Leftists.
New York State Senate Democrats refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States. And when one of their number tries to stand, he is pulled down.
So does that mean that this particular group has no allegiance, no loyalty--no Fidelity--toward this country? Just wondering. It would be instructive to know.
(Thanks to La Shawn Barber)
NOTICE: I don't know what happened to this post but this is the last time that I'm going to compose a post without saving it in Word or some other external word processing program. Will post it again.
RESTORED POST:
How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?
Karen Bass (D-CA), Speaker of the California
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.
(Why is it that the innately tyrannical always whine about “unfairness?”)
The United States Constitution, Amendment One:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(All emphasis mine.)
There’s something happening here, a process I call the “Coconut Treatment” and it most certainly is not a new process. It’s as old as the Garden itself; a recasting of roles, of characteristics and of characters. It's where good becomes evil and evil, good. Where exercising one's rights under the Constitution and under the precepts of Natural Law becomes "terrorism." It’s a pretense meant to undergird a pretext for…something. Wait and watch.
(Thanks to Ed Morrissey who notes that the LA Times interviewer failed to challenge the Speaker’s monstrous assertion.)
Don't forget to watch what's going on with our government while attention is diverted by the shell of Michael Jackson.
UPDATE: The United States won't use force to inspect the North Korean ships suspected of transporting nuclear materials!
Rape the treasury, abandon our friends and leave us prone to our psychopathic enemies--along with countless other transgressions. A picture is forming--or it should be.
We have one potent weapon and those of you who are inclined, I hope that you are all using it. He who has an ear...
Well. I know what brand(s) my next vehicle won't be.
The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.
On Monday, President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.
The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.
Do the last 69 days give anyone from the other political disposition a clue as to why the prospect of this man as president--Barack Obama--made those of us on the right cringe? Probably very few.
But no worries. We'll all be clued in soon enough.
UPDATE: Let them die (ignore the headline).
UPDATE: Take over.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, bluntly rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, demanding fresh concessions for long-term federal aid and raising the possibility of quick bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.
Obama took the extraordinary step of announcing the government will back new car warranties issued by both GM and Chrysler, an attempt to reassure consumers their U.S.-made purchases will be protected even if the companies don't survive.
What will you black conservatives tell your grandchildren?It’s a question which I take to imply that, somehow, our grandchildren will presume to vilify us for voting against the man who will become the first black president of the United States. It’s a very easy question to answer, actually: we believe that political, social, moral and spiritual principles take precedence over ethnic tribalism and we followed through on that assertion. But I’m guessing that Steve needs things spelled out a bit more, so I’ll do it for him and for my great nieces and nephews and—perhaps—any grandchildren I might have through being a step-mother. Here goes.
When a voter picks a candidate to serve in an office, that voter is essentially saying “Of all the choices available, I think that this person will do a better job in that office that all of the other available candidates.” In this case we are, of course, talking about the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. We are talking about a person whose job it is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people.
In order to make that decision the American voters need information and during the campaign season we are presented with information designed to allow the voters to make an informed decision as to which of the candidates will be the most competent in fulfilling the objective particulars of that office. By November 4th, we are supposed to come to a conclusion about this matter and record that conclusion in the voting booth.
While we are evaluating all of the information which can indicate a candidate’s competency at supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people, we have to take the information we receive and decide whether that information is relevant to the particulars of the office in question. Additionally, we have to decide whether the positive information outweighs the negative. And on top of that, we have to decide which candidate’s positive-negative ratio is better than that all of the others.
I concluded that the things which I know about Barack Obama which are relevant to his possible abilities to adequately support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people —his political background, his expressed political/social ideas and his overall judgment were either of lower quality than John McCain’s or that those things would be overtly detrimental to the well-being of this nation. I also concluded that either man’s ethnicity/race/color was insignificant factor in making a judgment as who was able to better serve this nation and, therefore, was irrelevant to making that decision.
I made my decision by making judgments about the following:
• Barack Obama’s decisions about the Surge conducted in Iraq
• His words regarding the success of that Surge
• His words about the US Constitution in 2001
• His words to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.
• His voting record in the Illinois Senate
• His voting record in the US Senate
• His words about his association with domestic terrorist William Ayers
• His adherence to Black Liberation Theology as formulated by James Cone and as articulated by Jeremiah Wright, Emeritus pastor of Trinity United Church of “Christ”
• His claim to not know the nature of Wright’s theological stance and to not have heard the latter’s more incendiary sermons after sitting in the pews of Wright’s church for twenty years.
• His stance on abortion and on the “Born Alive” provision in Illinois law.
• His stated intention to conduct presidential-level negotiations with rogue heads of state
• His promise to accept public funding for his campaign
There are many more factors but I hope that I have formed a picture---I did not like Barack Obama's words and/or subsequent actions regarding the above topics. And I would state such to the younger members of my family without hesitation. And if my sisters and my brother-in-law are doing their jobs properly, their children will understand that if a presidential candidate goes against every dearly-held ideology and principle in which you believe but is your same color, it’s a no-brainer to make the decision to vote against him/her.
Because if a candidate’s political, social and moral values are an anathema to a given voter but that voter chooses that candidate anyway solely because the voter shares race/ethnicity with the candidate and/or because of historical precedent, that voter has exchanged principle for emotion and for carnality. The voter has exchanged political, moral and spiritual values for pride of tribe (blacks) or to assuage tribal guilt (whites).
And that, good sir, is the very illustration of a selling-out.
However, if one’s “principles” are for sale, I guess that’s not such a big deal. And if one has no principles, we all know what’s being exchanged, what’s being sold: one’s very person. One's soul.
I’ll tell the kids that I retained mine.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, uptownsteve is banned. Pearls, swine, you know.
UPDATE: Welcome, friends from Ace of Spades HQ!
Congratulations to President-elect Obama and to the Democrats.
As it became apparent that Barack Obama was going to be elected president, I called up my step-dad to see what was on his mind. We had a long conversation about the way history seemed to be heading and during the conversation, I looked up at the TV and noticed that the Electoral College Vote count was 287 for Obama. Done deal.
When I mentioned this to Dad, a man who is a Bible-believing Methodist pastor and staunch conservative Republican who voted for John McCain as did I, he said this: "Don't you ever go to bed at night without praying for that man."
I will not. He--and we--will need it.
Before today, I’ve never posted anything about Barack Obama’s half-brother, George Onyango Obama, a resident of one of Nairobi's worst slums. The reason: unlike many, I don’t think that it is automatically the senator’s responsibility to support those whom he has taken no part in creating. And even if it is discovered that there was some agreement between the two brothers, it would be one made between individual adult members of a family and, therefore, none of my business.
In contrast, I took on the responsibility of supporting Obama-Kogelo School with the assistance of many others, because a public promise was made to many children. Some of these children may have the chance to fulfill the same type of dreams which Barack Obama Sr. and Philip Ochieng had a half century ago.
I do understand why some of the senator’s political opponents have made an issue of the fact that Senator Obama has done nothing to lift his younger brother up from his degraded existence, one which is light-years removed from that of a Harvard-educated lawyer and US Senator. (And now it has been discovered that the senator has an aunt on his father’s side--Zeituni Onyango--living Boston public housing.) Senator Obama is the sponsor of the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433)—a proposed law designed to feed all the hungry children of the world and funded by American tax dollars, naturally. In other words Barack Obama would legally compel Americans to give even more to the poor of the entire world even while he made the choice not to do so for his own flesh and blood. The two stances are hypocritical on their faces. Conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza thinks so as well and has been raising money for the immigration and upkeep of George Obama.
One wonders, however, if the senator, believing that he will win next week’s election, thinks that his proposal will take care of all the George Obamas and Zeituni Onyangos of the world. Senator Obama seems to think that he can solve all of the problems of this country by forcing American workers to give their proceeds to those who cannot or will not work. Why shouldn’t the ideal be applicable worldwide?
But to me, Barack Obama’s advocacy of GPA and D’Souza’s efforts to “save” George Obama represent the same sort of futility. If the parents of the world will not do enough to feed their own children and the George Obamas of the world—especially the American ones—will not do everything in their power to improve their individual situation and that of their kinsmen and their countrymen, nothing will change. All these charitable endeavors will just be like tossing money into the furnace.
With these thoughts in mind, I am thinking of disbanding Save Senator Obama Kogelo School, Inc. Because the organization is a non-profit, I am obliged to either refund the money or donate it to another charitable organization and that’s what I am likely to do next week, but I haven't made up my mind at this point.
At any rate, it is likely that the school will be built/remodeled after the election by an organization which prefers to remain anonymous to avoid the politicization of it all. And in the event of an Obama victory I suspect that Obama kinsman Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga will take it upon himself to upgrade the Obama ancestral village all around. Such is the way of countries where semi-strongman politics is present—if you win, your relatives and your hometown win also.
I almost disbanded my effort immediately after reading my father’s September op-ed on D’Souza’s actions. After all, in email, he said something similar—but less stinging--to me about my effort.
[W]here was this latter-day savior before Barack appeared in the news pages? Why is it that he's only interested in helping the relative of a celebrity, whereas hunger is rasping millions of other Kenyans?As we know, this is something I actually did do.If he were a genuine savior, wouldn't he organize an institution - like Father Grol's Undugu Society - to channel publicly collected funds to benefit more human beings? Granted, he has a right to choose to help only a single individual.
But in the event, why not do so privately?How is the heck are people supposed to know that they can give to a particular charity if the holder of that charity doesn’t tell anyone about it?
My prideful response: if you all are so smart, build your own schools, feed your own countrymen. After all, Mboya’s efforts to educate Obama Sr., Ochieng Sr., and hundreds of other Kenyans back in the day seem to have borne fruit for the individual students and their American offspring, but it didn’t do much for the country that it was intended to benefit.
"You" are merely trying to embarrass the Senator. The urge in your puny mind is to convince the world that Barack is a skinflint who cares nothing about helping his own brother out of a quagmire.That’s correct. And after the discovery of the existence of the American aunt, this image is reinforced--not because of D'Souza's actions but because of Obama's.
You are telling Americans that the man seeking their votes is a sadist whose entire paternal clan in Kenya is perishing from hunger.Years ago, in my ignorance, I asked my father why the poor in Nairobi’s slums don’t have indoor plumbing. He never answered me. Now I think that I know the ‘whys’ of both. And, more than ever, I'm inclined to agree with Kenyan economist James Shikwati: the kindest thing that the West could do for Africa is to cease all aid. It would be a great compliment to the competence of all the ethnic groups on the continent.
I’ll post my decision next week and inform the donors.
My hon understands.
I've been reaalllly busy the last few weeks, as if you couldn't tell. At least one more day and then I'm back, God willing. BTW, Saturday I attended the McCain-Palin rally in Carson, CA with Darleen Click (pics!) and Joy McCann (Little Miss Attila) and we hung out for the day with Ace, Patrick (Patterico) and a member of Ace's Moron Nation, drinking finding solutions to the many problems with which we are beset.
Go see what they all have to say--especially Patrick.
UPDATE: Girls' Day Out: one of Joy's contacts from France's Le Monde--a very nice lady--took our photo.
A member of an American minority group urges his fellows to think for themselves and break their 'addiction' to the Democrat Party.
[S]top being slaves to the Democratic Party.If only.
RELATED: The owned wonder why the owner is not trying to buy them.
Recent Comments