Why Should We Believe Obama's Intelligence Reports?

The Obama administration is asking the American people to believe that a missile strike on Syria is not only a good idea but necessary in the interest of national security and as a humanitarian effort to prevent more deaths from chemical weapons they say were used by Bashar Al Assad.

Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday that U.S. intelligence has provided enough evidence to make it clear that chemical weapons were used by Assad rather than by Al Qaeda backed rebels.  They want us all to believe the "intelligence" because they say so.  If he intelligence is there - why are they considering striking Syria without Congressional approval and why are other nations not willing to join us in the effort?

The President has made it clear he will stand alone in an aggressive move on Syria if he has to.  He says it's to prevent more deaths from chemical weapons. The problem is - there's enough doubt as to who used the weapons that he could be warning the wrong side and the use of those weapons at this time are simply not a threat to our national security.

Assad has said that if the U.S. attacks his country, Syria, Iran and Iraq will attack Israel in response.  An Iranian lawmaker has also said that "The first casualty of any U.S. attack on Syria will be the Zionist state."  I don't know if it's a credible threat or not but Benjamin Netanyahu isn't taking any chances.  He is preparing his military and his people for a possible concentrated attack.  And since several Middle Eastern countries have been looking for a way to attack Israel without bringing down the wrath of the world - this could be their excuse.

It all boils down to who you believe.  President Obama has backed himself into a corner with his tough talk about crossing red lines.  If Assad used chemical weapons he either doesn't fear Obama or doesn't believe him.  Maybe both. Assad has Russia on his side and has some backing from China as well.  So he may well believe Obama doesn't have the guts to carry out his threat.

Unfortunately, President Obama may carry out an attack simply to keep from looking weak.  After he made the threats about Syria crossing the red line - the world is looking at him to see if he's really going to do something.  And Obama knows it.  Being the narcissist that he is - he certainly doesn't want to look weak in the eyes of the world.  And that's a really bad reason to attack another country - with or without Congressional approval.

One of the things I don't like about President Obama is his handling of military situations.  Obama is the first President in my lifetime who broadcasts his military intentions to the world before he carries them out.  I think that also has to do with his narcissism.  President Obama believes the rest of the world respects and fears him as the leader of the free world.  I think he truly believes that when he speaks everyone else will do what he wants.  Unfortunately for him - the only one who thinks that way is him.  Well, and maybe Chris (I got a tingle up my leg) Matthews.

Whatever Obama does you can bet it will benefit him in some way.  Unless he succeeds in starting World War III.  He best keep that in mind if he worries about his legacy (and he does, very much.)  Starting World War III would send his legacy far below Jimmy Carter's.  And his ego couldn't handle it.

Does Obama Really Know What He's Doing In Syria...?

So today Secretary of State John (Lurch) Kerry said it has been confirmed that Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons against his own people, killing over 1400 civilians.  Kerry said that "U.S. intelligence" provided the information.  Is this the same U.S. intelligence that told George W. Bush Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (namely chemical weapons)?  The Democrats, after voting for a strike on Iraq, decided that Bush lied, just because Iraq had over a year to get rid of his arsenal to Syria.  Gee - probably the same arsenal that someone in Syria is using now.

There is much speculation that the chemical weapons used against civilians in Syria were used by Al Qaeda backed rebels instead, with the intention of drawing the U.S. into the conflict.  Lord knows that Al Qaeda has never killed innocent people before....  right?  So that can't possibly be true.  It's bad enough that President Obama is considering arming and helping Al Qaeda against Syria - knowing full well that if Assad falls Syria will be governed by Al Qaeda.  But now he wants to help Al Qaeda defeat Assad - even as we fight against them in other parts of the world.  Obama...  are you serious????

One other thing that needs mentioning when talking about Syria is how President Obama seems to be the only President in my lifetime who broadcasts his military intentions worldwide before executing them.  He gave dates for when we would pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan - letting our enemies know when they could move back in.  He has now told Bashar Assad what he will do about his supposed use of chemical weapons. Geez - not even Jimmy Carter was that stupid!

There is no doubt Obama is in over his head.  He simply doesn't have the life experience to deal with serious military conflict and its results.  It's obvious in the way he approaches the Syrian situation.  I feel sorry for him in this case.  He can't help it he's inept.  But he could have not run for President since he knew he couldn't handle the job.  And he can step down anytime....

President Obama - Putting His Mouth Where His Money Is

To the rest of the world, if Vladimir Putin says "Don't cross the red line" it means "You will be looking at military action immediately." To the rest of the world, when Benjamin Netanyahu says "Don't cross the red line" it means "You will be looking at military action immediately."  To the rest of the world, when President Obama says "Don't cross the red line" it means "If you do - I'll tell..."

Not that I want Obama to attack Syria.  Fighting Al Qaeda on other fronts and aiding them in Syria makes no sense whatsoever. Helping them attain power in Syria would be beyond crazy.  Yet we are already arming them with weapons.  I wonder how long it will be before some of those weapons are used to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan?  Can you say "Fast and Furious?"

Regardless of what politicians and some pundits say - there still is no concrete evidence that Assad used the chemical weapons.  So restraint at this time is prudent.

President Obama is known for making remarks that come back to haunt him.  "I don't have all the facts but the police acted stupidly," is one great example. Maybe before he draws that red line he should take the time to think through the consequences and follow-up if the world doesn't cower to his words.

He still believes he is the world leader and that everyone does what he wants. That's simply not the case. By his own hand he has lowered our standing in the world - so much so that today Russia, Iran, Syria, Egypt and China (to name just five) show no real respect for him and couldn't care less what he wants.  Edward Snowden is a great example of Russia's contempt for Obama.  Putin refused to hand Snowden over to Obama.  And it gets worse.

“The West behaves towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin wrote on Twitter.  Obviously they don't think much of his foreign policy either.

If the President had begun his administration on a strong note rather than apologizing to the world he'd have more credibility worldwide.  Bush may not have done everything right but at least the world had a healthy fear of the United States during his administration.  They knew not to mess with us - particularly after 9/11. They had pushed too far and he let them feel our wrath.  And we stayed peaceful for a long time afterward.

When Ronald Reagan had problems with Libya he bombed Ghadafi's palace and killed his nephew.  Ghadafi wasn't heard from again until Obama took office.  

When Obama took office he went to the Middle East and apologized for America's presence in the world.  Look where we are now.

"The President Does Not Have The Power..." - Unless You're Barack Obama

The United States has apparently determined that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad has deployed chemical weapons against civilians in his country.  A few months ago, President Obama announced to the world that if Assad crossed "the red line" and used chemical weapons "it would be a game changer."

Many Democrats, including the Vice President, have said that Obama can and should mount a cruise missile attack on Syria even without Congressional approval.  One Democrat politician even said Obama should notify Congress - but after the fact.  It seems people's minds change when they are the ones in power.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in 'instances of self-defense.'”

“The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Senator Joe Biden said in 2007.  Biden, then a Democratic senator from Delaware, suggested presidential war-making was an impeachable offense. “Given this,” Biden said at the time, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.

I find it interesting that Obama and Biden said unilateral action by the President without Congressional approval is not only wrong but possibly an impeachable offense...  until they are the ones in the White House.  The President has already used military force (in Libya) without Congressional approval and he is now considering doing it again in Syria - despite the fact that he condemned his predecessor for it.  Welcome to hypocrite politics.

And speaking of Syria, the other night on "The O'Reilly Factor," two of Bill's guests were retired Colonel David Hunt and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, both military warfare experts.  O'Reilly was telling them why he thought President Obama should intervene in Syria with a strategic cruise missile attack.  Both Hunt and Peters told Bill, in their professional (and very experienced) opinions, that he was wrong; that the President, at this point, should stay out of it.  Both basically said that assisting the Al Qaeda backed rebels against Assad would be a huge mistake.  

I like O'Reilly and though I disagree with him on many things, I enjoy his show. But I had to laugh at him when he told both Colonel Hunt and Lt. Colonel Peters that they, the experts, were wrong.  Maybe he only did it for shock value to keep his ratings up or maybe he truly believes he knows more about military strategy than the experts he invites to the show - I don't know.  But it was pretty funny and kind of pathetic.

Whatever Obama does in Syria one side is going to fault him.  With several other Islamic nations threatening to attack Israel should the USA attack Syria, and with Russia and China backing Assad, it's a huge decision that shouldn't be made just because the President drew a line in the sand and now doesn't want to lose face. What he needs to seriously ask himself is "Is it worth the risk of World War III?" Given the instability of the region and the fanatical Islamic groups that are active in this Syrian conflict (Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc.) - it's something he seriously needs to consider.

This Is A Real Teacher....!

A good friend sent me this in an e-mail this morning. I have read it before but it's always a sobering reminder each time I read it again.  Thanks, Tami, for sharing it.

By the way - this is an absolutely true story that is verifiable in newspaper articles, etc.  Even Snopes says it's true.

First Day of School

Great true story that teaches the young people today that freedom comes with a cost.

Every school district needs at least one teacher like this. Maybe there wouldn't be so much of an entitlement attitude going around with today's generation of kids.

SHE IS A TEACHER!!!

Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a Military History teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock , did something not to be forgotten.

On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks in her classroom.

When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.

'Ms. Cothren, where are our desks?'  She replied, 'You can't have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right to sit at a desk.'

They thought, 'Well, maybe it's our grades.'

'No,' she said.

'Maybe it's our behavior.'

She told them, 'No, it's not even your behavior.'

And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period.  Still no desks in the classroom. Kids called their parents to tell them what was happening and by early afternoon television news crews had started gathering at the school to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.

The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the desk-less classroom, Martha Cothren said, 'Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he or she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you.'

At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it. Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniform, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall.

By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for  the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.

Martha said, 'You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. They went halfway around the world, giving up their education and interrupting their careers and families so you could have the freedom you have. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education.  Don't ever forget it.'

By the way, this is a true story. And this teacher was awarded Veterans of Foreign Wars Teacher of the Year for the State of Arkansas in 2006. She is the daughter of a WWII POW.

*Please consider passing this along so others won't forget either that the freedoms we have in this great country were earned by U. S. Veterans. Always remember them and the rights they have won for us.*

Blessings abound in the USA !

It's Time For The President To Act....

Since the verdict was read in the George Zimmerman trial, racial animosity seems to have risen in this country.  Even between people who are friends, disagreement about the verdict has caused anger and bad feelings.  The recent attacks and murders of white people by black perpetrators, and the lack of a real response from the black community and the main stream media, seem to indicate they feel it is somehow justified.

Case in point - an 88 year old World War II veteran, Delbert Belton, was beaten to death by two 16 year old black teenagers in Spokane, Washington, a few days ago.  At least one liberal media outlet insinuated that Belton was killed because when he was attacked he fought back, therefore he somehow caused his death.

Really?  An 88 year old man who was beaten with two heavy metal flashlights by two young punks wanting to rob him somehow caused his own death because he fought back?  I guess the answer will now be for everyone to cower in fear and give criminals whatever they want.

The police have said the murder of Mr. Belton was not about race but about robbery.  Just as the police in Duncan, Oklahoma, have said the murder of a white victim, Chris Lane, by two black teenagers was not racial either, simply because the third suspect is white.

OK - maybe, just maybe that's true - even though one of the black suspects in the case had several anti-white, racist rants on his Facebook and Twitter accounts. By contrast - George Zimmerman not only had no history of racism but had a black grandfather and spent his own time mentoring young black kids in his Florida town.  But he was labeled a racist immediately by the mainstream media and is still being labeled a racist by people who are unhappy with the verdict. Hmmm...   No racism in the killings of two white men by black suspects, even though one of the suspects posted racially charged hate speech online.  But George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin was racist even though there is no evidence to support it and Martin's parents denied it publicly.  Sure - makes perfect sense.  If only white people can be racist, that is.

I bring all of this up because with the anniversary of Martin Luther King's infamous "I Have a Dream" speech tomorrow, black leaders in this country have an opportunity to speak out, not to incite hatred and violence (as has been done recently) but to follow in King's footsteps and work to bring tolerance, understanding and peace.  Dr. King would have abhorred the violence taking place in the black communities these days and would have spoken out against it. But we currently have no one like King to speak out in a calm and rational manner.

Those who make their money in the race industry, such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, have used the tragic Trayvon Martin killing to fuel the fires of racial hatred.  Both of these men led rallies against George Zimmerman and have basically excused the Chris Lane killing.  (Jackson said "that kind of serious violence is frowned upon" and Sharpton said "The justice system worked, they were arrested.  And it wasn't racial anyway because one of the suspects is white."  Both Jackson and Sharpton have made millions of dollars from race baiting over the years.  Both were ministers at one time.  I would hesitate to call them that now.

The President stayed very quiet for almost a week before he said, through White House spokesman Matt Lehrich, that Lane's family and friends were going through trying times.

"As the President has expressed on too many tragic occasions, there is an extra measure of evil in an act of violence that cuts a young life short. The President and First Lady's thoughts and prayers are with Chris Lane's family and friends in these trying times," Mr Lehrich said in a statement to the Sunday Herald Sun.

So he didn't really come out and make a statement - he let his spokesman say it. Unlike the occasions when he spoke off the cuff about Trayvon Martin and likened him to himself or his own son.  I guess the President's white side just didn't feel a kinship with Chris Lane.

As of yet, the President, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are silent about the killing of Delbert Belton.  I'm sure there will be statements coming soon.  It's rare for any of them to pass up an opportunity before a camera.  But what will those statements be?  "This act is frowned upon and the justice system is working,"??

As Bill O'Reilly said last night - if there is to be an end to the violence, not only black on white crime but white on black and the black on black genocide that is running rampant in places like Chicago and Detroit, it must begin with education and family values.  And it wouldn't hurt for the first black President of the United States to step up and speak candidly to the black community about it.  

He should tell the race baiters to shut up and stop spreading hate for profit.  He should tell the black community in his home town that the killing, particularly of each other, needs to stop.  He should to sit down with community leaders and help figure out how to bring proper education, through school vouchers and magnet programs, so that poor, inner city kids can have a real chance at education.  And he needs to preach about family values to the 70% of black mothers, as well as white mothers, who are having babies out of wedlock and often don't know who the father is.

The other thing the President needs to do is stop letting his emotions dictate what he says when an incident occurs in which an African-American is involved.  The Professor Gates incident, after which the President said "I don't have all the facts but the police acted stupidly," is a perfect example.  Gates was a friend of the President.  And before he knew the details of what happened Mr. Obama reacted with a public statement condemning the police for doing their job.

The Trayvon Martin case is another example.  "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon," the President said before George Zimmerman was even charged.  If Zimmerman had been convicted his attorneys would have had every right to file prejudice because of the statements of the President of the United States. He does seem to be learning though.  He's staying quiet lately and allowing others to speak for him.  Maybe he figured it out.

Alan Colmes told O'Reilly last night that much of the violence in the black community is fueled by poverty. Poverty certainly doesn't help but if what Colmes said is true, people in Appalachia would have killed each other off by now. What those people have, despite their poverty, is family values.  Their families stay together and they care for each other.  The difference is clear.

So Mr. President - your path is before you.  Black unemployment is higher than it's ever been, black on black murder is higher than it's ever been and the first African-American President is in a position to make a difference.  But you haven't yet. In fact, I haven't seen you address either of them during your first four and a half years.  Maybe if you had there would be less racial animosity and more people working together.  Isn't that what a community organizer is supposed to do?

Is An Attack On Syria Imminent?

Did Bashar al-Assad use chemical weapons against his own people?  This has been the topic of much discussion in Washington recently.  Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for a “moral obscenity” that has shocked the world’s conscience.

But exactly what proof do we have that President Assad is the one who did it? Certainly there is evidence to support the conclusion that chemical weapons have been used against civilians in Syria.  (You know - those chemical weapons that didn't exist in Iraq, at least, not after Saddam Hussein moved them into Syria.)  But who is deploying them? The rebels fighting against Assad, currently backed by the Obama administration, are also supported by Al Qaeda - an organization well known for killing innocent people to advance its agenda.  

So did Assad use chemical weapons against his people?  Or did Al Qaeda use chemical weapons against civilians in an attempt to get the United States into the battle against Assad.  Frankly, I don't trust Obama's judgement on this one.  He supported the ouster of Hosni Mubarek in Egypt and his replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Look how well that turned out.  

It's interesting how some on the left are supporting a possible military strike against Assad.  I even heard one liberal say yesterday that Obama should consult Congress about a strike - but maybe not until after it's completed.  Wait...  what? Obama already did that in Libya.  And if we were talking about Bush making an air strike and consulting Congress afterward the liberals would be calling for his impeachment!  

It sounds like we are getting closer to initiating a strike on Syria, against President Assad, most likely with cruise missiles.  Is it the correct thing to do?  Will we hit the correct target(s)?  Those things remain to be seen.

I don't envy the President on this decision.  It will be a difficult one that could hurt his presidency if he does the wrong thing.  But I think he has to do something.  He has already thrown out that gauntlet - he drew the proverbial red line in the sand and challenged Assad to cross it.  Now it's possible Assad did cross the line. Or did he?  That is the million dollar question.

DOD Now Teaches That Conservatives Are Extremists

Recently, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained training documents from the Defense Department, via the Freedom Of Information Act, that basically say conservatives and people who cherish their freedom above all else are extremists.

According to Judicial Watch, the training documents contain the following statements:  “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.  

Under a section labeled ”Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements.  The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule are an example of and extremist group?  So does that mean our military is now teaching that we never should have liberated ourselves from British rule?  Do they understand that if that was the case there would be no United States of America and they would be part of the British military?  Is that really what they are teaching our soldiers, Marines and airmen?

The training guide lists the Southern Poverty Law Center as a major source of their information and training materials.  While the do some good work, monitoring real hate groups such as the KKK and other supremacy groups, is hate group unto itself.  They identified the Family research Council (FRC) as a hate group on they're website, along with other well-known conservative organizations such as the American Family Association, concerned Women for America, and Coral Ridge Ministries. The SPLC cannot stand for people to tell the truth about abortion being murder. As a result of their identifying FRC in this manner, 28 year old year old Floyd Lee Corkins II, used his computer to access SPLC’s website to target FRC and other organizations. He then went into the FRC building wanting to kill as many people as possible and smear their faces with Chick-Fil-A sandwiches.  He also intended to kill the security guard. He was able to wound the guard, Leo Johnson, but Johnson was able to subdue him until police arrived.

The SPLC cannot be blamed because Corkins was a nut.  But if Sarah Palin can be blamed for Jared Loughner shooting Gabby Giffords then the SPLC owns this completely!

What's truly scary about all of this is that people who believe as I do, that this nation is the greatest in the world and that freedom, individual liberties, freedom of worship and the right to believe in the teachings of the Bible and Christianity are right and good and what the USA is about, are being pushed out by the liberal progressives.  A few years ago Janet Napolitano, then Secretary of Homeland Security, published an unclassified Memo (meant to be seen by the public) warning of the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.  It singles out Christians and returning war veterans as likely threats.

Sadly, in the last 10 years or so, and more in the last 5, I have seen this great nation turn away from the beliefs and moral values our parents had and turn more toward a hedonistic, "anything goes except God and faith" philosophy. Progressives tout that freedom of religion is still alive and well in this country and that's true - as long as it's not Christianity.  Christians, whose religious beliefs are based on love of God and love of their fellow man, are being singled out as a hate group and will probably be persecuted out of public view in the near future. What's ironic about it is that Islam, whose belief in the Quran has caused the deaths of millions of people worldwide and thousands right here in the States, is seen by progressives as a religion of peace which is simply being persecuted by right-wing extremists.  But since the DOD is now teaching that 9/11/01 was merely a historic event, it won't be long before people begin denying Islamic involvement, much like people deny the holocaust these days.

My views are a bit extreme, you say?  Maybe.  But when a government agency teaches that people who believe in Jesus Christ may be enemies of the American government it pisses me off!  I spent 8 years in the Air Force and was proud to serve.  But if this is what is happening in today's Air Force I'm ashamed of it.  I can tell you one thing - if I was still active duty today I'd be in big trouble.  I'd be getting out, whether by choice or by force.  No wonder the government thinks we Christians may be a threat.  They're threatening America's basic beliefs and values and teaching that those beliefs and values are wrong (or outdated.)  

I'm not going to advocate for a revolution in this country but I can tell you one thing - if the time does come for the revolution I know which side I'll be on.

If Obamacare Is So Great And Affordable...

...why does Congress need to be subsidized for it?

I was watching Judge Jeanine Pirro last night and was particularly intrigued by a segment about Obamacare. She had Ann Coulter as the conservative guest and a Democrat strategist (whose name I honestly cannot remember) for the opposing view.

As everyone knows, Ann Coulter can be annoying.  But she's right about many things.  She and the Democrat guest went back and forth about how bad (or great) Obamacare is then Judge Pirro asked the obvious question:  "If it's so great why is it that Congress has gotten en exemption from it?"  The only answer the Democrat could come up with is "I'm not here to defend Congress.  I'm here to defend Obamacare."

The question is one that no one on the left really has an answer for.  And it should be a warning to all about just how bad the law is.  If the people who wrote it and pushed it down the throats of the American people (when 72% of Americans were opposed to it) want to be subsidized for their costs after it's implemented - does that not scream loudly about how bad it really is?  They make far more than the average middle class American.  But we're not getting subsidized.

Obamacare is already affecting jobs in the country.  Many employers are, or were until the President decided to unconstitutionally delay implementation of part of the law, cutting hours of full time employees to avoid shelling out more money for health care plans or paying large amounts in fines...  uh, excuse me, "taxes" for not insuring their employees.  Supporters of Obamacare will say those companies are just greedy and want to keep making large profits at the expense of their employees but people do not start companies with the intention of putting people to work, supplying them with healthcare insurance and making little to no profit.  People start companies to provide a service or product to their customers in return for profit.  That's how it works.  No profits - no company - no employees.  It's rather simple.

It was announced recently that United Parcel Service is going to cut health care insurance for working spouses of non-union employees.  Of course, they can't make changes like that to the policies of union members so they'll change what they can to save some money.  Working spouses of non-union employees will have to find their own coverage.  I'm sure it won't be quite the Cadillac plans the Teamsters have though.

And speaking of the Teamsters - James Hoffa, the top dog of the Teamsters' Union, has said that Obamacare will destroy the 40 hour work week for most Americans.  Hoffa and the Teamsters were big Obama supporters and helped him get elected twice so I can't really sympathize with him/them.  But I do sympathize with all employees who will have their hours cut because of Obamacare.

Another question - if Obamacare is so great, why is the President delaying implementation of so many thing until after the 2014 election?  And why has he granted so many waivers from Obamacare?  How could something so wonderful require so many companies and unions to request waivers?  And how can people look at all of these things I've brought up and still think Obamacare is a good thing?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, of the 55 million "Uninsured Nonelderly People" in this country the report lists for 2013, only 11 million, or 20 percent, are projected to obtain insurance during 2014; the number of uninsured falls only to 44 million next year according to the CBO.  This leaves a full 80 percent uninsured, significantly more than the 67 percent found by the survey.

In fact, the CBO projects that under Obamacare over the next decade, the number of uninsured will never fall below 30 million.

The President and those who wrote this disastrous law said "everyone will be covered."  It was BS then and it's been proven to be BS now.  Yet people go on believing....

The Definition Of Racism In 2013 America...

I turned on Sean Hannity's show yesterday in the car and Neal Boortz was guest hosting.  I like Neal Boortz.  I don't always agree with him (just as I don't always agree with Hannity or Rush or Beck) but he's interesting most of the time.  And since he retired last year it's a rare treat to listen to him again.

He was talking about racism, the definition of it and how the definition has changed over the years.  The following is a synopsis of his remarks, with a few of my own thrown in.

Racism:  Merriam-Webster's first definition of racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." The second is "racial prejudice or discrimination."  

So many other things have become synonymous with racism or racist that one would need a dictionary just of those two words to keep up.  I'll give you some examples.

According to some on the left, and talk show hosts such as Chris Matthews and Toure', you're a racist if you did not vote for President Obama.

If you oppose Obama's policies, regardless of the reasons you state, you're a racist.

If you oppose Obamacare you're a racist.

If you oppose gun control you're a racist.

If you support voter ID laws you're a racist.

If you are against illegal immigration you're a racist.

If you belong to or support the Tea Party you're a racist.

If you believed George Zimmerman you're a racist.

If you call Obama "The Food Stamp President" you're a racist.

If you use the phrase "you people" you're a racist.

During a debate, Mitt Romney described President Obama as "angry" on two separate occasions and was immediately branded a racist by MSNBC.

Chris Matthews says the word "Chicago" is code for racism.

FOX News correspondent Juan Williams says that “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich are Republican code words for blacks.

It's getting so the liberals will take any word, phrase or incident and turn it into something racist - unless it doesn't benefit them.  The Trayvon Martin shooting versus the Chris Lane shooting is a perfect example.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the mainstream media made the Trayvon Martin shooting into a racial incident even though the Sanford police, Zimmerman himself and Martin's own parents said race had nothing to do with it.  Mainstream news organizations edited the audio bytes and made it sound like Zimmerman profiled Martin. Sharpton and Jackson marched and held rallies and went on TV calling George Zimmerman, who was white, Hispanic and black, a racist murderer.

In contrast, when three black teenagers (OK, two black and one half black) murdered Chris Lane in Oklahoma the other day because they "were bored", the mainstream media, Sharpton and Jackson were predictably quiet.  Two days after the fact, Jesse Jackson, in a statement well befitting his very outspoken personality, said "Senseless acts of violence like this are frowned upon."  Really, Jesse?  Frowned upon? That's the best you can do?

Sharpton stayed quiet a couple days longer then said this about the Lane murder and why he was not speaking out or protesting in some way:  “The three were arrested, there was nothing to protest, the system worked there. And racial? Not only did the police not say it was racial, one of the three were white.”

Since the third one, the "white" one, is biracial, can he be called white so easily?  If that's the case, can the President of the United States be called white?  Or do people like Sharpton get to choose someone's color or race based on his own particular needs?  Oh, and Al?  YOU were the one who kept making the Zimmerman case racial - even though the police and Martin's parents said it wasn't.  How quickly you seem to forget.

Racism in America has changed.  In most cases it's more covert than it was in the days when whites held public lynchings of black people.  And that wasn't really so long ago.  The last known "public lynching" of a black man in the US was in 1939.  However, if you include those who didn't use a rope, James Byrd, intentionally dragged behind a speeding truck, was the last lynching of a black man.  That was in 1998. Michael McDonald was killed in 1981 and Emmet Till in 1955.  To me those were technically lynchings.  And we don't really know how many other black people have been intentionally "lynched" since then.  But Trayvon Martin wasn't one of them.

Additionally, black contempt and even hatred for whites seems to have substantially increased since Obama was elected President.  I don't necessarily blame President Obama and yet I do.  He has done nothing to calm the racial tension in the United States but in fact, with his statements on Trayvon Martin, Professor Gates, etc., has actually exacerbated them.  It seems racial tension is something the President doesn't worry too much about.

The President has been understandably quiet following the shooting of Chris Lane.  His Deputy Press Secretary said yesterday that he was "unfamiliar with the case."  Yeah, right.  They have people in that office who do nothing but watch the news reports and take notes on anything that could be asked by the White House Press Corps.  Nice dodge - if you believe him.  Most of the Press Corps don't ask the hard questions.  Only FOX had the cojones to ask.

So there you have it - the new definition of racist.  Anyone who opposed President Obama in any way.  If you're a black conservative I'm sure you're considered a racist against your own people.  It's sad, really.  Obama was supposed to be "the great uniter."  Instead he has taken the sad tale of racism in the United States and made it worse.  Whether it was intentional or simply an unexpected consequence remains to be seen.

Why I Won't See "The Butler"

The new movie, "The Butler" opened recently to great reviews and big draws at the box office.  Forest Whitaker is said to deliver an amazing performance as Cecil Gaines, butler to eight presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan. That doesn't surprise me. He's a great actor.  I've been a fan of Forest Whitaker since I saw him as Big Harold in "Platoon" and Edward Garlick in "Good Morning Vietnam."

With and all-star cast and a historical story line similar to Forest Gump, I'm sure the movie is excellent for the most part.  (Some reviewers say Lee Daniels portrayed Ronald Reagan as a racist.)  But I won't go see it - for two reasons.

First of all - I am disgusted that Jane Fonda was chosen to portray Nancy Reagan.  I doubt there could be any poorer choice of actress to portray Mrs. Reagan.  Jane Fonda, Hanoi Jane, committed treasonous acts in North Vietnam back in 1972.  She praised the North Vietnamese, posed for a photo at a Communist anti-aircraft gun emplacement, made several radio broadcasts for the Communist North Vietnamese in which she called American military leaders "war criminals," then when some of the POWs returned home and described mistreatment by the North Vietnamese, she said Americans should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars."

There is another story that says she was handed pieces of paper containing Social Security numbers of POWs and she gave them to the camp staff, resulting in the deaths of three POWs at the hands of their captors.  That story has not been verified.

In 1988 in an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20 Fonda said, "I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of the things that I said or did.  I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm...very sorry that I hurt them.  And I want to apologize to them and their families."

In 2005, Fonda published her autobiography in which she described in detail her decision to go to North Vietnam. She said it was primarily motivated by her desire to document the U.S. bombing of important dikes that, if destroyed, could kill tens of thousands of people and devastate the lives of millions.  The U.S. had denied the bombings. In the book, Fonda is unapologetic about the trip or her participation in broadcasts on radio Hanoi but regrets the pictures taken of her at the gun emplacement.  She said it made it appear as though she was celebrating armaments aimed at American planes, which was not how she felt and was not the context in which the pictures were taken.  She reminds readers that the U.S. investigated her trip and found no reason to bring any charges against her.  She also describes her longstanding support of, and interaction with, U.S. military personnel and says her only beef was with the U.S. government, not the troops.

Nice try, Jane.  To many of us veterans you are and will always be a traitor to the United States.  

The other reason I won't go see "The Butler" is because of remarks made by its director, Lee Daniels.  Asked in an interview by that America loving (snic) Piers Morgan if he thinks America is more racially biased since President Obama's election, Daniels said  "I think that people are angry that he's president, and I think that they're showing their true colors. And I think that, you know, when Danny Strong wrote those words, "Any black man could be killed by any white man and get away with it," Trayvon Martin had not happened. I end the movie with hope, you know. He's walking down, and Obama's giving that famous speech, you know, and then I come out of my edit room and Trayvon Martin has happened. So, yeah, I think so. Sadly, I think so."

Basically I've been called a racist by Lee Daniels.  Daniels is just one more person who refuses to accept the facts of the Martin case (like Oprah) and wants to make George Zimmerman (and anyone who believes justice was served) out as racist.  And he obviously believes if you disagree with President Obama, regardless of your stated reasons, you're a racist.  Certainly he and Oprah are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong, but I don't have to put money in their pockets.  And I won't.

I won't encourage a boycott of the movie.  Everyone has to make their own decision on that.  And I won't think less of any of my friends if they decide to go see it.  This is my choice for the stated reasons.  Believe them or not - that's also a choice.

I'm sure I will miss some wonderful acting by Forest Whitaker and other stars in the movie.  That will be my loss.  But I would rather miss the movie than support people who turn everything into a race issue.  And you already know how I feel about Hanoi Jane....

More Selective Law Enforcement From The Obama Administration...?

A few days ago Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at the American Bar Association whereby he announced that he is changing the way certain drug laws are enforced.  He said the administration is going to work with Congress to make changes to some laws governing crime and prosecution but in the meantime he is telling prosecutors not to follow the law as written but essentially make things up when it comes to non-violent offenders.

Holder's words were as follows:

"This is why I have today mandated a modification of the Justice Department’s charging policies so that certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences. They now will be charged with offenses for which the accompanying sentences are better suited to their individual conduct, rather than excessive prison terms more appropriate for violent criminals or drug kingpins."

My question is this - since when does the Attorney General of the United States have the authority to arbitrarily change the enforcement of laws to suit his agenda?  As Attorney General his duties are U.S. legal affairs and he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.  That says "law enforcement" officer, not "law making" officer.  

I've written before about this administration's propensity to enforce only laws they agree with.  A few years ago it was rumored that then Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, told Border Patrol agents to stop arresting illegal aliens entering the country to keep the numbers down, seemingly indicating that the borders were more secure.  We already know that just before the sequester took effect in March, ICE released thousands of illegals into the communities citing budget cuts that hadn't happened yet.  

And the Obama administration has delayed implementation of certain parts of the Affordable Care Act that seemed to be contrary to winning an election.  Again I ask - when did the President or the Attorney General get to select the laws (or parts thereof) they will enforce and those they will not enforce?  By now is this selective law enforcement not an impeachable offense?  But does anyone in the Congress have the courage to do it...?

Where Is The Media Outrage? Where's Reverend Al??

Two days ago in the small town of Duncan, Oklahoma, a college student from Australia was shot in the back and left for dead while he was jogging.  The alleged perpetrators were three juveniles, ages 15, 16 and 17. The three boys have been arrested by Duncan police and one of them, the oldest, told police they were bored and shot the young man for fun.

One of the interesting things about the case that is not making the headlines is that two of the three boys are black while the third is white.  The victim was also white.

In a move sure to draw the ire of some, prosecutors charged 15-year-old James Francis Edwards Jr. and 16-year-old Chancey Allen Luna with first-degree murder on Tuesday. Police say the two killed 22-year-old Christopher Lane on Friday to overcome boredom. Under Oklahoma law, anyone who is 15 or older and facing a first-degree murder charge is automatically tried in adult court.

Also Tuesday, 17-year-old Michael Dewayne Jones was charged with being an accessory after the fact and with using a vehicle during the discharge of weapon. Jones is charged as a youthful offender but will still have his case heard in adult court.

So by now some are screaming that the only reason Jones was charged with a lesser crime is because he's white.  I would venture to guess that while that is very possible - Jones most likely cut a deal when he started talking.  Jones rolled over on his buddies to save his own butt and got a lesser charge because of it. Let's face it - only one of those boys pulled that trigger and in my opinion, if you're going to charge two with first degree murder than you should charge all three.  The second kid, regardless of color, didn't pull the trigger any more than Jones did.  

Of course, there may be other evidence against the two or it could be that Jones is blaming them for the entire thing and he is just "an innocent victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong time."  Yeah, right.

Either way, where is the media outrage for the senseless murder of this 22 year old Australian kid?  Unlike the Zimmerman/Martin case - these boys admittedly stalked their victim and shot him for the thrill of it.  But in three of the four articles I read earlier today there was no mention of the color of the alleged perpetrators at all.  

When the Zimmerman/Martin story broke it took less than two hours for the mainstream media to identify Zimmerman as white and portray him as a racist. Why is there no major coverage of this and why aren't those in the race hatred industry raising their voices?  Could it be because the victim was white?  Could it be because one of the alleged perpetrators is white so that makes it OK?  Or could it be because black on white crime doesn't further the racial agenda of the mainstream media and the likes of Al Sharpton?

There are a lot of unanswered questions about this case that hopefully will come out during the investigation. One of the boys' mothers (the article didn't say which one) said the boys were "in a wannabe gang."  Where did they get the gun?  What else have they done in the past?  Was this a foreseeable incident?

Things like this don't normally happen in small town Oklahoma.  (The population of Duncan is around 24,000.)  Let's hope the police and prosecutor get things done correctly and by the book and all three are convicted.  And let's hope they reconsider the charges against Jones so he can be sentenced commensurate with his buddies and they can all go to prison (or the gas chamber) together.  Of course - since they're all under 18 there will be no death penalty consideration.

As far as I'm concerned - they all should be tried on the same charges and face the same punishment.  When you decide to run like a big dog you need to be punished like a big dog.

Hating An Autistic Child.... How Low Can One Sink?

In Ontario, Canada, recently, the mother of an autistic child found the following anonymous note in her mailbox:

If you can't read the letter may I suggest you save the photo and enlarge it.  It's worth reading.

I am disgusted by the rantings of this "mother".  As a father I cannot imagine ever feeling this way about a child - regardless of the disease or condition of that child.  This letter, calling for the euthanisia of an autistic child, was signed by a mother!  How any parent, let alone a mother, could write something like this is so far beyond me I won't even try to understand.  Instead of harassing the mother of an autistic child she should be thanking God that her own are healthy and seemingly "normal."  

The hatred flowing out of this letter toward an innocent child and his mother is indicative that America is not the only country with people who hate those who are different.  Actually, you find people like that in every country but it's rare to find one so blatantly (if cowardly) open about it.  

From the actual letter:  "He is a hindrance to everyone and will always be that way!!!!! Who the hell is going to care for him?????? No employer will hire him, no normal girl is going to marry/love him and you are not going to live forever!! Personally, they should take whatever non retarded body parts he possesses and donate it to science. What the hell else good is he to anyone!!! You had a retarded kid, deal with it…properly!!!!! What right do you have to do this to hard working people!!!!!!!! I HATE people like you who believe, just because you have a special needs kid, you are entitled to special treatment!!! GOD!!!!!!

Do everyone in our community a huge favor and MOVE!  VAMOSE!!  SCRAM!!!  Move away and get out of this type of neighborhood setting!!!  Go live in a trailer in the woods or something with your wild animal kid!!!  Nobody wants you living here and they don't have the guts to tell you!!!!"

Apparently the author of this hate filled missile doesn't have the guts to tell her either because she signed it "One pissed off mother."  I hope, one day, her own children find a copy of this letter and see the hate filled person that she is.  Or maybe one of her children will have an autistic child of their own and they can see how Grandma reacts.

I will pray that God touches this woman's heart and lets her understand that imperfect children are born every day and that she is one of the lucky ones if hers are without problems.  I will also pray that God removes the hatred from this woman so she may find happiness in a world that is often miserable.  Maybe I'll simply pray that she finds God.  That might be the easiest solution to the other two...

Impeach Obama?

The other day my wife and I were driving up highway 377 in Granbury, Texas and we came across these two guys:

We honked and waved as we went by thinking them to be brave and committed souls, standing with that sign on a public highway in 97 degree heat.  As I was nearing the next intersection I decided I needed a picture and turned onto the access road to go back.  When we arrived at their location they had rolled up the sign and were carrying it and their coolers toward their vehicle.  

I parked and got out, walking toward them.  "Man, I just turned around so I could take a picture."

They laughed.  "We have to go to work," one of them replied.

"You mean this isn't your full time job?" I joked.  They laughed again.  They were obviously in good moods so I asked "Do you think, once you set your other things down, you might unroll the sign so I can get a picture?  I want to post it online.  I have some liberal friends who will just love it!"  (Laughing as I said it.)

"Sure," they both replied, and set their coolers down right there so they could unroll the sign.

I snapped a couple of pictures, thanked them and asked "So what was your overall response from people passing by?"

One of them responded "We had about five cars that gave us the finger but mostly we got honks, waves and thumbs up."

This is Texas, after all.

I thanked them again and we proceeded on our way. I posted the picture on Facebook when we got home.

I got to thinking of them again this morning and what the consequences would be if President Obama was actually impeached.  Regardless of what the articles of impeachment were, the left and the mainstream media would decry it as racist.  It's what they do to detract from the actual facts.  

Benghazi alone should be enough to impeach President Obama.  Denied security requests leading to four dead Americans then lying to the American people for weeks about what happened, followed by continued cover-up of the truth.

Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to respond or provide information about Fast and Furious should be another.  And disclosing secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which clearly states: "… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons."

He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.  He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012.

And he has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012.

These are just a few of the articles that could be leveled against him in an impeachment procedure.  See anything racist about any of them?  Me neither.  But that's what the allegations will be from liberal progressives and the mainstream media.  They can't help themselves.

But there is another reason,  perhaps even more compelling, that might prevent the impeachment of the man who would be king.  It's a tough choice.  On the one hand you have Obama and his lies for another three years.  On the other hand, if the impeachment is successful and Obama is ousted, our next President will be:

Nanny... er... Mayor Bloomberg Knows What's Best...

New York City nanny mayor, Michael Bloomberg, knows what's best for the citizens of New York.  He must - he keeps passing laws to make citizens healthier.  He knows what people should and shouldn't eat so he passed a law that salt, that evil, blood pressure raising substance, cannot be on tables in restaurants.  "If you don't see it, you won't use it" is his theory.

He passed a law that banned soft drink sales in cups larger than 16 ounces. Everyone knows that drinking a 20 or 32 ounce soda will kill you.  OK, not everyone.  But Mayor Bloomberg knows it so he banned the large size - well... except for stores like Seven Eleven and Whole Foods.  Somehow they were exempt.  He made it necessary to go to one of those stores to buy the big one. He told all the other stores, restaurants and hot dog vendors they couldn't sell them. What he didn't do was put a limit on how many 16 ounce sodas one could buy so I'm not sure what he accomplished.

The mayor, always concerned with the health of New Yorkers, banned smoking outdoors in public places such as parks and at the beaches.  Apparently second hand smoke is a problem out in the open air.

And speaking of cigarettes, he now has a proposal that would force store owners who sell cigarettes to hide them somewhere rather than display them.  Again, he believes "if you can't see them you won't buy them."  Mostly what it will do is inconvenience the store clerks.

Gee - I can't imagine why every health conscious person wouldn't move to New York immediately.

But it seems not everyone agrees that Mayor Bloomberg should have the nanny powers he's claiming.  In May of this year a New York City Supreme Court judge overturned the mayor's "arbitrary and capricious" ban on large sodas saying there was no basis for banning the sale of the drinks from one retailer but allowing another to sell them.  In the decision the judge wrote:  “The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole. The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the rule.”

The mayor, of course, appealed the decision but the Appeals Court upheld the Supreme Court's ruling.  The ban on large sodas is sufficiently squashed. Wonder what all those people who were planning to make money from black market sodas will do now?

But the mayor isn't done.  Not by a long shot.  He has more plans to make New Yorkers even healthier.  Gotta love him.  He has decided that elevators are bad for you and that you should take the stairs instead - so he wants to make elevators go so slowly that people will choose the stairs over the elevators.  Most likely it will make people consistently late for work but the nanny, er... mayor, wants to force people to climb.  Wonder how it will effect people who work on the 56th floor of a high rise?

The mayor also wants to ban people from using headphones or earbuds that are turned up too loud.  In an effort to save people's hearing, the mayor wants to decide how loud you can have your music.

Yesterday he announced his plans to ban electronic cigarettes because "the perpetuate nicotine addiction."  Even though they have helped millions of people quit smoking real cigarettes, he wants to either ban them or regulate them as a tobacco product.  They do not contain any tobacco but that's a detail the mayor won't worry about.

Mayor Bloomberg is going to force New Yorkers to get healthy one way or another.  If one law gets overturned he'll simply pass another.  And his mind is always working on new things to ban.  Styrofoam recently became another obsession...

Yup - I think health conscious people should all move to New York.  The taxes are a bit high but you won't have to worry about salt, second hand smoke, smokeless e-cigarettes, or the guy next to you listening to his headphones too loud.  And you can get a job on the 22nd floor of a building and walk up to it every morning.  Just think how much better off you'll be!

Congress: Exempting Themselves From Federal Laws For Nearly 50 Years...

Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that our elected lawmakers write and pass laws that apply to everyone but them?  Or they pass laws that, while they are subject to following them, they find ways to get around them so they are minimally affected.  Take the Affordable Care Act, for example.  (Take it as far away as you can, while you're at it.)

The Affordable Care Act, a document of over 2000 pages, was shoved down our throats by the Democrats (and a few turncoat Republicans) without the benefit of anyone actually reading it.  Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."  That should have been scary enough.  But it got worse...

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Rep. John Conyers (D), of Michigan. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"  Hey John - need I remind you that you ARE a lawyer?

Seriously - how could any American taxpayer believe that a bill was good when the members of Congress voting for it didn't even know what they were voting for?

Now, three and a half years after it was signed into law, the President has delayed parts of it, probably illegally.  Because an election is coming up next year, the employers mandate to either provide health insurance or pay a fine has been delayed so that less people will have their hours cut or be laid off.  Don't want to disenfranchise the voters just before an election.  The out of pocket spending cap for consumers has been delayed until 2015.  I heard yesterday that the reason for this delay is that doctors, pharmacies and insurance companies do not communicate in real time, nor will they be able to do so anytime soon. Consumers might be made to pay for prescriptions even after they've met the cap because there is no way for the doctors and pharmacies to know they have reached it.  And that could lead to legal action by consumers against doctors and pharmacies.  Congress and their staff have just been given a subsidy (extra pay) to offset the increased costs of their insurance due to the law.  Are any of you Obamacare supporters going to get more money from the government to help pay for your insurance costs?  See what I mean about going around so they are minimally affected?

How about the concerted effort by Democrats this year to level more gun control on the American people?  Even though they were unsuccessful, some in the House and Senate want to ban Americans from owning guns at all.  They want you to be unable to protect yourself and your family while many of them own weapons or have armed security to protect them.  Once again - "let's pass a law that affects the American people but it won't affect us."

Now, how about one that stinks to high heaven and helps our elected officials get uber wealthy while "serving the American people."  I'm talking about insider trading.  Congress seems to be immune from the penalties of insider trading on Wall Street and many of them are getting filthy rich because of it.

According to a report by FOX News last year, Congress is still exempt from:

— The Freedom of Information Act.

— Investigatory subpoenas to obtain information for safety and health probes.

— Protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.

— Having to post notices of worker rights in offices.

— Prosecution for retaliating against employees who report safety and health hazards.

— Having to train employees about workplace rights and legal remedies.

— Record-keeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses.

Of course, there are those who will not believe this because it came from FOX.  To them I say - do the research yourself and see what you find.

Why do we continue to allow our elected officials to do whatever they want instead of what the people want?  Over 70% of Americans were against the health care bill yet it was passed anyway.  And we keep voting to keep them in office.  The old saying about insanity comes to mind...

Rodeo Clown Fired For Obama Mask...!

I’ve seen the articles and heard the uproar from the left because a rodeo clown at the Missouri State Fair donned an Obama mask and did his rodeo act wearing it.  The announcer asked the crowd in Missouri “Would you like to see Obama run down by a bull?”  The crowd reportedly went wild with enthusiasm however, when the bull approached the Obama clown (that does have a ring to it, doesn’t it?) the clown ran the other way to safety. 

The clown has now reportedly been fired and, according to state fair officials, “will never work at this fair again.”  Personally, I think that’s a bit harsh.

There has been a huge uproar from the left, particularly Democrat politicians, and some disagreement from Republicans as well.  I can honestly say that the question “Would you like to see Obama run down by a bull?” is a bit much.  I have never endorsed and will never endorse acts of violence against the President of the United States, even in fun.  My personal opinion is that it’s just wrong.  However, a man wearing an Obama mask and running around the ring avoiding the bull isn’t any more disrespectful than most of the vile things that were said and done against President Bush.  I didn’t hear the left wing politicians complaining about them.

I saw George Bush’s likeness, complete with mask, burned in effigy on several occasions during his presidency but never saw the left ask for someone’s head to roll.  They have asked for that in this case.  Where was their anger and demands for "heads to roll" when a film called "Death of a President" debuted in which George W. Bush was fictionally assassinated.  Even though the film was British I didn't hear any outcry from anyone on the left about how inappropriate it was.

Let’s face the facts – many liberals, even though they scream about the hatred and/or racism from those on the right, are far more hateful and yes, even more racist than your average conservative.  Conservatives can’t disagree with or criticize President Obama without liberals screaming about hate and racism.  And that makes everything a conservative does racist and hateful – at least in the eyes of liberals.  So if a particular group of people sees everything through the eyes of racism and hatred - who is that has the problem?

If the State Fair officials disliked the practical joke the clown was attempting to play they could have reprimanded him and made their statement to the public without firing him.  I think firing him was a bit of overkill to make a point.  I wonder how many left wing zealots were fired for making fun and/or making crude and vile statements about President Bush.  Anyone want to guess?