Invasion made legal

Arizona’s SB 1070 was demonized as a radical idea by the media (given their orders by the Left) from the day it was proposed. Basically, it was a state’s rights issue asking the question, “What if the Federal Govt flatly denies to defend the Constitutional mandate to defend the United states from all enemies foreign and domestic?”

Basically, we are entering a dangerous time where the Left (now the primary force in the Democratic Party) controls America with an iron dictatorial hand where laws are swept aside with a scoff and the American people ignored as being “unenlightened”. We are told it doesn’t effect us if our politicians enrich themselves or spend our money foolishly—to these people, we have become a nation of Govt rather than people.

While it should have been surprising, it was not as much so in the Obama era as US District Judge (and Clinton nominee) Susan Bolton decided, not on Constitutional or legal merit, to make it legal to be in the state of Arizona without official identification, as long as you claim you are Hispanic. Using the weak defense that the US Federal Govt doesn’t have the “resources” to commit to border defense, Bolton then went on to deny the right of a state to commit it’s own resources to defending itself from an influx of invaders.

The effect of this “decision” (a dubious term considering this Judge apparently made it via PC political pressure) will be catastrophic if they stand. What if an illegal alien of “non-Mexican” origin (a Muslim extremist) crosses the border and is stopped by Police in Arizona? Can that individual simply spit out a few Spanish words and gain freedom? Can the US Govt now deny ANY law simply by saying they don’t have the “resources” to commit to them, even if the Constitution demands it? Could politicians defund the U.S. military and simply say we have lost wars because of denied resources? Can foreign entities sue America to gain rights to their own invaders?

The questions we are forced to ponder are numerous and deeply frightening.

At the same time as we are forced to admit that we are facing a legal state of implied Dictatorship via a cabal of Leftist politicians and their radical judicial nominees, we also have to admit the task at hand we must do: Basically, we need to remove all the Democrats in the 2010 elections, and also target the RINO elements in the Republican party who side with them.

We face a danger of national implosion with a “Nero” at the helm, and with a band of gleeful Anarchists wishing to drive the greatest country in History to it’s knees. The fire we feel in our hearts must purify our nation at the ballot box. To do anything else is to admit the apathetic admission that we accept slavery…

Let them know fear….


Categories: Uncategorized

How Obama killed Keynesian economics

Since the Roosevelt era, it has been long assumed that Keynesian economics, basically Govt. spending on a huge scale, cured the Great Depression. It has been a long used mantra of the Democratic Party because their motivations were spending and redistribution. Those who know a bit more about economics will clarify that it was not spending that ended the Great Depression, but rather World War II.

Think about it–suppose you were to borrow a large sum of money via multiple credit cards. You then took that money, and rather than spend it on your own small business, were to squander it on comic books and snack foods. Sure, this will help the manufacturers of said items in the short term. But what happens when the credit runs out? Well….shhh…don’t tell the President, but it means you are broke. And while you might still want to buy comics and junk food, you are penniless. To the Keynesian the solution is to try and open up new credit cards and spend freely, hoping that at some point a miracle will happen and you will be hired by Hostess. The truth of the matter is, you are simply moving money around, and aquiring debt in the process. Eventually, your credit runs out and you are worse off than before.

If most people instead took their own money, and perhaps had a tax cut to increase the amount of money they actually had (after all, Govt is a sink hole where money goes to die) and invested it in a small business, and hired some employees, your chances of increasing your money personally increases. Of course, employed people and businesses also pay more taxes than the unemployed, so the amount of money going to the Govt naturally increases as well.

The falsity of Keynesian economics is one perpetuated by ivory-tower thinkers who have never run a business of their own. President Barack Obama is in that group. These people have a hard time fully understanding the basics of how things run, and how Capitalism increases economic activity, and how Government and taxation spoils economic activity. They think the “money tree” is debt, but it is actually small and large business that produces money via production of goods and services. Naturally, when a dollar is produced via business, that business in turn may reinvest a portion of that money on employees, expansion, or retooling. Govt spends the same money on more employee benefits with a zero sum gain.

The election of Barack Obama has exposed Leftism for what it is: basically a “pie in the sky” belief in false principles that don’t work in the real world. The President has done something that the Conservatives have had little luck in promoting, basically the falsehood of Governement as savior. Mr Obama has instead shown Government spending and taxation, and Keynesianism for what it is—the destroyer of nations.

I found it laughable that during the G8/G20 summits that the President seemed to be a man alone. European leaders, who are struggling with long-term Socialist and Keynesian principles basically told him to “go blow” as he talked about the need for spending Trillions more on so-called “Stimulus”. At the same time one might also have been scared by Obama’s stance, as it made clear his complete incompetence and shallow intellect. This man, who was to be the glory of Leftism, may instead prove to be it’s inevitable destroyer. His blind loyalty to ideology, his lack of introspection and self-correction, these are the qualities of a Dictator.

The President, if he were as brilliant as he thinks he is, would understand that slavery is a bitter pill to swallow. It takes time and a good portion of honey (provided by the media) to slowly lull the uninformed masses to bear the yoke. Instead, this foolish man has rushed out and spoken of his unlimited power, grabbed the American citizen by the wrist, and struggles to lock on the cuffs, while shouting, “You are acting…stupidly!”.

The shockwaves of this will linger for generations. And it will be spoken of in History books, about the grand dictatorial vision of a small man with oratory capability who tried to ruin the greatest nation on Earth to prove a “theory”, Keynesianism, and failed.


Was McChrystal wrong in being right?

General McChrystal is feeling the heat, from both the Right AND Left over his violation of the “Chain of Command”. It is hard to disagree that you should not criticize your boss, especially if he is the President, to the press–especially Rolling Stone magazine.

It is far harder to know if McChrystal was actually subconsciously wanting a way out of a war that cannot be won in it’s current form, and this may be it. We hear that there is a great possibility that Afghanistan has lapsed into a “politicians war” with a set date of withdrawal, and harsh rules of engagement which favors the Taliban over our own soldiers.

Perhaps McChrystal senses it all fading away. He may sense the uneese of his own fighting men, as they must “fight without fighting” to win the hearts and minds of people shooting at them and setting bombs to blow up their vehicles.

Michael Savage has a great saying, “We need more Patton, and less Patent Leather”; This means we are now asking our soldiers and Generals to be politicians themselves, and damn the actual results. Winning? It is icing on the cake if it happens, but it is how we “look” that actually matters.

But the President’s biggest problem is that McChrystal is so typical of an Obama choice to replace “Those bad Bush people” as he seems to have been at least partially chosen based on the fact he voted for Barack Obama. Obama likes his followers. If he could have arranged to have chosen and intellectual, non-military, “War czar” he would have, but that would have been impossible.

One has to wonder if less vocal versions of McChrystal aren’t all over the military, and in other areas of the Government. Sure, many of the President’s inner circle are former (and current) radicals the same as he. But, many are simply people who work for the sake of the nation–and incompetence is only tolerable to a point before one begins to at least mutter under their breath.

McChrystal, regardless of if he is forced to resign or stays, should be a warning sign to the President: You are destroying your legacy via your own self-absorption. The once loving crowds are now groaning at his every self-lauditory speech, and his every talk about how smart his people are. It is like having a boss who likes to talk up himself as you lose market share each year, and has a protective layer of sycophants to guard his naked incompetence via sighs and “oohs”.

Eventually, the God-like man falls to earth, with burned wings…


Barack Obama, 59 day’zed and confused

It took strong urging, sinking poll numbers, and a gathering sense of incompetence to force the President to address the nation last night. The Left had strong hopes that their “Reagan” (now considered their Ray Nagin) would come out swinging masterfully for the ropes, taking the reigns of leadership, and showing his “true grit”.

How do you say, “Epic Fail”? Just like that…and even MSNBC had to admit it, as evidenced by the above video.

When you have Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthiews saying…well almost…that you are incompetent, then you have problems. The President does have a problem, and it is that he is not a leader. He is a hopeless ideologue. Did he have answers to the problem? Of course not, he was selling carbon cap and trade and “pie in the sky” programs which will cost the nation trillions. In the end, it will not be sunshine heating your homes or filling your gas tanks.

Barack Obama comes from an insulated world of Chicago politics. He doesn’t see things as problems to be solved, but rather problems to be exploited. He does not understand how America works, or WHY it works. And as we know, something foreign is something often hated and feared.

In his place, one can envision Ronald Reagan taking the helm, calming the nation, stating his plan, and then acting on that plan. Surely, he would have used his power as President to sweep aside red tape and EPA regulations to do what had to be done. Obama cannot do that, it is tantamount to an admission that Government is secondary to private industry and entrepreneurship. A Ronald Reagan would be happy to meet with the best minds in private industry, and embraced the best ideas to solve the problem. To Mr Obama, this is a foreign idea; To the President, Govt is the God that must be honored–Individuals and individual ideas are to be ignored.

It is funny to watch the “tingle up the leg” Leftists on MSNBC contort in pain over the chosen one’s inability to channel “The Great Communicator”, but it is to be expected. Obama is not a great communicator, but rather the “Great speech reader”. He has not run a lemonade stand, he has not been at the helm of a corporation, a state, or had to make a budget work with limited resources.

The President will surely continue as he has always done: he will give speeches, he will try to figure out the exact combination of words (or should I say his speech writers will) to make Utopia seem real. And in this imaginary world that the President was taught about during his formative years, Marxism works, business is to be outlawed, and the individual ignored. The problem is that he is trying to prove something that has never been proved: Socialism is better than Capitalism.

Michael Savage was the first to compare Barack Obama to the “Emperor with no clothes” and I think this is a powerful comparison. Stripped of his teleprompter, his greek columns, and a sound system with ample reverb, we see him for who he is: A talker and utopian thinker. He cannot “plug the damn hole” or “suck up the oil with a straw” and nobody thinks he can. But Barack Obama thinks leadership is about demonizing his foes, nationalizing and consuming private fortunes, and honoring red tape over actual action.

The equation just doesn’t add up. The “naked emperor” cannot fix budget problems with more spending, he cannot fix problems with regulation, and he cannot solve energy problems by banning all energy sources save solar and wind. In his lack of details in last night’s speech, the President would have surely loved to talk about the movie “Avatar” and the incredible “unobtainium”, but even he and his speech writers know that the American people aren’t buying it.

In the final equation, words have little power when facing war, poverty, and natural and unnatural chaos. And sadly, the President is showing fear and anger behind his eyes, unwilling to ever admit how wrong everything he had ever been taught and regurgitated really is.


Dennis Prager and the war of 2010

The above video is pretty powerful. It defines the great stakes we face if we allow our Government to continue it’s downward spiral into European Socialism. Basically, we have a choice; We have a choice between American exceptionalism, and acceptance of European mediocrity. The choice should be bold, but generations of Liberal indoctrination have led us to become a nation split between the politically aware, and the hopelessly apathetic.

President Obama, Prager states, is not the key–it is the movement which must be stopped. To a great degree I believe this is true. The first step is certainly to halt Congressional Leftism in 2010. However, it is also certainly true that a less ideologically Leftist man or woman in office would never have taken the steps Mr Obama has taken, be it for pragmatism or simple love of country.

Barack Obama is neither brilliant or an complete dullard. He is a narcissist. His failures are redistributed as much as he wishes to redistribute wealth. He knows what he has been taught, and boldly refuses to believe his teachings could be wrong. Others would surely begin to question their own beliefs, were they truly deep thinkers, upon constant data showing the depth of this failure. Not so with Obama. Perhaps because he doesn’t care about America being great, he wishes for American diminishment. And this is a very scary stance for an President to take.

Prager talks about the bold actions of the American military in regards to the destruction of Naziism. Would an Obama have been willing to face down with Hitler? It is doubtful. He would have extended an open hand, even when faced with a slap.

We are facing the most Liberal Congress in History. One which is beyond reason. They are hoping to snatch power via Government action. And amongst these actions they have tipped their hand: Pursue personal and Govt power over the betterment of their own country. The American citizen is a simple tool to be used, and a way to fund their enslavement machine. And to halt an increasingly enlightened populous bent on stopping their actions, they wish to bring in new “citizens” in the form of amnesty, to destroy the threat of losing this attained power.

America has a very great choice and responsibility in 2010. It will be a greater decision than any this country has ever faced; We can choose unabashed Americanism, or planned obsolescence. Obama and his handlers want America destroyed–will you play along?


Israel/North Korea: Media Hypocrisy

So-called “Peace Protestors” beat the hell out of members of the IDF. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I would have shot them, too.

It never fails to amaze me at the Hypocrisy of the media and the “World Community” in relation to Israel.

We recently learned of North Korea sinking a South Korean ship, which by any test would be an act of war by the thuggish dictatorship. The media response? It was reported with a sluggish yawn.

When Israel is forced to deal with issues dealing with it’s own security, the hypocrisy is ramped up to levels unknown to any thuggocracy. Anti-semitism? You bet.

Would we allow a flotilla of possible terrorists from Pakistan float down the Hudson river without searching their boats, at the very least? No, we would confront them, ask them to stop, and if they refused we would blow them out of the water. At least that is what would have been done before President Barack Obama’s “Open hand” strategy.

I know the argument is that the Gaza was given to the “Palestinians” and they should be able to rule as they see fit. The problem here is that Israel had strict conditions about giving them this land, and since it was released, Gaza has been used to launch attacks on Israel.

Does any country need to abide by pacifism via world edict? The answer is no. But if a country uses force, they must face the heat such actions present. In this case, Israel was simply guarding itself from threat, and they have the right to self-preservation.

Historically, one needs to understand the background of Israel and it’s reformation to understand the country and it’s rights.

To simplify things a bit, first of all one must understand that the land on which the Jews inhabit has been the land of the Jews far into antiquity. And the land was actually much greater than the size of Israel today. The Roman’s called the land Judea (Ludaea) or in reference to the land of the Jews. At one point this included parts of Syria and Jordan, during the time of Solomon.

The word “Palestinian” comes from “Philistia” which was actually considered more of a name for a land mass, but not one of any particular ethnic origin. If anything, the “Philistines” (you might remember they fought Samson) were more Greek than Arab in origin.

Of course, and the argument will be made, that borders and land switches hands over time, and this is certainly true.

In 63 BC, the Roman’s conquered just about everything in that area of the world. However, it was still considered the “land of the Jews”. It was the first “First Jewish revolt” (66-73 AD) that led to the Jews being rejected from the heart of Judea. Rome then supplanted foreign peoples into that area, in an effort to suppress further uprising.

But were these new residents Arabs? Historian Mary Smallwood, writes: “The bulk of the new settlers were Greco-Syrians.” So they were of Greek origin from the area of Syria–this does seem to support the fact that the “Palestinians” (Philistines) were Greek.

To make a long story short, the land eventually fell into the hands of the Ottoman turks, and finally Britain. It was basically then returned to it’s original inhabitants (the Jews), and the areas we know of as the Judea and Samaria, which were renamed for politically correct reasons to the West Bank and Gaza. This certainly helped give the so-called “Palestinians” (basically now a mish-mash of refugees having Arabic origin) a foothold. After all, it is pretty hard to say that Judea (the west bank) was never the home of the Jews, because the name says it all.

Today, the “Palestinians” use “occupied territory” to talk about Judea and the rest of Israel. Their intent is to push the Jews into the sea, and for what reason? Because they are not Arabs.

Yet the world seems to side with the Palestinians, because a good many people in the world continue to hate Jews, if not for being “God’s people” then because they flourish in the desert, and were able to defeat the Arab world in the 1967 “6-day war”, which shamed them.

The key here is that Israel is on the land which it inhabited for millenia. The Palestinians were actually greeks, and a good portion of land was given to the Arabs when the League of Nations reformed Israel, yet they want more–actually they want it all, and all Jews dead.

Yet the media will never speak of this. They will inflate this incident into Israel being a bully. Self-defense is against the bullies, not BY the bully. Watch the above video and tell me that the IDF were not being attacked in an orchestrated way with people who had weapons on the ready. Who just finds steel bars laying around on a ship?

Remember, this is about weakening Israel and disarming it. In this way, it can be destroyed. If the world really were just, wouldn’t they be going after Iran?


The Candy-coated President

Obama tours the carefully manicured Fourchon, La. beach. Who did the cleaning prior to his trip? His contributor, British Petroleum. Would the President have walked down an oil covered beach and gotten his shoes dirty? Signs point to no.

Aqua performing what could be Barack Obama’s theme song at this point. Enjoy!

His hair is always perfect, his shirts white and pressed, buttoned to the top. His complexion perfect from the application of skin creams, he walks the beach recently cleaned by hundreds of BP employees rushed there for his pleasure; this President seems to not like to get dirty. Can anyone see the President changing the oil on his car?

Beyond his apparent metrosexuality, Barack Obama also does not seem to like the “dirtiness” of dealing with people. Unlike George Bush, who spent his time cutting trees and clearing brush from his Texas land, or Ronald Reagan who enjoyed riding horses on his ranch, this President seems sealed in cellophane spiritually, emotionally, and politically. Unlike Bush, who went to ground zero after 9/11 and stood amidst he rubble with a megaphone, this would not be acceptable–Obama would need a professional audio system and teleprompter, and without one, he would feel such a speech as “beneath him”.

Barry doesn’t like to get dirty.

Sure, the President doesn’t have a problem misusing people or even destroying them if it meets his purpose. But it never seems that he wants to do it himself. This is why he has people like Raum Emmanuel. And I am sure that he doesn’t want the trouble of having to deal with selecting who gets axed and who doesn’t–he leaves it to others.

Barry’s first rule of fight club–let others fight in fight club.

During his time in Illinois’ State Senate, his most common vote was “present”. To take a stand or show leadership, at least at this point, seemed too troublesome.

Consider “Obamacare”: Sure, the President sold it, but he never seemed to care what was in it. He simply let others do that, it was too much trouble. As long as the overall bill was within his required standards of Marxism–he would support it. However, he never wanted to do more than give speeches. He didn’t want to have to deal with the “dirt” and never did.

Psychologists would say that Barry is suffering from “narcissistic personality disorder”, would you agree? The symptoms:

■ Believing that you’re better than others
■ Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
■ Exaggerating your achievements or talents
■ Expecting constant praise and admiration (Barry? no!)
■ Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
■ Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
■ Taking advantage of others
■ Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
■ Being jealous of others
■ Believing that others are jealous of you
■ Trouble keeping healthy relationships
■ Setting unrealistic goals
■ Being easily hurt and rejected
■ Having a fragile self-esteem (doesn’t like criticism)
■ Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

The President recently gave his first press conference in ten months, and even the press (who had given him a pass from “day one”) is beginning to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Obama doesn’t like to be challenged or questioned. It might make him feel “dirty”.

The term used to be called “Candy-ass”, but in reverance for the office of President, I will simply say that the President is “candy-coated”. And beneath that thin candy coating seems to be a man who cannot understand his common man. He seems to be the same sort of automaton that he asked his supporters to be, but with a belief he is the messiah of Marxism.

Am I the only one who longs for the days of “real men” and “real” Americans? The John Wayne’s, the Teddy Roosevelt’s, the George Washington’s and General George Patton’s? Surely these men would be comfortable enough in their own skin to lead rather than be led, and to act for the good of country, with the humility to know that most things are greater than their own egos.

The candy shell for all it’s sticky sweetness–seems to be cracking.