Romney’s Human Side

Accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for President, Mitt Romney gave a good, solid acceptance speech last night. To be sure, it was not as flashy as Paul Ryan’s.  Nor was it Ronald Reagan. There were no cymbal crashes – well, a few –or verbal fireworks.  Mainly, it was serious talk for serious times.  It was Mitt Romney.

Polls indicated that the feckless Independents wanted Romney to show his human side.  So he talked about his family and his admiration for his wife’s courage in raising five boisterous boys:

“She [Ann] was heroic. Five boys, with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then and I’d call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that doesn’t help get the homework done or the kids out the door to school.

“I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine. And as America saw Tuesday night, Ann would have succeeded at anything she wanted to.

“Like a lot of families in a new place with no family, we found kinship with a wide circle of friends through our church. When we were new to the community it was welcoming and as the years went by, it was a joy to help others who had just moved to town or just joined our church. We had remarkably vibrant and diverse congregants from all walks of life and many who were new to America. We prayed together, our kids played together and we always stood ready to help each other out in different ways.”

Now, there’s a candidate of courage, speaking, in these secular times, of his faith. He told us about his Mexican immigrant father.  He spoke of Neil Armstrong’s courage and spirit.  He spoke about the hopes and dreams of immigrants to America, how they came here seeking the American dream, a better of life.

Without getting into ideology, he spoke about Obama’s promise to America and how America believed in his promise.  Then Romney factually detailed how Obama had failed in that promise.  He was too gentlemanly to examine the causes, the ideology behind that havoc and what Obama intends for America “I’m not that kind of guy.”  In his mind, rightly, who cares what Obama has in mind, because we’re going to elect Romney, an experienced, successful businessman whose expertise was in rescuing flailing companies.

America will be his biggest challenge – a country with a flailing economy.

Still, there are the unconvinced out there, brainwashed into the Obama cult who just don’t get it.  Obama has failed, deliberately thrown the test.  He’s an avowed Third World guy who hates America, he hates the upper and middle class, and if you just read his biography, Dreams From My Father, you discover he hates white people.  Passionately. There’s just no getting around it. The words are there in black and white, in his own writing.

Romney may not want to fight Obama’s ideology because he’s just not that kind of guy and he figures the dismal statistics alone should be enough to indict Obama.  That doesn’t mean, however, that the rest of us shouldn’t fight back.

The Obama in “Dreams” is decidedly not a nice guy.  You don’t need to read critical biographies of him (although it’s a good idea) to find that he’s colder, more distant, more impersonal, and more detached, by his own admission, than Mitt Romney is.  Although it might be understandable, having been essentially abandoned by both parents, he does not attend his father’s funeral, and doesn’t go to see his mother in her dying days.  He just shrugs.

He is passionate only about distancing himself from his privileged, suburban background, including attending the elite Punaho School, a private school, in Hawaii.  Take him seriously when he admits that he sought out the socialists, Marxists, and radicals.  He did do pot and other drugs, although eventually he decided to clean up his act.  But only to pursue his mission of “transforming” America into his idea of a nation – a Third World country.

Obama is not above deceit at all, having been trained in the Alyinskite-style of political organizing (that’s what community organizing is).  “Drop the radical pose for the radical ends.”  In other words, the ends justify the means, and if that means deceiving the white people into believing you care about them, so be it.

We are like the drivers through Six Flags/Great Adventure Wild Safari in Jackson, N.J.  In desiring to get closer to the wild animals, drivers willingly bring the cars right into the center of the action.  They get to see the animals close up.  And the animals have the fun of tearing your car apart, particularly the monkeys.

Theirs is no racism meant or implied here; it is, in fact, what monkeys do. They’re destructive wild animals. Years ago, at another New Jersey safari park in West Milford, called Jungle Habitat (which is now defunct), I remember riding with my mother on her bus on a class trip she was driving through the park.

A monkey landed on the twin doors of the bus and proceeded to tear off the molding and eat it.  Anyone else would have laughed it off and said, “Oh, who cares?  The insurance will take care of it, or the bus yard mechanics will fix it.”  Not Mom.

With a scowl, she put the bus into park, put on the parking brake, and turned off the engine.  She then got out of her seat, stepped into the doorwell and proceeded to yell at the monkey.  Mom yelled at the monkey (“Get away from there!  You’re not going to eat MY bus!!”)and the monkey yelled back.  Mom won, actually.  The monkey flew off.  The bus was in hysterics.  I, being only a teenager, was mortified.

“Mom, you’re arguing with a monkey!”  More howls of laughter from the kids.

“I don’t care!  I’m not going to let that thing tear my bus apart!”  The monkey returned, landing on the hood of the bus.  It screeched at Mom, who sat there sullenly.  Then it proceeded to try to tear off the passenger-side windshield wiper.  Mom realized there was no point in trying to argue with a monkey; it would just make a monkey of her.  Instead, she turned the windshield wipers on (at high speed), sending the monkey into a final retreat.

We’ve reached a point in our economy– and in culture – where we can no longer afford to shrug and figure someone else (the bus company, the insurance company, the taxpayer, the government) will pay for the damage.  Six Flags finally realized it, after 30 years. Jungle Habitat realized it after about four years.

Mom came from the Responsible Generation (aka the Greatest Generation). Not only didn’t she shrug, but she fought back, with spirit.  She wasn’t going to let a monkey make a monkey out of her, or just laugh off the damage it was doing to her bus.  The bus company owner considered Mom a model employee.  She was given the task of training new drivers.  When she got too old drive, they gave her the job of straightening out their records.

Mom was also a model Mom.  That’s why I rode with her so often on her bus trips.

We need to stop shrugging.  We need to stop shrugging at Obama’s dismantling of our country, making excuses because we mistakenly think he’s nice guy.  Last night, some pundits were concerned about Clint Eastwood’s slightly naughty performance (I thought it was pretty funny and right on target). Apparently, they didn’t like the insinuation that Obama is foul-mouthed.

Publicly, he isn’t.  Just read his own book and you’ll find out just how foul-mouthed he really is.  Clint Eastwood had Obama pegged quite accurately. If the Independents, and their sympathetic Media allies (including, I’m sorry to say, Fox News), just did their research, they’d find out.

Publicly, he isn’t.  Just read his own book and you’ll find out just how foul-mouthed he really is.  Clint Eastwood had Obama pegged quite accurately.  If the Independents, and their sympathetic Media allies (including, I’m sorry to say, Fox News), just did their research, they’d find out.  Our intellectually superior media also seemed to have missed the lesson of a simple metaphor of the empty chair – the invisible president, the empty suit, the empty promise.  Instead, they gnashed their teeth (yet again) over whether this performance would be perceived by Independents as an “attack” on Obama.

In a sense, Romney doesn’t have to “attack”Obama.  Obama reveals his own dark side and where he’s reluctant to do so, for obvious political reasons, there are plenty of critics (Dinesh D’Souza’s books fill in the gaps and correct the falsehoods Obama tells, such as the story about the black man trying to turn his skin white) with the information. All you have to do is uncover your eyes and stop pretending that he’s a nice guy.

Romney is the better choice for President of the United States.  He’s decidedly more capable, experienced, patriotic, and caring.  We can be pretty sure that he’ll never shrug us off.

Published in: on August 31, 2012 at 9:59 am  Leave a Comment  

Ryan’s RNC Convention Speech – Music to Our Ears

Paul Ryan’s speech last night at the RNC Convention in Tampa proved that Mitt Romney had made the wisest, savviest choice in selection of a running mate.

N.J. Gov. Christie’s speech was great; he covered all the all-American points.  Supporters were disappointed that he only mentioned the presidential candidate at the end of his 16-minute speech.  No one should really be surprised, or even feel embarrassed by that fact, not even Gov. Christie.  The truth is, Christie is a leader not a follower.  Someday, he may make a great president; he would have a difficult time following someone else’s orders.

But Paul Ryan.  All his years of speechwriting for other candidates, his background in economics, his family background, his experience in Congress, and his youth all paid off in the enthusiasm for him and for the presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

The whole speech was so wonderful, it’s hard to pick just one great moment.  An experienced speechwriter, he delivered the right mix of pronouns, he gave us the triads so important to a good speech.  He gave us excellent personal examples.  He used colorful illustrations, to set his ideas in the mind’s eye of his listeners (“College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.”)  He gave us facts and figures to solidify his arguments.  And most importantly, he had no qualms about attacking the opponent, Obama.

The deal maker in speech, even though he had his audience sold early on in the speech, was his remark about the musical generation gap between himself and Mitt Romney.

“We’re a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we’re a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I’ve heard on the campaign bus and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.  A generation apart. That makes us different, but not in any of the things that matter.”

To use a triad:  brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.  This is one smart man.  In one paragraph, he bridged the generation gap that has been harrying the Republican Party.  Music has been a dividing line for generations.  A.C. and Led Zeppelin aren’t exactly my music; they’re more my older brother’s music.  My younger brother is a Charlie Daniels fan.  I was more into John Denver and Glenn Miller.  If you’re going to attract younger voters, you’ve got to whistle their tune.  In this one paragraph, Ryan appealed to the younger generation’s taste in music, bringing the GOP into the 21st Century, and healed the gap by saying that the difference is insignificant.

He went on to discuss Romney’s support for Medicare, and Obama’s gutting of that social program.  America never should have been lured into such a socialist trap, but the voters of the time were, and now, for better or for worse, we’re stuck with.  Romney and Ryan are not going to pull the rug out from under us.  Ryan is as much a defender of the Greatest Generation as he is the Led Zeppelin generation.  Romney, and his point-man, Ryan, recognized that Americans themselves, through their years of hard work, paid into this program and deserve what they were promised.

Ryan followed the Conservative principles on every point in his speech.  Earlier in the evening, I was disappointed to hear moderate Republican speakers advancing the causes of wind and solar power.  Just as Paul Ryan’s delegates deserved to have their voices heard, so did these speakers.  But these programs are hardly sensible and have barely been vetted.  We don’t need to hear more advocates of these alternative methods; we need to hear the other side of the story.

However, Ryan’s speech was a balm for all the Liberal Republican hogwash.  Let us hope that his future boss, Mitt Romney, will deliver a speech just as stirring and evocative of the principles of the Founding Fathers.

As Ryan noted, “We don’t have that much time. But if we are serious, and smart, and we lead, we can do this.”

Amen to that.

Published in: on August 30, 2012 at 10:50 am  Comments (1)  

Playing by the Rules – The RNC Rules Floor Fight

No sane person would ever take Ron Paul to be a Conservative (Legalize pot?  I don’t think so.)  Barring any other Republican candidates, Mitt Romney seems to be the guy.  Yet yesterday’s rules fight – over how delegates may actually vote – also gave sane people pause to wonder whether the Republican National Committee has gone insane.

According to delegate Dean Clancy, whose after-action report from Tampa was posted on Michelle Malkin’s website:

“At a minimum, the effect of the new rules will be to empower insiders over the broad party electorate [allowing them] to discourage grassroots activists [like the Tea Parties] from taking part in the process.  They will thus have a chilling effect on intra-party debate, including debate over the National Platform and, of course, on future rules changes.  The ‘Inner Circle’ has scared quite a coup.”

Some argue that it was a big fuss over nothing. Ostensibly, the fight was over keeping Ron Paul from gaining just enough delegate votes to prevent Romney from taking the nomination, thus invoking a brokered convention.  Others say the GOP had a greater agenda of marginalizing the Tea Party.

Ultimately, the GOP announced an amazingly Conservative platform, even opposing abortion.  However, he who presented the platform did so in such a condescending, patronizing manner that it would seem he’d forgotten the 2008 election.  The GOP gave us an inherently unelectable candidate in John McCain, leaving then-candidate Mitt Romney out in the wings, when most Conservatives certainly preferred the young, healthy and sensible Romney to the doddering McCain.  McCain’s nomination cost Republicans the election, with Conservatives and young people (like my nephew) sitting out the election.

They have no right to even expect us to trust them, much less sit down and shut up and let them run the show.  Their incompetence is what gave birth to the Tea Party movement.  We don’t want politics as usual.  We won’t tolerate it, we won’t accept, we won’t sit down and shut up.

The complaints about overreacting come from armchair voters who probably never bother to vote in primaries and never pay attention to what’s really happening.  Their “whatever” attitude is just as dangerous to our federal republic as the RNC’s rule-changing game.  Had they paid attention in 2007, even gotten involved, Mitt Romney might have been the nominee, and Barack Obama would still be weeping on his father’s Kenyan grave.

Since Mitt Romney himself was a victim of this sort of political sleight-of-hand, he can’t be blamed for the outrage in this year’s convention.  Either he wasn’t part of it, or he figured that’s just the way the game is played. Since the party adopted a Conservative platform and Romney seems capable of the job, most Republicans are willing to overlook this business of rule-changing.

However, the Tea Parties were formed for this very reason:  to let politicians know that we’re not going to let them get away with politics as usual. We expect more and better from our politicians, and this party with whom we must make alliance (at least for the time being).  The Tea Party activists are their ground soldiers.  They’re the ones going door-to-door soliciting votes, manning the phones, passing out flyers, and donating their hard-earned money for Republicans.

Whether they allow grassroots activists a seat at “the grown-ups” table or not, we’ll still be here, holding their feet to the fire in whatever means are available to us.  They should remember that they need us more than we need them.  Obama is the worst president we’ve ever had and he needs to be defeated.   But not at all costs to honor, integrity, and freedom of speech.  The RNC can just remember that they’re the ones who put us in this position.  Betray us, marginalize us, silence us, and millions of Conservative voters will vote with their “slippers.”

We already have one dictator-in-chief in the White House; we don’t need to elect another one.




Published in: on August 29, 2012 at 2:21 pm  Comments (1)  

Obama’s Move “Forward”


On April 30, 2012, having successfully wreaked his “hope” for fellow-traveling Marxists and “change” upon not just America’s wealthy but her middle class for the sake of the have-nots, Obama introduced his new, 2012 campaign slogan, Forward, many Conservative bloggers recognized it immediately as a famous Marxist slogan.  Many attributed it to Josef Stalin.  Others were able to date it back to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov “Lenin.”

The propaganda slogan, “Forward!”reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, of progressivism, which would move the world “forward”past capitalism and into socialism and Communism.

Clearly, it’s a Marxist slogan, a fact Obama would rather the public not know. However, since so many bloggers published the story, it would be hard for anyone to ignore it or its significance. But what about the date Obama chose to announce it?  Communists, Islamists, and anti-colonialists are very fond of anniversaries.  They love to bask in the limelight of their moment in history.  So let’s take a look some moments in history from the date of April 30th:

  • 1006 – Scientists record the brightest supernova in history (the explosion of a star)
  • 1661 –  The Chinese lay siege to the Dutch fort Zeelandia on the isle of Formosa (Taiwan)
  • 1789 –  George Washington inaugurated as the first President of the U.S.
  • 1861 –  Pres. Lincoln ordered Federal troops to evacuate Indian territory
  • 1864 – New York becomes 1ststate to charge a hunting license fee
  • 1898 – Shaka, the great Zulu warrior is killed
  • 1900 – Casey Jones dies in the Cannonball Express train wreck – very apropo
  • 1900 – The U.S. annexes Hawaii under Pres. McKinley
  • 1945 –  Adolf Hitler commits suicide
  • 1903 –  The N.Y. Highlanders (later the N.Y. Yankees) play their 1st home game

Wait, wait, and wait!  Let’s back up a few steps.  The United States annexes Hawaii on Apr. 30, 1900 – much to the dismay of the islanders who fault missionaries for introducing disease and traders for introducing agriculture and capitalism, and dispensing with such customs as incest.  Hmmm.

Now, the Cannonball Express came on April 30, 1900 (according to Wikipedia).  Very fitting, given the sabotage of our train-wrecked economy by the Democrats.  The exact date of Hawaii’s annexation is actually unsubstantiated; still, Obama chose that exact date. The royal governance of the island was not overthrown by the U.S. government but a group of American and European businessmen in 1893. However, what it was granted in 1900 was the right to self-governance and the restoration of Iolani Palace.

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland, a friend of the queen, commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on Feb. 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen “not guilty” from any responsibility for the overthrow. The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.

In 1993, a joint Apology Resolution (so Obama was not the first Apologizer-in-Chief) regarding the overthrow was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is the first time in American history that the United States government has apologized for overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation.  The Provisional Government of Hawaii ended on July 4, 1894, replaced by the Republic of Hawaii.

After William McKinley won the presidential election in 1896, Hawaii’s annexation to the U.S. was again discussed. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii. He met with three annexationists from Hawaii.  After negotiations, in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.

The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, despite the opposition of a majority of native Hawaiians, the Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution was passed by the House on June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.

Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii began when Puerto Rico’s sugar industry was devastated by two hurricanes in 1899. The devastation caused a world-wide shortage of sugar and a huge demand for the product from Hawaii. Hawaiian sugar plantation owners began to recruit the jobless, but experienced, laborers in Puerto Rico. Two distinct waves of Korean immigration to Hawaii have occurred in the last century, arriving between 1903 and 1924; and then, the second wave began in 1965.

In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained Iolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for 60 years. Plantation owners and key capitalists, who maintained control through financial institutions, or “factors,”known as the “Big Five”, found territorial status more convenient than statehood, enabling them to continue importing cheap foreign labor; such immigration was prohibited in various states.

As the pineapples ripened, so did Hawaii’s economic status, but it was also fertile ground for Marxist anti-imperialists and anti-Capitalists such as Frank Marshall Davis. So, where did Davis get his anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist philosophies from.  Why, from Vladmir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, of course.  Who else?

Vladmir Illyich Ulyanov “Lenin” (“Lenin”was his nom de guerre, taken from the Russian River, Lenina) founded the publication Vpered (Russian for “forward”in 1905.  Marxist artists set to work creating many propaganda posters with this word, and Soviet propaganda film maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary entitled “Forward, Soviet”, “soviet”being the Russian word for “council”. One of his pamphlets, published in 1917, was entitled:  “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It:  Can We Go Forward If We Fear to Advance Towards Socialism?”

At the dawn of the Bolshevik Revolution, upon returning from exile on April 15, 1917, at Finland Station, in Petrograd, Russia, Lenin told the waiting crowd:

“The piratical imperialist war is the beginning of civil war throughout Europe … The world-wide Socialist revolution has already dawned … Germany is seething … Any day now the whole of European capitalism may crash … Sailors, comrades, we have to fight for a socialist revolution, to fight until the proletariat wins full victory! Long live the worldwide socialist revolution!

In exile again, reflecting on the July Days and its aftermath, Lenin determined that, to prevent the triumph of counter-revolutionary forces, the Provisional Government must be overthrown by an armed uprising. Meanwhile, he published State and Revolution(1917), proposing government by the soviets (worker-, soldier- and peasant-elected councils) rather than by a parliamentary body.

Lenin had argued in a newspaper article in September 1917:

“The peaceful development of any revolution is, generally speaking, extremely rare and difficult … but … a peaceful development of the revolution is possible and probable if all power is transferred to the Soviets. The struggle of parties for power within the Soviets may proceed peacefully, if the Soviets are made fully democratic.”

On the evening of Oct. 26, 1917, Lenin attended the Congress of Soviets.  American journalist John Reed described the man who appeared at about 8:40 p.m. to “a thundering wave of cheers:”

“A short, stocky figure, with a big head set down in his shoulders, bald and bulging. Little eyes, a snubbish nose, wide, generous mouth, and heavy chin; clean-shaven now, but already beginning to bristle with the well-known beard of his past and future. Dressed in shabby clothes, his trousers much too long for him. Unimpressive, to be the idol of a mob, loved and revered as perhaps few leaders in history have been. A strange popular leader—a leader purely by virtue of intellect; colourless, humourless, uncompromising and detached, without picturesque idiosyncrasies—but with the power of explaining profound ideas in simple terms, of analysing a concrete situation. And combined with shrewdness, the greatest intellectual audacity.”

According to Reed, Lenin waited for the applause to subside before declaring simply: “We shall now proceed to construct the Socialist order!” Lenin proceeded to propose to the Congress a “Decree on Peace”,calling on “all the belligerent peoples and to their Governments to begin immediately negotiations for a just and democratic peace,” and a “Decree on Land,” transferring ownership of all “land-owners’ estates, and all lands belonging to the Crown, [and] to monasteries” to the Peasants’ Soviets. The Congress passed the Decree on Peace unanimously, and the Decree on Land faced only one vote in opposition.

To initiate the Russian economic recovery, on Feb 21, 1920, Lenin launched the GOELRO Plan, the State Commission for Electrification of Russia, and also established free universal health care, free education, and promulgated the politico-civil rights of women. Moreover, since 1918, in re-establishing the economy, for the productive business administration of each industrial enterprise in Russia, Lenin proposed a government-accountable leader for each enterprise. Workers could request measures resolving problems, but had to abide the leader’s ultimate decision. Although contrary to the theory of workers’self-management, such pragmatic industrial administration was essential for efficient production and employment of worker expertise.

Yet Lenin’s doctrinaire Bolshevik opponents argued that such industrial business management was meant to strengthen State control of labor, and that worker self-management failures were owed to lack of resources, not incompetence. Lenin resolved that problem by licensing (for a month) all workers of most factories; thus historian S. A. Smith’s observation: “By the end of the civil war, not much was left of the democratic forms of industrial administration promoted by the factory committees in 1917, but the government argued that this did not matter since industry had passed into the ownership of a workers’ state.”

On Dec. 20, 1917, “The Whole-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, the Cheka (Chrezvychaynaya Komissiya – Extraordinary Commission) was created by a decree issued by Lenin to defend the Russian Revolution. The establishment of the Cheka secret service, formally consolidated the censorship established earlier, when on “ Nov. 17, the Central Executive Committee passed a decree giving the Bolsheviks control over all newsprint and wide powers of closing down newspapers critical of the régime. . . .”; non-Bolshevik soviets were disbanded; anti-soviet newspapers were closed until Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia(The News) established their communications monopoly.

According to Leonard Schapiro, the Bolshevik “refusal to come to terms with the [Revolutionary] socialists, and the dispersal of the Constituent assembly, led to the logical result that revolutionary terror would now be directed, not only against traditional enemies, such as the bourgeoisie or right-wing opponents, but against anyone, be he socialist, worker, or peasant, who opposed Bolshevik rule.”” On Dec. 19, 1918, a year after its creation, a resolution was adopted at Lenin’s behest that forbade the Bolshevik’s own press from publishing “defamatory articles” about the Cheka. As Lenin put it:  “A Good Communist is also a good Chekist.”

In response to Fanya Kaplan’s failed assassination of Lenin on Aug. 30, 1918, and the successful assassination of the Petrograd Cheka chief Moisei Uritsky, Stalin proposed to Lenin “open and systematic mass terror . . . [against] . . . those responsible”; the Bolsheviks commenced a Red Terror campaign. Among other acts, Lenin signed execution lists authorizing the Lenin authorized the shooting of 25 Tsarist ministers, civil servants, and 765 White Guards in September 1918. In his Diaries in Exile, 1935, Leon Trotsky recollected that Lenin authorized the execution of the Russian Imperial Family. However, historians have debated the authenticity of Trotsky’s recollections, while others claim there is abundant evidence that Lenin authorized the executions in Alapaevsk, about 100 miles from Yekaterinburg.

Other Bolsheviks had warned the Party that terrorist rule was inevitable, given Lenin’s assumption of sole command. In late 1918, when they tried curbing Chekist excesses, Lenin overruled them; in 1921, via the Politburo, Lenin expanded the Cheka’s discretionary death-penalty powers.

The foreign-aided White Russian counter-revolution failed due to lack of popular Russian support, because the Bolshevik proletarian state, protected by “mass terror against enemies of the revolution,” was socially organized against the previous capitalist establishment, thus class warfare terrorism in post–Czarist Russia originated in working class (peasant and worker) anger against the privileged aristocrat classes of the deposed monarchy.  During the Russian Civil War, anti-Bolsheviks faced torture and summary execution. By May 1919, there were some 16,000 “enemies of the people” imprisoned in the katorga (prison farm) labor camps; by September 1921, the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.

Professor Christopher Read states that though terror was employed at the height of the Civil War fighting, “from 1920 onwards the resort to terror was much reduced and disappeared from Lenin’s mainstream discourses and practices.” However, after a clerical insurrection in the town of Shuia, Lenin sanctioned action against defiers of the decreed Bolshevik removal of Orthodox Church valuables: “We must… put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades… The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing… the better.” As a result, historian Orlando Figes estimates that perhaps 8,000 priests and laymen were executed. The crushing of revolts in Kronstadt and Tambov in 1921 resulted in tens of thousands of executions.

In 1917, as an anti-imperialist, Lenin said that oppressed peoples had the unconditional right to secede from the Russian Empire; however, at end of the Civil War, the USSR annexed Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, because the White Movement used them as attack bases. Lenin pragmatically defended the annexations as geopolitical protection against capitalist imperial depredations.

To maintain the war-isolated cities, keep the armies fed, and to avoid economic collapse, the Bolshevik government established war communism, via prodrazvyorstka, a Russian word for which there seems to be no translation, but was a Bolshevik policy and campaign of confiscation of grain and other produce from peasantry for a nominal fixed price).  This policy resulted in armed confrontations over food requisitioning from the peasantry, for little payment, which peasants resisted with reduced harvests. The Bolsheviks blamed the kulaks’ withholding grain to increase profits; but statistics indicate most such business occurred in the black market economy. Nonetheless, the Cheka and Red Army suppressed the peasant resistance with shooting hostages, poison gas, and labor-camp deportation.  Still, Lenin increased the requisitioning.

The six-year long White–Red civil war, the war communism, the famine of 1921, which killed an estimated five million, and foreign military intervention reduced much of Russia to ruin, and provoked rebellion against the Bolsheviks, the greatest being the Tambov Rebellion (1919–21).

After the March 1921 left-wing Kronstadt Rebellion mutiny, Lenin replaced war communism with the New Economic Policy (NEP), and successfully rebuilt industry and agriculture. The NEP was his pragmatic recognition of the political and economic realities, despite being a tactical, ideological retreat from the socialist ideal; later, the doctrinaire Joseph Stalin reversed the NEP in consolidating his control of the Communist Party and the USSR.

Communism took hold in China in 1947, with Mao Tse-Tung’s Great Leap Forward, an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China, a central planning program from 1958 to 1961, which aimed to use China’s vast population to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of rapid industrialization and collectivization. Mao led the campaign based on the Theory of Productive Forces,a widely-used Marxist concept placing primary emphasis on technical advances and strong productive forces in a nominally socialist economy before real communism, or even real socialism, can have a hope of being achieved.The Great Leap Forward intensified after being an impending disaster from grain shortages was discovered.

Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labeled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions and social pressure, although people also experienced forced labor. Rural industrialization, officially a priority of the campaign, saw “its development… aborted by the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward.”

The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths. Estimates of the death toll range from 18 million to 45 million, with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 million to 32.5 million. Historian Frank Dikotter asserts that “coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward” and it “motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history.”

The years of the Great Leap Forward in fact saw economic regression, with 1958 through 1961 being the only years between 1953 and 1983 in which China’s economy saw negative growth. Political economist Dwight Perkins argues, “enormous amounts of investment produced only modest increases in production or none at all. … In short, the Great Leap was a very expensive disaster.”

In subsequent conferences in 1960 and 1962, the negative effects of the Great Leap Forward were studied by the CPC, and Mao was criticized in the party conferences. Moderate Party members rose to power, and Mao was marginalized within the party, leading him to initiate the Cultural Revolution in 1966.

In light of this history of Communism, Obama’s adoption of the slogan “Forward!” for his campaign, and rumors that the DHS has ordered law enforcement to heavily arm themselves against some mysterious insurrection, it’s no wonder authors like Dinesh D’Souza are warning against the re-election of Obama (although D’Souza insists Obama is not a Marxist or Communist).

Having studied these matters since childhood, I would submit that our worry is not even 2016, but 2012.














Published in: on August 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm  Comments (3)  

2016: Obama’s America – A Review

“2016” is a documentary the entertainment industry didn’t expect to do well at the box office.  It is, after all, a documentary, and who spends $12 and more per ticket to go see a documentary?  But the entertainment industry exists in a cocoon – a Liberal cocoon – where they expect only the young to go see movies with Liberal themes.  A Conservative documentary?  Please.

However, within a week or so of its release, audiences were clamoring to see the film.  Initially, it was released in only two theaters in northern New Jersey. Thanks to word of mouth and Conservative radio, TV, and alternative media talk show hosts, the film has gained widespread release and wound up No. 4 at the box office.  The movie would have ranked even higher in box office dollars, only many audience members are seniors with discounts.

“2016”(as it is commonly known) is based on two best-sellers by author and president of King’s College Dinesh D’Souza” – his “2010, The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and his new, 2012 “Obama’s America:  Unmaking the American Dream.”

The movie is a distillation of the two books, with some additional, interesting information.  D’Souza is a noted Conservative, detested by the Liberal Media.  A native of Mumbai (Bombay), India, he came to the United States as a high school student because he wanted to follow the American dream of a better education and life, something he said he couldn’t find in India.

Two books were necessary because D’Souza started out writing one book – “Rage” –and in writing it, found himself in the end, writing quite a different book.  Initially, he was an admirer of Obama’s.  He said he could identify with Obama’s Third World upbringing.  Conservatives, he felt were being too harsh on the future president during the campaign.

During the 2007-2008 campaign, a TV host noted that we didn’t know much about Obama.  His guest (I can’t remember who it was right now – probably Newt Gingrich) responded, “Read his two books.  You’ll find out everything you need to know right there and you won’t have any doubts.” He tells you himself that he plans to destroy America.

Still, D’Souza was intrigued by Obama.  Here he was, the product of a Third World upbringing. He was the same age as D’Souza. He went to Ivy League schools.  He married the same year as D’Souza and his wife. Coming from a Third World country, D’Souza felt he and Obama shared a similar view of colonialism.  D’Souza grandfather had served the British during India’s colonial period.  Both grandfathers suffered abuse, as well as Obama’s stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

D’Souza, in the first book, asks his readers to have patience and put on the anti-Imperialist glasses to see where a Third Worlder like Obama is coming from.  It’s a painful, wincing account of Great Britain’s occupation of these countries.

Obama’s campaign managers tried to distance themselves from D’Souza’s charges.  But D’Souza pointed out, it was right there in Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father. D’Souza read both books and then decided to research Obama’s background himself, to verify the facts.

Obama’s parents were Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham.  They were both radical socialists, even communists, atheists, and anti-colonialists. They met in college during a Russian class, and married.  Obama failed to mention to his new bride, that he already had a wife and children back in Kenya.  When Obama was still a baby, Barack Sr. abandoned Ann and the baby to study at Harvard University.  There, he met yet another white woman, whom he also married and took back to Kenya with him, to the Lulo tribe, where polygamy is an accepted custom.  Barack Sr. and Ann were divorced in 1964.

Ann then met Lolo Suetoro, an anti-colonialist Indonesian.  They married and moved to Indonesia.  Ann, who had a taste for dark-skinned, Third World men, eventually found herself disenchanted with her second husband.  The anti-colonialist Indonesia president, Suarno, whom Ann idolized more than her own husband, D’Souza tells us, was replaced in time by a pro-Western, pro-Capitalist president.  Lolo took a job with an American oil company and began, like Indonesia, to prosper. The country was doing well, Lolo was doing well, and even Obama was doing well, taking a liking to his stepfather. But Ann was unhappy.  One day, she was watching Lolo playing with Obama in their marshy front yard.  There, D’Souza tells us, she saw Lolo’s foot prints, and little Barry’s (his name was unofficially altered) following him.  Ann didn’t want her son growing up influenced by her now-Westernized husband.

She sent Barry packing off to Hawaii to live with her parents.  Stanley Dunham had a decidedly Leftist bent.  He felt little Barry needed a black mentor, so he introduced the boy at about the age of 10, to his hard-drinking, womanizing poker buddy and card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, Frank Marshall Davis.

Meanwhile, Ann filled her son’s head with tales of his absentee father’s genius and anti-colonialist principles.  She still adored her ex-husband.  Barry only saw his father at one period in his life, for about a month.  According to D’Souza, Barack Sr. was handsome, stylish, charming, and an amazing storyteller.  He mesmerized his son during a classroom visit with tales of Africa.  Little Barry was hooked and idolized his father, even after he vanished.  He never saw him again, but they maintained a correspondence by letter.

It was only in college that he learned the truth about his father, a wife-beating, alcoholic who wasn’t as influential in Kenya as Ann had told her son.  He failed the examination to get into college in Hawaii and prevailed upon two Christian missionaries, lying about his position in government, to get them to underwrite his trip to Hawaii.  Hawaii was a fertile ground for anti-colonialism.  The island had been annexed by in the 1890s by William McKinley, and given statehood in 1959, only two years before Barry’s birth.

Feelings still ran hard among the native population, and anti-colonialists like Obama Sr. found it a perfect breeding ground for stirring up discontent and revolution, blaming the planters who came to the island to build sugar plantations for “exploiting” the natives, just as the Dutch and English “exploited”Africans for the continent’s diamonds, and later, oil, and as the Dutch had “exploited”Indonesia’s and the Philippine’s locations in the Pacific for trading.

D’Souza explains that Barack Sr.’s death in 1962, when Barry was about 21, hit the young man very hard.  But more devastating was his half-sister’s revelations about the father’s many flaws.  (He died in a drunken driving accident, slamming his car into a tree. In previous drunken accidents, he killed a man in one, and lost both his legs in another).  What’s more, Barack Sr. had achieved what little success he really enjoyed through charisma and the mask of deceit.

Barry’s turning point was a visit to his father’s grave when he was 26.  Devastated at the loss of this absentee father and role model, and the discovery of his flaws, Barry threw himself on his father’s grave and wept.  But then, like Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind, he picked himself up and emerged Barack Hussein Obama Jr.  He vowed to reject his father’s flaws and take up his father’s dreams – of anti-colonialism and socialism – and carry his father’s dream on to reality.

D’Souza tell us, in the book, that Obama’s agenda was not one of racism or religion (both parents were atheists, Lolo was an indifferent Muslim, and all Obama’s subsequent mentors, with the except of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, were atheists).  No, it was all about the class struggle.  The rich versus the poor.  The anti-colonialists versus the neoimperialists (according anti-colonial scholars, since Great Britain was divested of most of her colonies, America has taken up her mantle through the guise of Capitalism).  Obama’s mission, his dream from (from, not of, as D’Souza points out), was to turn the imperialist world on his head, shake the change loose from their pockets, and “equitably”distribute the wealth among the poorer nations.

This is a distinction D’Souza warns us that we’re not making.  When Obama speaks of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, he’s not talking about rich Americans versus poor Americans.  As far as he’s concerned, and in the worldview, even the poorest Americans are wealthy by Third World standards.  Obama means to divest America of all her wealth and distribute it among the nations of the world.  And, as D’Souza doesn’t even need to tell us, really, Obama is doing a fine job of ruining our economy.

D’Souza’s books and his movie contain important information, and yields a clue as to why Obama was able to win over so many white voters:  he played upon white guilt over slavery and racism, and he played the white voters like a violin.  D’Souza’s theory is that white voters, looking for absolution, found it in this black candidate for president.  Vote for him and they would be “absolved”from all charges of racism, for they had voted for this black candidate.

They could find no fault in his appearance. He was friendly, well-dressed, articulate (at least according to some), and likeable.  What’s more his 2004 address to the Democrat National Convention sounded like any, all-American Conservative speech.  D’Souza notes – and you can see and hear the speech in the documentary – he sounded like Reagan.  Why wouldn’t white voters vote for him?  He was careful to wear the mask, to sound like those whose votes he was soliciting, and admitted himself that he wanted to avoid coming across like the angry black man they feared.

Even when they disagreed with him, white voters couldn’t bring themselves to “hate”him enough to criticize, even if they didn’t for him.  “What can I say?  I like the guy.”  Those who knew the truth, had heard his words, “I want to transform America”  and“redistribute the wealth” didn’t even need to read Obama’s two autobiographies to know the truth.  Still, those who had read them declared that between the covers was one very angry black man.

That, D’Souza says, is what got him elected. The author admits he fell for this act in the beginning.  He read the books, wanting to find the roots of the connection between himself and Obama. They were basically the same color. But upon more careful research in writing his own book, what D’Souza discovered were, literally, the roots of Obama’s rage.

Because my mother fell ill on the Saturday we were supposed to go see the documentary, we went to see the movie on Sunday instead. As a consequence, we were in an audience about the same age, or therebouts, as my mother.  Mom came away from the movie feeling depressed, she said. I asked her how she could have been surprised.  She and my father brought me up very Conservative.  They tried with my brothers.  They succeeded with the younger, and to a lesser degree, with the older, the one who caved in to the communist high school teacher.

“You yourself told us when we were children that all this was coming, Mom.  You predicted exactly all of this.  You knew it was coming and so did Dad.”

“Yes,”she replied.  “But I thought people would fight harder.  I didn’t think people could be so stupid and gullible.”

I told her not to blame herself.  None of us voted for the guy and I helped one of the Tea Parties get started.  I even gave a speech.  In Mom’s view, it’s hopeless.  “White people shouldn’t even bother having children.”  Now that he’s already in power, she feels, it’s too late.

But D’Souza’s books, if nothing else, serve as final warning that if we don’t wake up those who are still asleep, admiring themselves, even as Obama admires himself, for being “post-racial” and not look below the surface at this man’s true agenda, we will be ruined economically. Obama means to reduce America’s status as a “superpower” and defender of freedom (and thereby, free trade.

I disagree with D’Souza only on one point. He declares that Obama is not anti-American.  Yet his parents, his grandparents, and all of his mentors were.  I agree that he’s probably not a Muslim, although Obama certainly displays Muslim sympathies, which D’Souza says are only a mask for his real goal of anti-colonialism (Israel being the virus of the Middle East, in the anti-colonial view).  Obama had no qualms about ordering the assassination of Osama Bin Laden because he had taken his fight from the home ground, which is an anti-colonialist no-no.

Obama deliberately, and admittedly, surrounded himself with and sought after, associates with anti-American views. Maybe D’Souza’s Third World sympathies cause him to cling to some hope that Obama is not all bad, and decidedly anti-American.  Like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, he believes there’s still some good in him.

Obama’s story is a rather twisted version of the Star Wars saga.  We should be very alarmed by Obama’s embracing of myths and fabulism, rather than reality.  Tyrants are often the stuff of legends, idolatry, self-delusion, and lies. Michelle Malkin referred to it as the “Cult of Obama.”  We all know how cults work out.  We know how difficult “reprogramming” cult members is.

Still, this is reality.  My parents, being reporters, discouraged me from dreaming. They always insisted on my facing the truth, and searching for the truth.  I knew the truth, before I ever read D’Souza’s books.  I knew it, growing up in America in the Sixties.  I heard it for myself.  I’ve even heard William Ayers (now much older) speak.

No one can accept the truth (especially if they’ve been brainwashed) from a second or third party.  They must seek it for themselves.  That search requires a degree of trust from those who urge you to seek it, as my parents did.  It also requires courage.  I could read undaunted.  I trusted my reality-based, Conservative parents, my best mentors.  To get those who’ve been duped to see this movie and maybe even read D’Souza’s books, as well as others, will require that we get the younger generation to trust us.

I would suggest Mom’s tactic, when my classmates were trying to tempt me into some unwise action or other.  “They’re strangers,” said she.  “They’re not even your friends.  They’ve never been friends.  You know that.  I’m your mother.  We’re family. I’ve been here for you, always. Have they?  They don’t care about you.  They don’t love you.  Who do you think you can trust more?  Them or your family?”

D’Souza’s pleas are not based on emotions but upon facts, numbers, statistics, and well-calculated predictions about our economy. At the end of “Roots,” D’Souza writes on page 222 of the paperback edition, at the end of the Acknowledgements chapter:

Some individuals who have helped me with this book have asked that their names not be used; they are worried they might attract the unhelpful scrutiny of the Obama Administration.

“Trust me,” says one of them, “You don’t want those guys coming after you.”

As you see from these pages, I am not waiting for them to come after me; I am going after them, and with the greatest weapon of all – the truth.”

We cannot wait too long, though.  The election is only two months away.  What’s more, I was going to end with D’Souza’s quote, but even as I was reading through the quote and getting ready to type it, yet another blast shook the windows of my bedroom. The blasts are so enormous that they’re actually registering as small earthquakes.  They’re coming from the Smart Growth Towers project, only five minutes away on the other side of Federal Hill.  They are part of what is NOW called the Building One America project, enacted in 2011 (and the subject of yet another book on Obama, about his war on the suburbs), in which homeowners will be either taxed or over-leveraged out of their homes and into high-density housing projects, like this one being built, near big cities and welfare recipients will be moved into the suburban homes of the former property owners.

Those blasts are not just the sound of 30 tons of granite and rock being displaced;  it is the thunder of America’s destruction.  Our world – our America is being blasted apart. The time to act is now.  Get your family and friends, especially your children (school-aged, teenaged, grown, or in arrested development) to the movie theaters to see 2016:  Obama’s America.  Call it a political intervention.

They must know the truth.  It’s their future that’s at stake.

Trust me.
















Published in: on August 27, 2012 at 10:54 am  Comments (2)  

Neil Armstrong, First Man on the Moon: R.I.P.

“That’s one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind.”  Neil Armstrong, Astronaut, upon setting foot on the moon, July 20, 1969

Astronaut Neil Armstrong passed away yesterday at the age of 82.  The flag that he and Buzz Aldrin planted on the moon fell over after their blast-off from the moon’s surface.  But flags that subsequent astronauts planted on the moon still stand.  Armstrong was a pioneer, an Eagle Scout, and an exceptional American.

1969 was a turbulent year for America, thanks to the violence of the anti-war protestors and the race riots of previous years.  Landing on the Moon was a positive experience for average Americans, weary of the anti-American hype of the war protestors and the salacious reporting of the Vietnam War by an extremely propagandist media.  It was America’s shining moment, and Armstrong was the knight-in-shining armor, riding astride a giant Titan rocket, who carried the standard of freedom all the way up to the moon for us.

Many liberal critics decried the space program, which ironically was set in motion by Democrat president JFK, as a waste of money that could be better spent on the poor.  Average Americans didn’t think so, however.   The critics viewed the planting of the American flag as another symbol of the United States’ inherent neocolonialism.  As far as anyone knows, there are no men on the moon to supplant; at least, there weren’t any until Armstrong took that historic first step.

Note Armstrong’s words (after “The Eagle has landed.” ):  “One small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind.”  Mankind, not the United States of America.  He was said to be in favor of states’ rights and opposed to America acting as the world’s policeman.  Nevertheless, Americans are a generous, freedom-loving people, who cherish their property rights but also honor the rights of others to be free.  What we don’t acknowledge is the right of tyrants to oppress people.  We scorn hypocritical organizations, protestors, and yes, presidents, who claim to speak for the rights of common people – so long as they, the tyrants, are their new masters.

The American flag on the Moon is not a symbol of neocolonialism; it is a symbol that as long as Americans are involved, all will be free to visit the Moon and explore its mysteries.  The U.S., with Armstrong and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell among other astronauts as witnesses, signed the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies on Jan. 27, 1967,  This treaty forms the basis of international space law. The treaty was opened for signature, with the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union as the initial signatories.  The law entered into force on Oct. 10, 1967. As of October 2011, 100 countries are states parties to the treaty, while another 26 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.

In 1958, Armstrong was selected for the U.S. Air Force’s Man In Space Soonest program. In November 1960, Armstrong was chosen as part of the pilot consultant group for the Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, a military space plane; and on March 15, 1962, he was named as one of six pilot-engineers who would fly the space plane when it got off the design board.  A test pilot for the Navy, Armstrong later completed his Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering at the University of Southern California.  (He was also a baritone player in the Purdue All-American Marching Band).  After retiring from the space program, he became an instructor at the University of Cincinnati, teaching aeronautical engineering.

Armstrong spent his last years, along with other astronauts, fighting the changes in and the downgrading of NASA and its mission.  He was said to be distressed about Obama’s change in NASA’s mandate, transforming NASA from a scientific and space exploration program into a political, multicultural vehicle for redistributing wealth.

He came from a time when competition was valued, people were expected, and took pride in, doing their best, and those who were the best and succeeded, were recognized and honored.  Armstrong was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Pres. Richard Nixon, along with Collins and Aldrin, the Congressional Space Medal of Honor by Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1978, and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.

Armstrong was called “America’s reluctant hero.”  Armstrong’s family issued this statement:

“For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.”











Published in: on August 26, 2012 at 9:17 am  Leave a Comment  

The Joke’s on Obama

Obama took great umbrage at Mitt Romney’s mild humor yesterday, when Mitt told a Michigan crowd, “No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate.”  The crowd cheered, the Mainstream Media gasped, and Obama was said to be furious, his campaign staff dubbing Romney, “The Birther-in-Chief.”

Romney’s spokesman quickly pointed out that that Romney has never doubted Obama’s claims to having been born in Hawaii; he was just having a little fun.  Romney (rather disingenuously) said he wasn’t trying to take any swipes at the president.  Why on earth not?

Meanwhile, Conservative pundits were gnashing their teeth in angst over how the Media would use this remark against their candidate, especially coming on the heels of the Akins problem – which is going away, although so is Akins and his chances for the Senate seat.

Conservative guys and gals – calm down and get a grip. You’ve been so well-programmed (with the exception of Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who have been ostracized by the Media to teach the rest of us a lesson about fighting back) to let Liberal comedians and reporters make hits on you and your candidates, and allowed them to bash you into a corner, that you’ve completely lost your sense of humor.  You’re as serious as a heart attack, and the Liberals know that turns young voters off.

Admittedly, Romney’s attempt at humor was mild at best. Isn’t that what you wanted?  To not be funny?  But at least he gave it a try.  The Narcissicist-in-Chief is famous for his over-sensitivity and his thin skin. He doesn’t really know how to either tell or take a joke, either.  That’s what he has comedian hack writers for.

All is not lost for the Conservative cause of humor.  There is a website, The Barack Obama Jokes Website that has a full serving of Obama Jokes, from one-liners to story jokes.  “Don’t be afraid to laugh at politically incorrect Obama jokes!” the site tells its visitors.  “Most of the Obama jokes on the Web are as mild as the softball questions that Obama gets from the smitten reporters and reporterettes of the press.

For instance:

                                    Obama’s 2013 New Year’s Resolutions:

            10.       Party with Secret Service one last time.

              9.        Pack up White House silverware.

              8.       Cut prices for Presidential pardons.

              7.       Fire up the paper shredders.

              6.       Erase the teleprompter memory banks.

            5.       Treat Hillary Clinton to a complementary shave and a haircut.

              4.       Get medical marijuana card.

              3.       Ask Chris (“I feel a tingle up my leg”)Matthews for a date.

              2.       Appoint Joe Biden head of the Obama Museum & Library.

              1.       Confirm reservations for flight to Moscow.

Or how about this:

Joe Biden and Barack Obama are the perfect running mates.  Biden can’t answer even the simplest question and Obama has three different answers for every question. perfect

Perhaps you like your jokes subtle:

Obama has sold more guns to the drug cartels than all of the other Nobel Peace Prize winners put together.

Obama is notorious for avoiding press conferences and has never met a question he didn’t hate.  Here are some BO Q&As:

Q.  Why did Obama step on the cockroach?

A.  He hates competition.

Q.  What will Obama do if Romney challenges him to a debate?

A.  Practice in front of his mirror.

Q.  Why does Obama keep jacking up the cost of gasoline?

A. So voters can’t afford to drive to the polls in November.

Q.  What does Barack Obama call illegal aliens?

A.  Undocumented Democrats.

Q & As not your type of humor (they’re not Obama’s type, either)?  How about this then?

Obama ordered Congress to set aside a billion dollars for a new research project.  He wants to know why global warming goes away in the winter.

If you didn’t like Romney’s very mild birther joke, you’ll really hate this one:

Obama is getting tired of people who say that he doesn’t have a birth certificate.  He actually has several.

Unemployed?  Don’t go “postal” like that guy yesterday at the Empire State Building.  Layed off?  Laugh it off, instead.

America has lost five million jobs under Obama. Don’t worry, though; Obama says he’ll send Joe Biden to go look for them.

Hungry for some humorous payback?

Obama’s Favorite Foods:

Favorite Breakfast – Eggs Rover Easy

Favorite Soup – Chicken Poodle

Favorite Burger – Quarter Pounder with Fleas

Favorite Sandwich – BLT: Bulldog, Lettuce and Tomato

Favorite Mustard – Greyhound Poupon

Favorite Yogurt Drink – Mango Lassie

Favorite Japanese Food – Terrieryaki

Favorite Vegetable – Collie Flower

Favorite Snack – Puppyseed Bagel

Favorite Dessert:  Dog Pound Cake

You get the idea.  We don’t want to give away all of the website’s jokes.  They welcome visitors to submit jokes.  They have about 57 pages of them, so far.  As many states as Obama thinks there are in the union.

So, loosen up, Conservatives.  Don’t take yourselves so seriously, and definitely stop taking the propaganda media so seriously. Nobody in their right mind takes Joe Biden seriously.  Give yourselves a break and a day off from angst, frustration, guilt, and self-flagellation.  Visit The Barack Obama Jokes website.





Published in: on August 25, 2012 at 10:48 am  Comments (3)  

Smart Growth Towers

Mom always said that the little town of Bloomingdale, N.J., population approximately 7,500, existed in a bubble.  She said one day that bubble would burst and the crowded, outside world would burst in. Mom and Dad were from that crowded outside world, New York City.  The locals weren’t too happy when our development of modest homes was built on this former picnicking hill.  They felt a bunch of city slickers were invading their rural community.  They were right; sort of.

My parents moved to Yonkers, N.Y., but found they couldn’t afford the gentrified taxes of Westchester County, and after a stint in California, moved to New Jersey, which at the time had low taxes and plenty of jobs.  Bloomingdale, to their sophisticated minds, was a backwater.  No library (to speak of), no high school, no traffic lights, no sidewalks in our “low-density”development, and virtually no crime. They were willing to sacrifice the cultural temptations of the city to have us grow up safe.

Mom didn’t think too much of the provincial locals, but she had own garden and a backyard where she could keep an eye on us and feed the birds. Bloomingdale was surrounded by woodlands and we could go hiking and breathe relatively fresh air.  The only pollution was the Butler Rubber Factory, a fact of life for the students at the high school.

Then Route 287 was finally finished.  Driving along Union Avenue, which connects to a Rt. 287 interchange, we knew Bloomingdale’s days a rustic, Colonial-era town were numbered.  The most likely target was the very tract of land that’s now being developed.

As noted in a previous log, the prime suspect developer was Long Island-based Avalon communities, and the guess was correct.  The local newspaper, the bi-weekly Suburban Trends, finally reported on the story.  And locals have been up in arms for months about this development.

The contractors have been blasting away every day for weeks to remove some 30-tons of rock to make way for a high-density– “high-density” as in literally high – apartment/condo building that will house 174 units on 11 acres of land.  On that small a parcel, the only way you could fit 174 units in is if you build up.

This means, in all probability, a building between 20 and 30 stories.  No structure in Bloomingdale is that high, not even the fire tower in Norvin Green State Forest.  What’s more, the building will either have no parking at all, or an underground parking garage.

Union Avenue is a winding, two-lane country road, sparsely populated at its eastern end, cutting between hillsides.  Another, even larger complex of 300 units is planned on the other side of the road.  Union Avenue will not be able to handle that much condensed traffic.  The prospect that the road will have to be widened and straightened is practically foregone conclusion.  That will mean wiping out a number of homes.  Now we know why they made the new firehouse out of warehouse tin, and farther away from the more populated area of the flats and the hilltop development.

We were also amazed some years ago at the routing of a NJ Transit bus along sparsely populated Union Avenue, where there are scarcely any riders.  The mystery is solved.  We knew and yet the development is still an unwelcome shock. Townhouses are ubiquitous in northern New Jersey and no one would have thought twice about it.  A monstrous, 30-story high rise in the midst of our little country town, though, is something of a culture shock.

Avalon Bay.  Now why would a developer name its high-rise building, in the midst of swamp and woodland, Avalon Bay?  Avalon Woods, Avalon Springs, Avalon Gardens, maybe.  “Bay”suggests an ocean.  An ocean resort.  An expensive clothing line specializing in resort wear.  We’re miles from any noticeable shoreline.  But the Long Island-based company is not.  Long Island is all about the ocean and the beach.  We suspect that they’re marketing to Long Island residents who find themselves encroached upon by crime, crowding, and corruption.  Their shoreline residences – some literally right up against the water – are no longer insurable. How do you appeal to island residents to buy a high-rise condo in the middle of the woods?  You call it “Avalon Bay.”

Boy, are those future residents in for a surprise.  Well, we do have plenty of lakes – and rivers that flood.  Not that they’ll need them because this high-rise will feature a spa and a swimming pool, along with all sorts of green technology amenities.  And all they had to do was blast a hillside away to accomplish it.

Flooding is one of the primary concerns about this plot of land.  With the hillside basically gone now, the water won’t have anywhere to go.  Local residents are also concerned about water and sewage facilities.  There’s no sewage system down there.  They’re also worried about the COAH regulations.  So were the developers, apparently worried about frightening off wealthier prospects, and managed to get the number of COAH units knocked down from 27 to 9.

Such an influx of residents – depending on their demographics – could also overwhelm our tiny school system.  The closest school – the Martha B. Day school– was overcrowded from the day it opened in 1963.  Administrators had to add trailers to deal with the overcrowding.

Another concern is the nursing home facility next door.  How is the blasting affecting the sick and elderly residents? It’s not likely that they’ll stay there long before Avalon buys them out, which would make way either for stores or a house of worship.  Wonder what The Alliance will have to say about that?  There’s a silver lining in every cloud.

The official account from the Trends is this:  The Bloomingdale Borough Council introduced an ordinance to allow for a program called “PILOT”, payment in lieu of taxes.  However, details of this strange financial arrangement will not be made public until the borough reaches a final agreement with the developer, although the town promised residents at an Aug. 14 that they would not enter into such an arrangement if it didn’t make financial sense.  A public hearing is scheduled for Sept. 4, 2012, with the vote tentatively scheduled for Sept. 6.

Avalon Communities brought a builder’s remedy lawsuit against the borough, according to the Trends, “and has been allowed to build a high-density housing development with state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) units.  In addition, the developer should get a tax discount on top of the other benefits it has derived by suing the borough.”

According to Mayor Jonathan Dunleavy and Borough Auditor Dieter Lerch, “taxes paid could be based on a percentage of the developer’s gross revenue for a project, or it can be based on a percentage of the project’s construction costs.  The amount of taxes then grows 2 to5 percent annually.  PILOT programs are typically in effect for 20 or 30 years.  Ninety-five percent of the taxes will go to Bloomingdale and the remaining five percent to Passaic County.”

Dunleavy hopes to pay down municipal debt with the additional taxes.  He said it would also be an investment in the borough’s “aging infrastructure” and would “stabilize taxes.”  The idea is that giving a tax break to the developer will bring in more tax revenue from the new residents.

But condominium owners don’t pay the same amount in taxes as property owners do, since they have no property.  Hence, the size of the development.

The tax question aside, this high-rise apartment building in the midst of a suburban town might as well be called “Smart Growth Towers.”  Avalon Communities is a multi-billion dollar company that specializes in “green development.”  This apartment building is exactly in line with the Smart Growth agenda of crowding human beings into small spaces, where they won’t own any property.

Roads will be widened, private homes will be subjected to eminent domain, more police will have to be hired, mass transit is already in place, the firehouse can easily be set back to accommodate a widened road, and Bloomingdale will be “transformed” from a quiet town that has only one traffic light to an inland version of Hoboken.  Bloomingdale, in time, will no longer be a place to raise families and tend gardens, but rather simply a place to bunk down until it’s time to go to work.

In keeping with Smart Growth’s agenda of placing communities near educational facilities, Passaic County Community College is right down the road.  Would that they had built the college when I was in school.  I would have had a two-minute to class instead of 45 minutes.

Bloomingdale’s taxes will rise with this high-rise apartment building, and another, even bigger 300-unit complex planned for the future.  If the Meer Estate tract is developed, the town’s existing schools will not suffice.  The town of Butler will probably end its receiving-student agreement with Bloomingdale and the town will (finally) have to build its own high school.   That means more tax money.  In a bad economy, a high-rise like this comes with good news and bad news.  Wealthier people will move in.  Businesses will follow.  But current residents likely will not be able to afford the prices, not even, or should we say, especially not, at the food stores.

We already have evidence of that.  Food prices at Pathmark in Kinnelon, where residents are quite well-to-do, are shockingly higher than they are at Shop-Rite of Oakland, a couple of hills away. Just as in Vail, Colo., only two classes of people will be able to live in Bloomingdale – the wealthy and the service class.  As there are virtually no jobs in New Jersey, workers who can’t afford the commute to the city or the cost-of-living even in a town like Bloomingdale, will eventually take their Conservative, middle-class values and go away, just as the Liberals want them to do.

May the ghosts of the Pompton Mutiny haunt them.




Published in: on August 24, 2012 at 7:12 am  Comments (1)  

Is America Headed for Civil War?

Lubbock County Judge Tom Head thinks so, if Obama wins a second term in office.  What’s Judge Head is asking for a tax increase in the district attorney’s office and the Lubbock County Sheriff’s office to beef up its security on the streets.

First, let us look into why any law enforcement officer, or any other American, would think a shooting war would be necessary:

  • We have a sitting U.S. president whose citizenship is in question.  This isn’t a birther issue about his birth certificate and whether he was born here, but rather, when he was ferried away by his mother and stepfather to Indonesia, whether he renounced, or his citizenship was renounced for him, in order to become an Indonesian citizen and be able to attend school there.
  • There are questions about his application to college – Occidental, Columbia and Harvard.  His college records would reveal whether he applied as Barry Soetoro, a “foreign exchange student.”
  • His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a strident Stalinist-Communist.  The belief is that Davis inculcated the young Obama with is pro-Soviet-centered worldview, his anti-capitalism, and his black theology.
  • Obama admittedly associated with every pro-Marxist, Socialist student, teacher, and organization he could latch onto.
  • The president chose “community organizing” as his “profession.”  That is to say, he engaged in political organizing and fundraising for Socialist and union causes.
  • He chose Chicago as his base of operations, a city long known for its corruption, its violent unionizing, and its socialist and communist leanings.  In his first campaign, he engaged in smear tactics and other underhanded activities to eliminate his competition.  He also joined the church of Black Liberation Theologist Rev. Jeremiah Wright because Wright suited Obama as a black mentor.
  • His long-time associates, particularly David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, had familial connections with the Communist party and Frank Marshall Davis and the Daley political machine, and Rahm Emmanuel, his original chief of staff (now the mayor of Chicago), had professional connections.
  • During his campaign for the U.S. Senate, he was recorded in an interview saying that, if it were up to him, he would scrap the entire U.S. Constitution, throw it away completely and “start over.”
  • As president, he promised to “transform America”, transform being a popular Communist code word.
  • As president, he has courted America’s enemies and alienated its allies.  He gave $900 million to the Palestinians alone, as “appeasement money.”
  • He spent at least as much time campaigning for president in other countries as he did in the United States, avoiding Red States as much as possible.  His most notorious speech, hailed by the Media as a great address, was delivered at the Brandenburg Gate, where Hitler spoke, although we’re not supposed to make such hideous comparisons.
  • He regularly circumvents Congress, even in matters of war.  When he committed U.S. troops to the “war” in Libya, he never bothered to ask permission, or even notify Congress, but instead, asked permission of the United Nations.
  • He and Hillary Clinton are just about to commit the United States to a binding United Nations gun ban treaty, which would essentially eliminate our Second Amendment.
  • Although he blames his predecessor for the state of our economy, the deficit at its lowest is still higher than it was at its highest point during the G.W. Bush administration.
  • He’s rammed various ruinous economic plans down the American economy’s throat.  The most blatant of these is known as Obamacare, which will force Americans who don’t have health insurance to buy it whether they need or want it or not, make insurance so expensive for companies that they will drop their employee plans, and add more new taxes to America’s burdens.
  • Solyndra.  This solar panel boondoggle did nothing to solve the non-existent climate-change crisis, created no jobs at all, and did everything to satisfy Obama’s environmental base, to the tune of $535 billion in federal loan guarantees (taxpayer dollars), money we will never see from Solyndra, since it went bankrupt before it even opened its doors.
  •  Deepwater BP.  Determined to make fossil fuels extinct, the Deepwater oil spill handed Obama a made-to-order excuse to shut down all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  He then handed our oil drilling industry to Brazil and Venezuela.
  • Keystone XL.  The Keystone Pipeline, from Canada to the Texas coast, would have been the answer to the jobs, taxpayer money, and revenue we lost in the Gulf.  Obama claims that construction on the pipeline is “postponed” un\til after the 2012.  By which, Canadian Keystone will have already shipped the oil and natural gas to an eager customer – China.
  • Federal lands.  Obama has shut off all western Federal lands to shale oil drilling, which would solve our energy problems for about the next 200 years or so.  Instead, Obama is directing taxpayer money to inefficient, literally unsustainable alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.  The wind turbines are already a well-known catastrophe, killing wildlife, costing billions, and driving local residents crazy, while producing very little for the costly investment.  Solar energy has gotten better press, except that, of course, the whole industry is a Ponzi scheme.  But in addition, an article in a well-known science magazine discusses a plankton-eating, energy-absorbing mass out in the Pacific that literally eats sunlight, keeping the oceans from warming up, and contributing to cooler ocean temperatures, leading to the La Nina effect.  Don’t fool with Mother Nature.
  • Obama’s energy policy has nothing to do with saving the Earth, and everything to do with getting us out of our automobiles and into high-density communities, where we’ll be reduced to mass transit and bicycle riding, not to mention having fewer children and no property or material possessions. 
  • The Economy.  It’s all about the Community Reinvestment Act, stupid; which is all about the redistribution of wealth – our wealth.  If we follow the Socialist model, there will only be two classes in Society:  a very small, but very wealthy upper class, and the minions who serve them either through unionized government jobs, menial service  jobs (i.e., Burger King, K-Mart) or votes in exchange for government welfare.
  • America boasts the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and Obama intends to make it higher, all the while promising Americans new jobs.  He also plans the government take- over of more companies, not just the auto, insurance, and banking industries.  With the takeover will come more burdensome regulations that will make doing business overseas more attractive.  The only companies that will succeed are those, as in China, that do business with the government.
  • Our president, his family, and their entourage, have taken more vacations at taxpayer expense than any First Family in American history.  According to David Limbaugh, in his book, The Great Destroyer, “The U.S. military estimates that it costs $181,757 to operate Air Force One.  Frequently, the FLOTUS flies in Air Force Two, ahead of her husband, who joins them about four hours later.”  Limbaugh tells us that the Obamas went on a total of 8 vacations by the end of summer 2010.  Their Martha’s Vineyard vacation, “renting a $20 million estate at an estimated cost of up to $50,000 a week” was a holiday most Americans could not enjoy.    When the First Family spent their Christmas holiday in holiday, instead of staying at one of the nearby military installations, they opted to rent a plush home, completely with tropical waterfalls and a spa, for $3,500 per day.  Then there’s FLOTUS’ wardrobe.  She’s been compared to Jackie Kennedy in style and in excess.  She told France’s FLOTUS that being FLOTS “is hell and I can’t stand it.”  However, toting around $1,000 handbags and wearing $2,000 is some compensation for the inconvenience.  The president has the compensation of brewing his own White House ale and serving $199 bottles of wine to his guests.
  • Our president’s narcissistic tendencies alone should give us a clue of what he has in mind for the future.  In his speeches, which his Media cheerleaders glorify as a sign of his massive intelligence (numbskull Joe Biden exclaimed, in introducing his boss, that “his brain is bigger than his skull”), according to Limbaugh’s citation of Fox Nation, “as of the beginning of August 2010, ‘Obama [had] spoken some form of I or me more than 16,000 official times since he took office.” Pity the poor soul who had to count all those personal pronouns.  He complains of any criticism, pouting that ‘they’ “treat me like a dog.”  Speaking of dogs, the President is so self-absorbed that even the family dog is named after him:  Bo. BO.  Barack Obama’s initials.  Get it?
  • The Democrat Senate and 95 Republicans – including House Speaker John Boehner and VP nominee Paul Ryan (!) – just passed a bill eliminating the need for the President to confirm most of his cabinet and other appointments.  What were they thinking?!  This is part of the Constitution, the legislation that authorizes checks and balances.  Without it, there’s no curb on presidential powers at all.  Not that this president needs any, because he just does what he wants anyway. That alone should alarm any sentient American.
  • Obama’s national security policy is abominable. He has been in negotiations with the Muslim Brotherhood, ostensibly to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, aka “The Blind Sheikh” who masterminded the now little-noticed Landmarks Plot, which involved blowing up the World Trade Center, the FBI Building, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge in 1993 (all at once). Rahman was in contact with Ramzi Youssef, who was arrested for the plot, who is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Reportedly, Osama Bin Laden was the “godfather” of Rahman’s children.  Or Rahman was the godfather of Bin Laden’s kids.  Obama is planning, authorities say, to release Rahman by December. Obama’s election is immaterial; according to Andrew McCarthy and other experts, Rahman will be released on the grounds that his “influence” on the terrorists is not sufficient evidence to keep him imprisoned for life.
  • Speaking of the War on Terrorism, federal officials are no longer allowed to speak of it.  Nor are military officials.  The phrase, along with “Islamic” terrorism –or anything else negative connoting Islam – has been removed from all military and federal law enforcement training manuals.
  • Obama just recently gave a free immigration pass to all illegal immigrants who were either brought to the U.S. under the age of 18 by a parent or were born here.  They will be given photo IDs.  The Department of Justice has refused to follow its own illegal alien laws and will not allow other states to do so, not even border states such as Arizona.
  • Speaking of the Department of Justice, Attorney General has completely stonewalled on providing Congress with more than 80 percent of documents pertaining to the DOJ’s Fast and Furious program, which sold automatic weapons to drug cartels in Mexico.  The weapons were never tracked, and were used in numerous murders of Mexicans and the murder of a federal agent, Brian Terry.  Holder claims to be totally ignorant of the plan, even though his Deputy AG was required to review it, and in fact did so, and reportedly notified Holder of the plan, although Holder denies reading any of the communications.
  • Finally, although Obama evinces a great disregard for billionaires, he depends on many of them, as does VP Biden, for campaign donations – and vacation homes.

Want more evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office?  We knew he was unsuitable, inexperienced, narcissistic, anti-Capitalist, and anti-American before he was elected.  How much more evidence do we need?  Well, there are plenty of books like Limbaugh’s detailing his intentions, and even a movie, 2016, based on Dinesh D’Souza’s Obama tomes, about Obama’s socialist, communist proclivities.

If even half of what these authors, from Sean Hannity to Stanley Kurtz, write about him is true, we could face a civil war – that is, if Americans have the nerve to fight one.  My guess is they don’t, and what we’re facing is a political coup, of sorts.  Once he outlaws weapons, Obama will be able to arrest any American who threatens violence on grounds of treason (if you can believe it).

Once you are through either rolling around on the floor in satirical laughter or picking your jaw up off the floor, take the idea very seriously.  Fed up with America’s newfound transformation and betrayal, Israel is “seriously” considering launching its own defensive war against Iran (by the way, Obama has also personally overseen a drawn not just of our offensive weapons, but our defensive weapons as well).  If we’re bound to the United Nations’ treaty, we will be banned from assisting our former ally.  In fact, we’ve given so much military aid to the Middle Eastern nations, that our own weapons will probably be used against Israel.

If Obama does fire against one of the Arab countries, in violation of that treaty, he will then be in a position to surrender the United States to the U.N.’s international authority.  He’s very good at “apologizing”; he’s spent these last three years practicing his bowing.  This will be the automatic bow.

Don’t think it can happen?  Before Obamacare was passed, Conservatives and Tea Partiers thought there was no way he and Congress could get away with such a violation of the Constitution.  Yet, he did. We didn’t think he’d get away with allowing illegal aliens to become citizens, but he is paving the way with his DREAM act.  If he manufactures a way to allow them to vote, being Democratic allies, we haven’t a prayer of winning the election or saving our country.

Obama displays all the personal attributes of a dictator or emperor.  He’s self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant, aloof, dishonest, disingenuous, and disconnected from the American people and the ideals of America.  He engages in cronyism and censorship.  He divides Americans and plays them against one another. He misleads the young, disincentivizes the successful, bankrupts then nationalizes companies, ignores the elderly, and smears dissenters, critics, and opponents.

Once in power, dictators are notoriously difficult to unseat, as he knows very well.  With this in mind, he has carefully constructed a powerful bureaucracy around his rule, supplanting the duly elected Congress and corrupting our judiciary.  He knows what dangers an armed militia can pose, but he also has the law against violence on his side (dictators usually do).

Congress ought to have impeached for treason long before this.  With a Democrat Senate to support him, such a move would have been impossible, however. The man should never have been elected in the first place, but the government machinery was too rich and powerful, and Conservatives had allowed themselves to be pushed into a corner and marginalized.

Obama has a bad economic record on his hands, which means the future of the election is not hopeless.  However, moderate Republicans are making our task more difficult.  Apt to corruption and cronyism, if they show signs of going along to get along, even a moderate Republican president could lead us down this same path, albeit not at the warp speed at which we’re now traveling.

Personally, I was very disappointed to read that Congressman Paul Ryan had signed the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.  While it’s true that a Democrat Senate has blocked many Republican presidential appointments, it’s no excuse for passing an act that will make the path to tyranny even smoother.  If Democrat Senators have blocked presidential appointments, let the onus be on them, and report it to the public.  We have better communications channels now than we did.

The law is written now and these 95 Republicans are on record as having signed it; it is now their legacy, as it should not have been.  There is no worse mistake they could have made, even if Romney wins.  Akins’foolish, junk biology statement pales beside this overturning of the Constitution.  An Emperor Romney will be no better than an Emperor Obama, and that’s just how our cheerleader press will paint Romney if he wins the election in November.

A month ago, I would have said that Judge Head’s warning was unduly alarmist.  Now, I’m not so sure.  A positive outlook is always preferable, but if no one supports that positive future, and in fact, picks up a shovel themselves and starts digging America’s grave, then it behooves us to reconsider looking over the gun catalogs, if only in self-defense.

Published in: on August 23, 2012 at 11:39 am  Comments (2)  

The Akins Solution

“It’s not the child that needs killin’.”  Rob Roy MacGregor, Rob Roy (1995)

That statement was fine for Hollywood, in 1995. Perhaps it’s even an historical fact that MacGregor and his wife accepted a child conceived through the violent act of an enemy.  In the film, even the wife admitted she’d tried to “get rid of it” but couldn’t.   Mary MacGregor was perhaps very noble, but it’s a good deal to expect of a modern woman who’s been violated.

Even if on some level Akins may be right a la Rob Roy, as a politician he should have kept such sentiments locked away in his own breast.  As a Southeast Missouri blogger notes:  “Akin’s uncompromising brand of social conservatism…might lead him to say something that may give political moderates –the same moderates who don’t like the economic policies advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats – pause in the Senate race.”

The blogger’s example of an Akinism is:  “America has the equivalent of the stage III cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in.”

As a matter of fact, it was a bold statement, but one Conservatives would agree with.  This hardly on a level with his admittedly off-the-wall statement about abortion in the case of “legitimate”rape.  Moderates give Conservatives just as much “pause.”

According to the New York Times, “Asked in an interview on a St. Louis television station about his views on abortion, Mr. Akin, a six-term member of Congress who is backed by Tea Party  conservatives, made it clear that his opposition to the practice was nearly absolute, even in instances of rape.

“’It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t workor something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.’”

It would be interesting to know what this female biological process is, that can discriminate between rape and making love, and so “shut down” an unwanted pregnancy.  Millions of women are eager to hear, although pharmaceuticals companies would probably withdraw their campaign donations.

The Democrats spent over $1.5 million towards his campaign in his three-way primary, hoping he would say something like that.  Congressman Akins needs to return to his high school biology class.  The New York Times leapt on his statement and made sure they informed their readers that he is backed by the Tea Party

The interview was on a St. Louis television station, which asked him about his views on abortion.  Had he shortened his answer to the Rob Roy version, he might have survived the debacle with less political damage.  “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt,” goes the old Abe Lincoln saw.

As for protecting the innocent, unborn child; well, that’s the harrowing legacy of rape. There, Akins’ stance is a little more sympathetic (at least towards the child, if not the mother) and understandable.  In such a crime, there is no “good” solution.  Spare the child and you torture the victim, its mother, who must for nine months carry a reminder of the violent attack against her.  Abort the fetus and, in the view of some, you commit murder, the taking of an innocent life.  You also add fuel to the fire of pro-abortionists who reason that if the rape victim should not have to carry an unwanted child, why should they?

Akins deserves 100 lashes with a wet noodle for his ignorance of biology and making a stupid statement to prove it.  But perhaps he deserves a pass for his concern, if somewhat misguided, for the unborn children of a violent act.  If we had the death penalty for rapists (sexual criminals have a high rate of recidivism; some psychologists say they can’t be “cured”), such “unwanted” pregnancies would be “rare.”

Published in: on August 22, 2012 at 5:48 am  Comments (1)