify this misconduct this way. Of course, he didn't really know anything about it until he read about it in the newspaper or heard about it on TV. Because he's right on top of things.
But, I'm sorry, the way the Dept of Social Justice conducted this "investigation" is kind of like what the IRS has been doing the Tea Parties who applied for tax exempt status. I mean, now the DOSJ knows everyone every AP reporter and editor contacted by phone for a couple of months. Everyone. All of their contacts and the reporters themselves have been compromised. Just like the IRS now knows who ever contacted the Tea Parties, donated money, etc etc.
And the AP was a big pal of the Comrade.
Wonder if they still are.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Obama the national mushroom
Wrote before in this blog explaining the mushroom thing. It was a little poster that was circulated among offices, usually thumbtacked to the wall over the Xerox machine. A cartoon of a mushroom with the caption: "I'm the company mushroom. They keep me in the dark and feed me bullshit."
So apparently the Comrade has become the national mushroom. They keep him in the dark and feed him bullshit... according to Jay Carney and the Comrade himself.
And naturally, the question that follows is: Who are "they?"
But maybe there is no "they" there. Maybe he's just an ignorant dolt who had no experience managing his way out of a paper bag, ever, in his whole life, and so things occurring beyond the Rose Garden just got away from him. Unless all this has happened on (somebody's) purpose, God forbid,.
Because it seems the Comrade has no idea what's going on the State Department, The Treasury, or the Department of Justice. And these are all executive branch. All part of the Comrade's charge.
So if he has nothing to do with anything those departments do, and he gets information about things like the criminal behavior of the IRS from network news programs, didn't have an inkling of what went on in Benghazi and just repeated the fiction nobody-knows-who fabricated, and never heard of the FBI spying on the press, exactly what the hell does he do all day?
Golf? I mean, even golf has to get a little tiresome after four and a half years. Tiger Woods isn't always available, and neither is Shaquille O'Neal. I mean, they have jobs to do.
So until we get some facts about the scandals blossoming in Washington DC alongside the cherry trees, I'll take the Comrade's word for it all:
That is, he's blind and deaf, indifferent to world and even domestic affairs, and doesn't give a good goddamn about what goes on outside the Oval Office.
I'm glad I didn't vote for him.
So apparently the Comrade has become the national mushroom. They keep him in the dark and feed him bullshit... according to Jay Carney and the Comrade himself.
And naturally, the question that follows is: Who are "they?"
But maybe there is no "they" there. Maybe he's just an ignorant dolt who had no experience managing his way out of a paper bag, ever, in his whole life, and so things occurring beyond the Rose Garden just got away from him. Unless all this has happened on (somebody's) purpose, God forbid,.
Because it seems the Comrade has no idea what's going on the State Department, The Treasury, or the Department of Justice. And these are all executive branch. All part of the Comrade's charge.
So if he has nothing to do with anything those departments do, and he gets information about things like the criminal behavior of the IRS from network news programs, didn't have an inkling of what went on in Benghazi and just repeated the fiction nobody-knows-who fabricated, and never heard of the FBI spying on the press, exactly what the hell does he do all day?
Golf? I mean, even golf has to get a little tiresome after four and a half years. Tiger Woods isn't always available, and neither is Shaquille O'Neal. I mean, they have jobs to do.
So until we get some facts about the scandals blossoming in Washington DC alongside the cherry trees, I'll take the Comrade's word for it all:
That is, he's blind and deaf, indifferent to world and even domestic affairs, and doesn't give a good goddamn about what goes on outside the Oval Office.
I'm glad I didn't vote for him.
Monday, May 13, 2013
DC corruption worse than you even imagined.
Once upon a time, there was this guy named Martin Neimoller. Not sure who he was or what he did, except for a very well-known couple of phrases he wrote about Nazi Germany:
First they cane for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --So things are getting interesting. So many scandals coming out of this regime right now, it's hard to keep up.
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
I still believe Benghazi is the worst -- the lies, yeah. But beyond the lies, leaving Chris Stevens, Glenn Dougherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Wood just twisting in the wind. That's an unconscionable disgrace.
And now the IRS has admitted that for the past two years, or even longer, as various organizations have sought 501-4C status as "advocacy groups," because they qualify for certain tax breaks -- the IRS has been looking for groups with nanes that include things like "Tea Party" "Constitution," "9/12 Project" and so forth, and submitting them to special scrutiny. To wit, the IRS has asked these groups to hand over their donor and membership lists.
Kinda like the White House requesting that if you know anyone who really mouths off about the Comrade being a marxist commie bastard, send them the names.
Enemies list? I don't know. What do you think? Maybe the Comrade's just filling up a scrapbook of mementoes from his time in the White House.
But I'm sorry. That inspires me to buy an AR-15 while they're still available.
Additionally, Eric Hold'em -- chief of the Dept of Justice, who is to the Comrade as Stalin was to Lenin, has leaked today that the DOJ snatched up a couple months' worth of telephone records for AP journalists -- their office and home phones, and apparently even if they tried to use a phone booth or something.
Has the AP (Associated Press, founded in time to be around for the US Civil War), been unfriendly to the White House? I don't know. I don't recall any criticism, but then this White House has kind of a hair trigger when it comes to critism. If you're not sitting at his feet and actively peeling grapes, you may be audited.
And why talk about the AP thing now? Maybe to create some kind of chill effect, since the press is starting to awaken from their lovely slumber in Utopia and looking around for a few facts?
There she goes again, comparing the Comrade's regime to Nazi Germany and the USSR.
Yeah. But I'm afraid I haven't been wrong so far, have I?
Who's going to speak for you?
Monday, May 6, 2013
Bogart on Benghazi
Almost nothing the current regime has done struck me, personally, as so being as low as the Benghazi fiasco. They send Christopher Stevens and others out there in some very dangerous outpost amongst people who want nothing more than to kill the American Satan, and then refuse to defend him. The British had pulled out, for God's sake, and not much scares the British.
I've always found it rather touching, and incredibly honorable that the Marines have this thing about not leaving their dead and wounded behind.
But that's exactly what happened to Chris Stevens and those three other guys.
Worse -- to lie about it. Lie about it. "It Wasn't me. I know nothing. I did nothing. I heard nothing."
Honestly, what kind of scum are occupying this federal administration?
They weigh four human lives against their political fantasies and ambitions, and their ambitions are regarded as more important. Like, what? Hillary down in Chile going, "Hey let the sonsabitches die quickly. Just cover it up so it doesn't stand as a black mark against me."
Though I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton two years ago because she is also a disciple of Saul Alinsky, now I'd rather see her at forced service in Benghazi. Despite Pazzo Pelosi's lobbying for Hillary for president. I mean, she's not "Pazzo" for nothing.
At any rate, with a new set of whistleblowers coming out about Benghazi -- and I've already read part of one guy's testimony from CBS -- he's Hicks, who was second in command in the State Dept. contingent in Libya, and was completely in charge after Chris Stevens was killed. He says he was on the phone that night to Washington and elsehwere, trying to drum up aid. So Washington knew all along what was going on. They just refused to help. To even try to help.
God forbid, perhaps they would have offended some bloodyy-minded muslim terrorist.
And Leon Panetta once claimed this refusal for back-up and support was because he couldn't send the military into dangerous territory. Making me wonder if Panetta hasn't also dropped a few marbles over the course of his federal career. Perhaps he believes the military are just nice to trot out for parades on the 4th of July, like little wind-up toys?
At any rate, I've seen few things more offensive than Hillary Clinton's testimony in congressional hearings on Benghazi. This is her most outrageous statement, in aswer to Wisc. Senator Ron Johnson:
So, anyway, this reminded me of a point Humphrey Bogart made to Mary Astor in The Maltese Falcon. See, Mary was responsible for his partner's death. Bogart was, maybe, in love with her. She was counting on that -- assuming he would let her go scot-free. He called the cops instead. He explained:
I've always found it rather touching, and incredibly honorable that the Marines have this thing about not leaving their dead and wounded behind.
But that's exactly what happened to Chris Stevens and those three other guys.
Worse -- to lie about it. Lie about it. "It Wasn't me. I know nothing. I did nothing. I heard nothing."
Honestly, what kind of scum are occupying this federal administration?
They weigh four human lives against their political fantasies and ambitions, and their ambitions are regarded as more important. Like, what? Hillary down in Chile going, "Hey let the sonsabitches die quickly. Just cover it up so it doesn't stand as a black mark against me."
Though I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton two years ago because she is also a disciple of Saul Alinsky, now I'd rather see her at forced service in Benghazi. Despite Pazzo Pelosi's lobbying for Hillary for president. I mean, she's not "Pazzo" for nothing.
At any rate, with a new set of whistleblowers coming out about Benghazi -- and I've already read part of one guy's testimony from CBS -- he's Hicks, who was second in command in the State Dept. contingent in Libya, and was completely in charge after Chris Stevens was killed. He says he was on the phone that night to Washington and elsehwere, trying to drum up aid. So Washington knew all along what was going on. They just refused to help. To even try to help.
God forbid, perhaps they would have offended some bloodyy-minded muslim terrorist.
And Leon Panetta once claimed this refusal for back-up and support was because he couldn't send the military into dangerous territory. Making me wonder if Panetta hasn't also dropped a few marbles over the course of his federal career. Perhaps he believes the military are just nice to trot out for parades on the 4th of July, like little wind-up toys?
At any rate, I've seen few things more offensive than Hillary Clinton's testimony in congressional hearings on Benghazi. This is her most outrageous statement, in aswer to Wisc. Senator Ron Johnson:
With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or because of guys out for a walk one might who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It’s our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from happening again.And how, you stupid bitch, how do you "figure out what happened" when you only lie about it to cover your sorry, incompetent ass?
So, anyway, this reminded me of a point Humphrey Bogart made to Mary Astor in The Maltese Falcon. See, Mary was responsible for his partner's death. Bogart was, maybe, in love with her. She was counting on that -- assuming he would let her go scot-free. He called the cops instead. He explained:
I won’t play the sap for you… You’ll never understand me, but I’ll try once and give it up. When a man’s partner is killed, he’s supposed to do something about it. It doesn’t make any difference what you might think of me, you’re supposed to do something about it. It just so happens we’re in the detective business. When one of your organization gets killed, it’s bad business to let the killer get away with it. Bad all around. Bad for every detective everywhere.And that's about the best thing I've heard so far as to why the investigation into all the other "ass-clowns" in this administration should proceed. They're an embarrassment -- and a danger -- to the nation.
Obama regime : "Victory of hope over reality"
Watched Fox News Sunday, where Jason Chaffetz and another Rep., Stephen Lynch (D-Mass) "discussed" the everlasting Benghazi fiasco. Lynch fairly well agreed that the whole affair had been badly bungled by the White House, CIA, Secretay of State and Susan whatever -- the wool-over-her-eyes low-level factotum, appearing on the Sunday talk shows and lying through her teeth about the whole thing. (And the Senate wouldn't approve the promotion the Comrade promised for her loyalty, poor misguided moron.)
Lynch noted that the administration's fiction about what happened at Benghazi looks like "the victory of hope over reality."
Great line. And it seems to nicely describe the Comrade's regime all together.
I remember a while back, with Bill Clinton in the White House and DeeDee Meyers as his press secretary. Don't recall exactly what the issue was, she made some sort of statement and followed it up with, "We don't really care about the truth here," or something like that. She meant it as a joke. I don't think Clinton did -- and I don't think Hillary or the current White House does, either.
That's the strange thing about liberals. Or progressives -- as though changing their name signifies anything of any substance at all. But typical. All surface appearance, what a thing looks like. and they have no interest in going into any further analysis. Just do what you can to sell it. Lipstick on a pig and all that.
They have this view of things. They don't care what the world is really like or what human life, even, might require. They just pretend the world is the way they think it is.
The trouble is, it isn't.
For example, if they pass a few more gun control laws, that will prevent further mass murders and terrorist attacks. Hey, it's in their heads, no more guns. Voila!! No more guns.
I mean, do you suppose Dhzokar Tsarnaev or whatever his name is understood that he was too young to own a gun? Aw shucks, if he'd been better informed, this second Boston massacre might not have happened. He'd have to wait until he was 21 and had a permit, right?
Or I know, let's promote healthy eating by substituting carrot sticks for french fries at the public schools. Let's only offer kids milk or apple juice to drink instead of Coke or Pepsi.
With the result that many kids just toss out the cafeteria food, and if they can't bring anything they like better from home, then they sneak across the street to McDonalds or Wendys. Or they just go hungry.
Even democrats are now jumping ship on socialized medicine, and many congressional legislators have groused about opting themselves out of it as a group because they won't be able to pay for insurance for their staffs. Yeah... small business is facing the same dilemma. Go figure.
So the Comrade stands up and talks about how wonderful socialized medicine is, and most of it is already implemented, and people just love it!
Apparently he doesn't pay attention to anyone but a small circle of sychophants who kiss his ass and stoke his ego. Perhaps he goes no further than Blockhead Sibilius in his consultations. If he consults about it at all. More likely he just assumes it's totally terrific because it's part of the progressive canon. What could possibly go wrong?
Having failed to "part the waters" with his impassioned -- or at least energetic and arm-waving -- pleas for gun control -- I mean, the whole the thing failed and the public wasn't buying it. And his dire promises that the entire continental USA would somehow slip beneath the cold water of the oceans if the sequester went into effect. And the subsequent and continuing bitching and moaning about the unnecessary cuts in airport security and other actually spiteful and useless things he's ordered to occur with sequester -- the public isn't buying that one, either.
So in the face of the Comrade's recent failure to whip up support for his idiotic and destructive agenda, at a recent press conference, a journalist asked if he thought he was "losing his juice."
The Comrade, jolly old chap that he is, said, "Maybe I should just pack up and go home."
Yeah, Comrade. maybe you should. Maybe the USA would have a better chance of survival if you did. I'm talking real world here. I don't really expect you to understand.
Anyway, I started talking about how pie-in-the-sky the liberals are, and ended up with probably the first rational and practical suggestion the Comrade has ever made. Ever.
So, hey, dude, why don't you just pack up and go home?
"Victory of hope over reality" is not something we need right now. It's a nice way of saying the Comrade and his minions all live in some kind of fantasyland, which is something I've been claiming since he took office. His policies don't work; they've made everything worse, have slowed economic recovery and made it -- boots on the ground -- totally impossible.
He wants to erode our freedoms in the name of ... What, exactly? The progressive mantras. He belives the USA needs to be "fundamentally changed." He's got his head so far up up butt he's looking at his own tonsils most of the time.
And many people -- including the more perceptive democrats -- are finally figuring that out. Let's hope it's not too late for salvage.
Lynch noted that the administration's fiction about what happened at Benghazi looks like "the victory of hope over reality."
Great line. And it seems to nicely describe the Comrade's regime all together.
I remember a while back, with Bill Clinton in the White House and DeeDee Meyers as his press secretary. Don't recall exactly what the issue was, she made some sort of statement and followed it up with, "We don't really care about the truth here," or something like that. She meant it as a joke. I don't think Clinton did -- and I don't think Hillary or the current White House does, either.
That's the strange thing about liberals. Or progressives -- as though changing their name signifies anything of any substance at all. But typical. All surface appearance, what a thing looks like. and they have no interest in going into any further analysis. Just do what you can to sell it. Lipstick on a pig and all that.
They have this view of things. They don't care what the world is really like or what human life, even, might require. They just pretend the world is the way they think it is.
The trouble is, it isn't.
For example, if they pass a few more gun control laws, that will prevent further mass murders and terrorist attacks. Hey, it's in their heads, no more guns. Voila!! No more guns.
I mean, do you suppose Dhzokar Tsarnaev or whatever his name is understood that he was too young to own a gun? Aw shucks, if he'd been better informed, this second Boston massacre might not have happened. He'd have to wait until he was 21 and had a permit, right?
Or I know, let's promote healthy eating by substituting carrot sticks for french fries at the public schools. Let's only offer kids milk or apple juice to drink instead of Coke or Pepsi.
With the result that many kids just toss out the cafeteria food, and if they can't bring anything they like better from home, then they sneak across the street to McDonalds or Wendys. Or they just go hungry.
Even democrats are now jumping ship on socialized medicine, and many congressional legislators have groused about opting themselves out of it as a group because they won't be able to pay for insurance for their staffs. Yeah... small business is facing the same dilemma. Go figure.
So the Comrade stands up and talks about how wonderful socialized medicine is, and most of it is already implemented, and people just love it!
Apparently he doesn't pay attention to anyone but a small circle of sychophants who kiss his ass and stoke his ego. Perhaps he goes no further than Blockhead Sibilius in his consultations. If he consults about it at all. More likely he just assumes it's totally terrific because it's part of the progressive canon. What could possibly go wrong?
Having failed to "part the waters" with his impassioned -- or at least energetic and arm-waving -- pleas for gun control -- I mean, the whole the thing failed and the public wasn't buying it. And his dire promises that the entire continental USA would somehow slip beneath the cold water of the oceans if the sequester went into effect. And the subsequent and continuing bitching and moaning about the unnecessary cuts in airport security and other actually spiteful and useless things he's ordered to occur with sequester -- the public isn't buying that one, either.
So in the face of the Comrade's recent failure to whip up support for his idiotic and destructive agenda, at a recent press conference, a journalist asked if he thought he was "losing his juice."
The Comrade, jolly old chap that he is, said, "Maybe I should just pack up and go home."
Yeah, Comrade. maybe you should. Maybe the USA would have a better chance of survival if you did. I'm talking real world here. I don't really expect you to understand.
Anyway, I started talking about how pie-in-the-sky the liberals are, and ended up with probably the first rational and practical suggestion the Comrade has ever made. Ever.
So, hey, dude, why don't you just pack up and go home?
"Victory of hope over reality" is not something we need right now. It's a nice way of saying the Comrade and his minions all live in some kind of fantasyland, which is something I've been claiming since he took office. His policies don't work; they've made everything worse, have slowed economic recovery and made it -- boots on the ground -- totally impossible.
He wants to erode our freedoms in the name of ... What, exactly? The progressive mantras. He belives the USA needs to be "fundamentally changed." He's got his head so far up up butt he's looking at his own tonsils most of the time.
And many people -- including the more perceptive democrats -- are finally figuring that out. Let's hope it's not too late for salvage.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Defending the separation of church and state
My second blog today. Feeling ambitious.
A long, long time ago, like in the late 1980s, I was talking to this very devout born again Christian and said something about being grateful for the separation between church and state in the USA. She said, "I don't think there should be a separation between the church and state. I think God's law should be THE law."
I was little taken aback by that.This woman was not really in the mainstream of organized religions, and I thought for sure she'd appreciate the legal protection of minority religions (and minorities in general) that the Constituion extends.
The thing is, she wanted a union of church and state if it were her religion running things.
Hmmm....let's see. What nation is notorious for uniting the church and the state?
Iran, perhaps? Egypt moving in that direction? Libya, maybe? Chad? Mali? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Places where they cut off your hands for theft and stone you death for talking to strangers.
Here's why there's a separation between the church and the state, and why it's in the First Amendment, accompanied by Freedom of Speech:
So maybe you begin to get the idea.
No accident I call this blog "The end of enlightenment." The era of Enlightenment, though it made tons of mistakes and was just bustin' with hubris, also ended 200 years of religious warfare in Europe -- and perhaps even including the Crusades, though apparently the Crusades are ongoing in some peoples' minds.
North America became something of a haven for groups of people persecuted by other groups of people -- Protestants against Catholics, Protestants against Protestants -- look it up. Once Henry VIII rejected the Holy Roman Church and established his own little religious empire, the floodgates opened for all sorts of smiting in the name of tiny variations in doctrine and/or practice, and the rampant breaking off the noses of the other guys' religious statues.
So we had Mary massacreing Protestants, and Elizabeth getting even. And Calvinists, and people for whom Calvinism was not brutal and self-loathing enough riding down on the Calvinists, and Huguenots who were pretty much slaughtered by.... somebody. And the Spanish Inquisition going after Christopher Columbus because he mentioned in his ship's log on a trip to the New World, that lights appeared in the sky arranged like a Minorah. Oh, my God, was he a closet Jew or what? Off with his heaed. And whoever it was who founded Rhode Island -- then promptly outlawed the practice of any other religion but his own. And spiders dangling over the fiery pit of Hell, and all that.
In Virginia, founded by the Crown and mostly loyal to the Crown for the most part, the planters got all pissed off about the "Parson's Pence." See, as a loyal English colony, settlements in Virginia had to have an Anglican parsonage. They paid for this with a tax on the goods (hemp, tobacco, indigo and the like) that they sent back to England. They wanted the tax to be a percentage of the value of their goods, so that if they had a bad year, the amount of the tax would go down to reflect that. But the Crown didn't like that idea. Anyway, it raised a big stink in the southern colonies, which were mostly agribusiness and not established by religious dissenters.
So when push came to shove over the Stamp Act and the tax on tea - and the repeal of the tax on tea, which actually sparked the Boston Tea Pary -- Adams and Jefferson, Madison, Hancock -- you know, all the Usual Suspects, decided -- Stuff it all. People can believe whatever they want. Like, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and leave the rest alone.
So what does this have to do with Freedom of Speech?
Well, what do people talk about? Stuff they believe in? Policy issues? What's right and wrong?
If the government is God, can you speak against it/Him? That is, without being burned alive, stoned to death, beheaded, drawn and quartered, keel-hauled, imprisoned?
Yet I'm not condemning religion. (Yeah, LOL about the irony of that.) Religion -- or any set of principles and ethics -- provides individuals a personl foundation for making their own decisions and managing their own lives -- without the interference of government.
People need religion. And I'm quite certain the fact that America is such a religous nation, and always has been, is why it's remained relatively free for so long. Prior to Franklin Roosevelt and then Johnson's "Great Society," it was always the church or even non-demonomational religious organizations that provided charity, welfare, medical assistance for the poor, education for the poor, rescued women from brutal husbands, cared for orphans, and supported familes in poverty. So many fiery Victorian-era reformers demanding the construction of sewers, discouraging alcoholism and drug abuse. And they were rather more efficient than today's government bureaucracies -- even though it was these same reformers that launched the push to have their reforms inscribed in law.
In other wods, we didn't need no stinkin' nanny state. We had other resources. We still do. It's just that searching out and finding, and then publicizing and politicizing pockets of poverty and injustice has become a sort of state religion nowadays, as practiced by the Comrade and all his little cohorts -- Pazzo Pelosi, Brain-Dead Harry Reid, et. al.
If they can't find some downtrodden wreck in the USA to hold up as evidence of indifference and cruelty, they go hunitng overseas. And I think that's probably why they're so loathe to recognize that jihadists are a total mess and a threat to the world. the jihadists, in their view, are simply the next batch of misunderstood, discriminated against victims in a cold, mean world. I mean, this is the kind of bullshit they truly believe in. Be nice to the cutthrats and pirates, pander to their whims, send them F-16s and billions of US aid and they'll come to like and respect us.
The thing is, the jihadists have learned to "work the system." I mean apart from Saudi Arabia, who funds these guys -- the USA, through so-called "humanitarian" aid.
And I can say it's bullshit, and even prove that it is bullshit, because of The First Amendment -- free speech and the separation of church and state..
The fact that so many "progressives" -- including the Comrade -- don't like the First Amendment and often suggest it should be "corrected" or "protected" proves my point.
The fact that the Founding Fathers understood the importance of their own rhetoric... those guys were just amazing. They dug so deep, got so close to the heart of political matters, understood so well what government should and shouldn't do -- complete genius. Figured out how one tiny little rule could remake the whole world -- those guys were something else.
I miss them.
A long, long time ago, like in the late 1980s, I was talking to this very devout born again Christian and said something about being grateful for the separation between church and state in the USA. She said, "I don't think there should be a separation between the church and state. I think God's law should be THE law."
I was little taken aback by that.This woman was not really in the mainstream of organized religions, and I thought for sure she'd appreciate the legal protection of minority religions (and minorities in general) that the Constituion extends.
The thing is, she wanted a union of church and state if it were her religion running things.
Hmmm....let's see. What nation is notorious for uniting the church and the state?
Iran, perhaps? Egypt moving in that direction? Libya, maybe? Chad? Mali? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Places where they cut off your hands for theft and stone you death for talking to strangers.
Here's why there's a separation between the church and the state, and why it's in the First Amendment, accompanied by Freedom of Speech:
- When the government is also your religion.... oh dear, there's a horrendous way to start, no? Just smacks of something like marxist zeal, doesn't it? I mean, if you make it "secular."
- When those who violate government regulations are "condemned to burn in hell forever and ever"... oh heavens, is there no way to express this in a temperate way?
- When criticizing the government sets you up for charges of blashphemy... good grief, here we go again. Just sounds so extreme, doesn't it?
So maybe you begin to get the idea.
No accident I call this blog "The end of enlightenment." The era of Enlightenment, though it made tons of mistakes and was just bustin' with hubris, also ended 200 years of religious warfare in Europe -- and perhaps even including the Crusades, though apparently the Crusades are ongoing in some peoples' minds.
North America became something of a haven for groups of people persecuted by other groups of people -- Protestants against Catholics, Protestants against Protestants -- look it up. Once Henry VIII rejected the Holy Roman Church and established his own little religious empire, the floodgates opened for all sorts of smiting in the name of tiny variations in doctrine and/or practice, and the rampant breaking off the noses of the other guys' religious statues.
So we had Mary massacreing Protestants, and Elizabeth getting even. And Calvinists, and people for whom Calvinism was not brutal and self-loathing enough riding down on the Calvinists, and Huguenots who were pretty much slaughtered by.... somebody. And the Spanish Inquisition going after Christopher Columbus because he mentioned in his ship's log on a trip to the New World, that lights appeared in the sky arranged like a Minorah. Oh, my God, was he a closet Jew or what? Off with his heaed. And whoever it was who founded Rhode Island -- then promptly outlawed the practice of any other religion but his own. And spiders dangling over the fiery pit of Hell, and all that.
In Virginia, founded by the Crown and mostly loyal to the Crown for the most part, the planters got all pissed off about the "Parson's Pence." See, as a loyal English colony, settlements in Virginia had to have an Anglican parsonage. They paid for this with a tax on the goods (hemp, tobacco, indigo and the like) that they sent back to England. They wanted the tax to be a percentage of the value of their goods, so that if they had a bad year, the amount of the tax would go down to reflect that. But the Crown didn't like that idea. Anyway, it raised a big stink in the southern colonies, which were mostly agribusiness and not established by religious dissenters.
So when push came to shove over the Stamp Act and the tax on tea - and the repeal of the tax on tea, which actually sparked the Boston Tea Pary -- Adams and Jefferson, Madison, Hancock -- you know, all the Usual Suspects, decided -- Stuff it all. People can believe whatever they want. Like, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and leave the rest alone.
So what does this have to do with Freedom of Speech?
Well, what do people talk about? Stuff they believe in? Policy issues? What's right and wrong?
If the government is God, can you speak against it/Him? That is, without being burned alive, stoned to death, beheaded, drawn and quartered, keel-hauled, imprisoned?
Yet I'm not condemning religion. (Yeah, LOL about the irony of that.) Religion -- or any set of principles and ethics -- provides individuals a personl foundation for making their own decisions and managing their own lives -- without the interference of government.
People need religion. And I'm quite certain the fact that America is such a religous nation, and always has been, is why it's remained relatively free for so long. Prior to Franklin Roosevelt and then Johnson's "Great Society," it was always the church or even non-demonomational religious organizations that provided charity, welfare, medical assistance for the poor, education for the poor, rescued women from brutal husbands, cared for orphans, and supported familes in poverty. So many fiery Victorian-era reformers demanding the construction of sewers, discouraging alcoholism and drug abuse. And they were rather more efficient than today's government bureaucracies -- even though it was these same reformers that launched the push to have their reforms inscribed in law.
In other wods, we didn't need no stinkin' nanny state. We had other resources. We still do. It's just that searching out and finding, and then publicizing and politicizing pockets of poverty and injustice has become a sort of state religion nowadays, as practiced by the Comrade and all his little cohorts -- Pazzo Pelosi, Brain-Dead Harry Reid, et. al.
If they can't find some downtrodden wreck in the USA to hold up as evidence of indifference and cruelty, they go hunitng overseas. And I think that's probably why they're so loathe to recognize that jihadists are a total mess and a threat to the world. the jihadists, in their view, are simply the next batch of misunderstood, discriminated against victims in a cold, mean world. I mean, this is the kind of bullshit they truly believe in. Be nice to the cutthrats and pirates, pander to their whims, send them F-16s and billions of US aid and they'll come to like and respect us.
The thing is, the jihadists have learned to "work the system." I mean apart from Saudi Arabia, who funds these guys -- the USA, through so-called "humanitarian" aid.
And I can say it's bullshit, and even prove that it is bullshit, because of The First Amendment -- free speech and the separation of church and state..
The fact that so many "progressives" -- including the Comrade -- don't like the First Amendment and often suggest it should be "corrected" or "protected" proves my point.
The fact that the Founding Fathers understood the importance of their own rhetoric... those guys were just amazing. They dug so deep, got so close to the heart of political matters, understood so well what government should and shouldn't do -- complete genius. Figured out how one tiny little rule could remake the whole world -- those guys were something else.
I miss them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)