from eddobloggo.com
My better half would probably throw me under the bus and tell you that I lost my bout with awake-ness by a  knockout during Sean Hannity's hour-long interview of Sarah Palin Wednesday evening.  I'm sticking with "Tough day. Just resting my eyes, sweetheart."

Regardless, I'll be candid and admit that after seeing this interview I had about as much of a craving to buy Palin's memoirs as I've ever had to read Barack Obama's account of what he did during his formative years in the Soviet Union.

Actually, it would never even have occurred to me to write about Sarah Palin at this point in time.  She's not  officially running for anything and, other than her book promotion tour and a controversial Newsweek cover designed to stimulate that magazine's own sagging sales, nothing she has done lately is newsworthy. 

Nonetheless, the left is still deathly afraid of her.  They will go to any length, including their nearly unilateral preservation of her 15 minutes, by continuing a perpetual "discussion" of this hated subject.  They do so, apparently, merely to enable themselves to get in a nasty jab at her as often as possible. 

It appears to anyone paying honest attention that the left talks and writes far more about Gov. Palin than does the right.  Case in point: David Letterman, who does over-the-top Palin insult shtick whenever his writers run out of new ideas -- which is obviously pretty often.

My own impetus for joining the lefties with today's Palin piece is the story about the Associated Press putting a team of 11 crack investigative reporters on her case.  AP claims Palin misstated her record as governor of Alaska with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts.  They also speculate that Palin's book, Going Rogue: An American Life, "...has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto."

According to Newsmax, "the AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, would not comment on their own reporting for this story."

"Imagine that," reads Sarah Palin's Facebook come-back. "Eleven AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."

Of course I agree with Gov. Palin's perspective and believe that her ability to both defend herself from her attackers and to throw their hypocrisy right back at them is in large part responsible for the lefties' fear and hate of this unflappable woman. 

They would have you believe that she is incapable of original thought, let alone solid executive performance.  Remember that they said essentially the same things about George W. Bush which helped get him elected twice in spite of the know-it-all belief that their vitriol would ring true.

Harry S. Truman was fond of saying: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."  I agree wholeheartedly with Truman's logic and would apply it to anyone who writes an autobiography; anyone with or without a political ulterior motive for doing so.  But while I trust that Sarah Palin is very much like President Truman in both her forthrightness and plain-talking style, Mrs. Bloggo will attest that I'm not losing any sleep over any of it.

The ultimate irony, however, is that we will know more about Sarah Palin's background as a result of the AP and the liberal media's old-fashioned vetting years before the next presidential campaign than we knew about our current president before his election. 

In all likelihood we will know more about Sarah Palin, whether or not she ever runs for office (and whether or not we ever care) than we will ever know about the background of Barack Hussein Obama -- which is the cause for many Americans' sleepless nights.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com
Attorney General Eric Holder is about two years my junior.  It is likely, therefore, that he was in the seventh grade at one of those New York City public schools for intellectually-gifted students that he attended from age ten through high school on the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Holder's junior high, like my own New York school, would have been closed indefinitely with the announcement of JFK's death.  He and the rest of America would spend the next several days riveted to their televisions watching the incredible post-assassination saga unfold before our eyes. 

Two days after being sent home from school, Holder would have witnessed, as did the rest of us, the breech of security that allowed Jack Ruby to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK's presumed assassin, at point blank range inside the Dallas police facility where Oswald was being detained.

You may wonder now, as the USAG prepares to re-create the potential for a latter day vigilante episode of similar magnitude, if the deprivation of justice perpetrated by Jack Ruby in Dallas 46 years ago was an impetus for young Eric Holder to devote his gifted young intellect to the study and application of American law?

It would do no good to argue legalities with Eric Holder.  Given the administration's collective mind being made up to mock Americans' Constitutional rights by allowing the admitted 9/11 plot mastermind to be tried -- just like a US citizen -- in our criminal court system. 

Additionally, we need to keep in mind that as Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, Holder was responsible for:

• Reducing the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, which had been categorized by the FBI as a terrorist organization.

• The pardon of eight incarcerated members of the FALN, one of the most prolific terrorist organizations ever to wage war against the American people, who proudly claimed responsibility for over 130 bombings and incendiary attacks in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that had killed six and wounded scores.

• The pardon of Marc Rich, on the last day of Clinton's presidency, who was indicted in the United States on federal charges of illegally making oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis as well as for income tax evasion.

Even if you are inclined to agree with the administration's points of disagreement with the previous administration's methodologies for keeping New York City and the rest of America safe from terrorist attack...

Even if you are as unconcerned about the potential for pro-terror and anti-US propaganda as Holder and his cronies are...

Even if you see no problem with the exposure-by-trial of CIA and other intelligence-gathering organizations' information and strategies to the enemies of America...

Even if you are unconcerned about the security and privacy issues inherent in keeping a civilian jury occupied for such an extended period of time...

Even if you are eager for the US to prove, by giving a fair trial to even an admitted arch-enemy, its claim of being the fairest and most democratic nation on earth...

Even if you are willing to see that fair trial turn into a show trial...

What scintilla of logic has the Obama administration presented that convinces you there is no better, more secure venue than lower Manhattan (let alone in a courthouse that was once in the shadow of the World Trade Center Towers) for Federal Court trials of foreign nationals who had plotted and were ultimately captured abroad?

Please don't accuse me of supporting any other trial than one conducted by a military tribunal, but the cost of constructing or renovating a more secure trial venue for KSM and the rest would not exceed the cost to taxpayers of providing security for a years-long New York City trial.  In the process, it might at least create some needed jobs. 

Too bad that our gifted Attorney General gave most of his gifts away to enemies of America during the Clinton administration.  But leave it to Barack Obama to recycle this anti-American's best friend and to allow him to finish the job.

eddobloggo home/archive

Now apply the same information that has, thus far, been gathered about the Fort Hood shooter and combine it with what corporate security and the FBI may have known about the hypothetical employee prior to his commission of these murders.

Keep in mind that there was not a single person in the room at the time of the shooting that had ever been in direct conflict with the subject.  Remember that the psychos who "go postal" at schools and workplaces are usually eager to justify their behavior with a litany of perceived personal offenses committed by peers and/or superiors written into their suicide notes or related in post-capture statements.  There is no such evidence in this case.

Based on the available evidence, including the shooter's cry of "Allahu akbar" during the massacre, would it not be logical to assume that our hypothetical perp has committed an act of jihadist terrorism?

In eulogizing the fallen at Fort Hood the president blamed "twisted logic" for the killing of 13 men and women. Despite reading from his teleprompter that "there is no faith that justifies [this] murderous and craven [act]" and that the shooter will ultimately "meet justice in this world and the next," Obama refuses to "jump to the conclusion" that the shooter's motive is tantamount to radical Islamist jihadism, implying that it may merely be the result of anti-Muslim hate speech and/or a paranoiac mental illness.

Of course, progressives have a socialistic need to preserve multi-culturalism and the multi-victimism it has spawned.  When everyone is a victim the government can grow to be everyone's comforter.  This is accomplished, in large part, through the use of a powerful hallucinogen with the street name PC.

Political Correctness will always play a major roll in the left's denial of terrorism, even when its manifestation is black-and-white obvious to the un-drugged. Nonetheless, in addition to its ongoing leftist PC stance, this administration actually has a rational, pragmatic reason for its denial of the extremely clear logic behind the Fort Hood shooter's actions.

Calling the Fort Hood Massacre anything but an incident born of some twisted logic would validate the previous administration's claim that the events of September 11, 2001 thrust our nation into a war with jihadists a/k/a Islamo-fascist terrorists. Further, it would serve to prove that this war must be fought just as fiercely here in the homeland as it should be fought abroad.

It would also prove that, as a result of a PC overdose and the failure to properly use the intelligence-gathering methodologies created to help provide post-9/11 homeland security, we have become as insecure in our homes, workplaces and public buildings as are the citizens of Spain, India, the UK, Pakistan and Iraq, to name a few recently terrorized nations.

It would indicate, if not prove, that in the last year we have become even more vulnerable than we were on September 10, 2001, when an act of Islamist  terrorism committed by a member of the US Army on a domestic US Army base would have been just as unthinkable as the possibility of mass murder by high-jacked aircraft.

If there is twisted logic in play as a result of the Fort Hood Massacre it is made abundantly clear by the thought process which concludes that endlessly apologizing for past political incorrectness, protecting multi-culturalism ahead of homeland security and refusing to call a terrorist a terrorist has made -- or could ever make -- a positive change in America.
 

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com

Evidence is growing that the massacre at Fort Hood was as much an act of radical Islamist terrorism as were the 9/11 attacks and the uncountable number of suicide-homicide bombings that have occurred in the Middle East. Even if it turns out that this mass murderer had merely "snapped" it certainly does not prove that the rest of the jihadists are wrapped any more tightly.

As a result of the Fort Hood shooter's religion and ethnicity in combination with reports that Nidal Malik Hasan had uttered the very same phrase that has come to be known as the "famous last words" of Islamists, the American Muslim community is growing fearful of anti-Muslim backlash.

Many are calling it increased backlash, although you may find it difficult to conjure up the memory of some major media-covered incident(s) based on pre-Fort Hood terrorism. Other than any number of busted plots involving Muslim-Americans plus an ever-growing list of stories about religious honor killings, what have we been told by the media about ongoing difficulties in the American Muslim community?

Wasn't there anything more newsworthy than the occasional workplace or campus head scarf controversy, modified burqua pictorial, or story about foot bath installations at airports and other public buildings?

On the other hand, what about those village squares and courthouses across the nation that have been forced by PC organizations and the ACLU to remove their Christmas and Chanuka symbols for fear of offending Muslims and other minority religions?  Are Arab-Americans and other avowed Muslims really picked-on by their cohorts in the US armed forces? If so, what about black, white and Hispanic converts to Islam?

When was the last time you heard a speech or read a commentary from the spokesman of a prominent Muslim-American organization or religious group decrying any specific act of violence committed in the name of Allah? Well, apparently the administration has.

"This was a terrible tragedy for all involved," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters in the United Arab Emirates' capital Abu Dhabi. "Obviously, we object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this." Napolitano added that her agency is working with state and local groups to try to deflect any anti-Muslim anger after Thursday's Fort Hood attack.

It is extremely ironic that the DHS, various elements of military intelligence, the Secret Service and any number of other US Government agencies regularly monitor public blogs and commentary websites such as this one.  Webmasters who have randomly checked their server logs have been shocked and disturbed to find the IP addresses of the aforementioned listed among their visitor statistics.

"The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States," DHS Secretary Napolitano said in a statement last April.  Veterans returning from the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan were among the potential right-wing threats identified in her earlier statement.

It is understandable that those who spy on home-grown terrorist may be too overworked monitoring the countless number of writers of anti-administration material to identify and maintain surveillance over those who write truly anti-American diatribe.  But missing or ignoring the rantings of its own personnel -- sane or otherwise -- points to yet another aspect of this administration's return to a pre-9/11 mentality.

Hopefully, Muslim-Americans will be quick, next time, to report any threats that exist within their own community; to provide the "situational awareness" so sought-after by the Department of Homeland Security.  There would be no better way to prove to the rest of us that we have nothing to fear in that community.  There would be no quicker way to eliminate the backlash about which they have complained.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com
Tuesday's strong gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia lend no credence to the title of a recent book by Democrat strategist/spinmeister James Carville: 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. In fact, post-election, Carville has sent an e-mail to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee warning that the GOP could rebound in 2010 and take over the Senate just as they did in 1994.

But rather than saying "We told you so" about Obama's loss of luster, rather than gloating over these impressive turn-around victories, we should make a single, unarguable point -- that if Democrats had won these governorships the left would be screaming from every media organ and rooftop about the Dear Leader's strength and righteousness instead of warning of the ominous possibilities inherent in the 2010 mid-term elections.

The previous point is validated when the left's spin-doctoring regarding the results of the special election in New York's tiny (low-population) 23rd Congressional District is examined...

Away from its social implications, Maine's same-sex marriage referendum defeat sends a further warning -- especially to liberals and RINO's like Maine's own senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- that they had better be more in tune with their constituents' growing distrust of the leftist agenda (universal health care, cap and tax and the climate bill) or risk ouster in the next election.

The bad news about these elections cutting Obama down to size is that he will be forced to ramp up his never-ending campaigning in an attempt to woo independents back into his corner. 

The good news is that there are so few of them left to woo.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com 

The big question asked from surprisingly far-flung corners of America this week: "What's your take on New York 23, Ed?"  Of course, the question refers to the special off-year election in the 23rd Congressional District here in upstate New York (not my district -- an adjacent one to the north).

It began as a three-way race.  A Conservative Party of New York State candidate endorsed by such Republican Party luminaries as Sarah Palin, a liberal Democrat and an even more liberal GOP candidate who, despite her ACORN connection and other left-progressive stances, was controversially endorsed by a surprisingly partisan Newt Gingrich before she suddenly dropped out of the race yesterday.

While there are many more conservative states than New York, most do not have a formal Conservative Party that appears on a regular ballot line.  In that regard, those of us who have always opposed the kind of out-of-control taxation, spending, social programs and social engineering that liberal New Yorkers have pioneered should consider ourselves fortunate that the Conservative Party of New York State exists. 

But we don't always have an alternative option to Republicans and Democrats in each and every state and federal election.  For every Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani and John Faso that the CPNYS has backed, we have been co-fed Republicans like John McCain and Jim Tedisco. (Tedisco was defeated by Scott Murphy here in the recent 20th CD special election to fill Kirstin Gillibrand's seat vacated when she was tapped to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat.  John Faso was defeated by the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in the state's last gubernatorial election.)

Why?  Because those candidates have represented the lesser of two or three evils to our so-called Conservative Party leaders.

Sadder still, Conservatives have never really changed any liberals' minds in New York. To the contrary, our elected R-C governors have been notorious for taking a left turn somewhere along the way in order to get themselves re-elected with the support of those all-powerful downstate liberals.  Nelson Rockefeller was the first-ever RINO.  More recently, George Pataki, elected as a Conservative, followed Rocky's liberal gubernatorial lead in order to remain in power.

It was a kick to be among the tiny number of New Yorkers whose C-Party votes helped Ronald Reagan carry our liberal state.  Ironically, if Conservative Doug Hoffman wins in the 23rd CD election on Tuesday it will be by a margin of votes that exceeds the meager 30,000 or so Conservative Party of New York State votes received by the greatest Conservative politician of our time, Ronald Reagan.

It is a kick to hear and read about people from the other 49 states -- plus many from my own state -- who never realized that there is a Conservative Party of New York State -- that are suddenly talking about the next "change" in America beginning right here in rural upstate New York.  Make no mistake, despite our relative proximity to the Greater New York City tri-state metropolis, this part of America is as much flyover country as is Kansas or North Dakota.

My take, therefore, is that liberal and conservative Americans alike are quite curious to know whether some third party -- any third party -- can reclaim the America that once existed as the "shining city on a hill". 

Taken from The Gospel According to Matthew 5:14-16..."You are the light of the world, a city set on a hill cannot be hid." it is a passage that Ronald Reagan often quoted in his speeches to project his view of America as a beacon of freedom and hope in the world.

We will see this Tuesday whether the possibility of reclamation exists so soon after the light was dimmed by the smokescreen of hollow idealistic-sounding rhetoric. We will know whether Ronald Reagan's challenge has been answered a year from this Tuesday.

eddobloggo home/archive

If you've lost count of the number of times the president has made speeches, post-election campaign pleas, mini-speeches and speechlets about the need to overhaul health care you're certainly not alone. If someone said 1,000, 3,000 or even 5,000 times you'd probably say "Is that all?"

It is that constant droning on about key points in his agenda -- like the yet-to-be defined Obamacare and the yet-to-be proven creation and rescue of millions of jobs -- that eventually makes many Americans tune out and become indifferent to subject matter that has already been covered ad nauseam. Of course, that is the desired effect.

Perhaps the first time you heard of a particular program that they had begun to drone on about, you disagreed intensely.  Thirty-seven times later, however, you became so sick of the redundancy that you just tuned it out from that moment on. By the time it ultimately got crammed down your throat, all you could do was throw your hands up and say "Yup, that was another stupid expensive idea I never liked."

And it works the same way with the media. You probably wonder how and why the White House would choose a boring stammerer like Robert Gibbs to be the president's daily spokesman; why they would throw an inarticulate fumferer in front of a crowd of glib, highly-trained and experienced interrogators every day.

Well, with the majority of the media already in the tank, all Gibbs has to do is bore a few critical reporters to tears with his Ummms, Ahhhs and interminable droning before he finally snaps them all out of it with a "Times up!" announcement.

Speaking of real drones, while the Dear Leader dithers about troop strength in Afghanistan he sent the Secretary of State to do some heavy lifting in the region.

One reporter in a crowd of Pakistani journalists (they not only know how to ask hardball questions, but they have the stamina to stay awake until they are definitively answered) asked the First Lady of Pants Suits how she would define terrorism.  "Is it the killing of people in drone attacks like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week?" 

Hillary's quick reply: "No." 

The FLOPS also said, before a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in Lahore: "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." She even admitted that "there is a war going on," and implied that the Obama administration is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the "insurgents and terrorists" who threaten the stability of that nuclear-armed nation.

Isn't this the same kind of indelicate, bellicose rhetoric that Obama has taken pains to decry and apologize for on most of the earth's populated continents?  How could an avowed progressive even dream of saying these kinds of antithetical things in the era of change?

It appears that while the drones keep droning on the Queen is setting up her own hive. 

eddobloggo home/archive

...when you know Obama can just appoint a V-chip Czar and try to tax rich Conservatives out of the media business.     

 

from eddobloggo.com      
At very least, and In keeping with their Marxist model, a tax or penalty could be assessed against local cable providers who wish to retain what the administration considers to be offensive networks. The cost of such penalties would be passed along to consumers who might then be forced to think twice about watching so much of un-American FOX versus its competitors who so unswervingly toe the patriotic administration line.

However,  it could end up being a lot more difficult than White House thugs believe to silence the powerful voices heard on high-wattage AM radio stations.  Aggressive jamming of radio signals, as was done continuously behind the Iron Curtain, would eventually put a forced end to talk radio as we know it, forcing relentless critics of the administration to develop an underground alternative to their current on-air activity.

Rather than being silenced and outfoxed the alternative would, perhaps, look something like this...

Far-fetched? Extreme?  Ridiculous?

No more so than an administration crying  "unfair" and demonizing a highly-rated mainstream TV network.  No more so than the White House crying "un-American" whenever they are criticized.  No more so than attempting to fine-tune the First Amendment.

In real world America it is the right that needs a Fairness Doctrine.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com According to Gallup Poll®  Americans’ approval of the job that Congress is doing is at 21% this month, down significantly from last month’s 31% and from the recent high of 39% in March 2009.  This is dismal performance no matter how you slice it.   Congressional approval had risen sharply in the months after President Obama’s inauguration -- from 19% in January to 31% in February and 39% in March. Approval then began to slip gradually, dipping to 31% by the end of the summer before falling precipitously in October.

"Throw whatever you want at me -- keep it coming!"

The percentage of Americans who approve of the way Congress is handling its job fell to 21% in October from 31% in late August with the biggest decline coming among those who identify as Democrats, 

Similarly, Gallup has tracked the president's approval since day one.  His approval reading today is at 52%, down from 69% on Inauguration Day.  More significantly, the percentage of those who disapprove of Obama's performance has skyrocketed from 12% to 42% during his nine months in office.  The biggest decline coming from those who identify as Independent.

While Congress consists of many more Democrats than Republicans at this time, the House of Representatives and Senate nonetheless remain bi-partisan entities, save for a handful of Independents.

The White House, on the other hand, is occupied exclusively by one party at a time.  However, it is often independent voters who get any given president elected, as was certainly the case in Obama's non-landslide victory over McCain last year.

Given the precarious position in which both the Democrat majority in Congress and the president currently find themselves, wouldn't it make more sense for all of them to be more attentive to the concerns of those who rate them so poorly? 

Instead we have Obama raving and ranting about how tireless he plans to be in getting each and every one of his socialist/environmentalist big-spending programs pushed through Congress.

"Throw whatever you want at me -- keep it coming!" he now grits his teeth and points a threatening finger at his critics.  Who didn't didn't know that his agenda can be passed into law any time he can get the Democrat majority's quackers in a row?

Depending upon the website at which you read this column, reaction to it will range from "Right on!" to "Get over it loser!" to "You need to be on a watch list!" (as if the Fishy Czar isn't already checking in from week to week).  If you are one of those who is still capable, crunch the numbers yourself and decide what you would do if the president's shoe were on your foot.

The Dear Leader says you should keep on throwing stuff at him.  That's one presidential suggestion that makes all the sense in the world, so don't let him bully you into quitting now.

from eddobloggo.com

It has been my assumption from the start that Obamacare, at least some watered-down somewhat de-socialized version of it, would squeak through Congress even if it takes a power-abusive nuclear option play to get the Democrats' ball into the end zone. 

So when it happens, no one will be able to say "I told you so".  Neither will they be able to accuse this renegade scribe of avoiding the political realities of Troika Amerika.

On the other hand, as a result of relentless protests and warnings about the president's proclivity to try and make each of his initiatives as expensive and socialistic as possible, even the Dear Leader has been forced, for many weeks now, to defend his rapidly devolving universal health care program(s) du jour. 

Socialized medicine is now being described as deficit neutral, waste-reducing and as conservatively priced as any complete overhaul of any system that accounts for 17% of a nation's economy could possibly be.

Unfortunately, with Congress' return to the Capitol after its summer break, town hall meetings and in-their-face rallies have come to a crashing halt.  The momentum has shifted slightly back to the Democrats who, despite their belittlement of a spontaneous movement that was able to take Obama's poll numbers down to reality as quickly as he could appoint three dozen czars, have seen a small up-tick in approval of their socialized medicine efforts.

The good news is that where there was zero accountability and transparency before the town hall meetings and protests there is now a token bi-partisanship (Obama realizes that blue dogs can be RINO's too) and an effort to be a tad bit more specific about the terms and cost of Obamacare.

The bad news is that while the success of protests against complete overhaul of the present system may have peaked, the farthest-left Democrats are reunited and are being buoyed by their komrades' encouragement. 

As the next wave of protests and media campaigns are being ramped up, Congressional Democrats appear to have forgotten the August shouts of their constituents.  They obviously need to remain in their comfort zones for as long as possible after their harrowing town hall experiences.

But on November 2, 2010 (start the countdown) Conservative, Republican, Independent and Libertarian voters with long memories will be just as eager to vote as Donald Duque and Minnie Mauss were the last time around.

Unafraid of the news media continuing the interrogations begun by those highly organized extremist astro-turfers, disgruntled neocon fringers, gun-toting nazi terrorist and the rest of the vast right wing conspiracy (at least the Clintons aren't afraid to admit it), they are once again able to bask in the light of the president's perpetual propaganda flame and the flailing of hands that spreads the smoke of obfuscation at Joe's and Nancy's inane press conferences.

During this weekend dedicated to a brave voyage of discovery, take heart in the words of Christopher Columbus and determine to continue your efforts in this fight against irresponsible spending and governmental overburdening despite the odds that are so strongly against our complete success...

"By prevailing over all obstacles and distractions, one may unfailingly arrive at his chosen goal or destination."

In these threatening times we do not need to re-discover our great nation and we certainly should not go along with those who would arbitrarily overhaul everything in it for an agenda that, since its inception, has been foreign to the United States of America.

The greatness of America has already been discovered and built upon.  All we need to do now is take it back so that the greatness can be preserved.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com

It makes me wonder whether the votes were tabulated before or after Obama dissed the Dalai Lama in favor of  preserving good lender/debtor relations with our militaristic Mao anniversary-celebrating Chi-Com benefactors. 

Was it before or after the administration's latest re-pledge that the ongoing "good war" in Afghanistan will never be abandoned and that a ramped-up troop count is, at this very moment, under consideration?

We know for sure that the voting occurred some time after that day in April when the president went to church and played with his kids and their new dog as Navy Seals were allowed to blow the heads off Somali pirates in order to rescue a captured US ship's captain.

My own list of Barack H. Obama's accomplishments thus far -- smooth oratory, beer summits and heart-tugging photo ops excluded -- contains but one item.  It was the permission he gave for military professionals to do their thing in the tricky aforementioned rescue of Maersk-Alabama Capt. Richard Phillips. 

Such a decision by someone also known as "Commander-in-Chief" is not exactly part of the qualifications you would expect from a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Then again, there was a Nobel Prize given to Yassir Arafat who was rarely seen out of uniform.

Another thing that makes you go hmm is whether that recent trip to Copenhagen was more about being on the Scandinavian sub-continent while his Nobel Prize was being announced than about upstaging his wife's Chicago pitch to the Olympic Committee.  It could have turned out like their summer vacation in Cape Cod that coincidentally enabled the president to be on the spot as Ted Kennedy breathed his last and the memorial ceremonies for the life-long universal health care advocate unfolded.

Perhaps the skyrocketing price of gold, due in large part to the US Dollar's decline under Obama's watch, had something to do with delaying the prompt minting of his Nobel medal.  On the other hand, the cash prize is no longer worth what it used to be when Al Gore won it.

Even if Al Gore is one of your heroes, it would be a big stretch to try and turn his global warming claims and pro-environmental advocacy into a world-renowned fight for peace.  However, like Barack Obama, Gore has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush and can even boast of beating Bush fair and square in the popular vote in the 2000 election. 

International Bush hate/vindictiveness appears to be a big motivator for Nobel Committee members who had over 200 other candidates from which to choose.  Obviously, many of those who were snubbed in favor of Obama's world-wide recognition factor and anti-Bushness are long-time peace activists with extensive accomplishments to show for their efforts.

Of the early comments about the Nobel anomaly, South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Rep. Gresham Barrett said it best.  "I'm not sure what the international community loved best -- his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran," Barrett said. 

Other commentators have taken this ridiculous situation and made it even more ridiculous by insinuating that the Nobel Committee was eager to select Obama because he is the first African-American president.  In 1964 that same body selected the very brave and well-credentialed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Playing the race card in this case, therefore, is unproductive and misguided.

Plain and simple, Obama makes these internationals feel good for the very same reasons that he made the majority of American voters feel good.  He says what they want to hear and he makes promises that they believe he can fulfill.  But despite Obama's rhetoric, look around the world and ask yourself the question that each Nobel Peace Prize Committee member should have asked himself before casting their votes for Barack Obama:

Is the world a more peaceful place than it was on January 19, 2009? 

eddobloggo home/archive

Jackson opined that "children deserve safe passage to school" while Farrakhan called Derrion Albert "a special young man." Thus far, the president has said only that Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who once led the Chicago Public Schools, will travel to the Windy City "to talk with local officials."

At this point, Chicago is as much a war zone as Afghanistan.  Since it is so much closer to the doorstep of every American's home, renewing law and order there should be an extremely high priority.  Black-on-black crime in particular, largely composed of murderous gang activities, is completely out of control.

Not to specifically blame long-time Chicago residents like Rev. Jackson, Minister Farrakhan or Arne Duncan for not doing more to help make Chicago a safer city, but to date their efforts have had little impact on shifting the crime and violence paradigm. Likewise, the community organization skills of Barack Obama and the remaining Daley Machine's social workers and academics have not improved the lives of those who live in the inner city.

That poll in which 62% of surveyed adults responded that the quality of their kids' lives will not be as good as their own speaks volumes about the condition of our nation.  In large measure, the state of the union is due to the failings of our politicians, educators, social engineers and religious leaders and their fear of advocacy for the values that even recent generations had been allowed to be taught.

Given the president's history, popularity and influence in his adopted home town, flying to Chicago on the overused Air Force One to make a pitch for better behavior there and in all urban American quarters would not be objectionable -- even to critics, like me, of Obama's gratuitous travel.

Even in the absence of an invitation to Derrion Albert's funeral, Obama's nearby presence and an impassioned speech filled with warnings, suggestions and imagery inspired by this young man's violent death would certainly be a more effective way to address Chicago's problems than the PC, legalistic, backroom conferences the USAG and his entourage will be attending.

Simply stated, if parents want the quality of their children's lives to be at least as good as their own, they need to get back to teaching -- and advocating for the teaching in our schools -- of the values that enabled their own parents and grandparents to provide an improved life for them.   Derrion Albert's upbringing somehow enabled him to succeed in the inner city.  His grandfather, Joseph Walker, told WLS-TV that his grandson was a good kid who didn't deserve to die.

Rest in Peace, Derrion Albert.

"He was in Bible class this Tuesday night. Church on Sunday," Mr. Walker said.  "I have no trouble out of my grandson whatsoever. This thing that happened to him is so horrific that we just don't know what we're going to do. We lost a really dear friend in my grandson. He was a blessed child."

Joseph Walker and Madelyn Payne Dunham (Barack Obama's late grandmother) help to make my point about returning to the values of previous generations.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com

 

So, you don’t think we're moving towards socialism -- it’s a crazy idea, right?  Before you dismiss the thought entirely, just take a look at these points.  It's not a Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative issue.  It's a freedom vs. bondage issue.  Please take notice!

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848.  In it they described how the proletariat can take power from the bourgeoisie.  There were ten commandments in their manifesto which, if implemented, would bring about the full realization of the communist utopian dream -- the most advanced form of socialism. Present-day facts follow each commandment:

1. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Taxation and eminent domain powers are in place to do just that.  Eminent domain is already being enforced regularly to take private property for public good.)
   2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (A graduated tax system is already being used to re-distribute wealth.)
   3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (The inheritance tax system is in place to raise them to whatever gets passed by the politicians.  They could make them as high as they want; eventually leaving little or nothing nothing in the estates of the deceased.)
   4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (This is a reference to police power.  If you rebel, you will be locked up.  Rebelling, of course includes not paying your taxes, in which case they will take your property to “make them whole” and take you away.)
   5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.  (No need to elaborate on this one.  The banks did NOT need to be bailed out! Many might have gone out of business but the system would have survived and remained independent.)
   6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (There is more and more talk of the Fairness Doctrine, or taxing radio stations as much as 100% on programs that don’t include promotion of the government’s agenda.  Obama’s Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd has said that he believes Hugo Chavez does a good job handling a media.  Doesn’t that scare you?
   7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Government takeover of the largest US auto maker...the healthcare industry is obviously next on the agenda.  Once they control insurance, manufacturing and other business segments won’t be far from takeover.  Could you have imagined anything like this happening just a couple of years ago? Be honest.
   8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Unionization; pushing card check so employers and dissenting employees won’t have a choice about whether to be unionized.  Unions are beholden to the ruling party and vice versa.)
   9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (Most of the population once lived in rural areas.  Now, most people live in cities.  The process is moving along in the “right” direction.)

2. 10.   Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (Free education…hmmm.  Who chooses the curriculum?  Khrushchev told Kennedy that the Soviets would not need missiles to bring communism to the U.S.; it would be done though the schools via indoctrination.  You cannot help but notice that many of the thirty-somethings are thinking in a way that was unimaginable not too long ago.  Could their education have had something to do with that?)

Making people completely dependent on education, health care, housing and as many other aspects of government as possible is the way that tyrants gain power over the population.  

Obtaining "free stuff" actually comes at a very high cost -- loss of choice.  Of course, you will also be taxed up to 90% to enable you to get all of that "free" stuff.  Once WE THE PEOPLE lose the power of choice, we lose our ability to have a voice.  If you can choose one company over an other; one school over another; one politician over another, you have power.  Without it you are powerless.  You still have the power to choose... what'll it be?

Saul Alinsky, admitted communist and the “father of community organizing”, incorporated these ideas into his teachings.  The actual techniques included assimilation and non-exposure of one’s true beliefs. 

Concealed to the greatest extent possible, Barack Obama was a student of and taught in one of Saul Alinsky’s schools.  Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. 

You might be right if you think that recent events are all happening by coincidence.  However, it is undeniable that they are happening!  Not one of my stated points has been made up. 

Please don’t make this a Republican/Democrat issue because I did not post this to get a Republican elected.  Rather, this is a plea.  I'm pleading with you to pay attention to someone who has been through this before.

 

DON'T JUST LET IT HAPPEN!

---

Today's [edited] commentary was originally posted as a reader blog by Livia Sappington at the Palm Springs Desert Sun website.

---

About the Author:

Livia Sappington was born in Budapest, Hungary and was raised in its soviet-style socialist system. In 1973 Livia illegally left Hungary via the former Yugoslavia and eventually crossed the border into Italy where she and her fiance spent a year in a refuge camp. If captured, Livia would have spent many years in a Hungarian prison. With the help of the IRC (International Rescue Committee) Livia arrived in New York City in 1974 -- unable to speak English -- with a bankroll of $60. Later, through self-education, reading, and hard work, Ms. Sappington built a couple of businesses and was instrumental in bringing German equity into the USA for shopping center development.

eddobloggo home/archive

eddobloggo home/archive