"Insurance is paid by the employer/employee to cover 26wks of unemployment, after that it's welfare. The gov't is going deeper into debt to pay people's bennies so that money will be put into the economy and people will think that they can get by and get thru this and there will be a better day. Ha! The borrowed money digs the hole deeper and screws us, our children/grand and great grandchildren and guarantees that things will be worse than if the gov't left it alone. We are approaching a point where the interest on the debt will take up all the collected taxes. If/when that happens there will be NO- SS, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, unemployment, etc. etc. They have to keep the game going as long as possible, otherwise it all goes belly up (which it will eventually anyway) and those who were screwed get the tar, feathers and rope and head to DC."
Detailed information about how unemployment benefits work HERE at About.com:US Government Info.
Quite the reality check, huh?
In my view, most Americans right now don't see the train wreck coming. But it IS coming, and The Nanny State cannot save us.
(This FEATURED QUESTION stuck here for few days. Please scroll down for other postings)
By now, you've probably heard that Barack Hussein Obama has not been invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding on July 31. The above link offers BHO's explanation, believable or not. ------------- Oprah Winfrey, on the other hand, is rumored to have been invited, along with some 500 guests. The wedding will be held at a home previously owned by John Jacob Astor, who perished when the Titanic sank. Interesting bit of trivia there, huh?
Now, on to the FEATURED QUESTION, this time one of insignificance and one ripe for humor and satire. Hey, it's summertime! A little frivolity, if you will.
FEATURED QUESTION: Why did the Clintons, although Hillary Clinton is this administration's secretary of state, exclude Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, from the guest list for Chelsea's wedding?
We have no scheduled guest this week. At listeners' requests, this show is reserved for a WC and Always On Watch rant! ----------- Listen to the July 30, 2010 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.
Regular readers of this blog know that I sustained a serious back injury in 2005 when a cab driver ran a stop sign and plowed into my car, a Crown Victoria, undercover police interceptor that I bought second hand some years before. Indeed, one reason I blog is that the back injury I sustained is a permanent one that curtails a lot of activities usual for me prior to the accident.
Yesterday, I was rear-ended again. This time I wasn't in the vehicle. Thank God.
Yesterday's accident occurred in the parking lot of the swimming pool while I was doing laps, and the driver left without leaving a note on my vehicle. When I was ready to leave for the day, I came out to the parking lot, saw the damage to my rear bumper, and began the quest to find out who had committed the deed; as my car is quite old, I carry only collision coverage. After a few minutes of the life guards doing some asking around, a teenage boy who knew the details of the collision came to the guard's desk at the front of the clubhouse to talk with me. The exchange went somewhat as follows:
BOY: Something happened to your car?
AOW: Yes, somebody hit it here in this parking lot and left black paint all over my rear bumper.
BOY (peering out into the parking lot, where the car was nearby and in plain view) : Which car is yours?
AOW: The Crown Victoria.
BOY: I don't know what a Crown Victoria is.
AOW (pointing specifically - few cars in the parking lot) : That car right there.
BOY: Which one?
AOW (pointing again, forcefully this time) : There. That one. The biggest car in the parking lot. The sedan.
BOY: Oh. I don't see any damage.
AOW (exasperated) : Well, if you walked out there, you'd see the damage. There's black paint all over the rear bumper.
BOY (feigning ignorance and squinting) : Which car again?
AOW (deadpan, pointing) : That one! The undercover police interceptor.
BOY (frightened) : Oh. Let me call my mother. (walks a few steps away and speaks into his uses cell phone) Hello? Mom? We're in trouble....
About an hour later, I got a phone call from the remorseful guilty party. She'll likely be paying out-of-pocket for the repair to my car instead of going through her insurance coverage as, honestly, the damage doesn't look extensive. First thing this morning, I'll take my car to Maaco, where I had the entire vehicle restored just a year ago, for the estimate to repair yesterday's damage.
Hat tip to Opus #6 for the priceless video below the fold:
Meanwhile, in typical mainstream-media spin, two anchors on CNN have called for muzzling bloggers because of the Sherrod incident:
Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.
Phillips wanted to go even further, asking if "there's going to come a point where something's going to have to be done legally" about anonymous bloggers.
"There has to be some point where there's some accountability...."
CNN's two regulation-happy reporters, think the Sherrod situation can help bring attention to the "necessity" of blogging reform if she brings a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart.
According to Roberts, Sherrod has "the power now and she also has the profile to maybe bring this into a new light, so we'll see where this goes."
I'm willing to bet that most Americans who get their news from the mainstream media, particularly those Americans who have followed the Sherrod incident, are nodding their heads in agreement with what those two CNN anchors said because of the way the story has played in the media.
(Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the above graphic)
The case recently in New Jersey involved a restraining order, and the first court's decision to uphold Islamic law, also called "shari'a law, was struck down in appellate court.
But before rejoicing in justice done, check out the following about the first judge's ruling, a ruling which elevated shari'a law over New Jersey law:
...The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
More about the first judge's ruling below the fold.
After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.
Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....
Shari'a law does have guidelines about sexual relations between man and wife, never mind all the Islamophilic propaganda to the contrary:
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).
That any court in the United States should even temporarily elevate shari'a law over our rule of civil law should sound an alarm bell!
Additional details about the recent case in New Jersey are HERE. Also see the text of the ruling by the appellate court (pdf). Please read the links as my posting has not begun to cover all the details of this case. It is worth your time to read the links in order to understand the precipice upon which we are standing.
Another item for the "it's-our-turn-now" files, from Reliapundit, webmaster of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, citing this source:
INSPECTOR GENERAL: RACE/GENDER MOTIVATED CAR DEALER CLOSURES
“The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration’s own inspectors general. Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout — closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler — were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.”
For all of Obama's pretense of supporting equality, he is, in fact, doing quite the opposite.
Is such polarization an essential part of his agenda?
Recently, Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernmentposted "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010," in which he stated:
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
In my view, that point about the NAACP audience is being missed by those who don't visit "the right-wing blogosphere" or watch Fox News.
Despite Breitbart's protestations to the contrary, CNN has turned "Shirley Sherrod's Story," as that edition was entitled, into a tale excoriating Fox News Channel, specifically Bill O'Reilly, who called for Ms. Sherrod's resignation on his show earlier this week.
Yesterday afternoon, CNN showed the full video of Ms. Sherrod's speech to the NAACP, a special show that I watched on the plasma television at the car dealer, when I took in my vehicle for scheduled service. Several others were also in the customer-service area at the car dealership.
I could see it on their faces: they are now discounting "the right-wing blogosphere" and deeming Fox News as unfit sources of information.
Now, while I was waiting at the car dealership, sometimes I couldn't always quite hear what CNN was saying. But the best that I recall now, CNN didn't cover the audience's sounds of approvals to what appeared to be the racist statements Ms. Sherrod was making in her speech to the NAACP, although CNN did, at the top of the video-loop screen, print in words the text of that portion of Ms. Sherrod's speech. Furthermore, the two black women I was sitting across from, were nodding their heads in agreement to every point that CNN made, including that Andrew Breitbart is a major player in the Tea Party Movement. Let me also add that a large part of yesterday's broadcast was self-congratulatory (paraphrase): "We at this network didn't fall for the scam because we don't broadcast a story until we fully investigate that story" [as in watching the entire video].
Over at this thread at MSNBC, the following comment well summarizes the reactions, black and white, in the customer-service waiting area:
When did this sort of stuff become OK? How is it possible in a country that claims to be the "best in the world"? How does this blog clown sleep at night? Oh, that's right, he's conservative.
For the record, HERE is the full video of Shirley Sherrod's speech at the NAACP. The video is long, but I do recommend that you watch it in its entirety.
This video clip of Keith Olbermann pretty much sums up the way the Shirley Sherrod story is playing out in the mainstream media, albeit not always so condemnatory of Obama:
Let's keep in mind that a lot of American voters base their decisions at the ballot box upon information they glean from the mainstream media.
Maybe there is plenty of loss of credibility to go around, including for the Obama administration, which was quite willing to throw Mr. Sherrod under the bus before watching the full video of her NAACP speech. However, based on what I saw yesterday in that waiting area at the car dealership, conservatives have taken a big hit on this one.
How many of those in the waiting area at the car dealership and how many American voters will see the Bill O'Reilly's rebuttal, which aired last night?
What is your view of the damage done in this Shirley Sherrod story?
Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.
Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico’s legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.
A federal judge formally accepted Mexico’s filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.
How about we countersue Latin America because of the drug cartels?
Stan Cox tried to make the case for reducing our reliance upon air conditioning in a recent essay in the Washington Post:
...In a world without air conditioning, a warmer, more flexible, more relaxed workplace helps make summer a time to slow down again. Three-digit temperatures prompt siestas. Code-orange days mean offices are closed. Shorter summer business hours and month-long closings -- common in pre-air-conditioned America -- return.
Saying goodbye to A.C. means saying hello to the world....
This portion is particularly idyllic and, in my view, insanely implausible:
...During unseasonably warm spring and fall days, hearings are held under canopies on the Capitol lawn....
Read the entire puff piece HERE. The essay garnered 1321 comments!
Reactions to Mr. Cox's essay have varied. See these two letters to the editor. The first letter, written by Warren C. Robinson (one who has lived in the Washington, D.C. area for some eighty years), calls Mr. Cox's essay "hogwash." The second letter, written by Beth Baker, waxes poetic:
Stan Cox's July 11 Outlook commentary was music to my ears. For me, summer is a time of porch-sitting, hearing orioles sing through my open windows, fans blowing, enjoying a tall glass of iced tea or a gin and tonic, wearing a sundress, and generally reveling in a languor that I never feel in winter....
Ultimately, as should not surprise us, Mr. Cox's recent essay in the Washington Post is a promotion of his book Uncomfortable Truths About Our Air-Conditioned World (and Finding New Ways to Get Through the Summer).
By the way, no word yet as to just who is the first volunteer to give up air conditioning in a Washington, D.C., heat wave and just sweat out muggy weather. I rather imagine that Obama wouldn't be the first to step up. Heh.
"I fear we will need a suppository the size of California to fix the problems Øbama created. Also, he isn’t done yet."
Discussion question below the fold. FEATURED QUESTION: Considering Section 7 of the United States Constitution, whereby a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress is required to override a Presidential veto and assuming that Republicans win many seats in the November 2010 Election, how successful can a Republican majority in the House of Representatives be in curbing the progressive agenda in force since January 2009?
Obama: Mandatory Health Insurance Wasn't A Tax, But Now It Is
Yet another example of the Obama's administration's CHANGE!
FromAce of Spades, citing the New York Times (July 16, 2010):
...In a brief defending ["minimal essential coverage"], the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Return for a minute to these exact words from Obama, back in September 2009 when he was pushing for health-care reform:
"For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."
We shouldn't be surprised. After all, the electorate did vote for change. That change apparently includes changing semantics too.
America, you've been had, bad, by the scam known as Barack Hussein Obama.
Bill Whittle Investigates, Part 2: A former FBI special agent discusses how our government has looked the other way as an Islamic insurrection mounts within our borders. Watch and comment here: http://pjtv.com/v/2934
Note the following:
In 2010, there no longer is mandatory counter-terrorism training at the FBI.
While many of us are scrambling to stay afloat in our ailing economy, "the inevitable," as outlined in the above video, is moving forward.
It is NOT paranoia to recognize and deal with the threat of Islamic infiltration. Rather, it IS stupidity that will have no good outcome when a nation is undermined from within.
Whether Obama is a Moslem or merely an Islamophile, the end result will be the same,i.e., the furtherance of the Islamic-supremacy agenda and undermining our national security so that "the inevitable" must indeed occur.
Meanwhile, Obama is making sure that the Gitmo prisoners have certain amenities:
President Obama has not fulfilled his pledge to close the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, but he has brought Skype, Playstation3 and "life skills" classes to the detainees at the island facility.
While the 181 men being held in the prison wait to learn their fates after the administration fell through on its January 2010 deadline to move them out, 90 percent now live in a communal environment that includes Skype, the online video chat service, and access to a 17,000-book library.
That's up from 40 percent of detainees a year ago....
FromI Hate The Media, citingWorld Net Daily about the college textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, co-authored by Science Czar John Holdren:
The authors argued that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”
They recommended the creation of a “planetary regime” created to act as an “international superagency for population, resources, and environment.”
“Such a Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist,” they argued.
“Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.”
Read more HERE at Zombie Time, which has scanned pages from the aforementioned textbook.
According to THIS at Science Progress [July 15, 2009], all the eugenics and other measures were not actually proposals:
Paul and Anne Ehrlich have also refuted the charges—they sent out an email observing that “We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described—but not recommended—in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.” In his Senate confirmation hearing...Holdren also rejected the idea that he supports government-mandated efforts at population control.
...The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either.
At what point during the three decades since the book was first published did the denials as to book's intent begin? When Obama made known his choice of John Holdren for the position as "science czar"?
Note the following parsing, also fromScience Progress:
...[T]o describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they supported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions....They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today.
In other words: Nothing to see here, move right along.
But don't the words "better choice" still leave the eugenics option on the table and tell us a lot about the ethics system of John Holdren?
Obama: "We will not rest until..." and "I will not rest until..."
Hat tip to Mike's America for the video below the fold:
The truth: We taxpayers aren't resting. Instead, we're laboring to pay the taxes funding all of BHO's programs and entitlements. Furthermore, as the post below illustrates, the BHO administration is prone to lying whenever lying suits them.
Muslim Outreach Not the Job of NASA, White House Says
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday [July 12] that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden must have misspoken when he told Al Jazeera last month that one of his top priorities is to reach out to Muslim countries.
"That was not his task and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said.
The Muslim comments were met with a wall of criticism last week from conservatives and former NASA officials who said that while Muslim-nation outreach is laudable, it should not be a NASA priority.
Bolden said in the interview that Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."
This post is not another personal, whiny one as should be obvious by the accompany graphic from Google images.
Rather, this post is a reaction to this June 4, 2010 story from the Washington Post. Lengthy excerpt below the fold:
It wasn't typical fare for the neighborhood e-mail discussion group, but Jean Teichroew hoped that another Silver Spring resident might know the answer to her question: "Whose responsibility in the county is it to remove a dead chicken?"
The rust-colored, feathered corpse had been lying rear-up near an empty Heineken box at 16th Street and Second Avenue, just north of downtown Silver Spring, since late last week, Teichroew wrote on the North Woodside forum Tuesday. After it had begun to "ripen" in the heat, she wrote, she called Montgomery County's Animal Services Division but was told that officers couldn't retrieve it unless the bird was "the size of a vulture."
...A Montgomery County Council member's staff intervened and red-shirted "ambassadors" from downtown Silver Spring's Urban District were sent to pick it up....
Apparently, these citizens in Montgomery County, Maryland, felt that they required government help to get rid of a dead chicken, particularly when
Teichroew said that the chicken, which she had to pass daily on her walk to work, was "pretty disgusting."
Of course, as the dead chicken lay there day after to day, it continued to rot and reek while citizens waited for the government to take care of the matter:
Teichroew said she and her son, Peter, 24, planned to remove the chicken themselves Saturday with a bag and a pair of gloves. But when her son saw the bird's size, he told her, "Mom, that thing is huge!"
Concerned that the smelly, fly-covered corpse was a public health hazard, she asked her son to call Animal Services again. "Tell them it's really, really big," she recalled telling him. "Maybe you'll get someone who doesn't have the 'vulture rule.'"
This time, he was told that someone would be sent out. But when Teichroew walked to work Tuesday morning, the chicken was still there. She then called Montgomery's Highway Services division, but it referred her back to Animal Services and the police department's non-emergency number. When she called that, she said, she was pointed back to Animal Services and the highway division. That's when she called the office of council member Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring), and a staff member passed her concerns along to Rodriguez.
Finally, the local government arrived to solve the problem, that of a dead chicken, for pity's sake.
Although both the newspaper and the various involved civil servants found a lot of humor in this story, I do not.
Why in the world didn't at least one of the affected citizens glove up, don a mask, grab a shovel and a couple of heavy-duty trash bags, and take care of the matter himself (or herself, for that matter)? Not a pleasant task, to be sure, but a necessary one, unless one wants to smell decomposing animal flesh day after day. I also find amazing that the woman and her twenty-four-year-old son, both adults, wimped out from scooping up a dead chicken.
Americans have become way too reliant on the government to solve problems which citizens themselves can and should solve for themselves. Honestly, I cannot imagine my father's generation walking by a stinking animal carcass day after day and not tending to the matter themselves. Can you?
As Mark of Casting Pearls Before Swine recently opined:
We are becoming a nation of whiny little wusses.
In all sorts of ways, right down to being too squeamish to remove a chicken carcass.
(This FEATURED QUESTION stuck here for few days. Please scroll down for other postings. I've been posting frequently, so there is a lot to explore!)
Back when I was a little girl, my mother worked outside the home until I was eight years old. I recall my grandmother later commenting somewhat as follows: "I always hated it that your mother had to work. A mother needs to stay home with her child." This, from a woman widowed at age twenty-seven, yet didn't work outside the home until she reached age forty-five! Instead of getting a job when her children were living at home with her, my grandmother moved back in with her parents.
Frankly, I found my grandmother's statement unenlightened and old-fashioned. After all, at the time she made the comment, I was attending college and preparing for a career as a teacher.
A lot of years have now passed since those words my grandmother uttered, and many mothers now work outside the home, often out of financial necessity: paying the mortgage, keeping the house in good repair, laying aside money for their children's college fund, paying real-estate and personal-property taxes, etc. Nonetheless, many people, usually citing various problems with today's youth, now criticize this trend of working mothers.
Some go even further and specifically cite women's suffrage as damaging to family, society, and politics (hat tip to Karen of Eastern Right, citing Hilary Jane Margaret White of Orwell's Picnic):
...[O]ne of the triumphs of feminism is to teach women that they should not get married to an individual man. Marriage, so the legend goes, is slavery, particularly after the kids come. Feminism reveals its Marxist origins when it says that women should instead marry the State. Men leave, we are told, and leave us holding the child-rearing bag alone. Much better to be married to the state. The state will never abandon you.
Indeed, women who divorce are often encouraged by social workers to either take up welfare as a replacement marriage, or send their ex-men taken through the various government-sponsored wringers like Ontario's Family Responsibility Office. Institutions like the FRO are designed for a two-fold purpose. They enslave the woman to the state, make sure she depends on the FRO and the welfare office for all the defence and support we once expected a husband to provide, and to punish, impoverish and disempower men.
And when did such structures start being put into place? About the same time women got the vote and started taking over the driver's seat in politics. Socialism is woman's politics. Indeed, we call it the nanny state because it tends to infantilise entire societies. But really, the new state that the woman's vote has created should more properly be called the Daddy State...
Read the rest of Hilary Jane Margaret White's essay HERE.
Do outside-the-home employment for mothers and the feminist movement in general ultimately wreak damage upon the fabric of a society? If so, what do you see as the solution to this problem?
(If you must have politics without humor, please scroll down)
With a hat tip to Z! for making me aware of the poem below:
I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like this speaker Nan, I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'. I do not like this spending spree, I'm smart, I know that nothing's free, I do not like your smug replies, when I complain about your lies. I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it you BIG Dope. I do not like it NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!
Read about Dr. Seuss below the fold.
Before there was The Cat in the Hat, Theodor Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss) drew over 400 political cartoons. His many cartoons focus on World War II and the major political players during the wartime era, including Roosevelt, Hitler, Mussolini, Phillipe Petain, and Winston Churchill.
Starting in 1942, Seuss put even more energy into supporting the U.S. war effort. He drew posters, akin to his political cartoons, for the Treasury Department and the War Production Board. In 1943 he joined Frank Capra's Signal Corps and began making movies for the Army, including an animated short in his usual style titled "Private Snafu." This marks the end of Seuss' career as a political cartoonist. [source]
So, of course, Dr. Seuss didn't really write the poem in this post. HERE is the claimed author.
Would Dr. Seuss have penned the above poem? You decide by reading these twolinks.
From Stogie of Saber Point, in reference to the the DOJ's independent review of the Johannes Mehserle verdict:
"Had the races been reversed, there would have been no federal retrial. Think of O.J. Simpson, an obvious double-murderer with mountains of seemingly irrefutable evidence of his guilt. A mostly black jury let him off. It was clearly a case of jury nullification, i.e., delivering a verdict that was contrary to the evidence. This was done because the black jurors did not see the case as the people vs. an accused murderer; they saw it as a case of white people vs. a black man. To the jurors, skin color pre-empted any consideration of justice or evidence. No Justice Department ever considered retrying O.J. He was the wrong color, as were his victims."
(This post stuck here for a few days. Please scroll down for other postings)
Conservatives often complain about The Nanny State, defined as follows by PoliticsDictionary.com:
a system of government which provides everything for the citizens and tells the citizens how they should behave
Perhaps nothing so much as fear of losing employment can muzzle an employee. I know that, in both the public and private sectors, I myself have been in the position of keeping quiet about my political activism and political views out of fear of losing a job and the benefits attached thereto.
Furthermore, government jobs are, in essence, financed on the backs of taxpayers. After all, the government has no money other that that extracted via taxes from the pockets of the taxpayers.
Before weighing in with your response to this FEATURED QUESTION, consider the following:
The federal government employs over 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs now exceeds $79,197. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force and the workforce is expanding significantly under the Obama administration. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation in 2008, including pay plus benefits, was $119,982 compared to just $59,909 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Please know that the question below is not targeting any of my readers or fellow bloggers. I do understand that we do what we must so as to support ourselves and our families.
FEATURED QUESTION, in two parts: (1) Do conservatives violate their own principles by seeking employment in a government job or certain government jobs? (2) What happens to a nation's economy and politics when "the best jobs" are government jobs funded by the taxpayers?
Mediaite reports that CNN has fired senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr. As Daniel Halper pointed out the other day, Nasr wrote on Twitter on July 4 that she was "sad" to hear of the death of Hezbollah's Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah--a man for whom she has "respect." Fadlallah had justified suicide bombings, is believed to be responsible for the Marine barracks bombing, and had said that "Zionism has inflated the number of victims in this Holocaust beyond imagination."
Of course, the left decries Ms. Nasr's dismissal and casts blame anywhere but on her:
And so, once again, the neocons have managed to help make us all a little bit dumber....
So here’s the neocon logic: When a reporter acknowledges the passing of a revered, if controversial figure in a way that doesn’t sufficiently convey what a completely evil terrorist neocons think that figure was — that’s unacceptable....
How is it possible that neocons have so much influence on CNN as to get a senior editor fired?
One of the comments at the above-cited Think Progress link is quite amusing (spew alert):
CNN...should be embarrassed that they let politics dictate their reporting.
...Historically, presidents with approval ratings below 50 percent—Obama is at 45—lose an average of 41 House seats in midterm elections. This year, that would return the House of Representatives to Republican control. The Democrats will suffer disproportionately from a climate in which so many Americans are either dissatisfied or angry with the government, for Democrats are in the large majority in both houses and have to defend many more districts than Republicans. In any election year, voters' feelings typically settle in by June. But now they are being further hardened by the loose regulation that preceded the poisonous oil spill—and the tardy government response.
It is clear that the magical moment of Obama's campaign conveyed a spell that is now broken in the context of the growing public disillusionment. Obama's rise has been spectacular, but so too has been his fall.
How will Obama react to the coming meltdown of the Democratic Party's power?
For the first time ever in our thirty-eight years of marriage, Mr. AOW and I stayed home for Independence Day evening. We did go to church in the morning for the patriotic service, moving beyond words. Mr. AOW and I were tearful during nearly the entire service as both of us are so concerned about the direction in which America is going today and, at the same time, moved by how the service honored our military and our nation's Founding principles.
So, what made yesterday so lonely?
Not a single friend invited us out for evening fireworks. We DO have evening fireworks very close by. But nobody bothered helping us, and I can't physically push Mr. AOW's wheelchair up the slight incline to the vantage point.
In fact, not a single friend or family member phoned us yesterday with wishes for the day. Of the many emotions that Mr. AOW and I go through these days, bitterness is one of those emotions.
One neighbor DID stop by and drop off some homemade peach cobbler. What's July 4th without pie? Heh.
Abandonment and loneliness sometimes overwhelm Mr. AOW and me, as do the many losses. However, we're making the best we can of the situation in which we have found ourselves trapped for nearly the past ten months.
Anyway, Mr. AOW and I spent the evening of July 4, 2010, at home and watched A Capitol Fourth on PBS television. We've never gone to the National Mall for Independence Day, and now it looks as if we never will. A sad realization.
Although life now offers us few pleasures now, Mr. AOW and I count our blessings that we are still able to enjoy each other's company. The stroke Mr. AOW had last September was a very close call, and he's still a long way from a satisfactory recovery.
Today, it's back to the grind: neuro-therapy for Mr. AOW to endure and tutoring for me to do.
(This FEATURED QUESTION stuck here for few days. Please scroll down for other postings)
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments, is the Constitutional basis of "anchor babies," particularly Section 1, which reads as follows:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Recently, in light of this from an Arizona lawmaker, Texas Fred commented as follows about the amendment:
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to offer protection to the recently freed slaves and their children. It was NOT written with the express intent of giving citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens.
In his essay, Texas Fred cites the following about the original intent of the 14th Amendment (Senator Jacob Howard, 1866):
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
According to the source cited for the above quotation from Senator Howard:
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
For the primary benefit of Congressional Members and staffers, CMSA conducts briefings and issue forums on legislative and political issues that concern the Muslim American community and Muslim world…
CMSA produces religious and cultural programming that increases Congressional members, staffers and community members awareness of Muslim beliefs, traditions, historical narratives, and contributions to American culture…
Congressional briefing on the Gaza Humanitarian Crisis Congressional briefing on the media’s use of “Islamophobic Language” Weekly “Capitol Hill Jummah Prayer Service” Annual Congressional Ramadan Iftar Reception State Department Briefing on U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Muslim World USAID Briefing on development programs in the Muslim World Homeland. Security Department Briefing on Muslim American Civil Rights Issues “All DC-Area Muslim Summer Interns” Capitol Hill Reception Resume collection for “Muslim American Congressional Resume Book” Participation on panels at various symposium hosted by DHS, CAIR, MANA, etc.
Jumu'ah (Arabic: جمعة) (also known as jum'ah, Friday prayer, etc.) is a congregational prayer (salat) that Muslims hold every Friday, just after noon in lieu of dhuhr. It is mentioned in the Qur'an as:
O you who believe! when the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of God and leave off business; that is better for you, if you know. (Qur'an 62:9)
And when the prayer is ended, then disperse in the land and seek of Allah's bounty, and remember Allah much, that ye may be successful. (Qur'an 62:10)
ALL HEADLINE NEWS: Washington, DC, United States (AHN) - U.S. President Barack Obama and visiting King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday prayed together for the serenity of the media at the White House meeting.
"I want to also thank our friends, the American people, and I also would like to thank our friends here in the media," King Abdullah said at the end of his statement. "May God spare us from all of the bad things they can do to us."
As Obama laughed, Abdullah added, "And may God bless us with all the positive things they can do for us and for humanity."
Obama added: "Well, that is an excellent prayer. Thank you."
According to a White House communique, the two leaders “met and reaffirmed the strong, historic ties between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America.”...
Please note that the photo in this posting was taken during Obama's April 2009 trip to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Turkey (from Cao's Blog):
It is a historical mosque in Istanbul, the largest city in Turkey and the capital of the Ottoman Empire (from 1453 to 1923). The mosque is popularly known as the Blue Mosque for the blue tiles adorning the walls of its interior….and it is the same Blue Mosque that the bluetiled minaret of the Flight 93 Memorial is modelled after. That mosque is under construction in Pennsylvania right now- over the bodies of our dead heroes as a tribute to the 19 Islamic terrorist hijackers of 9/11.
BHO is fine and dandy with saying Islamic prayers, even in the White House, as evidenced by his recent offering Islamic prayers with King Abdullah. Islamic prayers, of course, voice Islamic supremacism, a supremacism which is the antithesis of everything America stands for.
And remember this, too: BHO was fine and dandy with canceling the Christian National Day of Prayer at the White last May.
Over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, where I crossposted the above, Anonymous commented as follows
Obama and Saud praying . . .hmmmm.
See Robert Spencers “Blogging the Koran” :
The Fatiha (Opening) is the first sura (chapter) of the Qur’an and most common prayer of Islam. If you’re a pious Muslim who prays the five requisite daily prayers of Islam, you will recite the Fatiha seventeen times in the course of those prayers (per day).
From Wafa Sultan’s book “A God Who Hates” pg. 168:
“A Muslim prays five times a day, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse of the Koran, a number of times. This verse describes Christians as “those who have gone astray” and Jews as “those who have incurred Your wrath.” We see from this that Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they repeat five times a day.
This is the kind of prayer an American President offers in the people's house, i.e., the White House?
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.