Friday, August 21, 2009

Will the real Hussein O. please stand up!

Question: Had Hussein O. just come out during his campaign last year and told everyone in explicit terms what he is in actuality, would the electorate have rejected him? I'm guessing no. (Keep in mind that Bill Clinton's marital infidelity and dirty-dealing, not to mention his poor management of the state of Arkansas as Governor were well known prior to his elecion to the presidency, in spite of what the liars that voted for him say to the contrary.)

But apparently some Hussein voters are now getting cold feet, as demonstrated in this New York Daily News column by Michael Goodwin (H/T: VFR), titled (of all things) "Health care debate confirms this is not the Barack Obama we elected."

Can you believe that?! What kind of idiots are these people?! And isn't democracy just a wonderful thing! Here's what the title of the column ought to read:

Health care debate confirms this IS, without the slightest doubt remaining, the Hussein Obama we elected.

But the original title doesn't let us down. No; the article goes on to further demonstrate how completely oblivious and idiotic some people really are. To wit:

Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite an unhappy nation?

Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that's where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head. [TM: Dear God!]

His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side.

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

Say what?! You must be (expletive withheld for PG viewers) kidding me! This guy can't possibly be serious!

The column unfortunately continues:

Writing in The New York Times, he guaranteed everything for everyone: "If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Those claims would be credible if they were a multiple-choice question, where only one is true. To say they can all happen at once is a crock, and the country knows it.

Heck, throw in a free puppy for everybody, too.

Ha, ha. As to that last line, I have a better one which I lifted from a favorite movie of mine:

Why don't you just score the winning touchdown for Notre Dame while you're at it.

But anyway, the author finishes out the article in fine style, keeping with his main theme throughout -- you know, our superhero is bound to emerge again real soon:

If he's the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake.

"The man we thought he was." Let that sink in real deep, y'all. You live in the midst of a bunch of absolute morons. These people have real responsibilities, they drive on your highways, they enter into marriage contracts and then break them on a whim, they actually make critical decisions on a daily basis. And they vote in your elections. If they're the moral paragons that they pass themselves off to be, then they'll voluntarily recuse themselves from participation in the next election as demonstrably unqualified ... before the country decides that the liberal principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism are a mistake.

Read More

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Hussein O.'s impending impeachment

I've dealt with this several times to date, but not in an entry to this blog as I recall.

Ray Acosta Sr. writes at the Tenth Amendment Center:

Not to worry. As soon as Obama’s popularity gets low enough, he and all his cronies will be impeached.

Here's the deal in any event:

(1) You can't impeach the first black president no matter how low his approval ratings get. We live, my friends, in liberal dominated society. Get used to it, or do something about it.

(2) Even if you could, again, it isn't going to happen because those comprising the body invested with the impeachment responsibility have signed on to the Hussein agenda. Thus, if they impeached him, they'd be implicating themselves. Once again, it ain't going to happen on that basis alone.

(3) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hussein was re-elected in 2012 BUT that Republicans re-took the majority in both houses of Congress. Hussein still wouldn't be impeached. Why? See rule no. 1. And if that isn't enough, refer to rule no. 2.

P.S. Lindsey Grahamnesty is a jackass (i.e., a liberal) from way back. Get that through your heads.

Read More

Friday, August 14, 2009

The antithesis of liberty -- the anti-liberty 'Obamacare' opposition

Dr. Keyes has written an article for WorldNetDaily called "Unhealthy for Liberty" from which I excerpt the following passage:

Though even some of the critics of the Obama faction's health sector proposals speak as if the problem with it lies in the fact that they are reaching for too much too quickly, this criticism begs the most important question: What are they reaching for?

Thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out, it is a vital point to make.

From my point of view there is at least some advantage to our side due to the administration's aggressive, radical 'overreaching' (and I use the term very loosely here), but it does nothing to change the facts that what they're reaching for, at its very roots, is dictatorial totalitarian government, which is altogether unAmerican and must be stopped -- not merely resisted, stopped!

Dr. Keyes puts it in very simple terms:

The problem isn't that they are overreaching.

Again, thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out. It is precisely correct. Indeed, as I've intimated above, that they're aggressively 'overreaching' works more to our side's advantage than theirs. And as I've said before here and elsewhere, I do not believe that they have the mental (or moral) capacity necessary to recognize that they need to scale it back IF they are to have any hope of advancing their agenda, ummm, peacefully. Not that advancing their agenda peacefully is necessarily their goal. Nonetheless, Keyes is right to point out that the perception which attributes to them the sin of 'overreaching' is mired in a false premise, namely that it's not what they're reaching for that is wrong, but the breakneck speed and wreckless driving in pursuit of the what that is wrong. This is, I believe, a great example of what Lawrence Auster has denominated the unprincipled exception. In the event that you're not familiar with the term, read Auster's explanation here.

Dr. Keyes continues:

It is quite simply that what they are reaching for is wrong – wrong for the quality of health care, wrong for the individual liberties of Americans, wrong for the preservation of constitutional government that secures the liberty of the American people.

Amen! A right principled position if there ever was one -- as opposed to taking an unprincipled opposing position wherein the best (albeit flawed) argument one can articulate 'against' government takeover of the healthcare industry (among others) is that we're not quite ready for a complete government takeover of xyz industry just yet. In this case there's no higher principle on which one founds his opposition to a given thing. No; he isn't necessarily opposed to government-run anything per se, he just thinks everyone is better served if totalitarianism continues to be implimented bits-and-pieces at a time, or, that the rate of speed at which it is advanced should be increased by slight yet steady increments. Because, you see, he thinks that that is the American way.

Read More

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Catch 'er if you can

Well, ahem, somebody could and did.

Watch the video. These people obviously ain't real smart (is it any wonder that they couldn't achieve the simple task of cobbling together a genuine-looking COLB for Hussein Obama?). At about 1:20 in the video Jackson-Lee addresses the 'we are a dying breed' remark of 'Dr.' Mayer, indicating that she (Jackson-Lee) is working on legislation which will increase the number of primary care physicians in America -- you know, that 'dying breed' that Mayer spoke of, as being one of; that breed that apparently can only be revitalized as part of the 'Obamacare' package. Not true at all! We just need more people like 'Dr.' Mayer to step up to the plate, and we'll have an abundance of primary care physicians in this country, on the government payroll.

Continuing her comments on the topic, Jackson-Lee speaks of the difficulty of getting young people (approx. 2:00 in the video, using her son as an example) to go to the doctor for preventative care. The obvious answer to that dilemma, though Jackson-Lee doesn't state it explicitly, is to force people to receive 'preventative' care. Well, that's actually not completely true. You can entice certain people to go to the doctor when they get the sniffles IF it is free to them. In those cases it isn't a matter of forcing them to do something they don't want to do, but of enticing them to do what they wouldn't do otherwise, that is if they had to pay for it out of their own pockets. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the government will most definitely try to force people to receive 'preventative' care and health assessments against their will. And all that that implies.

Read More

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Important announcement -- you feds take note

I sent a short email to Mr. Auster earlier today regarding the 'Obamacare' initiative, the full text of which I include below:

Ray G. wrote:

What if people didn't cooperate with it's (sic) mandates?

People like me won't cooperate with its mandates. And damn the consequences. I'm not particularly inclined to radicalism, but this has just gone too far already. Oklahoma is my country now.

Again I say to all of you, watch Oklahoma. We won't stand for this sh...crap. I may be an early casualty, but my state will eventually (and in short order) come along, hide and watch. It is just that simple. Secession draws ever nigh. And if my state isn't the first to do so, I'll be thoroughly disappointed ... from my prison cell.

Read More

Friday, August 7, 2009

'Wise Latinas' feeling their oats

Check out Auster's consecutive articles on the subject, here and here. (Note: I've embedded the links to the articles in the order they were posted at VFR)

Read More

Thursday, August 6, 2009


#41 is former H.S. teamate Richard Dillon. Besides being a distant cousin, Dillon (still a good friend), was the greatest football player I personally ever met up with ... and I personally met up with some great ones, believe me. I went to see him play at many OU games during the mid-1980s. But of particular significance to me (and I assume him) was the game in which his collegiate career was, as a Senior, abruptly ended by injury. Dillon will, I assume, confirm this. The only picture I have to confirm this is a local newspaper article -- The Healdon Herald -- Sports section. Wherein Dillon and I, on the sidelines of the Oklahoma bench, are discussing his (career-ending) injury.

Read More

A fundamental flaw in Dr. Keyes's thinking?

Let me state at the outset that I highly respect Dr. Keyes, his historical knowledge, his influence and abilities, his generally superior moral positions, which my regular readers already know. Anyway...

I was reading Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry earlier today when I ran across this line,

Dr. Keyes wrote:

...bereft of the choices that today allow many to determine for themselves the moment at which they surrender with dignity to the inevitable prospect of their mortality.

which didn't set real well with me. Allow me to attempt an explanation:

Okay, death is inevitable. We agree on that. And to die with dignity is certainly better than dying in an undignified way. This (a 'dignified' death) must be one of the primary goals of every living human being for himself and his loved-ones (it probably extends beyond his loved-ones, but let's establish that limitation for our purposes here).

Well, I acknowledge that insofar as any human being has legitimate control or authority (or "choice") over human life (and death), it is the individual whose life is in question, and extends no further. But I think there's a fundamental flaw in that sort of thinking, a flaw that ultimately leads, or has led, to the dire situation we're in now. No human being, in my humble opinion, possesses any kind of power over human life, including his own. As he did not give himself life, he cannot, on his own whim, "decide" when, and/or, under what particular circumstances to give it up, 'dignified' or not. Ultimately he has no control over it anyway, he just thinks he does. Which is an indication of his underlying lack of faith in the giver of life, The Sovereign God of the Universe.

Anyway, I thought it might make for an insteresting discussion, both here and at Loyal to Liberty. I decided to bring it here for my own purposes, which are altogether self-interested. So sue me.

Read More

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

On Hussein O.'s supposed Kenyan birth certificate

I was out of town (and way out of the loop) when this story broke, and I'm just now beginning to learn about it. I may or may not have more to say about it later. Chances are that I will have more to say about it. But anyway, I hope my readers will express their opinions on the subject under this post. Thanks.

Read More

Is it true, what they say about Oklahoma?

Nora Brinker sent me an email yesterday under the subject line "Did you know about this?", containing a link to this article. I sent an affirmative reply to Nora --Yes, I do know about, and can confirm that the legislation is legit. But the assertion that all of our illegals have fled the state is false. Many of them fled initially when H.B. 1804 first took effect back in November of 2007. Two key provions in the law (Sections 7 and 9 specifically), however, have been under federal suspsension since July of 2008 (actually I think it may have been late June, 2008, when the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals preemptively passed down its ... opinion that these provisions probably violate federal immigration law, but who's keeping count?), and under the protection of this illegitimate 10th Circuit opinion, many of our illegals have returned to the state. Indeed, I was in Ardmore, Ok., over the weekend, and it was almost shocking to me, the number of illegal Mexican aliens walking around there as opposed to where I live. Shocking I say because it was almost like I was in another state that happens to border ours to the South.

Anyway, how do I know that these illegals are, well, illegals? Let's just say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and otherwise conducts itself like a duck, chances are very high that it probably is a duck.

Read More

I thought the official line was?...

Sen. John McCain, (RINO)- AZ, on the 'birth' issue:

All I know is that that came up during the campaign, and there was never any credence given to it," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. "In these days of the blogosphere, a lot of things are given weight that shouldn't be. I didn't ever look into it specifically, but no one in my campaign ever found anything, were given anything, or searched for any information that would lead us to believe that was the case.(emphasis mine)

But hasn't it been the position of the leftists and the RINOs that Hussein O. has been/was 'thoroughly vetted' and whatnot?

Liars all! But not to worry, people who lie like this have to build lie upon lie, falsehood upon falsehood, until their entire house of cards comes crashing down upon them. Which is the precise reason that it is so vitally important to continue to pursue this momentus issue all the way to the goal line. The self-deluded opposition notwithstanding.

Read More