*(old nfo)


Courage does not always shout . . . Sometimes it is a very quiet voice at the end of the day saying . . . I will try again tomorrow.

Rev 22:20 "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!"

Friday, September 17, 2010

Under Informed is Uninformed

For those who are paying attention, it is becoming clearer by the day that the mess we’re in can only be solved by a return to our founding principles. Removing the foundation from an edifice, no matter how high or how wide the edifice, will always result in its destruction. Since the days of Woodrow Wilson and perhaps before, America has raised generations of atheistic, agnostic, narcissistic, hedonistic, pampered infants. Now we are facing the alumni of the Karl Marx/Benjamin Spock school of ideology.

Unfortunately, with growing frequency, the very foundations for which our forefathers bled and died are crumbling in a heap of liberal, social, watered-down half-truths. The emergent church, the World Council of Churches, with its Communist underpinning, Rick Warren with his heretical teaching, and prosperity preachers who bask in the glow of their own ill-gotten gains, all have contributed to a "gospel" that bears no resemblance at all to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

At first blush, I agreed with nearly all of what the following article had to say. Then I re-read it through the prism of today’s feel-good, Kumbaya church, and highlighted what I consider to be well worth considering:


Pastors taken to task for political apathy
'What we have in America is a preacher problem'

Posted: September 16, 2010

6:50 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

MIAMI – America has gone 'from one nation under God to a nation at war with God,' said Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, at WND's 'Taking America Back Conference.' And who's to blame?

According to a pair of speakers at the Miami confab, one of most significant answers is also one the most uncomfortable for Christians.

'As the church goes, so goes the nation; as the pastor goes, so goes the church.' Scarborough said, 'What we have in America is a preacher problem.'

Scarborough, himself a former Southern Baptist minister, told the audience his story of recognizing the need for pastors to snap out of political complacency and get involved in the cultural war for the soul of the nation.

He had attended a sexual education presentation at his daughter's high school in the 1990s, only to discover a message of sexual license and perversity that shocked him. When he brought a transcript of the presentation to his church, the building was filled with people equally stunned.

Shortly thereafter, Scarborough explained at 'Taking America Back,' he began to free his congregation from excessive church responsibilities to take up civic duties. Members of his church were elected to the school board and city council and began to reassert Christian values in the public arena.

"We just got the people in the churches to stand up and do what they ought to be doing," Scarborough said.

The story is at the heart of his founding of Vision America, but he warns that the people will not rise up and get involved unless the pastors lose their fear and apathy toward political involvement.

Doug Giles, radio host and father of the undercover video journalist Hannah Giles, brought the same challenge, but with a much sharper tone.

'Somebody who waffles, quiet as a church mouse,' Giles said, 'that cat is about as useless as a pitch pipe to Yoko Ono.'

Giles further charged, referring to the heated politics surrounding the tea party movement and the 2010 election, 'If a pastor is not part of this crucial societal throwdown … this pastor is Dr. Evil and part of the problem.'

Giles listed 10 reasons pastors don't get involved in politics and refuted every one.

He warned pastors against thinking of their duties as primarily pious and spiritual: 'Your religious liberties are disappearing like a pack of smokes at an AA clinic.'

He warned pastors not to fear losing their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status: 'You're going to compromise the gospel because you don't want to pay taxes on hot dogs? Wow."'

Pulling no punches, Giles also slammed big-church pastors who are afraid speaking out on issues of liberty and morality for fear of losing their lucrative positions: 'Christendom has its shares of money-loving hookers … bowing to cash instead of convictions.'

'Saul Alinsky loves those pastors who don't get involved politically,' Giles concluded, 'and so does the guy written about in the dedication to his book ['Rules for Radicals']. Who was that again? Oh yeah, Lucifer.'

Scarborough argued that the culture wars won't be won unless both pastors and pew-sitters are willing to roll their sleeves up and get their hands dirty in the fight:

'The problem with us Christians today is that we're so afraid of offending our little ears that we've dug holes and buried our heads in them,' he said. 'The holes that the 'gays' came out of, the church went in, and it's not going to change until the church comes out.'

He wrapped up his speech with a challenge:

'If the church doesn't awaken now, if the tea party and everybody involved doesn't understand that God is at the heart of it all, then we lose,' he said.

The crowd then erupted in standing ovation with his final words, "It's now or never. It's time for the church to stand.'"

Drew Zahn makes some excellent points, and who am I to argue with a real writer? But I am not here to challenge his ability or his wisdom. I am simply coming at the matter from a different perspective. Consider this: today’s emergent church couldn’t possibly be any more involved in politics than it already is. As a tool of the far left, or Satan, if you will, it has been inexorably dragging Christians and non-Christians alike down the path to perdition. I believe this article speaks not to preachers as a whole, but to independent, fundamental, evangelical preachers who still preach the whole Gospel of Christ. Sadly, they’re becoming fewer and farther between in our world of hope and change.



Sunday, September 12, 2010

Is He Our Keeper?

He said it again. It is probably the only Bible passage he knows, and he doesn’t know it all that well. Or maybe he does. I heard a brief clip on the radio yesterday. It was part of his radio address, the usual canned bleeding heart drivel punctuated it with, “On this day, we also honor those who died so that others might live: the firefighters and first responders who climbed the stairs of two burning towers; the passengers who stormed a cockpit; and the men and women who have, in the years since, borne the uniform of this country and given their lives so that our children could grow up in a safer world. In acts of courage and decency, they defended a simple precept: I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.” (Emphasis mine)

How many times has a variation of this come out of his mouth in the last three years or so? Not quite as many as "Let me be clear." What comes after trillion?

Genesis 4:9 is probably one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. After Cain killed his brother, the Lord asked him the whereabouts of Abel. Cain answered, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Our president has taken this and run with it. In his drive to dictate every aspect of our lives from womb to tomb, perhaps this is exactly what he does mean: Orwellian control.

I always think of a zookeeper when I hear the word keeper. A zookeeper certainly has to have complete control over his charges: lions, tigers and bears. Not to mention reptiles, monkeys and rhinos. But maybe that’s just me. However, Bill Wink of An Inconvenient Blog fame had this to say about the phrase in 2008—way before the election:

My Brother’s Keeper

I am not my brother’s keeper

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

So how can I make this statement: I am not my brother’s keeper, a statement that goes against the preaching of mortal men?

When GOD inquired of Cain regarding the whereabouts of his brother Able in Genesis 4:9 The LORD GOD did not answer Cain directly when he asked: Am I my brother's keeper? God did not say yes you are or, no you are not.

So just what did GOD say?

HE said: What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto ME from the ground.

And from that many interpret an answer rather than heeding GOD’s response which in the first part was a question not an answer. However, in the second part of the phrase, if there is an answer, it is the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue that GOD set down for man: “Thou shalt not kill”. Then paraphrasing; What hast thou done? Thou shalt not kill they brother whose blood crieth unto ME from the ground.

An ulterior motive – control

It seems though, that in religion and for other convenient purposes, interpretation is a matter of preconceived answers to the questions.

Many want the answer to the question; “Am I my brother’s keeper?” to be yes; so in the scriptures they find the LORD’s answer affirms their preconceived yes.

I, on the other hand, do not. I do not because I do not wish to control you and I don’t accept that GOD wants me to control you either.


The word “keeper” simply by definition allows for a lot of latitude to those who wish to be your “keeper” or by definition protector, custodian or guardian.

Will I defend or protect or help my sibling, child, wife, mother, father, relative or friend? To the extent they need me, yes, of course.

I will be there for you when you need me but I will not be your “keeper” as others want to be.

How this applies to the subverting of America

Collectivists (socialists) pass laws making me responsible for you.

Being someone’s “keeper” is a form of collectivism. Communitarians want to be your “keeper”. Socialists want to be your “keeper”. Liberals want to be your “keeper”. Only individualists want you to be responsible for you and for you to allow others the same in return.

Individualists will not pass laws requiring you to wear your seat belt, however, they will tell you what could happen to you if you don’t. But the actual hooking-up of the seat belt is your responsibility. Individualists will not pass laws requiring you to wear your safety helmet if you are an adult. Individualists will not pass laws telling you what to eat. Individualists will protect your individual rights. But those who subscribe to the philosophy of being their brother’s keeper will address all of these issues and make them a law and punish you like a child if you don’t abide.

The Ten Commandments

When I read the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments the Commandments were not directed at only a select few who were supposed to collectively enforce the Will of GOD on the remaining Israelites. But rather the Commandments were set down as Divine Guidance for each and every individual.

So just where in the Ten Commandments does it tell me I must be my brother’ keeper? No where. But there is a Commandment that tells us to let our brother live in peace.

The last Commandment states:

'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, not his manservant, not his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.' Ex. 20:17.

So what is 'any thing that is thy neighbor’s'? It is the rest of his property of course and his property goes beyond anything in a physical sense. His property includes those unalienable rights bestowed on him by his CREATOR and that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Therefore, I am not my brother’s keeper.”

Bill Wink © March 1, 2008

That about sums it up for me. Maybe Obama is right, after all. He is certainly making great strides toward achieving keeper status. His brother George should thank God Barack Obama is not his keeper.



Monday, August 30, 2010

He’s Not My President

Here are two direct quotes from somebody’s president in an interview on the NBC Nightly News.

“We’ve got a lot more work to do,” he said. “But the fact is because of the sturdiness and swiftness of the response, there’s a lot less oil hitting these shores and these beaches than anybody would have anticipated given the volume that was coming out of the BP oil well.” (Emphasis mine)

How out of touch with reality can he possibly get? Is there one person with half a brain out here who can believe even one word that comes out of his mouth? Oh yes, Robert Gibbs. No, come to think of it, Gibbs doesn’t have half a brain.

Here’s a piece from Mother Jones (!)

And this is a sort of devil’s advocate, apologetic article by Alex Wagner. See paragraph 3 and then see if you can find even one similar excuse for Bush’s response to Katrina. On second thought, don’t bother.

This next quote made me want to hurt someone. But I went out and pruned my roses instead, telling myself to consider the source:

“It’s not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country. That's been true throughout our history,” he said. But “what I’m focused on is making sure that the decisions we’re making now are going to be be not good for the nightly news, not good even necessarily for the next election, but are good for the next generation.” (Emphasis mine)

Barack Obama cares nothing for the United States of America. We the People have been ignored, ridiculed, snubbed, pushed aside, and lied to for as long as this uppity, arrogant puke has been wearing a suit. HE MUST BE STOPPED. Pray with me. Pray with your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers, your children, your parents. Pray for our republic and for the November election. Pray that the God who has been ignored, ridiculed, snubbed, pushed aside and lied to will hear “this portion of the country” and turn things around. I very much fear that if our cup of iniquity is indeed full, and God doesn’t hear—and why should He?—our children and grandchildren may grow up and die under an oppression so heinous, so absolute, that The United States Constitution will be just a footnote in the history books.



Monday, August 23, 2010

Shame on Me

Apparently I broken one of the laws of blogging. If I have stepped on anybody's toes, or face, or neck, I apologize from the bottom of my hard little heart. Here is my chastisement and my response for those of you who don't keep up with the handful of comments to my posts:

Do you ever read comments from folks who read your stuff?
I suspect not.
August 18, 2010 7:50 PM

One of the Moons said...

(Name omitted)
Yes, I read every comment. I'm not sure what your problem is today. Perhaps you're having a bad hair day. If so, I can relate. If I don't respond to every comment left on my blog it's not because I'm indifferent. Comments are the lifeblood of blogs and I apperciate every single one of them.

I happens that I have three blogs that I am challenged to keep up with and, due to work, trying to get through the summer with no rain, getting up every morning and having to face what is going in Washington, wondering what the next outrage will be, and trying to be more involved in church, seeing my husband through decision making regarding his prostate cancer, and a thousnad other things that make up my day (and no doubt everyone's day, with variations) I don't always keep up the way I should. But please know this: I'm every bit as concerned as the next blogger about what is happening to America. Maybe I'm not running my blog the way others would have me do. I'll try to respond to the comments more often. I am assuming your comment was loving criticism, since we're all in this together. Or, maybe it was roundabout way of telling me that I don't quite measure up to the other million or so bloggers.

I once told Old NFO that my traffic is about on a par with my shoe size. It remains so now. But that doesn't prevent me from researching when I should be sleeping, from signing petitions, handing out literature, and praying for a cure of the cancer that is spreading like wildfire across this great land of ours, and continuing to try to speak the truth on Granny with a Pitchfork.
I'm sorry you don't want to associate with me anymore. May God go with you.

August 23, 2010 11:04 AM"

I realize I don't always get the comments posted in timely manner and you have all been very patient with me.
If I am abusing any other area of protocol please let me know and I will try to remedy it before I get gutshot again. I thought we were all in this together.



Sunday, August 15, 2010

It Is What It Is

“Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it.” President Obama in a speech given at the iftar dinner at the White House

No matter how you slice this piece of camel dung, it still means one thing: they are rubbing our noses in it. They can stand around and say the mosque will be a gesture of brotherly love and a symbol of the Group Hug and a reaching out to all people, and more drivel, equally meaningless. The fact is, the presence of a mosque on that sacred ground will say, in our president’s favorite words, “We won.”

I don’t know about you but I remember how I felt on September 11th, 2001. And I’ll be willing to bet you remember down to the smallest detail where you were, what you were doing and how you felt. It’s etched in the minds of all patriots, which, incidentally, do not include all Americans. Alec Baldwin, Timothy Robbins, Michael Moore, Pelosi, Reid and most of congress come to mind. And let’s not forget the Muslim currently desecrating the oval office, when he’s not on vacation. But I’m betting the majority of us made a vow that what happened on that day would never happen again on our soil.

My friends, it is happening. While we have been sleeping, complacent and confident in our security, the enemy has been chipping away at the foundation our forefathers fought and died for. Islam is not “over there” anymore. It is in our towns, in our schools, in our places of business, and in New York City. Are they all bloodthirsty terrorists intent on beheading us at the slightest provocation? No. Are they followers of a religion of violence? Yes.

Here are the first three paragraphs Chapter 7: Islam is a Peaceful Religion, by Timothy W. Dunkin's Ten Myths About Islam:

“From a sociological standpoint, this is perhaps THE most widely propagated myth about Islam. For decades, Islam has put across to Westerners a peaceful, loving front. This false view of Islam has been spread all the more aggressively since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Muslim leaders in the United States and other Western nations had to push their efforts at hiding Islam's true nature into high gear, trying to counterbalance the impact that was made by the sight of Palestinians and other Muslims (some in this very nation) cheering and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Unfortunately, many theologically liberal and compromising people in most of the mainline Christian denominations have gone right along with these attempts at whitewashing Islam's image, either out of blind ignorance or unthinking sympathy for Mohammed's religion. Even in many traditionally conservative Protestant churches, pastors have invited false teachers from Islam to present that religion to their congregants, and the image given is invariably that of a peaceful, loving, tender-hearted faith whose members are absolutely appalled at the violence committed by "a few fringe radicals".

I have personally witnessed this sort of bald-faced lying done in the name of Islam. On November 11, 2001, I attended a panel presentation on the campus of the University of North Carolina, in Chapel Hill, during which the several panel members each had the opportunity to take 15 minutes and give their thoughts on the events and responses to the September 11 attacks. One of the speakers was a Muslim imam from a local mosque in Durham. Naturally, he took twice as much time as was allotted for him, and did not even address the topic of discussion. Instead, he spent 30 minutes ranting and raving about how peaceful and loving Islam was, and how Islam respects people of other religions. This lying deceiver even went so far as to say that he would be morally obligated to stop a person from defacing or vandalizing a Christian church. In short, his entire diatribe was one giant lie, yet much of the (mostly leftist) crowd ate up every word of it like it was gospel truth. This response demonstrated the desperate need for education about Islam in this nation. Not education in Islam, but education about Islam, so that the majority of the population in Western societies who know little to nothing about the religion can learn the truth about it, instead of being fed sugar-coated lies from Islamic leaders and propagandists. People in the West need to know that the image of Islam as a violent, intolerant, wicked religion is in fact true, and growing more so every day.

So, to ask the question frankly: Is Islam peaceful or violent? To answer equally as frankly: It is violent. It is a religion which was born out of violence, propagated through violence, and which is still accustomed to violence even today. This can clearly be seen by examining the teachings and record of Islam. These are the two primary means by which to judge the character of a religion on some question. You look at the established, recognized, plainly understood teachings of that religion from its holy texts, and then you look at the manner and methodology by which those most faithful to that religion carry out their obedience to their belief system. So let us apply this test to the Muslim faith.”

I urge you to read this scholarly work. We all need to educate ourselves about the religion. As Dunkin says, not to educate ourselves in the religion, but about the religion. I include myself when I say we tend to be lazy when it comes to educating ourselves. When I graduated from college I said, “There! I don’t have to do that anymore.” As it turns out, I have learned more in the past nine or ten years, in spite of myself, than I did with all the book learning of my past, including college. But I’ve only scratched the surface. And if we don’t arm ourselves with enough knowledge to overcome the insidious and rapidly encroaching enemy on our doorstep, we are condemning our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of slavery.

If the Muslims really cared about good will and brotherly love they would move the site for the mosque. They don't give a fig about the right hand of fellowship. In fact, their purpose is to pound one more nail into the coffin of peace and liberty. Wake up, America.



Thursday, August 12, 2010


It was 105° on our shady deck today. Cec and I decided there was nothing outdoors that required our attention, so with the exception of his trip to the end of the driveway with the trash and my two trips out with the dogs, it was surf the net, crochet and read. Little Gus has pretty much recovered from his wasp stings. I guess the wasps are as grumpy about the weather as we are. Either that or they resented him sticking his nose in their brand new house under the downspout at the corner of the garage.

It is getting increasingly difficult to read anything at all on the net anymore without wanting to throw something large through a closed window. The ground zero Imam is still going to the Middle East on the American taxpayers’ dime; the president is still bashing Bush; Juan Williams is still sounding like a moron; and the U.S. Mexican border is still a wide open invitation. Brian and Bruce will soon be mincing to the altar in California. Same stuff, different day.

As I was considering all this today I thought of my father, who passed away twelve years ago last month. Dad was a Christian, a small business owner, and a staunch Republican all his life, in an area that was pretty much Democrat. However, in the late innings, I watched a slow and inexorable change. By the time I realized what had happened, it was too late. In all fairness to Dad, after Mom passed away there was very little to distract him. He went to church, which had long since fallen into the “emergent” maelstrom. He was, as millions are, also a captive of the mainstream media. While I enjoyed the company of a conservative, intelligent, patient husband, scores of liberal, self righteous, “educated” well-wishers surrounded poor Dad for the last five years of his life.

As I considered all this, and how much I miss him, I suddenly realized I would not have him back for the world. It would break my heart to have him see the demise of all the values he held so dear. From our socialist president to our immoral congress; from the stimulus to obscene taxation; from the bailouts to abortion; from government takeover of the auto industry and banks to the removal of God from every area of public life; from the rape of the private sector to socialized medicine, the list goes on ad nauseum. I would hate to think of him watching one small business after another go under. I would hate even more to see his life’s savings—which he earned by the sweat of his brow and the work of his hands—disappear overnight.

Now we are nearly to the eve of the midterm election. Have we learned anything? I looked at some poll numbers today. Three quarters of the voters polled believe that our socialist president should stop blaming Bush for everything from the economy to ingrown toenails. However, a large percent of voters think our socialist president is doing a good job. God help us. I thank God my Dad is not around to see this. Do I miss him? Yes. Even after twelve years. I still have the last shopping list he wrote; I have kept all the sympathy cards; I wear his old ratty bathrobe. Do I wish him back? No. I rejoice he is with the Lord and I look with anticipation to reuniting with him and Mom someday. Meanwhile, Cec and I will do all we can to spread the word about the sewage explosion in Washington.



Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Does This Burqa Make Me Look Fat?

Any fool who says Sharia Law hasn’t already ensconced itself in America has his head firmly implanted where the sun never shines. For those of you who haven’t seen these videos (for whatever reason I can’t imagine) here is what is going on in Dearborn, Michigan. You remember Michigan, home of Detroit, the result of the far left gone amok. Now, I understand that Islamists have every right to exercise their religious beliefs. Look at 9/11. However, apparently that means Christians do not have a right to exercise theirs. Just a year ago I would have bet that Sharia Law would not creep in soon enough to apply to me and my loved ones. Now I am not so sure. And, at the rate it seems to be coming, I see our children and grandchildren not only saddled with staggering taxes, but trying to pay them while wearing burqas and turbans

One of the headlines on my homepage this morning read: Panel Vote Could Clear Way for Ground Zero Mosque. The writers of the article pointed out that the panel was simply voting on whether or not to demolish an old building that has ceased to qualify as a landmark. If it is torn down, the mosque people would have their spot for a center for “moderate” Muslim Voices. Does this stink or what?

Just to prove that Satan never sleeps, while I was doing something else for a couple of hours today the panel voted unanimously to demolish the building. Now the headline says 

New York City Panel Clears Way for Mosque Near Ground Zero

Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement said they want to “repair the breach and be at the front and center to start the healing.” Let me tell you something, Ms Khan: The healing is not going to come from a mosque or from Muslim advancement. And there are those of us who remember the horror of 9/11, and have witnessed what has transpired since the vile, bottom feeding, foreign-born minion of Satan slithered his way from the cesspool of Chicago into the oval office. There are those of us who uphold the sanctity and truth of the United States Constitution. We will never give in to this kind of hope and change. Our country diminishes day by day. I only hope the values that we hold so dear do not get swept away in the metastisis of progressivism.



Saturday, July 24, 2010

Barack Hussein Obama—Racist-in-Chief

On the way home from work last night I turned on the radio and listened to Neal Boortz reading this, while frothing at the mouth. By the time I got home I, too was frothing at the mouth and muttering imprecations that cannot be repeated here. I don’t know the source and I’d like to give credit to the author. Unfortunately I don’t know either one. I Googled it as soon as I got home and came up with it on AOL Messageboards. Here it is in its entirety, as posted on the messageboard:

“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.

Dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority-or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.

But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'"

Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money-and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.

And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.

The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...]

Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]

Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."

That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.

Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%. The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.

Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support.

While that last point is leaves room for debate, the details contained in the Barofsky report are not. As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."

Included among those undisputed facts:

-Dealerships were retained because they were ... minority-or woman-owned dealerships";

-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";

-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.

The media, of course, remain mute about these serious allegations in the Barofsky report. They have limited their coverage to the job loss numbers and tried to place the blame on Treasury Secretary Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner.

For now.

Before long, we'll be reading that it was somehow Bush's fault.”

Keep in mind this was early on, within months after the oath of office. We watched it transpire, while the media skirted around the real truth—no surprise there. The media will continue to ignore every vile, underhanded act committed by Obama and his despicable administration, up to and including the (attempted) shutdown of talk radio and the (attempted) confiscation of our guns. Excuse me, but did our forefathers let matters get this far out of hand before they asserted themselves? We have pinned all of our hopes and dreams on the upcoming election. I pray that our dreams come to fruition concerning this. If not, I believe much stronger measures must be taken or we will succumb to a fate we cannot even imagine.



Tuesday, July 20, 2010

God Save America

Dr. Michael Youssef of Leading the Way is conducting a ministry dedicated to daily prayer of thousands of people for God to save the United States from tyrants and those who would destroy her. This is not to take the place of the fervent prayers we’ve been offering. It’s simply a focus on daily prayer between July 4th and November 2nd for an awakening in America. It’s not too late to sign up. You’ll receive a journal that will guide you in this endeavor as well as encouragement from Michael and the knowledge that tens of thousands are out there joining with you in imploring God to help us take back our country. Please join him, and me, in this desperate time, before we lose all that our forefathers died for. If you have any question about what those men did go to Charters of Freedom and read a little—or a lot.

Thank you


Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Two More Morons

Not all verifiable dunderheads reside on U.S. soil. I found this yesterday, by Niall O'Dowd, and thought I'd share it with the world.

"Thank goodness for good journalism." ??????? My Aunt Fanny!When you consider his source (Dana Milbank) it will become clear just where this Irish upstart O'Dowd is coming from. Sitting too close to the Blarney Stone, no doubt.

So you won't all have apoplexy, read this from "Don't Press 'One' for English" and be encouraged.

It seems truth is something to be shunned at the Washington Post, and Irish Central as well. Here's another piece of news for your perusal.

I wonder if either Milbank or O'Dowd could find Arizona on a map.



Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The Battle Hymn of the Republic

The Battle Hymn of the Republic started out as a hymn, a camp song, then a marching song sung by Union soldiers. The tune was written by William Steffe in the mid 1850’s, and the lyrics were:

Say brothers, will you meet us?
Say brothers, will you meet us?
Say brothers, will you meet us?
On Canaan's happy shore?

Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
For ever, evermore!

It was quickly adopted by blacks and abolitionists after the dramatic insurrection at Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the resulting trial and execution of its leader, John Brown.

John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave,
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave,
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave,
His soul is marching on!

In 1861, social activist and Christian, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe witnessed a skirmish between Union and Confederate troops while visiting a Union camp near Washington DC. These are her words following the encounter:

“I awoke in the grey of the morning, and as I lay waiting for dawn, the long lines of the desired poem began to entwine themselves in my mind, and I said to myself, “I must get up and write these verses, lest I fall asleep and forget them!” So I sprang out of bed and in the dimness found an old stump of a pen, which I remembered using the day before. I scrawled the verses almost without looking at the paper.”

It was published in the Atlantic Monthly and sung at the funerals of Winston Churchill, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. It has become one of the most beloved hymns of America.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic – Lyrics by Julia Ward Howe

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us [die] to make men free;
While God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

We sang it in church Sunday and for some reason the song leader, who emigrated here from Ukraine when he was a child, left out the fifth verse. I can forgive him, as English is his second language. I would not understand if an American-born citizen did that. It’s the pivotal verse. The fact that pragmatists and not Christians have changed the word “die” to live” in the third line is far less forgivable. But I’m just a fussy old lady. What do I know? I know this: I will die to save this country if it comes to that. Am I being too melodramatic? In view of the events of the past eighteen months, I don’t think so.

God save America.



Saturday, July 3, 2010

Junk Panic!

Today I was Googling the achievements of our pino (president in name only) with a completely open mind. I stumbled across an article in Esquire, which should tell you a lot. After reading a stellar effort by a progressive—or was he Marxist?—I reached a not-so-original conclusion: they are incapable of pointing out even one weakness or flaw in the present leader of the freak show without somehow dragging George W. Bush into it. I soon grew weary of the Obama-Bush act so I drifted on over to American Thinker where I found this article by Hoss Varad. Revisiting Cloward-Piven always gives me a reason to believe we’re doomed so I didn’t linger over the article. Instead I clicked on the link to Mr. Varad’s blog, Junk Panic! It’s well worth looking at if you need to have a grin on this rainy Independence Day weekend. How many still call it Independence Day? Has it been banned yet?

I’m really jealous of the guy who dreamed up Obama: One Big-Ass Mistake, America as his username.

Have a wonderful weekend, keeping in mind that it may be one of our last celebrations where we're allowed to remember our founding fathers and what they stood for.



P.S. Don’t drink any Kool Aid.


Monday, June 28, 2010

More Dust Under the Bus

When I read about General McChrystal's impending retirement I cried. The whole fiasco was so unnecessary. Yes, he showed poor judgment. No, he should never have allowed a Rolling Stone reporter near him or near any of his staff. Yes, he should have screened the article before it was published. But above all, he never should have apologized for telling the truth.

Having said that, and knowing how McChrystal voted in the 2007 election, I guess I can rejoice that he finally saw the light. Too bad he didn’t see what was right in front of him before the election. But it’s too bad, also, that the rest of the Obama voters didn’t see it before the fact. Now we’re stuck with a thin-skinned, henpecked, incompetent who never served one second in the military, and who wouldn’t know a battle plan from a boomerang.

Cec says maybe it was the only way he (McChrystal) could get out gracefully. Personally, I didn’t think it was so bloody graceful. But everything our pres. has been involved in since that black day in January, 2008, has been pathetically bumbling. Bumbling is fine for a cartoon character; but shouldn’t the Commander-in Chief of the United States of America have some modicum of class? No, I guess not. After all, his pals are a bunch of Chicago thugs; he was dragged off the streets and whipped into something resembling a human being at the time that America was ripe for “change”. George Soros did his work well. He’s always done well when it comes to bulldozing entire countries and regimes.

Back to General McChrystal. It’s not like he can’t get a job. But he doesn’t really need one. I’ll purchase and read his book, as will thousands of other patriotic Americans. And Pres. Sorobama can go back to kicking people under the nearest bus. God help us.



Thursday, June 17, 2010

Sociopath: It Takes One to Know One

This came in an email the other day. I don’t know the source but apparently Steve Kroft put some, if not all of it, together. I also don’t have a date on it, but you know how these things recycle. It’s timely because right now George Soros, better known as Obama’s Puppeteer, is getting even more wealthy, if that is possible, on the suffering of the Gulf oil victims. But that’s his MO, and Obama plays along because he’s incapable of independent thought.

"Who is behind Barak Obama. Who is pulling the strings?"

Here is what CBS' Mr. Steve Kroft's research has turned up... It's a bit of a read, but it took 4 months to put it together:


"The main obstacle to a stable and just World Order is the United States." - George Soros

"George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America's moral decline, at the feet of one man?

YES, it is indeed possible.

If George Soros isn't the world's preeminent "malignant messianic narcissist," he'll do until Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are reincarnated.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist world class philosopher, despises the American Way and just loves to do social engineering (change cultures). Soros is the power behind the throne of Obama. I accuse George Soros of being the PUPPET MASTER that is pulling Obama's strings.

György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.

When Hitler's henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 "the best year of his life."

"70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect."

During an interview with Sixty Minutes' Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his "best year:"

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.

SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power.

(I’m including a link to Snopes here due to some question about whether the above is actually accurate. Snopes leans so far left that if they admitted that something like this might possibly have some truth to it you can pretty much take it to the bank, assuming you can find one that hasn’t either gone under or been bought out.)

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having "carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."

Be that as it may, after WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper's death in 1994. Two of Popper's most influential teachings concerned "the open society," and Fallibilism.Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

The "open society" basically refers to a "test and evaluate" approach to social engineering. Regarding "open society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper's advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess."

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation. Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American Thinker" she says, "Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically almost overnight."

In 1994 Soros crowed in "The New Republic" that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history." The "Soros Empire" indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros "a villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people."

The website Greek National Pride reports, "[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality."

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for "illegal market manipulation." Elizabeth Crum writes that "The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become
more financially stable and westernized. [Soros'] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary's economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.

But what about America? Soros told Australia's national newspaper "The Australian," "America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out," he said, adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in American's consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about.

Soros: "World financial crisis was 'stimulating' and in a way, the culmination of my life's work."

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after his financial backer George Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, "The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independence."

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. (I tried this website but can’t get on.) Their mission: "This blog is dedicated to all. who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of. George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without
conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world's poor; that justice will be served."

Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O'Reilly said on "The O'Reilly Factor" that "Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous..." In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His "open society" is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an [sic] PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements."

Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers" are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book "The Shadow Party" outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel. Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.

DiscovertheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government... a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup."

November 2008 edition of the German magazine "Der Spiegel," in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U.S. ) should do after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package." Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights."

Although Soros doesn't (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by "The Baltimore Chronicle's" Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by "a veritable who's who of former Republican leaders," from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren't bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA. And I mustn't forget to mention Soros' involvement with the MSM (Main Stream
Media), the entertainment industry (e.g., he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influence most of the MSM. Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro's NEMESIS.

As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal billionaire turned philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives."

Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America's traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering."

Some of the many NGOs (Non Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

Poe continues, "Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia."

Without Soro's money, would the Saul Alinsky's Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes (I thought this should be No, no, no, and no.)

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the way.

The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: "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!"

In God We Trust/Good Day”

There you have it. Some of it may be old information but it never hurts to review and verify the course we are on. About the only plus in all this is George Soros is eighty; he can’t live forever. But you can be sure he has enough disciples to carry on his evil work for our lifetime and that of our children. Unless God intervenes.



Monday, June 14, 2010

His mouth is Moving Again

Cecil brought this to my attention after church yesterday. You can read his post about it on Zion Beckons. I Googled “Obama lies about offshore drilling” and got 252,000 hits including this one from Free Republic:

“Another Stumble in the Gulf (Obama lies)
Powerline Blog ^
June 11, 2010
Posted on 06/13/2010 1:04:09 AM PDT by XHogPilot

The administration has decreed a six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in the Gulf, based on a report that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar wrote for President Obama. Salazar claimed that a panel of seven experts selected by the National Academy of Engineering had peer reviewed his report. It turns out, though, that the seven experts never saw the recommendation for a moratorium, and in fact oppose it:

The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.

The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.

Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.

"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."

Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.

Carol Browner tried to claim that the administration did nothing wrong, but it is hard to follow her logic:

"No one's been deceived or misrepresented," Browner told Fox News, defending the moratorium as a safety measure. "These experts gave their expert advice, and then a determination was made looking at all of the information, including what these experts provided -- that there should be a pause, and that's exactly what there is. There's a pause."

That, of course, is very different from attributing the recommendation of a moratorium to the experts, or claiming that they had "peer reviewed" it. In fact, the expert panel made cogent arguments against the administration's moratorium:

In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.

The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down - a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.

They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.

They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.

So this looks like one more instance where the Obama administration is neither honest nor competent, and where its first instinct seems to be to pursue the course that will most damage our economy.

If you’re not completely outraged by now go to Mike Eden’s Blog Start Thinking Right. The problem with Obama and his administration is they have no concept of truth. Whatever comes out of their mouths makes no difference. Truth, lies, whatever works for the situation and the moment. And with Obama, the liar-in-chief, we can readily recognize the lies—whenever his mouth is moving.

My question is: how many more impeachable offences will he get away with before someone says, “Enough!” Isn’t there one person in Congress with the intestinal fortitude to stop this roller coaster from hell? We talk incessantly about November. Do we even have until November? Barack Obama is destroying us, and much faster than any of us anticipated. The ride is going to get a lot rougher if something isn't done soon.



Saturday, June 12, 2010

Responsibility? What Responsibility?

I was sitting here surfing, trying to find a story about the declaration Obama made a couple of weeks ago in regard to the oil leak and his “taking full responsibility,” when I literally stumbled on this from The American Spectator. After reading the commentary by Robin of Berkley, which is on Storm’n Norm’n’s blog, I commented that maybe Obama needs an intervention—or an exorcism. I meant it to be a little humorous and then I thought it over. Is demon possession a mental illness or is mental illness demon possession? Don’t laugh or send me a tinfoil hat (I threw mine away after the election. You know—the one held in 2008? All about change you can believe in?)

Here’s Mr. Kaminsky’s very insightful contribution. Please go to the link and read the comments. It’s half the fun.  

“The Obama Watch

A Leak in the Presidency

By Ross Kaminsky on 6.11.10 @ 6:09AM

Leave it to my wife to come up with a jewelry metaphor for Barack Obama. Obama is, according to my bride, the political equivalent of cubic zirconia. Usually sold to people who love the look of diamonds but can't afford a real one or are fooled into buying an imposter, cubic zirconia is superficially pretty and appealing. But when subjected to the scrutiny of an expert or when placed under great pressure, the falseness and weakness compared to the real thing become apparent.

The pressure analogy is particularly appropriate given that the source of Barack Obama's troubles lie a mile under the ocean's surface, where pressures are about one ton per square inch. The pressure of the situation is causing Obama's vaunted reputation as "competent" to crack like the false promise it always was.

Unlike the ring that accidentally falls into the garbage disposal and gets crushed, the destruction of Barack Obama's perceived competency is almost entirely self-inflicted. On May 28, he aggressively placed his own reputation under that literal ton of pressure down at the oil-spewing well-head by saying "I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis…I am the president and the buck stops with me." He was reinforcing his words of a day earlier: "The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort… In case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility."

What kind of CEO would stake his reputation, his power, and perhaps more importantly the reputation of the organization he runs -- in Obama's case, the federal government of the United States -- on something over which he has absolutely no control? Would the president of your company "take responsibility" for the Cubs not winning the World Series? (Assuming your company doesn't own the Cubs, of course.)

As I'm writing this, I'm watching a television ad by BP CEO Tony Hayward who is taking "full responsibility for cleaning up the spill in the gulf." That makes sense; BP has the technology and the know-how to at least attempt to clean up the mess they created. They're the players on the team, even if it is a team as historically hapless or mismanaged as the Cubs or BP. They, not Obama, are the ones who can and should be on the field.

Meanwhile, as we know, Obama has decided that his own taking of responsibility means he needs to figure out "whose ass to kick." Obama's message changes daily, from anger to frustration to ass-kicking, as it must when someone takes existential risk with his political capital in a situation which a college freshman in a political science class would recognize as posing far more risk than reward, far more opportunity to look bad than to be the hero. It's remarkable that Obama has so quickly forgotten the political peril demonstrated by the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. But having taken responsibility, Obama feels he must be seen as "doing something," perhaps the most dangerous mode of operation for a politician -- especially a wounded one.

So, back to the question: What kind of CEO would take responsibility for something entirely out of his control? The same kind who would say, as Barack Obama did two years ago, that "generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children" that his ascendency to power "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." God-complex much, Barack?

Some discussion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from Psychology Today seems à propos: "People with narcissistic personality disorder are frequently perfectionists and need to be the center of attention, receiving affection and admiration, and controlling the situation."

And further: "Deep desire to be at the center of things is served by extreme self-confidence, a combination that makes narcissists attractive and even charming. Buoyed by a coterie of admiring friends and associates -- protected by the armor of positive self-regard -- someone with a mild-to-moderate case of narcissism can float through life feeling pretty good about himself. Since they feel entitled to special treatment, they are easily offended, and readily harbor grudges. Yet narcissists are often very popular -- at least in the short term."

A president who was not a narcissist might have taken a very different tack on the Deepwater Horizon spill: Rather than risking his political capital and popularity by taking responsibility for the clean-up, he would emphasize that government's capacities in the situation were limited but that government was doing what it could. He would inform Gulf Coast residents whose lives and businesses have been disrupted what federal resources are available to help them rather than looking for people to fire or asses to kick. In short, a wise and non-narcissistic president would not have made the issue about himself.

The wise approach, however, has an additional problem for President Obama beyond his deeply self-absorbed personality: As a Progressive, Obama believes that government should be able to do almost anything…and should do everything it can. Obama is part of a presidential Progressive lineage going back through FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who believed that technocrats should be in charge of most aspects of American life, that private citizens are too stupid to manage their own lives so we need Progressives to do so for us. One might say that Progressivism is an inherently narcissistic philosophy.

For Obama to admit, much less aggressively argue, that government's capability to plug an oil well is limited leads down a dangerous road for those who want government to appear omnipotent. After all, it's hard for even a Progressive to argue explicitly that government should do things in which it has no competence. (The fact that they do precisely that on such a large scale is a topic for another day.) Progressive politicians must therefore aggrandize themselves and the abilities of government in order to maintain the public's sadly resilient self-destructive belief in the power of politicians to fix things. Progressives' governing philosophy and psychology thus prevent Obama from doing anything other than what he's doing. Indeed, rather than saying "I can't fix this,", Obama has suggested that the federal government should acquire the technological capability to fix future deep-water oil well leaks. Again, his personality and Progressivism allow him no other path.

One Obama apologist suggests that people are "blaming Obama for not being a god." She forgets that Obama is the one who took responsibility for stopping the oil (and explicitly claimed that his "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.) The end of his façade of competency is entirely self-inflicted. With luck, Obama has weakened people's blind faith in the competency of politicians generally and presidents specifically.

I can only hope that once discovered to be what it is, the recipient of that cubic zirconia -- or its political equivalent who resides today at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- will never again look at the semi-precious gem (once thought to be precious) with the same approval, satisfaction, or gratitude.

Ross Kaminsky is a professional derivatives trader, a fellow at the Heartland Institute, and a frequent contributor to Human Events. He blogs at Rossputin.com.

I think I’ve figured out why Obama said he’d take full responsibility. It’s all about him. Good or bad, he has to be the center of the universe. He is incapable of capitulating to anyone, even in the face of disaster. However, he has lifted the blame game to Olympic status. Something must be done. Where are all those voters who claim to be suffering from buyer’s remorse?



Friday, June 11, 2010

It Depends on Which Pot and Whose Kettle

Susan Estrich is not someone I read on a regular basis, because I know which way she leans and nothing she says surprises me. But the title of her latest commentary intrigued me. I spotted it on Rasmussen and clicked on it. The Value of Experience. Aha, I thought. She’s on to Obama and his disastrous presidency. Wrong guess. It was pretty much business as usual: a snotty, snarky comparison of the winners of the Tuesday election versus “career” politicians. Using William Safire’s analogy about not hiring an inexperienced plumber, she proceeded to excoriate Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman for referring to career politicians.

I fail to see the big deal or the big gaffe in that statement, especially since it’s accurate. Career politicians who have been around the block several times have a tendency to forget just where in the world they left their platform way back when. Kind of like doctors. The fresh-faced guy or gal just out of med school is still retaining what old MDs have long since forgotten.

Then there’s the matter of the “hot” mike. This one is a two-edged sword. Here’s the quote from Estrich: “On her first day as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in California, Carly Fiorina forgot lesson No. One: Always assume the mike is hot." Fiorina mentioned Boxer’s hair being so “yesterday” over a live mike. Well, isn’t that a shock. At least she assumed it was turned off. Remember when every left-wing blogger and media source in the universe blathered about Sarah Palin’s hair as well as every other millimeter of her body in front of the whole world? Goodness, silly me, I forgot about that pesky double standard.

And speaking of experience, didn’t a certain lady, a member of the White House press corps since Estrich was still being potty trained, very recently and suddenly “retire” because all of her experience couldn’t buy her an excuse for what she said over a hot mike? Experience, huh? Granted, Helen Thomas wasn’t running for office; she was just running her mouth. But experience has very little to do with some things. Something the lft has never "gotten" is that integrity counts.

Estrich also reminds us that “winning debates, scoring points against your rival – that’s tough, but not nearly as tough as getting things done once you’re in office.” Yeah, Susan, we know all about winning debates and scoring points against your opponent. That’s what our present hapless-in-chief did, and just see where we are now. The most inexperienced at anything president we’ve ever had and you’re busy with your petty little criticisms against people with far more history and integrity than our community organizing, narcissistic, out-to-lunch president.

Maybe you’d rather have a plumber with experience, but it seems to me we’ve been victims of the Washington Roto-Rooter pretty much on a daily basis for seventeen months. Apparently our fearless leader doesn’t need experience for that.

Here’s her commentary for your perusal and/or edification.



Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The Disconnect of the White House and its Potentially Disastrous Results

This is from the Wall Street Journal. It’s depressing but Ms Rabinowitz gives a clear picture of what is actually going on the the minds of Mr. President and his hand-picked Socialists. What really scares me is that our enemies are watching in wonderment the hapless antics of our “fearless leaders". They must be stopped. This should be required reading for all Obama enthusiasts out there:

 "The Alien in the White House

The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.


The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.

It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.

It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.

It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.”

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.

Please share this. Thank you. And thank you, Ms Rabinowitz, for such an insightful article.



Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Israel Isn’t the Bad Guy Here

The following article by Craig Chamberlain, from The Land of the Free.net,  is the most coherent analysis I have yet seen of the Israeli “attack” against the poor, defenseless flotilla transporting humanitarian supplies to Gaza. From the stories you hear in the MSM, the Israelis are a bunch of bloodthirsty goons, ready to kill and eat newborn babies at any given signal.

Unfortunately, most Americans who still listen to CNN, MSNBC, and read USA Today and The New York Times, Reuters, etc., never go beyond the propaganda spewed out by the left. But, unfortunately too, they still think the government is our friend.

In the following article, Chamberlain lays out the truth about Islam, the Middle East, and the warped mindset of America and Europe.



"The Unspeakable Turk Strikes Again

By: Craig Chamberlain

In the history of the world most peoples, sadly, have, in their past, a history of violence and death. Most peoples, though, have moved on from that. The Germans, no longer have concentration camps, Rwanda is working towards reconciliation after the genocide of 1994 and the U.S. fought a civil war to end slavery. Most look to such past barbarisms with a sense of shame. The Turks are an exception to that rule. Not only have they lived their entire history as bloodthirsty marauders who murdered, pillaged and raped wherever they went, they glory in their actions on the one hand, while denying any wrongdoing on their part with the other. Try getting them to confess to the Armenian genocide of 1915, and you’ll get some vague words about tragedies during that time. What they’re really saying is that, yes they did it and those Armenian dogs deserved it.

And these are the same people who have the chutzpah to criticize Israel for a “genocide” against the Palestinians. They condemn Israel for it’s “occupation” of “Palestine” and for their brutality. Ok, let’s set the record straight. The Israeli’s have never committed a genocide. Remember the “genocide” of Jenin? Yes, in April of 2002 those bloodthirsty Israelis ran wild over the city and massacred the city’s population. At least that’s what the Islamic world and their leftist allies would have you believe. In reality 53 people died when the IDF went in to deal with militants who had taken over the area. That’s a hell of a genocide.

And what about the poor suffering people of the Gaza strip? Well, the last time I checked Israel wasn’t in control of Gaza anymore. There is not one Israeli soldier, or settler, anywhere in the territory. In all truthfulness, someone is Gaza is more likely to be killed by their Hamas overlords than they are by the IDF.

The Turks, on the other hand, have turned genocide and ethnic cleansing to an art form. Aside from the Armenian genocide of 1915, they spent centuries, during the height of their empire, doing everything they could to wipe out the Christian populations of the Balkans. And what about the occupation of Cyprus? Israel has left Gaza and would leave the West Bank if they could do so safely. Turkey, on the other hand has been in control of a portion of Cyprus since 1974, drove thousands of Greek Cypriots from their homes. Where’s the outrage for that?

Why do I bring all of this up? What does this have to do with the current situation in the Middle East? It goes to credibility. The Turks don’t have any. When you spend centuries conquering, slaughtering, and wiping out anyone who stands in your way, you don’t have the right to scream genocide, or massacre, when a nation under constant attack decides to engage in an act of self defense.

The self styled “peace activists” were certainly well armed, well trained, and fully ready for the Israeli raid, and all too eager to use violence. If all they were doing were taking humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza why were they so quick to turn violent? These “activists” were sent by the orders of Ankara and that filthy swine Erdogan. Erdogan(who I have said time and time again is nothing more than Bin Laden in a business suit) is all too eager to export his Islamist ideals and to pick a fight with Israel, which all Islamists( Erdogan included) believe has to be destroyed.

Sadly, Israel fell for the trap. The Islamic world knows that it can’t win a conventional war against Israel. It’s tried and failed. They don’t want a replay of the 1967 war. So they use terrorism, and public relations. The poor defenseless Muslims, who are struggling righteously to overthrow the cruel yoke of Israel. And typically the left in Europe, and America, have bought into that narrative. The European left is desperate to maintain good relations with the Arab world because of the large Muslim populations in their own countries, while the American left does it just because they hate Jews.

Turkey now has a causus belli to launch an attack on Israel. It’s not clear whether Erdogan will do it, yet. Israel is in the right but the world insists it is in the wrong. We see our own government side with dictatorships, terrorists, and nations that really have committed genocide, while scolding, and pushing around a democracy and a natural ally.

Peace in the Middle East will never come easy, but it will not be worth it if we throw Israel under the bus for defending itself. The U.S. and Israel are at war with the same enemy. How can we justify our attacks on Islamic militants, while condemning Israel attempts to fight the same war?

If there is any country in the Middle East that is a threat to peace in the region it is Turkey. Turkey, under that terrorist Prime Minister, has overthrown the secular republicanism of Ataturk and embraced the Islamist terrorism of Iran. Given its history of past genocides, and current occupations, it’s the unspeakable Turk that can bring about a Middle East war."

Monday, May 31, 2010

Hardly Qualifies Anyone

Remember this? "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." –Joe Biden, referring to Barack Obama at the beginning of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Jan. 31, 2007

Here’s a list of Obama's qualifications, according to our now-Vice President:






For those who would jump all over this and call me—one more time—racist, keep in mind from whose mouth the above quote spewed. All I’m doing is looking at the qualifications.

African-American. First of all, he’s not African-American, but nobody remembers that. He decided to run as an African-American, a brilliant move on the part of his string-pullers, and it resonated with everybody from Blacks to guilt-ridden whites. So it was a good choice. Actually, I’d rather see a real African-American run for president. With the first qualification we hear the first lie.

Articulate: clear, coherent, lucid. In other words, he doesn’t sound like a pair of sneakers in a dryer when he speaks with the aid of a teleprompter. Extemporaneously? Not so much. Which is why most of his speeches are staged. But here’s the really interesting thing. I have spent the past two years, give or take, being force-fed myriad appearances and listening to him ad nauseum and I’ve never been able to pin down just what it is about his speeches that drives me to distraction. An email from a dear friend the other day solved it for me. I’m posting part of it here in hopes that she will forgive me and won’t sue for copyright infringement.

“. . . how is it that speaking in phrases gets him lauded as a great speaker? I find it painful to listen to him and not just because everything he says is a lie. I want to prod him on to the next whole sentence. The libs used to criticize Bush for his speaking; I always found him easy to listen to.”

The truth is he's not the great orator he's cracked up to be, thrill-down-the-leg notwithstanding. But he managed to fool some of the people all of the time, and that's all it took to catapult him into the White House.

Bright. I’m pretty sure Biden meant intelligent, clever, smart, sharp, etc. when he described Obama, although he may have meant vivid, intense, dazzling. I’m not so sure about optimistic, upbeat, or positive. Remember the doom and gloom about the economy resulting in the most expensive stimulus bill ever passed? The one that introduced us to a new word: trillion?

But back to intelligent, clever, smart, sharp. Have we seen any transcripts from any school he ever attended? Maybe “trainable” is a better word; his string-pullers knew a good foil when they saw it.

Clean. Um, I’m not sure where to go with this. I’m not familiar with his bathing habits, I’ve never gotten close enough to smell him, and I think I’d better leave it alone; it’s been drug through the mud enough. But is that a qualification for the presidency? I suppose if you want to keep the White House clean it would be good. But if you want a clean White House, better you take out the pond scum and putrid Chicago garbage he brought along with him, which has been stinking up the place for the past fourteen months, six days and approximately five hours.

Nice-looking. I suppose that goes along with clean. The last time I saw him he didn’t look, sound, or act so nice. He was trying to weasel his administration’s way around the biggest “man-made” disaster in American history. But, like George W. Bush, who also met his Waterloo on the Gulf Coast, there’s no getting away from it. Obama's stunning qualifications didn’t stand up to this event. I’m not sure whose would, but perhaps someone with less arrogance and more humility, less aloofness and more connection with the American people might stand a tad better chance.

If you haven’t already done so, read Peggy Noonan’s editorial, which is far more articulate than this post. Seems she's finally seeing the light, after the sappy, sickening, pro-Obama drivel we were forced to endure from her before the election. So take it with a grain of salt. The editorial is two days old, but I just got to it because I worked all weekend. Remember, I'm a working-class granny, clinging to my guns and my religion.