19489 Blog Feed: jchernic 2008-05-08 07:05:45 jchernic Your e-mail address 94517 2008-05-08 07:37:18
Until proven wrong, I have some strong fears about that occurrence, for a number of reasons. In no particular order,

• inculcation by Pastor Wright of his views on American society, most notably expressed by Michelle Obama
• Obama's continued speeches about uniting the country, including building and maintaining a bi-partisan cooperative existence in the halls of Congress (a corporatist action)
• Michelle Obama's remarks about evening out the economic pie - spreading the wealth
• Obama's early statements that show he would delegate much of the presidential management work
• a lack of evidence proving Obama's professional capability to assume the office (other than making lofty speeches)
• the weakness of both houses of Congress in carrying out their duty of "checks and balances"

It appears to me that what we have here is the OBAMA Acronym: "Obamas Believe America should be a Marxist America".

That doesn't change my previous opinions that Obama is a liberal fascist - Marxism and liberal fascism are shirts cut from the same cloth. What we have is the socialist call for corporatism (control of a state or organization by large interest groups; "individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism"; important - read this). This unity called for by Obama is a nationalist call - in itself a good thing - but as expressed in opinions by Michelle Obama, indicates a desire to denigrate capitalism and replace it with a more socialist economic approach.

Now this is not a new idea from those who would - and did - lead this country, except that in the end, because we really know that a strong capitalism is what has made us the great country weare, it has not worked. Of course, there's no guarantee that it won't, now, given the ideologies in which many of our recent crops of college graduates have been immersed.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there" - Anon

-30- ]]> 93597 2008-05-06 00:37:10
In a recent speech, Obama talked about providing a college education for everyone, or words to that effect. Another "chicken in every pot" promise. The only problem with the state (our federal government) giving everyone a "free" college eductaion is that it smacks of Bismarkian, Mussolini-istic, Hitlerian National Socialism. A program of that type is bad, because it makes the grant receiver a property of the state - just what is found in liberal fascism, or Fascism per se. It is just another "Brave New World" concept.

We are now beginning to hear commentators talk about the high probability that Pastor Wright has said what we've recently heard because he doesn't want Obama to be elected. That might also be on the minds of Al Sharpton and other black leaders/spokesmen. That might not be as strange an idea as one might think. Shelby Steele, who wrote the book A BOUND MAN: WHY WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT OBAMA AND WHY HE CAN'T WIN, has laid out the concept very simply (as I have written about in the past)- the power of black leaders is held in the concept that the "man" is holding blacks down, therefore much noise can be made about that, as well as laying guilt on the white man's shoulders. Once that concept is proven false, vis-a-vis Obama's election, then those "leaders" lose their power.

This Democrat Party primary race has some pretty interesting depths to it.

-30-


]]> 92317 2008-05-01 20:52:44
Anyhow, I was reading an article in this morning's paper about what you could buy with the $600 rebate we're all getting - hopefully, ours will arrive sometime in the early fall. But I read that article just for curiosity's sake, since I knew where that money was going to go - our dishwasher suddenly began making noise about two weeks ago (around April 15), and finally ceased its life a couple of days ago. I'm waiting for delivery of a new one as I write this). Well, OK, I thought when the dishwasher stopped working, at least most of it will be paid for with the rebate.

But wait!. I believe artificial intelligence is at work, because no sooner than did we order the new dishwasher, than the hot water heater began leaking...what is it with these machines, are they engaged in a conspiracy to see which one could spend the rebate the fastest? So today I have two new pieces of household equipment arriving - hey, at least I won't have to worry about the hot water heater leaking when I'm out of town - some consolation. This is the first time I've had to replace either unit in any home I've had. So either that's a sign of AI, or it is just that, even though the technology has greatly improved over the years, perhaps quality hasn't.

Just remember, when you hear odd noises in the night, it's probably your appliances conspiring with each other.

-30-


]]> 91336 2008-04-28 23:29:22
Hey,I'm not trying to be mean, but that's the perception I got from the book. Of course, the book isn't what you would call a scholarly piece - it was written, as Obama wrote, because his publisher thought a book by the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review - something he mentions more than once - would be a good seller.

The book did make the New York Times Best Seller list, and I would imagine that his target audience bought a few of them, but I wonder how many people were actually able to read this work? It's not the most interesting read around. But the most important thing I didn't learn from "Dreams from my Father" is why Obama should even be considered for the office of the President of the United States of America. Aside from the book,I believe we're losing our perspective about what's really important for Americans now. Listening to commentators and reading magazine articles, you would think that the Environment is the item of prime importance to our peoples. More important than the economy? health and welfare? earning a living? living in a peaceful world? political and economic liberty? Come on...!

Everyone is working so hard to be green (sort of the color you turn when gangrene sets in), that they lose touch with reality. If we're working to make sure planet earth will be in good shape 10,000 years from now, we sure as hell have the wrong perspective on reality. We need more oil - so we should drill for it. Forget carbon footprints, carbon dioxide, and all that good stuff. Of course, if the world would stop producing so many people, the environment wouldn't be a problem. But when land begins to be converted to housing and its required infrastructure, when local governments call for more and more growth, destroying our forests, agricultural areas, waterways, and so forth, of course people are going to yell that the environment is important.

When we decided to produce corn for fuel production, we put ourselves on the road to a food crisis. But after all, if we use corn ethanol, we don't have to drill for oil in Alaska, off the coast of Cape Cod, or any other place NIMBYs live.

Perspective - what does that mean?


-30-


]]> 90876 2008-04-27 15:24:33
Some people around the world seem to have the perception that Las Vegas is a country unto itself, and they may not be too far off the truth - that is, as long as we can keep all those new people moving in (Californians, that is) from remaking the Las Valley into what they left.

A dozen years ago my wife and I were on our honeymoon in Italy, and being that we dress indigenously (western clothes), locals in Florence and Milan always shouted greetings of "Hi, Texas", so part of our enjoyment was getting those folks straightened out. Anyhow, in Milan, while strolling down one of their interesting streets, a couple of carbineer came up and shouted "Texas". When I said no, Nevada, I was greeted with a blank stare, but as soon as I said "Las Vegas", a big smile came across their faces, and one of the cops high-fived me, with the shout "Mafia!". Las Vegas sure is a great town.

Of course, here in the Valley we have some very interesting social situations. For instance, we have Las Vegas welfare - where you are bombarded with gifts and cash from your local casinos - one of the strange (to outsiders) benefits of life in this part of the high desert. Of course, all this proves businesses can make a lot of money from giving away money (most of the time you don't get to keep it - it's all in the machines as 'Xtra Play Cash'), and giving away great merchandise (most of the time. Why, if you're a pretty smart gamer (Nevada parlance for gambler), you can get a pretty good collection of useful merchandise - coffee makers, pots and pans, tools, and, of course, the most popular article of clothing for most people moving into the area, T-Shirts. T-Shirts, shorts, and sneakers seem to be what is considered "real fashion" by too many residents. The "good old days" of dress in the town have just about gone away, unfortunately.

We also have what I call "Las Vegas Alzheimer's" - go away for a week or two, and when you come home, you see buildings you don't remember ever seeing before..

Another phenomenon here is the rapid growth of shopping centers, The Valley has around 6000 new residents per month, with about half that number leaving, so with this growth, new shopping locations are required. No longer do you have to drive across the Valley to find the store you need - a good thing these days, since what used to take up to twenty minutes is now about a one hour drive. All you have to do, figuratively, is fall out of bed and you can roll into a new super-dooper shopping center. These are not your old fashioned strip centers, although there are plenty of those in the area, but upscale palm tree designed locations that have a wide variety of fancy and not so fancy retail establishments, with plenty of local bars and food markets supplied with your favorite video poker machines.

Gaming is the life-blood of Southern Nevada, as well as most of the state. I believe we may have lost our last local ranch a short while ago, and it's getting more difficult to find property to keep some horses. Cattle?, forget about it. And like being a bad place to raise children - a lousy school district, not enough for the kids to do, and a growing gang and crime problem, regardless of what law enforcement and local government reports may say, even the horses can have problems, due to the increasing number of cars and air pollution which causes skin problems on those great animals.

Oh, yeah, lest I forget, this is a beautiful area - the mountains surrounding the Valley continually change colors with the rotation of the earth - becoming more colorful as the day goes on. And the light effects provide a Japanese-like painting scene in the late afternoon Unfortunately, developers ignore that beauty by building more shopping centers and blocking much of the view when you're driving to you favorite casino.

Not withstanding the above remarks, I can't think of a better place to live - as long as people don't try to screw it up. Las Vegas is a place where you can be what you want, a tough town for many people, but a great place for those who want to be independent, who have the determination to make it (that's for the younger folk), and who want to be a citizen of Nevada - the state always advertised as the "real West".

-30-


]]> 89713 2008-04-23 21:36:43
The government has certain basic duties, mainly to protect our borders from foreign incursion, to protect individual rights under the constitution, and to adapt those protections to conditions created by technology.

People should be free to have the religions they wish, as long as those religions do not in themselves become power units affecting the political and economic liberty of all individuals. Those liberties do not include infringing upon the political and economic liberties of those who are not interested in behaving or believing what the various religious organizations would like for all to believe. Companies should have the economic liberty to trade with whom they wish, without restraint, as long as those companies do not harm the basic liberties of our citizenry.

People speak against globalization, but globalization is here to stay. The world has been growing more compact every year, certainly helped to do so by the Internet. Western ideas have now become almost de rigueur as capitalism is now the goal of more and more countries which previously decried that economic concept, because those countries know that regardless of what they would like to believe, without strong trade, both internal and external, the prospects for a strong and secure nation are very weak.

Which brings me to Senator Clinton's Pennsylvania primary victory speech. It was interesting to hear many anti-Clinton pundits talk about how good the speech was. Now I've previously written that I'm not a fan of any of the candidates, and that I believe both Obama and Clinton are Socialists, with Obama being more of a liberal fascist than Clinton. I've also written that there are some points the liberal left make that are worthwhile enacting because they would be good for the country.

Clinton's speech was a very good one - it appeared to be nationalistically inclusive - and she gave the impression that her socialist leanings would not be Bismarkian, but would be more open - that is, not of the kind of socialism that would force everyone to worship statism, but would be open to dissent. If that's what she has in mind, that's fine, after all we are already living in a sort of "gentle fascism" state, except try denouncing environmental concerns, the greening of America, and other "hot key" issues, and you will find yourself looked upon as some kind of anti-American - just as those who denounced the Iraq incursion in its first few years were called traitors by the Bush Administration.

One topic is important, and that is Clinton's idea of medical coverage for all citizens. Notwithstanding the fact that there are a number of problems this could, and probably will, present, health care is an extremely important issue for the United States of America, if it is to regain its political and economic superiority. A society in which everyone knows their health problems will have the opportunity to be repaired will be one which can then concentrate on those other issues which will enhance lives - economic, political, and personal.

Developing a strong nationalistic society is desirable and it does not have to be in the same mode as Hitler's National Socialist Party (Nazi), nor does it have to be Fascism.

As long as individuals know they have political and economic liberty, that they do not have to worry about their health care, the peoples of this nation can unite in making us, once again, the powerful and respected world leader that the United States of America has always been.

The last item I want to mention is education. Until a better system is devised for basic schooling, it looks as though we are stuck with what we have. The important thing is for children to learn that learning is important, and this has to be a function of their parents. With so many illiterate parents around, it's no wonder than too many of the kids in our schools have no interest in learning. If the country is to regain its world respect and leadership role, aside from its citizens' health and economic opportunities, basic education is of primary importance. The ability to read and understand (comprehension), understanding world history and especially that of the United States is of utmost necessity; not the revisionist history as is being taught on many school campuses, but the learning of what actually took place in the founding of our country, and the reasons behind the wording of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and how England's political history affected that document.

The educational emphasis should be on the old "3 Rs - reading, writing and arithmetic". because once those skills are learned, the road to possible economic success is open for travel. A college education is not necessary for all, but the ability to learn new skills is. We have to understand that there are many career opportunities available for the young, and more become available every year. Making education important to elementary, middle school, and high school students is a priority task for our educators - not just the ability to pass required exams (which too many students fail).

-30-
]]> 88379 2008-04-19 19:33:58
So it looks like, according to what I think I'm hearing from the candidates - particularly the Democrat Party candidates - "future shock" is meeting "the brave new world". Alvin Toffler's shortest definition of future shock is a personal perception of "too much change in too short a period of time" ( see reference)

Listening to Senator Obama, we get a feeling that should he be elected, the country is willing to unite as one, where everything will be good for all people - sort of like Senator Clinton's "It Takes a Village" concept. So while we will be reeling from the effects of the sudden political change taking place, at the same time we will end up as one happy family (as long as nobody rocks the boat), and be happy in a zombie-like state of joy.

Maybe it's time for voters to read Huxley's and Toffler's books. Hopefully, the reading comprehension ability of those voters is "up to snuff".

-30-
]]> 88072 2008-04-18 18:01:09
As I have probably written in previous blogs, there's not much of a choice on the table - two socialist candidates and one who is some kind of conservative, but I don't know which kind. Thomas J. DiLorenzo had it right,for this campaign season anyhow, that a truly patriotic American would not vote (for president).

For crying' out loud, even Maureen Dowd has noticed that Senator Obama is an elitist candidate, really out of touch with most of the people in this country. The last time a real intellectual ran for president - Adlai Stevenson - it was a pleasure to hear his speeches, but nobody wanted him as the leader of our country (well, some Democrats did vote for him).

I don't think it's a matter of being snobbish, as has been written about Obama, it's just a matter of believing that the person running for the job is really in touch with his constituents - whether he really is or isn't. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who sure as heck wasn't one of the "common folk", had the ability to make everyone think he was for them. Roosevelt, like Obama and Clinton, was taken, to some degree, with Mussolini's fascist socialism, as were many nations' leaders in the 1930s. And who knows how this country would have turned under the various New Deal programs Roosevelt pushed, if WWII hadn't intervened. Except for one thing - WWII was a call for all Americans to unite behind its government in order to defeat the Axis powers. And those who spoke out against the war were not looked upon kindly. The idea behind the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent in the name of security was the same as the Federalist Alien and Sedition of 1798, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the atmosphere surrounding the Home Security Act; by the way, the two acts were during the administrations of presidents who were not Republicans. The Bush administration's practice of creating fear is more reminiscent of those old Federalists - and Wilson and Roosevelt Democrats, and is all related to what we know is a tactic of a right wing socialist system.

Anyhow. to make this story short, at this time I do not see how any intelligent, constitution loving American can insult the country by voting for the current list of candidates. Clinton may be less of a liberal fascist than Obama, and as I said at the top of the blog, I'm still not sure what McCain is. So I'll vote for the other issues on the ballot, but right now, I can't contribute to what I don't believe is in the best interest of the people and the country.

-30-
]]> 86006 2008-04-12 22:25:44
April 12, 2008: The way things stand on this date, I don't think I will be able to vote for any of the presidential candidates come November. Each of the candidates has some good ideas, but as a complete picture, I'm not sure about any of them.

I don't know what McCain really believes, since he's preaching to some of the more extreme groups in the Republican party, although he does have some practical outlooks on important topics. Clinton and Obama are from the liberal fascist contingent, going by their goals and histories - of course, we're still finding information on Obama, but I believe he's a more militant/right wing liberal fascist than Clinton.

Listening to yesterday's sound bite of his remarks which somewhat disparaged blue collar workers, who are apparently more interested in guns and their own interests, I could not help but hear the old fascist distate for those not interested in becoming part of corporatism.

Obama's "gun comment" also signals what he will probably want to do should he be elected to the presidency. After all, firearm owners are independent thinkers, and one of the dislikes the extreme left has is for those thinking outside of the socialist/ fascist liberal box.

One other point, and I'll extend my remarks re: this after I finish reading Obama's "Dreams of My Fathers", is that Obama, in his deire or need to be black - similar to the dreams of many white liberals - is his seeming belief in identity politics. When recently interviewed by Bryan Gumbel, Obama professed his love for basketball. Now I guess he's a lousy bowler, but a good basketball player, which probably, in his mind, gives him street creds as a black man.

So between the two socialists, I would guess that Clinton would be the safer choice - safer because we (should) know just who she is, and if Congress could develop some balls, it could provide its required checks and balances act. I'm afraid that with Obama, our representatives in Washington will continue to play the "guilty white man" card.

It's going to be a helluva four years.

-30-


]]> 85039 2008-04-09 18:48:16
April 9, 2008: Political Correctness is well on its way to destroy the liberties we have been granted as citizens of this country. And political correctness doesn't only mean, as we used to say when I was a young man - you gotta call a spade a spade - but any comment made about anything - animate or inaminate - can create for you all kinds of trouble.

It happened here in Nevada - a woman's license plate, one she has had for a number of years, was XSTACY - was taken away by the DMV because someone was offended by what it might mean. Today's news reports an Obama campaign worker fired becasue she said a bunch of kids were running around, climbing trees, "..like...monkeys..."). And the example continue almost everyday.

Groups of people - call them a community rather than groups - are protesting the Olympic torch bearers and the Olympics, based upon China's apparently heavy-handed in Tibet. A human rights problem? More than likely. But China has been a human rights violator for the past 30+ years, but everybody is still buying goods marked "hecho in China".

When Germany held the 1936 Olympics, and the National Socialists were led by Hitler, nobody here boycotted the games. When United States athletes, upon winning medals in a more recent Olympics, raised their fists in the fascist salute as a political symbol, the Olympics were not boycotted.

The point is that every country has problems that other countries' citizens rally against. But to boycott the Olympics just because it is being held in China, and that government is acting in a way many people are unhappy about, the Olympic athletes should not be punished.

So why is this happening? Groups (communities) protest over that which they do not like or want; people have to be afraid to say anything lest it be considerd racist or anti-government. Folks, the problem has been here for years - under the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, as well as under the current Bush administration. Fascist liberalism is slowly but surely taking over this country.

We've been living under a kind socialism, but now it is becoming harsher. The Hitlerian/Nazi policy of the community over the individual is what we are witnessing in this country. Classical individual liberty is slowly but surely being destroyed, in favor of statism. Nothing new, as I said - but appealing to most of our youth and others who, knowingly or not, believe extreme liberalism will make their life better.

Unfortunately, those people may get what they're asking for...

-30-
[April 28, 2008: A thank you to Michael Moore for the correction re: the license plate
note - plate letters stated left out the letter S (XSTACY)]



]]> 82741 2008-04-03 13:34:44
Apparently, profit (except for his own) is not a good thing - an example of the fascist/right-wing socialist idea of "community over individual".

Then a couple of other known, but rarely stated facts, were made - one by a super delegate in Pennsylvania who backs Clinton. The individual stated that even though he believes Clinton is the better candidate, that Obama will win, because white people will vote for Obama to assuage their "guilt". Other comments predicting Obama's win also stated that his victory would be for "justice"! What nonsense! Our next president should be one who is put in office just to make people feel better? What, all those Democrats and Republicans who vote/voted for Obama are or were slave holders? Come on- .. And, if you want to talk about guilt, which is basically ridiculous, shouldn't there be guilt shown by blacks re: whites who fought along with them in the civil rights movement, and who were killed in the process? And what about black anti-Semitism - shouldn't there be guilt in that community over the fact that a large number of Jews fought for the civil rights of blacks, and some were also killed in that struggle?

This country is rapidly becoming filled with a bunch of ignorant, uneducated, non-thinking, dysfunctional, wimpy Americans, snowed under by deconstructionist political correctness, living under a pleasant socialist government, and who won't be happy until a Mussolini style fascist government is in place, where our freedom of speech and thought will be replaced by group thinking rather than individual thoughts, where statism is predominant over individualism.

Jefferson believed the people of the country had the ability to ensure that the country would remain as intended; Hamilton believed that the people didn't have the ability to do so, and the State should be in control. Our history over much of the past 100 years has shown that Hamilton was pretty much on target. Obama's election to the country's presidency would pretty much put us back into the more extreme liberal fascist days of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with or without the militarism of their times.
-30-

]]> 81234 2008-03-30 18:59:00 79426 2008-03-25 16:11:43
Politicians running for President of the United States of America are talking about the need for change, but so far, in my opinion, they are all missing the boat.

Here are the changes we really need:

* one national primary, just before the nominating conventions
* candidates have to talk about the important subjects, not the pulp mags kinds of nonsense - you know, about just how they will improve the economy, take care of national security, bring manufacturing back to this country, all those "boring" topics
* once again, we need improvements in education - people have to not only know how to read, but have to improve their comprehension skills - depending upon so called "political pundits" for their information, without the ability to discern between reality and fable (promotion), does, in the end, give us poor choices for the job of president.
* real news and political broadcasts - provided by commentators who at least know about that which they speak - all we seem to have now are, as Lewis Black to Larry King, "failed comics - entertainers"; the problem with that is, would audiences have the ability to understand what they were told, or, for that matter, could they watch the programming for more than a few minutes before switching to something more entertaining?
* commentator shows - as seen on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al., and their ilk should at least change their "guest" panelists - the same old faces with the same old opinions, promoting the same tired old candidates. If you don't have cable or satellite, then how can you watch/hear some intelligent commentary shown on channels like CSPAN, Free Speech TV, Book Channel, etc. (note - Free Speech TV is interesting in that you hear news, stories, and opinions that are not of the mainstream - most of what I have watched has been pretty far over on the liberal socialist side of the spectrum, but it's always good to know what "the other side" is talking about).

In other words, the change we need is to become a more mature, thinking, intelligent society. I know that's a tall order, but think about this - Governor Richardson said he was supporting Senator Obama because he is a "unifier", which is what many of Obama's backers state. But what is meant by a unified country? Wars against this country (WWI, WWII) were great unifiers, where we all worked for the common good. But without that kind of uniting event, a "unified" country could only be one which is subservient to the state. Because if we are unified, then there is no room (need?) for diverse opinion. We are subjected to what the state believes is good for us, which the state will have convinced us will make us all happy. Sounds like fascism to me.


]]> 79017 2008-03-24 09:41:05 A last Thought Re: Obama and Wright

Notwithstanding the Senator's media acclaimed speech given in response to his Pastor Wright brouhaha, it appears that Obama had his GWB "...window of his soul" moment.

After all, the Senator is seeking the presidency of the United States of America, not of his local home owners association. If he was unable to take a strong stance against a verbal attack upon the United States of America, the country which he wishes to lead, without being prompted to do so, just because he feels that the promulgator of those ant-American remarks is "like an uncle to him", then how on earth is he ever going to defend his people against any country or organization?

Will that be the curse of a liberal socialist administration?
]]> 76206 2008-03-17 21:40:16
So for the Senator to state that "he wasn't there" during the sermons shown in the videos on national television, is pretty disingeneous. Which all goes to bolster my contention that here's a guy you have to worry about assuming the mantle of President of the United States.

If he were truly a man of principal - a man for everyone - as he claims to be, he would have left Trinity a long time ago. Since he didn't, and is only now defending his actions because they have been made public, there's no way Obama does not go along with his Pastor's beliefs, regardless of his so-called "disavowing Wright's statements".

This is just another example of the candidate's defects.
]]> 75291 2008-03-14 21:40:40
It didn't make it difficult, either.

This split nationality b.s. is really a pain in the rear end. Obama is no more an African than I am. He was born in Honolulu, so how can he be an African-American? And for that matter, why are all blacks called African-Americans? I imagine that there are a few blacks, and whites, who are citizens, but who were born in Africa, but what value is there to being called an African-American or any other hyphenated nationality, unless the individual truly holds dual citizenship.

Look, first the blacks were Negros, then coloreds (which included all non-whites), then in the 1950s the name to be called was black – as in “Black Pride”. Apparently that wasn't good enough, so, regardless of where the person's birth occurred, the black became an “African-American”. I imagine that just being an “American” wasn't and/or isn't good enough. I'll have to start calling myself a European-American, since my family goes way back in time.

You might say that the American Indian is the only real American except that it is understood that those native to this continent may have come from either South America or from across the Bering Strait, which leaves that ethnic group out of the picture (Siberian-Russian-Tibetan-American, or what?).

Anyhow, the point of all this is that if Senator Obama wishes to be President of these United States of America, and achieves that goal, he better forget this African-American crap and just call himself an American. Otherwise, we'll really have a divided country.

Millions of people have emigrated to this land, anxious and proud to become an American, not a hyphenated American.

-30-
]]> 74210 2008-03-12 00:06:51
So to continue in that vein, there are a couple of subjects needing remarking. The first is the dysfunctional Democrat party. Its caucus system and primary system is totally screwed up, re: awarding of delegates in both, and time allowed for voting in the former. From what I remember, the idea of proportioning delegates came from Jesse Jackson in 1980, which, as we find, was an unfortunately accepted suggestion.

The other comment is about what the primary and caucus wins for Obama really mean. Since most of his wins in both the caucuses and primaries come from exceedingly heavy support from black voters and/or independents, does that represent the majority of Democrat voters, and/or all voters in this country? Or does it represent the raising of the hue and cry from one group of ethnic voters combined with the idealism of young and very liberal voters? The two groups are not the same – one is black voters voting for a black man – the other is a group of voters who believe that life can be changed like linking to another web page. Both reasons are not sound – neither from a realistic nor pragmatic point of view.

Obama's main topics are “I was against invading Iraq”, and now, apparently, possibly the economy, though it's hard to tell. His Iraq statement is currently meaningless, because, if he should be nominated and elected, what he was against, in the safety of not being a Senator who would have had to vote on the issue (an he hasn't voted on much of anything else during his term in office), doesn't mean a diddly thing. He will need a very strong understanding and appreciation for what has to be done – of how to remove troops – which will take at least 5-6 years – in a way in which America will both save face and not be under a threat from those running Iraq.

It's really aggravating that the American people cannot be told the truth, for fear of losing elections. When Bill Clinton mentioned that if it were not for LBJ, Martin Luther King's desire for the Civil Rights Act would not have gone through Congress. That statement, as correct as it was, was considered “dissing” black Americans, who used it as an excuse to leave the Clintons and vote en masse for Obama. Mentioning that, however, brings up the charge of racism, which, of course, has Democrats cringing in fear. Truth has been the tool of the righteous, but these days, the only righteous appear to be those who deny truth.

The Democrats have an opportunity to regain the White House, but like many football teams, it's the last couple of mistaken plays that cost the game. Unless the Democrat voters understand that reality is more important that hopeful dreaming, it's liable to be a long, long road to Tipperary.


]]> 74206 2008-03-11 23:55:45
So to continue in that vein, there are a couple of subjects needing remarking. The first is the dysfunctional Democrat party. Its caucus system and primary system is totally screwed up, re: awarding of delegates in both, and time allowed for voting in the former. From what I remember, the idea of proportioning delegates came from Jesse Jackson in 1980, which, as we find, was an unfortunately accepted suggestion.

The other comment is about what the primary and caucus wins for Obama really mean. Since most of his wins in both the caucuses and primaries come from exceedingly heavy support from black voters and/or independents, does that represent the majority of Democrat voters, and/or all voters in this country? Or does it represent the raising of the hue and cry from one group of ethnic voters combined with the idealism of young and very liberal voters? The two groups are not the same – one is black voters voting for a black man – the other is a group of voters who believe that life can be changed like linking to another web page. Both reasons are not sound – neither from a realistic nor pragmatic point of view.

Obama's main topics are “I was against invading Iraq”, and now, apparently, possibly the economy, though it's hard to tell. His Iraq statement is currently meaningless, because, if he should be nominated and elected, what he was against, in the safety of not being a Senator who would have had to vote on the issue (an he hasn't voted on much of anything else during his term in office), doesn't mean a diddly thing. He will need a very strong understanding and appreciation for what has to be done – of how to remove troops – which will take at least 5-6 years – in a way in which America will both save face and not be under a threat from those running Iraq.

It's really aggravating that the American people cannot be told the truth, for fear of losing elections. When Bill Clinton mentioned that if it were not for LBJ, Martin Luther King's desire for the Civil Rights Act would not have gone through Congress. That statement, as correct as it was, was considered “dissing” black Americans, who used it as an excuse to leave the Clintons and vote en masse for Obama. Mentioning that, however, brings up the charge of racism, which, of course, has Democrats cringing in fear. Truth has been the tool of the righteous, but these days, the only righteous appear to be those who deny truth.

The Democrats have an opportunity to regain the White House, but like many football teams, it's the last couple of mistaken plays that cost the game. Unless the Democrat voters understand that reality is more important that hopeful dreaming, it's liable to be a long, long road to Tipperary.

]]> 74205 2008-03-11 23:51:51
So to continue in that vein, there are a couple of subjects needing remarking. The first is the dysfunctional Democrat party. Its caucus system and primary system is totally screwed up, re: awarding of delegates in both, and time allowed for voting in the former. From what I remember, the idea of proportioning delegates came from Jesse Jackson in 1980, which, as we find, was an unfortunately accepted suggestion.

The other comment is about what the primary and caucus wins for Obama really mean. Since most of his wins in both the caucuses and primaries come from exceedingly heavy support from black voters and/or independents, does that represent the majority of Democrat voters, and/or all voters in this country? Or does it represent the raising of the hue and cry from one group of ethnic voters combined with the idealism of young and very liberal voters? The two groups are not the same – one is black voters voting for a black man – the other is a group of voters who believe that life can be changed like linking to another web page. Both reasons are not sound – neither from a realistic nor pragmatic point of view.

Obama's main topics are “I was against invading Iraq”, and now, apparently, possibly the economy, though it's hard to tell. His Iraq statement is currently meaningless, because, if he should be nominated and elected, what he was against, in the safety of not being a Senator who would have had to vote on the issue (an he hasn't voted on much of anything else during his term in office), doesn't mean a diddly thing. He will need a very strong understanding and appreciation for what has to be done – of how to remove troops – which will take at least 5-6 years – in a way in which America will both save face and not be under a threat from those running Iraq.

It's really aggravating that the American people cannot be told the truth, for fear of losing elections. When Bill Clinton mentioned that if it were not for LBJ, Martin Luther King's desire for the Civil Rights Act would not have gone through Congress. That statement, as correct as it was, was considered “dissing” black Americans, who used it as an excuse to leave the Clintons and vote en masse for Obama. Mentioning that, however, brings up the charge of racism, which, of course, has Democrats cringing in fear. Truth has been the tool of the righteous, but these days, the only righteous appear to be those who deny truth.

The Democrats have an opportunity to regain the White House, but like many football teams, it's the last couple of mistaken plays that cost the game. Unless the Democrat voters understand that reality is more important that hopeful dreaming, it's liable to be a long, long road to Tipperary.

]]> 71960 2008-03-06 19:14:34
"The gentlemen may cry Peace, peace! but thee is no peace. The war has actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethern are already in the field! Why stand here idle? What is it that the gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"


[I would also like to recommend Eric Burns' excellent book, Virtue, Valor, and Vanity, a rare look at those who were so important to the founding of this country}


for more connections, and for security related comments



]]>