Gospel of the New Truth

PC and Protestors

April 9, 2008: Political Correctness is well on its way to destroy the liberties we have been granted as citizens of this country. And political correctness doesn't only mean, as we used to say when I was a young man - you gotta call a spade a spade - but any comment made about anything - animate or inaminate - can create for you all kinds of trouble. It happened here in Nevada - a woman's license plate, one she has had for a number of years, was XSTACY - was taken away by the DMV because someone was offended by what it might mean. Today's news reports an Obama campaign worker fired becasue she said a bunch of kids were running around, c limbing trees, "..like...monkeys..."). And the example continue almost everyday. Groups of people - call them a community rather than groups - are protesting the Olympic torch bearers and the Olympics, based upon China's apparently heavy-handed in Tibet. A human rights problem? More than likely. But China has been a human rights violator for the past 30+ years, but everybody is still buying goods marked "hecho in China". When Germany held the 1936 Olympics, and the National Socialists were led by Hitler, nobody here boycotted the games. When United States athletes, upon winning medals in a more recent Olympics, raised their   fists in the fascist salute as a political symbol, the Olympics were not boycotted.   The point is that every country has problems that other countries' citizens rally against. But to    boycott the Olympics just because it is being held in China, and that government is acting   in a way many people are unhappy about, the Olympic athletes should not be punished.   So why is this happening? Groups (communities) protest over that which they do   not like or want; people have to be afraid to say anything lest it be considerd racist or   anti-government. Folks, the problem has been here for years - under the Wilson and Roosevelt   administrations, as well as under the current Bush administration. Fascist liberalism is slowly but surely   taking over this country.   We've been living under a kind socialism, but now it is becoming harsher. The Hitlerian/Nazi   policy of the community over the individual is what we are witnessing in this country.   Classical individual liberty is slowly but surely being destroyed, in favor of statism.   Nothing new, as I said - but appealing to most of our youth and others who, knowingly or not,   believe extreme liberalism will make their life better.   Unfortunately, those people may get what they're asking for...       -30- [April 28, 2008: A thank you to Michael Moore for the correction re: the license plate   note - plate letters originally stated left out the letter S (XSTACY)]

Finally - the Truth Comes Out

April 3, 2008: The truth about Obama's political concepts is finally exposed - although maybe not intentionally. Answering a question about college loans on the Chris Matthews show yesterday, Obama said, among other things, that the middleman had to be eliminated in the loan process - that the banks and other loan organizations profits were too big. This is not the first time Obama spoke against companies making what he considered too much profit - and that from a man who, in two years, made 2.6 million dollars from book sales, and whose wife profited from his being in office via a change in job title to the tune of a salary increase of over $200 thousand dollars a year!

Apparently, profit (except for his own) is not a good thing - an example of the fascist/right-wing socialist idea of "community over individual".

Then a couple of other known, but rarely stated facts, were made - one by a super delegate in Pennsylvania who backs Clinton. The individual stated that even though he believes Clinton is the better candidate, that Obama will win, because white people will vote for Obama to assuage their "guilt". Other comments predicting Obama's win also stated that his victory would be for "justice"!  What nonsense! Our next president should be one who is put in office just to make people feel better? What, all those Democrats and Republicans who vote/voted for Obama are or were slave holders? Come on- .. And, if you want to talk about guilt, which is basically ridiculous, shouldn't there be guilt shown by blacks re: whites who fought along with them in the civil rights movement, and who were killed in the process? And what about black anti-Semitism - shouldn't there be guilt in that community over the fact that a large number of Jews fought for the civil rights of blacks, and some were also killed in that struggle?

This country is rapidly becoming filled with a bunch of ignorant, uneducated, non-thinking, dysfunctional, wimpy Americans, snowed under by deconstructionist political correctness, living under a pleasant socialist government, and who won't be happy until a Mussolini style fascist government is in place, where our freedom of speech and thought will be replaced by group thinking rather than individual thoughts, where statism is predominant over individualism.

Jefferson believed the people of the country had the ability to ensure that the country would remain as intended; Hamilton believed that the people didn't have the ability to do so, and the State should be in control.  Our history over much of the past 100 years has shown that Hamilton was pretty much on target. Obama's election to the country's presidency would pretty much put us back into the more extreme liberal fascist days of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with or without the militarism of their times.
-30-

Food Comes from Farms?

My interest in agricultural spans quite a few decades, including undergraduate and some graduate work in agriculture. With this background, I imagine I should be continually amazed at the public's lack of knowledge about the source of the food it consumes. I often facetiously remark, when I come across food items in markets, such as milk or beef, labeled "organic", "is there such a thing as inorganic milk or beef?". But with modern technology, and reading the labels on some junk food items, that remark may not be as facetious as it sounds.

Anyhow, notwithstanding the fact that many people have no idea where their food comes from, it may be a good idea to read the article Survey shows consumers ignorant of farmers’ role in food chain, from the Mar 28, 2008, written by David Bennett, Farm Press Editorial Staff. I found it quite interesting and, sadly, to some degree, funny. Anyway, the story is located at http://westernfarmpress.com/news/survey-farmers-0328/.  An example of a survey response: Farm animals raised for food should be treated the same way household pet owners treat their pets.Amazingly, 30 percent strongly agreed with that and 26 percent strongly disagreed.

One point of interest - with the increase in cost of many farm products, if folks want to reduce their food costs, maybe they should start growing their own produce, raise a few chickens if they have the space, and generally get back to the small "family plot".  The World War II version of this - the Victory Garden - wasn't a bad idea, since it put some power back into the hands of the people.

-30-

Changes we need

Politicians running for President of the United States of America are talking about the need for change, but so far, in my opinion, they are all missing the boat.

Here are the changes we really need:

• one national primary, just before the nominating conventions
• candidates have to talk about the important subjects, not the pulp mags kinds of nonsense - you know, about just how they will improve the economy, take care of national security, bring manufacturing back to this country, all those "boring" topics
• once again, we need improvements in education - people have to not only know how to read, but have to improve their comprehension skills - depending upon so called "political pundits" for their information, without the ability to discern between reality and fable (promotion), does, in the end, give us poor choices for the job of president.
• real news and political broadcasts - provided by commentators who at least know about that which they speak - all we seem to have now are, as Lewis Black to Larry King, "failed comics - entertainers"; the problem with that is, would audiences have the ability to understand what they were told, or, for that matter, could they watch the programming for more than a few minutes before switching to something more entertaining?
• commentator shows - as seen on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al., and their ilk should at least change their "guest" panelists - the same old faces with the same old opinions, promoting the same tired old candidates. If you don't have cable or satellite, then how can you watch/hear some intelligent commentary shown on channels like CSPAN, Free Speech TV, Book Channel, etc. (note - Free Speech TV is interesting in that you hear news, stories, and opinions that are not of the mainstream - most of what I have watched has been pretty far over on the liberal socialist side of the spectrum, but it's always good to know what "the other side" is talking about).

In other words, the change we need is to become a more mature, thinking, intelligent society. I know that's a tall order, but think about this - Governor Richardson said he was supporting Senator Obama because he is a "unifier", which is what many of Obama's backers state. But what is meant by a unified country? Wars against this country (WWI, WWII) were great unifiers, where we all worked for the common good. But without that kind of uniting event, a "unified" country could only be one which is subservient to the state. Because if we are unified, then there is no room (need?) for diverse opinion. We are subjected to what the state believes is good for us, which the state will have convinced us will make us all happy. Sounds like fascism to me.

 

A last Thought Re: Obama and Wright

A last Thought Re: Obama and Wright

Notwithstanding the Senator's media acclaimed speech given in response to his Pastor Wright brouhaha, it appears that Obama had his GWB "...window of his soul" moment.

After all, the Senator is seeking the presidency of the United States of America, not of his local home owners association. If he was unable to take a strong stance against a verbal attack upon the United States of America, the country which he wishes to lead, without being prompted to do so, just because he feels that the promulgator of those ant-American remarks is "like an uncle to him", then how on earth is he ever going to defend his people against any country or organization?

Will that be the curse of a liberal socialist administration?

And Now We Know

Gospel of the New Truth - Now We Know

Flag this entry as inappropriate

Now we know - now we know why Obama's wife stated she didn't like this country until her husband ran for the Democrat Party nomination. After listening to Pastor Wright for the past twenty years, and being deeply involved with him - he marries the Obamas, baptised his children, et al., Mrs. Obama has come out as a disciple of Wright's beliefs. So for the Senator to state that "he wasn't there" during the sermons shown in the videos on national television, is pretty disingeneous. Which all goes to bolster my contention that here's a guy you have to worry about assuming the mantle of President of the United States. If he were truly a man of principal - a man for everyone - as he claims to be, he would have left Trinity a long time ago. Since he didn't, and is only now defending his actions because they have been made public, there's no way Obama does not go along with his Pastor's beliefs, regardless of his so-called "disavowing Wright's statements". This is just another example of the candidate's defects.

Just an American

Senator Obama announced the other day that he is an African-American, has Hussein as a middle name, and that information didn't or doesn't make it easy for him as a politician. It didn't make it difficult, either. This split nationality b.s. is really a pain in the rear end. Obama is no more an African than I am. He was born in Honolulu, so how can he be an African-American?

And for that matter, why are all blacks called African-Americans? I imagine that there are a few blacks, and whites, who are citizens, but who were born in Africa, but what value is there to being called an African-American or any other hyphenated nationality, unless the individual truly holds dual citizenship. Look, first the blacks were Negros, then coloreds (which included all non-whites), then in the 1950s the name to be called was black – as in “Black Pride”. Apparently that wasn't good enough, so, regardless of where the person's birth occurred, the black became an “African-American”. I imagine that just being an “American” wasn't and/or isn't good enough. I'll have to start calling myself a European-American, since my family goes way back in time.

You might say that the American Indian is the only real American except that it is understood that those native to this continent may have come from either South America or from across the Bering Strait, which leaves that ethnic group out of the picture (Siberian-Russian-Tibetan-American, or what?).

Anyhow, the point of all this is that if Senator Obama wishes to be President of these United States of America, and achieves that goal, he better forget this African-American crap and just call himself an American. Otherwise, we'll really have a divided country. Millions of people have emigrated to this land, anxious and proud to become an American, not a hyphenated American.

-30-

Time to Face Reality

It appears that I was not far from the thoughts of many people when I wrote my previous blogs about Obama. Listening to some TV pundits, and reading a few columnists in today's paper, I found the same sentiments about which I had written.

So to continue in that vein, there are a couple of subjects needing remarking. The first is the dysfunctional Democrat party. Its caucus system and primary system is totally screwed up, re: awarding of delegates in both, and time allowed for voting in the former. From what I remember, the idea of proportioning delegates came from Jesse Jackson in 1980, which, as we find, was an unfortunately accepted suggestion.

The other comment is about what the primary and caucus wins for Obama really mean. Since most of his wins in both the caucuses and primaries come from exceedingly heavy support from black voters and/or independents, does that represent the majority of Democrat voters, and/or all voters in this country? Or does it represent the raising of the hue and cry from one group of ethnic voters combined with the idealism of young and very liberal voters? The two groups are not the same – one is black voters voting for a black man – the other is a group of voters who believe that life can be changed like linking to another web page. Both reasons are not sound – neither from a realistic nor pragmatic point of view.

Obama's main topics are “I was against invading Iraq”, and now, apparently, possibly the economy, though it's hard to tell. His Iraq statement is currently meaningless, because, if he should be nominated and elected, what he was against, in the safety of not being a Senator who would have had to vote on the issue (an he hasn't voted on much of anything else during his term in office), doesn't mean a diddly thing. He will need a very strong understanding and appreciation for what has to be done – of how to remove troops – which will take at least 5-6 years – in a way in which America will both save face and not be under a threat from those running Iraq.

It's really aggravating that the American people cannot be told the truth, for fear of losing elections. When Bill Clinton mentioned that if it were not for LBJ, Martin Luther King's desire for the Civil Rights Act would not have gone through Congress. That statement, as correct as it was, was considered “dissing” black Americans, who used it as an excuse to leave the Clintons and vote en masse for Obama. Mentioning that, however, brings up the charge of racism, which, of course, has Democrats cringing in fear. Truth has been the tool of the righteous, but these days, the only righteous appear to be those who deny truth.

The Democrats have an opportunity to regain the White House, but like many football teams, it's the last couple of mistaken plays that cost the game. Unless the Democrat voters understand that reality is more important that hopeful dreaming, it's liable to be a long, long road to Tipperary.

\

Still Important Words for Today

Just in case you have forgotten this most famous quote from Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia Convention - words of equal import - and maybe more so - today as then:

"The gentlemen may cry Peace, peace! but thee is no peace. The war has actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethern are already in the field! Why stand here idle? What is it that the gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"


[I would also like to recommend Eric Burns' excellent book, Virtue, Valor, and Vanity, a rare look at those who were so important to the founding of this country}

for more connections, and for security related comments

Free speech TV has it Wrong

The tag of a program I caught yesterday on Free Speech TV stated "Anti- Immigration is un-American". The network and others who believe the same should get their facts right; the argument is not over legal immigration - it's all about illegal immigration.

No one denies the fact that immigrants made this country what it is - and that's going back to the first settlers. Anti-illegal immigration is not un-American, especially in these times of social, economic,and security chaos. Sure, it is understandable that people want to come to this country for economic reasons - but if they do, let them join the club and not attempt to do so without following the membership rules.

We all should know, by this time, the cost to the country of illegal immigration.  Anti-illegal immigration? That's being pro-American.