With the Obama agenda, the New Age mindset shares the perspective that you are not so much a distinct individual worthy as such but rather a mere component emanating outward into larger and larger groups. For example, at the lowest level you are part of the COMMUNITY.

Note that the family has been skipped over entirely as the prerogatives of the reactionary fecund union between a monogamous man and woman must be overridden by the preferences of the bureaucracy administering the larger group. At the highest level, all identity is subsumed into an absolutist holism. Obama prophesizes, “...the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself.”

Chesterton, or someone nearly as wise, once remarked that one shouldn’t take down a fence unless you know why it was put up. Ladies and gentlemen (especially ladies), if we are to live as one common humanity, do you really want a Pakistani tribesman with Taliban sympathies to have a say over how you live your life in terms of whether or not you can go outside without a bag over you head, be permitted to drive a car, or even have windows in your home not painted over so that you can look outside.

A world without distinctions was also a dream shared by Communists. And as has happened in all regimes that sought to obliterate all distinctions save those imposed by the all powerful state such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Red China, the attempt here will result in a wide-scale abridgement of basic human rights.

For example, throughout his inaugural address, Obama made the attempt to depict himself as no respecter of persons on the basis of race or ethnicity by denouncing segregation and the like as a “dark chapter” of our nation’s history. However, from an examination of the other rhetoric employed by the new President, like the pigs in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, it is quite evident that Obama views some racial groups as being more equal than others.  read more »

At President Obama's latest media extravaganza (I have to write this quickly before that line becomes outdated), Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted out at one point what many of his fellow Americans were thinking, "You lie!" (Video) I'd say he's a great example to the rest of us, but unfortunately he quickly apologized. Even so, Vice President Joe Biden said that Wilson had "demeaned the institution" of the US Congress. Biden and other Democrats repeatedly said they were "embarrassed." Republicans, including Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said it was "inappropriate" and "disrespectful." House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) even discussed taking punitive action against Wilson.

It seems like some perspective is in order here. Plenty of bloggers have pointed out Democrats' hypocrisy. Sharon Soon has a great piece here. Many point to Youtube videos like this one from 2005 where Democrats showed Bush the same level of respect that Republicans showed Obama last night.

But the truth is, if Bush couldn't handle some boos from his fellow countrymen, there was no way he'd be able to handle Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il, and the same goes for Obama. The office of the President is the most powerful office in the free world, and the policies of the President affect every American and many non-Americans as well. If the President can't even take as much in-your-face criticism as comedians do, how is he going to justify those policies to the American people and to the world with any kind of clarity and strength of purpose?  read more »

Obama wants to defame September 11th by highlighting the occasion as a day of service and downplaying the attack upon America. So if one questions compulsory voluntarism, one will be anathematized as a contingency operation instigator. We’re not suppose to use the word “terrorist” anymore.

Sean Hannity said he wouldn’t go down the road of criticizing Ted Kennedy so soon after the Senator’s death. I recall reading of Ted Kennedy driving off one of the roads he went down.

It has been reported that the healthcare reform legislation being considered will order the IRS to hand your tax records over to health commissioners. It was observed that apparently it’s OK to collect information in the name of universal healthcare but not to prevent terrorism. If it’s wrong to ascertain the legal status of immigrants as to whether or not they should be here, then on what grounds do government agencies have to be passing this information back and forth regarding actual citizens? There are already concerns about disparities of treatment among various groups and classes. Just think how much worse it will be when your chart reads, “Middle class. Do not resuscitate.”

The Healthcare reform bill also plans to spend over a billion dollars for jungle gyms, bike trails, and farmers markets. Guess the Chinese want fit slaves for when they take over after the United States defaults on the loans from the Maoists.

In embracing the Lockerbie bomber, Qaddaffi proves he is still human scum. Makes you wish for the good old days of the Bush Doctrine where, if you sided with America’s enemies, you were considered one of America’s enemies.  read more »

I recently learned of a new third-party initiative, called GOOOH (pronounced "go"), for Get Out Of Our House, focussing on the U.S. House of Representatives. GOOOH describes itself as more of a system for selecting candidates than an ideologically-bound party; as such, it strives to be more representative of the individuals in a given district. You can find them at goooh.com. Achieving greater representation is always a laudable goal in government, so initially I was drawn to the idea. Further reading of their site, however, has led me to discover some problems in their approach. Quotes under each heading are taken from the GOOOH website.

1. An ideologically split party is bound to fall apart in Congress.

"GOOOH does not define (or have) a platform. It allows elected candidates to represent their district's interests unencumbered by partisan politics. Candidates will define their own platform by filling out the Candidate Questionnaire."

Every district will select a GOOOH candidate through the GOOOH process; as their website says, this is likely to produce a leftist candidate in a left-leaning district and a rightist candidate in a right-leaning district. Let's assume that GOOOH manages to get a large number, maybe dozens, maybe even hundreds, of candidates elected to the House in 2010. What will those newly-elected representatives do then? They will seek out other representatives who share similar opinions on important issues. They will form blocs who tend to vote together on most issues, who work together to draft legislation, to convince others to join them, and to block legislation advanced by other blocs. Over time, they will need to raise money for their particular issues, or simply for reelection, to supplement the money they receive from GOOOH. These voting blocs will then work together to raise money, holding town hall meetings and fundraisers.  read more »

That is correct, we are now the terrorists; that is according to the far left African-American wing of the Democratic Party.

I am, of course, referring to this absolutely asinine rant here.  I would quote that bunch of nonsensical prattle on this blog and respond to it directly; but I am afraid that my emotions would get the best of me and I would say something that I might regret later. Leave it to the idiotic Socialist Liberal Democrats, to turn a fact finding mission, about an admitted Communist, who said everything and I do mean everything; under the damn sun about white people into a "White vs Black" witch hunt; starring of course; Glenn Beck.

The truth is folks, this had nothing to do with "White vs Black" and everything to do with Right vs Wrong. In fact, here is Glenn Back's Statement about Van Jones's ouster:

The American people stood up and demanded answers. Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future.

I served in Vietnam from 1968-1969 and I had an MOS of 0251 as a USMC Interrogator/Interpreter with the 11th ITT, MACV-I Corps. Most of the interrogations were performed right in the field where the PW's (Prisoners of War) were captured so that we could collect timely tactical intelligence. I am sure that this saved many lives of my fellow Marines since we were able to provide actionable information to field commanders. After we conducted field interrogations, high value PW's were sent to detention facilities for more in depth interrogations to determine higher level strategies, command structure, and future battle plans. Interrogations were removed from Marines in the 1970's and given over to the Army and the CIA. Most of the interrogations took place away from the battlefield and timely actionable intelligence was rare because of the time it took to transport PW's to facilities away from the action. The CIA was not so concerned with tactical intelligence as much as strategic, longer-range intelligence. I cannot speak to the quality of the Army interrogations except for the reports that I have read which indicate that they were more concerned with not crossing the line of approved techniques per the US Army Field Manual than they were with obtaining timely, on-the-scene information which could be immediately disseminated to battlefield commanders. Additionally, many of the interrogators were not trained in the language and customs of the enemy, as we were in Vietnam, so much of the intelligence was filtered through translators which meant that information could be misunderstood or manipulated. Now CIA interrogators are under scrutiny by the US Justice Department and are intimidated by possible prosecution for their interrogation techniques. It appears that the Obama administration wants to release terrorists and go after those who questioned the terrorists. The CIA is now so blackballed that all future interrogations will be conducted by the FBI - a law enforcement agency. This is madness! The terrorists who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan or planned attacks against America are not scofflaws - they are captured enemy combatants. They are not bank robbers or carjackers or muggers. They are Jihadists - soldiers for Islamic extremism with a mission to attack the "Great Satan" America. The Obama administration and his Justice Department want us to return to a pre- 9/11 mentality. I want us to return to a Vietnam battlefield mentality. We would all be a lot safer if we did.  read more »

Viewers wanting to see "Knowing" staring Nicholas Cage might expect a film not all that different from his "National Treasure" series or even perhaps "The Da Vinci Code" as from advertisements the story appears to center around an aged parchment with a series of numbers scribbled across it that seemingly predicts a series of disasters. However, by the film's conclusion, the apocalyptic symbolism alluded to is much more complex and potentially confusing than one might initially suspect.

After a series of catastrophes Cage’s astrophysicist character witnesses as a result of deciphering the cryptic document, one begins to get the impression that the transcendent presence guiding events is more of a tangible one rather than a force in the background. Hints of this are introduced when mysterious figures reminiscent of less than normal looking versions of Men In Black begin to stalk Cage’s son as well as the granddaughter of the character who wrote down the prophetic string of numbers in a flashback set fifty years in the past.

In most films one usually gets a distinct impression as to the forces overseeing mankind’s eschatological destiny. Usually they are traditionally supernatural or more in the vein of what moviegoers would consider extraterrestrial or interplanetary. Seldom do I remember a film where the distinctions were blurred or melded to such a degree as in "Knowing".

For example, viewers were first given a hint of this as Cage and one of the adolescents come across an illustration depicting Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel. The overt supernatural overtones continued to increase with interactions with the Men In Black, especially when a blinding lights emanates from one of their mouths when confronted by Cage and as Cage's partially deaf son picks up a message over his hearing aide from the "whispering people".  read more »

In anticipation of the humiliating defeat of their socialized medicine scheme, Democrats are feverishly working to get their legislation passed by cheating.

Their plan, known as “budget reconciliation,” works as follows: (1) have Senate committees expand Medicaid, cut Medicare, force individuals to buy and businesses to offer insurance, give subsidies to low-income people and tax credits to small businesses, levy new taxes, and do everything else Democrats wanted to do in their health care bill but knew would never pass; (2) lump it all into a budget reconciliation bill; and (3) pass it with 50 votes and no filibuster.

The bill would also contain language to support enactment of a health care overhaul, but because provisions unrelated to the budget cannot legally be included, the Senate parliamentarian will likely strike these from the bill.  According to the New York Times, which favors the reconciliation swindle, it is unclear whether two key elements will be allowed in the bill: the requirement that insurance companies accept all candidates and charge the same regardless of condition, and the creation of a government health insurance exchange.

The Times eggs Democrats on to declare that these two provisions, while irrelevant to the budget, “are so intertwined with other reforms that they are [necessary] for other provisions that do affect spending or revenues.”

If that ruse doesn’t work, the Times notes, then the process could “leave the reform package riddled with holes—perhaps providing subsidies to buy insurance on exchanges that do not exist, for example.”  In this eventuality, Democrats would pass a second bill, subject to filibuster, that fills in gaps where budget-irrelevant provisions were removed.  read more »

The new test of liberal political ideology seems to be, not whether you favor Obama’s health care plan, but how long it takes you to realize what a disaster it is.

The American people were, as usual, first out of the gate to demonstrate their common sense.  Although a slim majority voted for Obama in November, a growing preponderance has been telling pollsters they disapprove of Obama and his handling of health care.   On Sunday, Rasmussen reported that Obama had reached a new low in their Presidential Approval Index, with health care one of his lowest-rated issues.

Like a teacher indulging a failing student’s pleas to find a way to give him extra points on his test, the Congressional Budget Office has spent all summer admonishing Obama for presenting legislation that will be more expensive than advertised, produce no savings, and yield expanding and unsustainable deficits for the next 10 years.  (“Now, Barry, we’ve already given you all the credit we can—next time you’ll just have to try harder.”)

The Mayo Clinic, which Obama cites as a model for cost-cutting measures, called the Medicare payment model proposed by Congress a “catastrophe.”

Seven state medical associations banded together with private medical societies and two previous American Medical Association presidents in a letter to the President opposing the legislation.  The American Hospital Association is imploring hospital directors to counter Congress’s bill, as are specialty associations such as the American College of Physicians.  read more »