Funny that Obama should choose these words to describe Christian conservatives. I wonder if he ever consider how much more it applies to Muslims, yet for some unknown reason not only is there never the slightest criticism of this religion but Obama cowers in fear of the slightest insult toward. Any time an insult toward them is even implied Obama is quick on trigger to issue apologies. He is a coward or a bully. It's hard to figure out which one he is since bullies are often cowards but wear the cloak of bravery, because they know the weak fear them. For a man to stand up to a weak spineless person is not courage. Worse for a man to intimidate a weak person is the very definition of a bully. This is what Obama does. He cowers before the rest of the leaders of the world because he seems to believe we do not deserve any place among the rest of the world powers, but when it comes to dealing with his own citizens (or in his mind, subjects) he knows well his authority and is not the least bit afraid to use it for ever form of intimidation.
Has Obama never considered just how much "clinging to their guns and religion" applies to Muslims? They are more than willing to use guns and death to intimidate anyone that disagrees with them. They are instant in taking up and offense even where none exists, and of course Obama is instant in generating a ready apology for even imagined offenses. He certainly is not willing to stand up to the Muslims and tell them tough luck. He is viewed by all Muslims as a weak and spineless president, for which he seems proud or oblivious and for which they feel emboldened at every turn.
Some think he shows a lot of spine for standing up to the opposition party, but in his mind at least he views them as weak and powerless, still having half the congress behind him as well as the weight of the presidency. Again, these are merely the acts of a bully.
The American people really need to stand up to this guy and his propaganda machine, the liberal media, which is most of the media. Again all of this is like a bully. He is bold only because he has a large gang behind him helping to intimidate everyone and keep them in their place, helpless to stop him from taking their lunch money.
He lives behind a cloak of lies, misinformation and intimidation. As long as we allow this to continue it will and like all bullies he is glad of it. The media clearly wants to pick their winners and losers and they want to find the most liberal people from both sides to stand behind that way no matter what they manage to progressively lead the nation toward the left.
We have wimpified America if the people are afraid to stand up to a coward and a bully like Obama simply because he and his ilk call them names. You know the names, racist, bigot, hater, all the names that don't even really justify a response. When they have to go through all kinds of verbal contortions to explain why some innocent remark must be racist, that should be the first indicator that it is not.
Show some spine. They are only words. We need to get this man, and the rest of the progressive Marxists out of office as soon as possible before it's too late, if it isn't already.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Media Propaganda
I keep wondering just how much more lying, covering up, and
propaganda the American people will take from the media, but it seems our
tolerance for this is boundless. The media keep trying to tell us how things
are getting better, but we all know it isn’t. They keep trying to convince us
that unemployment is lower than it is and still we want to believe it so we
ignore their lies. They are clearly covering for the Obama administration, yet
there is no outrage from the citizens of this once great nation. We are quickly
heading toward being a nation like Russia. The Administration and the media,
willingly complicit with them have decided to report that unemployment is down.
How do they do this? It is simple, they choose ignore the more than 11 million
people who have given up looking for a job. If they were to include those
numbers unemployment would be well over 10%. Of course this wouldn’t look good
for a struggling Obama campaign. After all they need to make sure they give him
every chance to be reelected no matter what the facts are.
The media has been about doing this for far too long and
still there is hardly a word from anyone. If anyone is expecting the media to
rat themselves out they are fooling themselves. They are going to continue to
pretend that the media is bias on both sides. Once again they are not going to
let the facts get in the way of what they have to say.
There is probably no bigger indicator that our nation is in
decline than the propaganda of what was once a free press. Lines are being drawn
and sides are being taken. The media, probably as much due to the progressive
educations they received as children by Marxist teachers feel it is there duty
to help this progressive, Marxist movement in our nation. They are convinced
that the American people cannot stand on their own and that of course the
government has got to be there providing for them all the way.
The truly said thing is that so many of these people do not
display the slightest understanding that the government does not have its own
money. What they like to think of as government benevolence is actually
government tyranny. The government is forcing those who pay taxes to take care
of those who do not. This is not really benevolence or charity for neither of
these things can be forced or they cannot be rightly called benevolence or
charity.
These same media and administration people seem to either
ignore or pretend that people will not
grow discouraged with being forced to have their pay taken from them and given
to those who either cannot or will not work.
The American people by nature are a very charitable people.
We give more than any other nation on Earth. Yet our government and our media
would have us believe that we are nothing more than users and takers. Now it may be true that we are turning into
those things. Again it is hard not to grow discouraged when you see others
doing nothing and having as much or in some cases more than you. Eventually you
are going to feel like what Is the point of producing and you will also become
one of the takers and just be willing to live with less.
What Is happening in this nation is happening on so many
different levels, and has become so interwoven in our society and our thinking
that it has become nearly impossible to think about ever doing away with the
system we have. We’ve come to believe that we need the government to regulate
everything. That everything must be equal, which has become confused with
fairness. We’ve allowed our thinking about fairness to become muddled. Fairness
does not mean you get what everyone else gets, it means you get what you
deserve. To this I say if you won’t work you don’t deserve to eat, and
certainly never deserve the “right” to demand that someone else should provide
for your food simply because it is the compassionate thing to do. Should others
help you when you’re down and out? I would say yes they should, but the problem
is that we’ve come to think of it as a right. We have confused so many
definitions on these areas. The media has done far more than its fair share to
make sure these definitions have become part of our vernacular.
At every turn we can see attacks on what have always been
considered traditional American values. Now those things have become
politically incorrect to the point that many consider the error to be with the
constitution and the founders not with the modern attitudes. The very mention
of the word morality seems to draw snickers from the media. They have course
head right toward the exaggerated 1950’s hyper view of morality as June
Cleaver, and quickly follow it up with you can’t expect us to live that way,
and then go further to imply that NO ONE even then lived that way really. They
want us to believe that everyone was doing the same things then that they are
doing today, only then there was shame about it and even illegality and as such
they simply hid the fact they were doing these things. This is not really true,
but then most people now are too young to have known anything but the
politically correct rubbish they have been fed for more than 30 years.
One only has to read The
Real Obama The budget of a left-wing progressive[1]
to realize that Obama is not at
all what the media tries to portray him as. You do not have to read a lot into
his words to realize that he is a radical left wing progressive, or worse a Marxist
or communist. I have long believed this and you only need to read the words
that come out of his mouth during speeches to see it. If anything you have to
read other things into his words to make them mean anything else, and this is
just what the media is busy doing after every speech. This is more of the
propaganda wing of the leftist progressive, Marxists doing their job covering
for their own. They have been lying about unemployment, they are busy lying
about the budget, the economy, the debt, the deficit, etc.
Obama has said that
he wants to radically transform this nation and he has been determined to do
this. He has not been trying to transform it back to constitutional principles.
He’s been trying to transform it away from. He has clearly held the view that capitalism
doesn’t work and it’s time for the government to step in and fix all that.
Following is just one example of his feelings about the founding of this
nation.
America is an unjust and deeply unfair country. “The basic
bargain that made this country great has eroded,” Obama said at Osawatomie.
“Hard work [has] stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the
folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from
that success.”
If he’d said that only once, it would be unremarkable and
hardly central to his thinking. But he’s emphasized it in speech after speech.
Americans “have seen the decks too often stacked against them,” he said in the
jobs speech to Congress. The recession “left innocent, hard-working Americans
holding the bag,” Obama declared in the State of the Union.
Even worse, Obama said at Osawatomie, “it doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work
when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led
to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s.” Nor did it work in the
2000s, he said. “Understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.” But
he didn’t mention the Reagan years, when the economy recovered from a recession
and boomed [2]
This is what Obama really believes. He has not said these
sorts of things only once as the media would have you believe. The likes of Allan
Combs and others would try to explain away each occurrence of such statements
as though they stood alone, but the problem is that he has said these things on
many occasions. During his campaign for the 2008 presidency it was everywhere
that he said he believed in the redistribution of wealth and yet oddly
Americans were not outrage about it at all, even worse they felt this was the
sort of man they wanted as president. No wonder he feels completely justified
in pursuing his communist agenda.
If we don’t wake up quickly we are going to find the American
we knew has turned into the Russia we feared!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Political Correctness and the issue of using Resources
It amazes me how often people stop short of thinking issues through for the sake of political correctness. Either they don't really think things through because they're lazy or because they are unable to, not having learned real reasoning skills.
The most perfect example I can think of this is from a singer I had tonight at a local coffee shop. He started by explaining his inspiration for his song, which was never having understood why we put so many piles of "stuff" in the ground. The title of the song was "Use Less". Now I'm sure most people will immediately jump to what they believe is the point of his song which is that we use more than we need and therefore are wasting resources. The thing that is wrong with this is that he either doesn't believe in the conservation of engergy which is a fairly liberal tenet. It is one that is almost necessary to the idea of the big bang and thus to such things as evolution and everything else that flows from the big bang.
The question that he never asked and could be simply answered is, "where did all that stuff come from in the first place?" Did we simply make it out of thin air? Of course we did not. All that stuff came out of the ground and as such if we are putting it back in the ground then is there really any difference than if we had never taken it out of the ground at all? Now if this is true then it means there is no waste at all. Everything we're not actually using is going right back where it came from in the first place.
When we consider this, isn't it true of everything we have and use. It is all just being reused over and over. I have met people who are against plastic because it isn't biodegradable, but these same people never consider that rocks are not really biodegradable either at least not for 1000's of years the same as plastic. Didn't the plastic ultimately come out of the ground? And if it should sit there for a thousand years what matter, so do rocks but we do not complain about that, because "they're natural". What makes them natural and plastic not? Because man has worked it into what it is. Does this mean that if we carved a statue and then left it in the desert this would be evil?
This is typical of the politically correct crowd. It doesn't have to make a lot of sense, it only has to be something that bothers them and everyone should cower after that because it is offensive to someone. You would think they would think through their premise a little more thoroughly, but it is just a simplistic idea that because man made it, it must be nasty and needs to be stopped. These people feel that man in general is a blight on the land. Because we change things in a determined way, instead of the mindless way that animals do it must be bad there need be no real reasoning to explain this; it only needs to be asserted. If you say it enough eventually it seems that people begin to believe it or at least won’t say anything against it.
If we were to dig something up and immediately put it back I fear the environmentalists would have a problem even with that just because we moved it away no matter how short the period. Of course if it was a dog or some other animal digging the hold then it would be fine. Really what it comes down to is that if environmentalists like something they are will to do whatever it takes to keep it that way and if they don’t then it is fine in their mind to violate it however they like. Let me explain this a little further. On the end of Long Island, NY there is severe natural erosion taking place that is causing much of the end of the island to disappear, at least this would be the case if environmentalists weren’t stepping in and constantly bringing sand and rocks to replace what is being eroded. It is amazing that they do not want to let nature take its course there and are more than willing to interfere with what “nature wants”. It is equally amazing that no one questions what other place or places are being destroyed to supply all the sand and rocks being used to replace the erosion. These are the sorts of questions that are never asked by the environmentalists.
If we were to mine all the silver in the world, use it for whatever we wanted and then put it all back in the ground in one place, wouldn’t that just be a new silver mine? As for paper, all it is, is wood. If trees grow, die and fall down on the ground what is the difference between that and paper? Oh you might say, but the paper has glue in it… and just where did that glue come from? How about concrete? All it is, is various forms of rock, dust, and water, so again what does it matter if we leave it lying on the ground with all the rest of the rocks. It might be true that there are certain chemical combinations that are toxic that don’t exist naturally or at least commonly in nature as a combination, and yes in those situation I believe it would only be wise to dispose of them properly.
Is there a reasonable side to ecology, and taking care of the environment? Most certainly! Does the fact that some men have been irresponsible mean that other men have to be unreasonable in the way they deal with protecting the environment? I don’t think so. We have reached the point where we have certain days we’re allowed to burn things on. We also seem to think that by depriving ourselves of modern conveniences such as heat and fuel, that this will make the planet cleaner. It is much like the issue of the pipeline which has been in the news of late. We behave as though our not using that oil is going to protect the environment when we are clearly aware that if we don’t use it other nations will. The byproducts from using it will be the same to planet there as here. All we are doing is trading off what will happen locally, but then this shows that the environmentalists are not really thinking about the planet, there is some other agenda afoot, or they would insist that the Canadians and for that matter the Arabs and other oil producing nations would simply stop using oil altogether. This is certainly not going to happen.
Again I ask, “Should we be responsible?” And again I also say, “This does not mean we should be unreasonable!” It is long past the time that we get a handle on this insanity. We need to realize that the earth is not a finite source of material for us to use. It is self replenishing and most every resource on it is either renewable or reusable. Most people act as though man is the only one putting oil in the oceans through shipping disasters. They do not seem to realize that more than a 100 times the amount man has put in accidently over all the time of shipping we’ve had does not equal the amount that naturally leaks into the ocean from the ocean floor in a year.
We behave as though our use of CO2 generating fuels is adding some significant amount of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, but we want to look the other way when we find out that ONE volcano going off puts more CO2 into the air than all the cars in the world produce in a year. Now consider that in any given there are 50-60 volcanic eruptions. That means that in the last 2 years volcanoes have put more CO2 into the environment than all the cars ever driven by men since we invented them. We think too highly of ourselves when we think that we are really capable of such grand things, even on purpose.
Yet the politically correct crowd of environmentalists would have us believe we alone are responsible for pushing the planet over the edge on global warming. Global warming is not only not a settled science, but there are even scientists, and not a few, who now believe we are heading toward a mini ice age. Have we changed our behavior that much? Or are we now responsible for that as well?
What we need are more people with a spine to start pressing back against the insanity and unreasonable allegations being made by whacko environmentalist and politically correct nay sayers. They act as though they are the only repository for truth and if you believe differently than they do you must be wrong and must be pressed into silence. SHOW SOME SPINE!
The most perfect example I can think of this is from a singer I had tonight at a local coffee shop. He started by explaining his inspiration for his song, which was never having understood why we put so many piles of "stuff" in the ground. The title of the song was "Use Less". Now I'm sure most people will immediately jump to what they believe is the point of his song which is that we use more than we need and therefore are wasting resources. The thing that is wrong with this is that he either doesn't believe in the conservation of engergy which is a fairly liberal tenet. It is one that is almost necessary to the idea of the big bang and thus to such things as evolution and everything else that flows from the big bang.
The question that he never asked and could be simply answered is, "where did all that stuff come from in the first place?" Did we simply make it out of thin air? Of course we did not. All that stuff came out of the ground and as such if we are putting it back in the ground then is there really any difference than if we had never taken it out of the ground at all? Now if this is true then it means there is no waste at all. Everything we're not actually using is going right back where it came from in the first place.
When we consider this, isn't it true of everything we have and use. It is all just being reused over and over. I have met people who are against plastic because it isn't biodegradable, but these same people never consider that rocks are not really biodegradable either at least not for 1000's of years the same as plastic. Didn't the plastic ultimately come out of the ground? And if it should sit there for a thousand years what matter, so do rocks but we do not complain about that, because "they're natural". What makes them natural and plastic not? Because man has worked it into what it is. Does this mean that if we carved a statue and then left it in the desert this would be evil?
This is typical of the politically correct crowd. It doesn't have to make a lot of sense, it only has to be something that bothers them and everyone should cower after that because it is offensive to someone. You would think they would think through their premise a little more thoroughly, but it is just a simplistic idea that because man made it, it must be nasty and needs to be stopped. These people feel that man in general is a blight on the land. Because we change things in a determined way, instead of the mindless way that animals do it must be bad there need be no real reasoning to explain this; it only needs to be asserted. If you say it enough eventually it seems that people begin to believe it or at least won’t say anything against it.
If we were to dig something up and immediately put it back I fear the environmentalists would have a problem even with that just because we moved it away no matter how short the period. Of course if it was a dog or some other animal digging the hold then it would be fine. Really what it comes down to is that if environmentalists like something they are will to do whatever it takes to keep it that way and if they don’t then it is fine in their mind to violate it however they like. Let me explain this a little further. On the end of Long Island, NY there is severe natural erosion taking place that is causing much of the end of the island to disappear, at least this would be the case if environmentalists weren’t stepping in and constantly bringing sand and rocks to replace what is being eroded. It is amazing that they do not want to let nature take its course there and are more than willing to interfere with what “nature wants”. It is equally amazing that no one questions what other place or places are being destroyed to supply all the sand and rocks being used to replace the erosion. These are the sorts of questions that are never asked by the environmentalists.
If we were to mine all the silver in the world, use it for whatever we wanted and then put it all back in the ground in one place, wouldn’t that just be a new silver mine? As for paper, all it is, is wood. If trees grow, die and fall down on the ground what is the difference between that and paper? Oh you might say, but the paper has glue in it… and just where did that glue come from? How about concrete? All it is, is various forms of rock, dust, and water, so again what does it matter if we leave it lying on the ground with all the rest of the rocks. It might be true that there are certain chemical combinations that are toxic that don’t exist naturally or at least commonly in nature as a combination, and yes in those situation I believe it would only be wise to dispose of them properly.
Is there a reasonable side to ecology, and taking care of the environment? Most certainly! Does the fact that some men have been irresponsible mean that other men have to be unreasonable in the way they deal with protecting the environment? I don’t think so. We have reached the point where we have certain days we’re allowed to burn things on. We also seem to think that by depriving ourselves of modern conveniences such as heat and fuel, that this will make the planet cleaner. It is much like the issue of the pipeline which has been in the news of late. We behave as though our not using that oil is going to protect the environment when we are clearly aware that if we don’t use it other nations will. The byproducts from using it will be the same to planet there as here. All we are doing is trading off what will happen locally, but then this shows that the environmentalists are not really thinking about the planet, there is some other agenda afoot, or they would insist that the Canadians and for that matter the Arabs and other oil producing nations would simply stop using oil altogether. This is certainly not going to happen.
Again I ask, “Should we be responsible?” And again I also say, “This does not mean we should be unreasonable!” It is long past the time that we get a handle on this insanity. We need to realize that the earth is not a finite source of material for us to use. It is self replenishing and most every resource on it is either renewable or reusable. Most people act as though man is the only one putting oil in the oceans through shipping disasters. They do not seem to realize that more than a 100 times the amount man has put in accidently over all the time of shipping we’ve had does not equal the amount that naturally leaks into the ocean from the ocean floor in a year.
We behave as though our use of CO2 generating fuels is adding some significant amount of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere, but we want to look the other way when we find out that ONE volcano going off puts more CO2 into the air than all the cars in the world produce in a year. Now consider that in any given there are 50-60 volcanic eruptions. That means that in the last 2 years volcanoes have put more CO2 into the environment than all the cars ever driven by men since we invented them. We think too highly of ourselves when we think that we are really capable of such grand things, even on purpose.
Yet the politically correct crowd of environmentalists would have us believe we alone are responsible for pushing the planet over the edge on global warming. Global warming is not only not a settled science, but there are even scientists, and not a few, who now believe we are heading toward a mini ice age. Have we changed our behavior that much? Or are we now responsible for that as well?
What we need are more people with a spine to start pressing back against the insanity and unreasonable allegations being made by whacko environmentalist and politically correct nay sayers. They act as though they are the only repository for truth and if you believe differently than they do you must be wrong and must be pressed into silence. SHOW SOME SPINE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)