Saturday, November 23, 2013

Letter from a Dying Senior Citizen

I received an email from a friend today that is simple, yet eloquent, and expresses perfectly what many Americans are feeling these days.  The email contained a letter to the two senators from Washington state and I've reprinted it below.  Please feel free to pass it along to all who might be interested.

"April 3, 2013 
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, DC , 20510  
Dear Senator:              
        I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a Command Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related stresses shortly after his retirement. It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important - honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments. I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.        
        Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government. I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold. I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year! Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers. So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.
        Last year, the president spent an estimated 1.4 $billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year! And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America 's answer to the Saudi royal family. You have become the "perfumed princes and princesses" of our country.
        In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. "Obama Care," a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.
        You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the "one percenter's," consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).
        You understand very well the only two rules you need to know - (1) How
        to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a handout rather than a job. Your so-called "safety net" has become a hammock for the lazy. And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps - pretty much all Democrat voters - and the program is absolutely rife with fraud with absolutely no congressional oversight?        
        I would offer that you are not entirely to blame. What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves. It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role. To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.        
        As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 - 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I'm only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well. Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?        
        While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day.
        As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me "You'll just have to take a pill," while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.
        The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares. This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the chance to read one person's opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.
        I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $17 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours, ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.
        My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy this country I deeply love and put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power. For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. And that, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress. The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits. This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up. "
        Bill Schoonover
        3096 Angela Lane
        Oak Harbor , WA 98277   

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The Mythology of Hillary

The next presidential election in 2016 is still three years away, which is an eternity in politics, but many people are already assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats' nominee.   Some felt certain she would get the nomination in 2008 before she was upset by newcomer Barack Obama, and they believe that the nomination in 2016 is her due.  

Quite frankly, her appeal has always been a mystery to me. The conventional wisdom among liberals is that she is one of the smartest women in the country and has a sterling resume.  But let's look at this objectively; what, exactly, are her accomplishments?

Let's go back to the 1970s, when Hillary worked on the Watergate investigation. Her boss, Jerry Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, fired her, saying she was a "liar" who had engaged in "unethical" behavior.  If Hillary was not trustworthy then, why should anyone believe she can be trusted now?

Hillary served as a Senator from New York for eight years, during which time she had no noteworthy accomplishments. There is no major legislation which bears her name and she missed 9.5% of roll call votes, while the median is 2% among lifetime Senators serving in 2009.  

Her next position, Secretary of State, is similarly lacking in significant achievements.  She traveled a lot, but what did she accomplish?  If someone can tell me, please do so. 

I see the same mythologizing going on with Clinton as happened with Barack Obama.  These two are supposedly among the best and brightest in the country, but what they really share are a lack of character and a dearth of accomplishments.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Do They Really Believe What They Say?

Robert Redford and Chris Noth, those noted political "experts" and has-been actors, have joined the chorus of what has now become a monotonous litany. That is, those of us who oppose President Obama on his agenda must, of course, be racist.  We couldn't possibly be against what he stands for and what he is doing to this country.  It's all because of his skin color.  

I have to wonder if these guys really believe the nonsense they spout or is it just sheep-like behavior, i.e., someone in the media says it and they just fall in line behind it.  What's really irksome is the authoritative way in which they pontificate, as if they really have any first-hand experience with or know any conservatives.  These elites live in a bubble and really have no idea what "normal" Americans believe.  

To quote Obama, "let me be clear":  no one I know has a problem with the color of Obama's skin.  We have a huge issue with the "content of his character", which is to say he has none.  He tells lies with impunity, while so-called "journalists" run interference for him.  His administration is riddled with scandals, but no one appears to pay a price for any misbehavior, and certainly no one takes any responsibility for their misdeeds.  He has made the United States a laughing stock on the world stage and has bowed to our enemies. That is unforgivable in a president.

People like Redford, Noth and others defending Obama are lost causes.  Facts apparently mean absolutely nothing to them.  They get their news from slanted sources and can't even see that there is any bias in the media. To make matters worse, they probably wouldn't dream of actually going into the heartland and personally meeting "the common folk".  These people, who accuse conservatives of being rigid, are the most close-minded bunch around. Even worse, they attempt at every turn to stifle those of us who dare to dissent, but I have a message for them:  we will never be silenced by the likes of you.  The future of our country depends on our voices.     

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Is the American Dream Dead?

A recent YouGov poll revealed that 41% of respondents believe the American dream is no longer possible, while 38% still believe it is achievable.  When broken down by party affiliation, the results were that 53% of Democrats don't believe in the American dream, while 55% of Republicans still do.  

What, exactly, is "the American dream"?   Originally, this term represented a state of mind, a sort of quest.  It meant that you could come from anywhere, belong to any socioeconomic level or class, and still be successful, whatever "success" might mean to you.  It meant freedom to be what you want to be, whether an entrepreneur, a teacher, doctor or whatever else you could aspire to.  It was a philosophy.

In recent times, I believe it has changed into something else, with a focus on materialism.  The dream for many is to have a big house, luxury cars, designer clothes, jewels and all the other trappings of wealth.  It's human nature to want to possess nice things, but with this emphasis on material "stuff", it's easy to see why so many people no longer believe they can achieve financial success.  Our economy is anemic, unemployment is at unacceptable levels and job growth is mainly in part-time jobs.  

Maybe we need to reconsider how we define success.  At one time, if you had a job with a reasonable salary, a stable family life and the respect of the community in which you lived, you were considered successful.  This seems pretty pathetic to many people now, but are people happier now that the emphasis is on how many "goodies" you can acquire?  I don't think so and our society seems much more unstable in many ways. 

The American dream is alive and well; we just need to rediscover it in its original form.  The time has come to adjust our attitudes and expectations and find contentment in simpler things.   

Monday, July 1, 2013

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama,

I have no illusions that you will ever see this, but someone will and hopefully will spread it around to a wide audience.  At any rate, I have a feeling I will feel better for having written it.

As you're so fond of saying, let me be clear:  I didn't vote for you either time and I've never been enthralled by you.  I'm not one of the millions whom you were able to fool. I've never thought you were good at giving speeches; you're merely adequate at reading a teleprompter.  People speak of how intelligent you are.  That's debatable, but one thing has become glaringly apparent over the past five years: you are totally lacking in wisdom. 

You were (and are) very predictable.  You did exactly what I expected you to do, i.e., try to tear this country down and remake it into something our founding fathers wouldn't recognize.  I pray every day that you will not succeed in this mission.  You are the first president in my lifetime who doesn't seem to even like this country, let alone love it.  That makes me angry, yet also sad.  You bow to our enemies and insult our allies with your arrogance and disrespect. I don't think you understand traditional American values; you seem alien to me.

You are totally lacking in leadership skills.  One of the hallmarks of a good leader is the ability to guide and persuade others.  In your infinite arrogance, you seem to think that you just have to make a pronouncement and, poof, it'll be done.  You even said as much recently, when you stated it was "shocking" that others would oppose you.  Why should you be shocked by that?  Only someone who vastly overestimates himself would be surprised that not everyone agrees with him.  

Your indecisiveness is pathetic.  You talk and talk, and debate and debate, and somehow end up paralyzed and unable to take action.  Meanwhile, Iran gets steadily closer to having nuclear weapons, the Middle East is in constant turmoil, N. Korea and China become more aggressive and the Russian president is openly disdainful toward you.  It's obvious that other world leaders do not respect you and that's an embarrassment.  

I believe that every move you make is politically driven.  The good of the country is not foremost in your mind; you're only interested in what's good for your political career.  People who disagree with you are labeled as "enemies" and targeted for intimidation. I believe the election of 2012 was the impetus that drove the decision not to help our ambassador and three others in Benghazi.  You have their blood on your hands, but I'd bet that you don't lose sleep at night over it.  

You are barely able to disguise your tendency toward tyranny.  Just yesterday,  in Africa, you told the American press to "behave".  Who in the world do you think you are?!  The press is supposed to be a watchdog, reporting honestly on an overreaching, intrusive government to protect the people from such.  Unfortunately, many of our media fail in that role, but nevertheless you seem to have a warped view of how the American press should act.  

You have demonstrated time and time again that you have no respect for our Constitution or our laws.  When the Supreme Court rules against your administration, you just carry on as if their decision means nothing.  Your entire administration is rotten to the core and no one is willing to take responsibility for anything.  

It takes a special kind of politician to anger people from one end of the political spectrum to the other, yet you've managed to do so.  I feel certain that you're concerned about how history will see you, but let me assure you:  your legacy will be one of indecisiveness, corruption and abject failure, the worst president of my lifetime.

Friday, June 28, 2013


Paula Deen is being buried in a mountain of scorn by all those people out there who are without fault themselves.  I'm not a Paula Deen fan, but does this punishment fit the "crime"?  

From what I gather, she uttered the "n" word years ago.  I'm not defending that, as I understand what a hurtful, hateful word it is and the feelings I know it engenders.  However, when is enough, enough?  

She has lost her television program, Sears and JC Penney are dropping her and now it's been learned that her upcoming cookbook has been cancelled by the publisher. All this for a word she uttered many years ago.  

The self-righteousness of the people doing the punishing here is truly nauseating.  Can all of them truthfully claim that they themselves have never uttered a hateful word?  The thing that's really galling is the way so many people are willing to overlook or quickly forgive behavior that is truly despicable, e.g., Anthony Weiner's sending of pictures of his genitals, but condemn someone like Paula Deen for saying something that's offensive. This seems totally disproportional to me.  Enough is enough, folks.  Give her a break. After all, those casting stones are surely not without sin themselves.

Monday, June 17, 2013

A Radical Idea

Suddenly, Republicans are in a panic about passing immigration reform legislation.  Why?  We've been rolling along with things the way they are for years now, so why all at once does this have to be done?  Why, also, does it have to be done in one big piece of comprehensive legislation?  The answer is simple:  votes. The Republican leaders seem to think this is the only way to win Latino votes.   I believe Latinos will still, by and large, vote for Democrats no matter what legislation passes. Republicans will never be able to outdo Dems with the freebies, so why try?

Representative Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opposes the Senate's comprehensive bill and plans instead to advance a series of more narrowly focused immigration bills.  This is the best way, in my opinion, to accomplish true reform and come up with good legislation.  The Senate always seems to want to come up with huge, sweeping legislation; unfortunately, what we usually end up with is a 2,000 page bill that is incomprehensible and causes more problems than it solves.  

I believe there is a way to win Latinos over to the Republican side, and it involves what some Republican leaders may consider to be radical.  How about actually going into predominantly Latino areas and talking to them?!  Hispanics are like the rest of us:  they want financial security and freedom to pursue it.  Republicans should conduct an enthusiastic outreach to Hispanic communities and explain to them why conservative policies offer them what government handouts cannot:  the best opportunity to take care of their families and become financially stable and secure.  People who are dependent on the government for their income and care are in a very vulnerable position, and dependence on the government will keep people poor forever.  Once Latinos understand that, Republicans can win them over.  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

The Morphing of Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security was formed during the George W. Bush administration in response to the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.  National Strategy for Homeland Security defines their mission as  "a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur". Because the Department of Homeland Security also encompasses the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), they are also responsible for preparation for and response to natural disasters.

It should be clear to every thinking person that our main threat from terrorism comes from Muslim fanatics. There have been numerous attacks by Islamists against Americans and other westerners:  the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the ultimate attack on our own soil on September 11, 2001, to name a few. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorist attacks on this country have been by Muslims.  

During the Obama administration, a couple of things that raise red flags have occurred. Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, has made it clear that she considers returning veterans and conservative political groups to be dangerous and possible terrorist threats. At the same time, the administration twists itself into knots in their efforts to avoid labeling violent acts as terrorism, and in particular terrorism perpetrated by Muslims.  For example, in 2009 Major Nidal Hassan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Hassan had clearly displayed signs of growing fanaticism, carried cards identifying him as a "soldier of Allah" and shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he murdered 13 people and attempted to kill 32 others.  Yet, in spite of this, Obama has insisted on referring to this horrible incident as "workplace violence".  

On the other hand, there were protests yesterday by tea party members outside several IRS offices across the country in response to the IRS' admission that they unfairly targeted conservative groups seeking nonprofit status.  Despite what Obama and other left-wingers would have you believe, tea party gatherings are not known for being violent or disruptive, yet armed Homeland Security agents were highly visible at these protests.  Why not have the local police there instead? The answer is that tea party members are usually conservative and clearly Napolitano considers them a threat to the security of this country.  

This shift in attitude is, to my way of thinking, alarming.  Add to that the fact that Homeland Security has recently purchased 2,700 armored vehicles for domestic use and it starts to get creepy. Last, but certainly not least, DHS has also gone on a buying spree for ammunition, stockpiling an astounding 1.6 billion bullets.  Makes one wonder what they're preparing for, doesn't it? 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Bully Mindset

The Internal Revenue Service is supposed to be nonpartisan and impartial in executing our tax laws.  As revealed recently, however, this has certainly not been the case in recent years.  I refer, of course, to the targeting of conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status.  

To refresh your memory, these organizations were subjected to long, intrusive questionnaires which inquired about the resumes of their past and present directors, as well as attempts to obtain the names of their donors.  The waiting times for approval of their tax-exempt status were so long that some organizations simply gave up and quit trying.  

President Obama made a puzzling statement yesterday, saying that "if in fact IRS personnel" targeted conservatives, that would be "outrageous".  Why make this conditional, when the IRS has already admitted its actions?  Actually, the actions of the IRS may be worse than what they have admitted.  

Meanwhile, what we the people are getting are the usual obfuscations and outright lies from the administration. President "I never knew anything about this" Obama would have us believe that he was totally unaware of the situation, yet he "joked" in 2009 that he could use the IRS to target political enemies, but said, of course, that he never would.  

IRS spokeswoman Lois Lerner insists there was no political motivation in what the IRS did.  If that's the case, then why did they target only conservative organizations? There are abundant data that these, and earlier, inquiries were indeed politically motivated. It's also known that these inquiries came not just from the Cincinnati office, as Ms. Lerner implied, but also from offices in California and Washington D.C. 

IRS officials are still sticking to their story that these questionnaires were not meant to intimidate these groups. Yet anyone who has ever received mail from the IRS can attest to the fact that when that envelope arrives, your blood runs a bit colder.  Everyone  knows that the IRS doesn't contact you just to be friendly.

I don't know how much President Obama knew about this and I'm not implying that he gave direct orders to harass these conservative groups. Obama politico David Plouffe tweeted that what the IRS did was "dumb and wrong", but that Republicans will use this to raise more money.  In Plouffe's world, apparently all that matters is partisan advantage instead of equal treatment under the law that Americans have a right to expect from their government. The actions of the IRS were prompted by a mindset that's prevalent in this administration, i.e., hit your enemies hard with whatever means you have available. That bully mentality has filtered down from the very top.  Whether you're conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, every American should be disturbed by this abuse of  power.  

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Murder Is Not a Normal Part of Life

The Benghazi hearings began again today, with witnesses who were on the ground in Libya testifying as to the terrible events of September 11, 2012. As you'll recall, our ambassador and three other men were killed by Islamic fanatics on that terrible night. 

The State Department has done its best to avoid taking any blame for these deaths, Hillary Clinton famously saying during her testimony, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  I daresay it matters a great deal to the families of these men, as well as a large segment of the American populace.  

Today, Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) added his own inane statement to the proceedings, saying "death is part of life".  Well, Mr. Cummings, natural death is part of life, but our ambassador and three others were murdered. Would you dare make such an insensitive statement about the children who were killed by a crazed gunman in Connecticut?  What about those who died at the hands of James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado?  

This particular consulate had been attacked twice previously by Islamists in 2012.  That fact alone should have made increased security imperative, yet none was provided.  September 11 is a significant date in our recent history, yet when that anniversary approached, no additional precautions were taken.  Didn't common sense dictate that this was a date which might entail heightened danger, especially in light of the fact that we had advanced warning?  

Now Democrats are in full CYA mode in their attempt to protect the administration.  I look at the testimony and it's sickeningly clear that this administration cared more about politics than it did about saving American lives (keep in mind that this occurred before the election).  In fact, it's been reported that after hearing that the consulate was under attack, the president was so concerned that he went to bed to rest up for a fundraiser the following day in Las Vegas!  

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said a few days ago that "Benghazi happened a long time ago".  To that, I would say two things:  first, how dare you and this administration be so flippant about these murders?  Second, Benghazi happened eight months ago.  I'm sure that doesn't seem like a long time to the families of these victims; eight months is a long time only to children.  

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

President Cool

My thoughts and prayers, like that of many Americans, go out to the victims of yesterday's bombings in Boston.  If any good comes of this, it will be to remind all of us of the need for constant vigilance.  

President Obama likes to project a cool image, an illusion of being above the fray to which we mere mortals are subject. For me, however, the cool act is wearing very thin.

There are circumstances in which it is wholly appropriate to feel, and show, anger and outrage.  Yesterday was one such instance, but there was the president making pronouncements in his usual robotic manner.  Where is your anger, Mr. President?  Why aren't you totally outraged that terrorists would make such a bold attack on a major American city?  Instead, we get the usual cliches that he speaks after every untoward event:  "let me be clear", "make no mistake", etc., etc., etc.

I suspect that Mr. Obama doesn't show these emotions because he doesn't actually experience them as most normal people would. He can appear above the fray because on an emotional level, he is above the fray, lacking the empathy needed to put one's self in another's shoes. He is detached from these horrible events, as if he were watching a fictitious movie. The only time I can recall seeing him show a flicker of genuine anger is when a reporter asks him a tough question (and that doesn't happen very often).   

I want my president to be angry about these attacks on America and to show that anger.  I want to see the emotions that most Americans are feeling now reflected in the president.  What I see is Mr. Cool, but I have to wonder:  is Obama really cool, or just cold-hearted?

Monday, April 8, 2013

Brazenness Comes out of the Closet

Those who adhere to a progressive ideology have long been at work surreptitiously in this country, subtly indoctrinating our children in the public schools, systematically removing prayer and, indeed, any mention of God in the public arena and undermining the strength of the family unit.  

Subtlety has been replaced by a brazen, in-your-face effort to undermine the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit.  In their infinite arrogance, these leftist radicals believe that not only do they know what's best for everyone, but that they are also morally superior to those who disagree with them.  

In 2008, the Romeike family fled Germany under threat of arrest because they were home-schooling their five children, which is illegal in Germany.  The United States granted them political asylum and they have lived here since.
Now, Eric Holder's Department of Justice is threatening to deport them, saying that home-schooling is not a "right" of parents. No doubt Eric Holder agrees with the bullying attitude of the German government on this matter.  

The icing on the cake is the pronouncement by MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry that children don't belong to their parents - they belong to the entire community. Really?! If a child needs orthodontia or surgery, will Ms. Harris-Perry help pay for it? Children are part of a community, just as their parents are, but the responsibility for raising those children and instilling values lies with the parents, not the community as a whole.  This is just an attempt to undermine parental authority and, unfortunately, there are too many parents today who are willing to have the government be a surrogate parent to their children. 

Where will this end? We who believe in and want to preserve the traditional values and practices which made this country great and which comprise its foundation must be as aggressive in our efforts as the leftists. In other words, it's time to take off the gloves.  

Friday, March 29, 2013

Getting to the Point

Frustration and anger can be contained for just so long before they boil over.  Many people I know are quickly reaching that point, and it's time for some extremely blunt talk.

I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy and eternal campaigning in which Obama engages.  White House tours have been shut down during spring break, allegedly because of the miniscule sequestration.  There are lots of disappointed children out there who had been planning a trip to D.C. to take the tour. Meanwhile, the Obama daughters gleefully jet from the Bahamas to snow skiing in Idaho on the taxpayers' money, and the president has averaged more than one vacation a month during the first three months of 2013.  

It's apparent that when Obama isn't campaigning, he's vacationing.  Our economy is virtually stalled, millions of people are either unemployed or have given up looking for a job and the number of people using food stamps has grown at an alarming rate.  For the royal Obamas to be prancing about on their lavish vacations while millions of Americans are suffering is downright insulting. They are figuratively spitting in the collective face of the American populace.  

To add insult to injury, Barack Obama is THE biggest liar we've ever had in the White House. He has demonstrated a total lack of respect for our laws and the Constitution and his policies are, I believe, deliberately designed to hurt the United States.  His word means nothing, as he has revealed himself to be completely untrustworthy.  

Perhaps most egregiously, however, is his failure to protect our national security.  When an American president fails to lead, the result is mounting chaos world-wide, and Obama has shown extreme weakness in the face of these dangers. It seems that he has not taken the very real threats that Russia, North Korea, Iran and China represent seriously and it's obvious the leaders of these countries have a profound lack of respect for the president.  

In short, he has failed to uphold the oath of office he took when inaugurated. He has been derelict in his duty, overstepped the boundaries of his power at home, failed to support our allies and has emboldened our enemies.  For all these reasons, he should be impeached and removed from office.  

Tuesday, March 5, 2013


President Obama and the rest of his administration must believe Americans are as dumb as a box of rocks.  Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano goes on TV to tell us that the lines at the major airports are longer than usual and that it's taking longer to get through customs.  Meanwhile, the airports are saying that the lines are not longer and are moving normally.  Why do they lie about something that's so easily verifiable?  Could it be that Obama and Napolitano think we're too stupid or lazy to know they're lying?  

Obama is obviously trying to save money.  For instance, he's cancelled all White House tours due to the sequestration. Boy, that's going to save a lot of money - White House tours are conducted by unpaid volunteers!  There was no need to shut these down; it's merely a spiteful, punitive move by a small, petulant man who's angry that he hasn't gotten his way.  One more thing - the White House is NOT yours, Mr. President; it belongs to the American people.  

Obama is not worthy of our respect.  I can understand why he and others in his administration think Americans are stupid.  After all, they did elect him twice.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Contempt and Loathing

Well, the talks today between congressional leaders and the president about the impending sequestration apparently have failed.  Is anyone surprised?  

President Obama portrays himself as having his hands tied - those evil, rigid Republicans simply won't compromise and won't agree to "new revenue".  Meanwhile, Obama repeats over and over, ad nauseam, that he wants a "balanced approach" (please see my blog posting of 2/8/13 for that definition).  

May we remind the president that he has already raised our taxes this year, and it's now time for him to do some compromising?  Democrats always promise spending cuts sometime in the not well-defined future, but somehow that time never seems to come.  

If the president were even halfway honest, he'd tell people that he has no interest in cutting governmental spending and his "balanced approach" means he wants tax hikes on everyone.  When he says that Republicans won't agree to "new revenue", what he really means is that Republicans refuse to raise taxes, especially in light of the fact that we've already seen a tax hike this year.  Republicans wanted to pass a bill that would give President Obama greater flexibility in deciding where spending cuts would occur when the sequestration kicks in, but Obama immediately announced he would veto such a bill. Why would he do that, when it gives him more power?  It's simple:  if such a bill were passed, the president would then have to actually make a decision and take some responsibility (gasp!) for something and we can't have that!

The fact is, Obama wants to make the sequestration as painful as possible for as many people as possible in the belief that Americans will blame Republicans for their pain. He is hell bent on decimating Republicans in the hope that Democrats can take control of the House next year. The fact that an American president is willing to inflict unnecessary pain on the American populace for his own political gain is shocking and shameful.  

I pray that my fellow Americans will wake up and recognize the chaos and damage that this president is wreaking on our country, all in the name of political power.  Obama has inspired some strong feelings in many people.  For me, those feelings are contempt and loathing.  

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Are You Stupid?

What's the difference between being ignorant and being stupid?  Merriam-Webster defines "ignorant" as unaware, uninformed.  Their definition of "stupid" is "slow of mind".  

The poll numbers are puzzling:  a majority of people in this country (60+%) say that we're on the wrong track, yet President Obama's job approval rating remains a little above 50%. In my lifetime, presidents have gotten credit for a good economy and blame for a poor economy, regardless of whether they deserved it or not.  Yet, people don't seem to realize that Obama's policies are largely responsible for our being on the wrong track.  

Are people failing to make the connection due to ignorance or stupidity?  It seems that a large segment of the American populace believes everything the president says, even when there's clear evidence that he's lying.  He has backtracked on his previous statements time and time again, yet many people fail to note the inconsistency.  One of the president's favorite tactics is to terrify people with his dire warnings of governmental and societal Armageddon if budget cuts are made, no matter how paltry they may be. It's clear that Obama is willing to sacrifice the well-being of the country and play with peoples' lives to reach his political goal of destroying Republicans.   

Take heart - there is a way to easily raise your IQ at least 10 points: quit believing everything the president tells you.  In fact, take everything he says with a big grain of salt. Actions speak louder than words, so just watch what he does.  

The definitions of "ignorant" and "stupid" as stated above imply that ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is a permanent state. Gathering good, solid information and being open-minded enough to explore it is a remedy for ignorance. It's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another to voluntarily remain ignorant. That would be, well, stupid.  

Monday, February 25, 2013

Day of Resistance

Last Saturday, there were approximately 150 Day of Resistance rallies across 39 states.  Knowing that the mainstream media won't publicize events that don't fit their agenda, I just wanted to pass these pictures along to you.  Hope you enjoy them!

Pictures from Day of Resistance rallies

Friday, February 8, 2013

The Obama Dictionary

President Obama promised that he would have the most transparent administration ever.  Well, that hasn't exactly happened has it?  Part of the problem is Obama's penchant for using euphemisms instead of plain talk.  To help everyone understand what the president is really saying, please see the "dictionary" below.

  • Balanced approach:  A combination of miniscule, meaningless spending "cuts", coupled with large tax hikes.  
  • Invest, as in we need to invest in education, infrastructure, research, renewable energy, etc.: Spend more and more of the taxpayers' money, often throwing good money after bad and usually getting nothing in return for our "investment".  
  • Green energy:  A black hole into which billions of taxpayers' dollars are "invested" (see above), with nothing to show in return.  It doesn't make any difference that it doesn't produce results; we're compelled to keep pouring those tax dollars into it.  
  • Sequester:  A tool suggested by the White House to bludgeon Republicans into giving the president what he wants, i.e., tax hikes coupled with no spending cuts.  This tool may, however, prove to be useless for this purpose, depending on whether or not the Republicans find a spine. 
  • Benghazi:  A city in Libya, where we once had a consulate, and where our ambassador and three others were killed last September.  This word doesn't appear to be part of Obama's vocabulary.  
  • Tax reform:  Elimination of deductions, coupled with tax hikes on the "wealthy".  An example of real tax reform would be the flat tax, in which everyone pays the same rate, coupled with closure of loopholes enjoyed only by those who have the wherewithal to hire lawyers and accountants to find said loopholes.  
  • I:  President Obama's favorite word, used liberally in most of his public appearances.  It refers to his favorite person, himself.  
Hopefully, this will clarify some of the statements emanating from the Obama administration.  In closing, there are some words of wisdom from Andrew Carnegie I'd like to share:  "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."

Wednesday, January 30, 2013


While watching a documentary on the Military History Channel last weekend, a creeping chill took hold of me.  The show, entitled "Inside the Mind of Hitler", brought to mind some disturbing analogies with current events.  No, I'm not suggesting that Obama is another Hitler. What was chillingly disturbing was the similarity between how the German people idolized and blindly followed Hitler and the way many of Barack Obama's supporters behave toward him. The Germans considered Hitler to be their "savior". 

The "mainstream media", by and large, fail to report the president's gaffes and his less than sterling comments and actions. They print only what they want people to know. They provide cover for him and the result is that many people have a false picture of who Barack Obama really is and where he wants to lead the country. They have formed a rosy, positive picture of Obama in their minds which cannot be altered by facts and reality.

As with Hitler, a certain segment of our society is attempting to deify President Obama.  Newsweek called the recent inauguration "the second coming", a term with distinctly religious overtones.  Jamie Foxx referred to Obama as "our lord and savior" and people mindlessly cheered. This is deeply offensive to those of us who hold religious beliefs and I suspect the real Lord and Savior can't be too happy about it either.  

Human beings are all flawed to one degree or another, some more deeply than others. Following any human leader unquestioningly is inherently dangerous, especially if that leader has goals and motives that are less than honorable. It may well be impossible to reach those people who refuse to see how deeply flawed Barack Obama actually is. Their unquestioning, mindless devotion is frightening, and reminiscent of the old saying "there are none so blind as he who will not see." 

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Listen Up, Republicans!

Republicans continue to amaze and dismay many of us with their ineptitude in dealing with President Obama.  Not that they'll listen, but here are a few tips for the Republican "leadership".

  • Do something different!  What you've been doing isn't working, so it's time to come up with a new strategy. Never, ever forget that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al. are NOT honorable people. They are fundamentally dishonest and will do whatever they can to destroy you. Maintain your integrity, but don't trust that these people will keep their word about anything.  
  • Call out Obama on his lies and deceptions. Don't allow him to stand there and say that if you don't raise the debt ceiling, the U.S. will default on its obligations. Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default. True, some cuts will have to be made and this will be painful. Make it clear that the president gets to decide what is cut, so if Social Security, welfare or Medicare recipients don't get their benefits, it's because the president chose to make cuts in those programs!
  • Decide what you believe in and develop the courage to stand by your principles.
  • Don't assume people know more than they actually do. Explain clearly and concisely, without being condescending, why you're taking the position that you are. Don't throw terms like "capital gains" around freely.   I'd bet that most people in this country couldn't tell you what capital gains even are.  
  • Don't pander to us by trying to give us more "goodies" than the Democrats.   
  • Pick one or two people in both the House and Senate to be your spokespeople. They must be able to clearly articulate your positions and the reasons behind those policies. Make use of the social networks and technology available to you. Better yet, follow the advice of Daniel Henninger, who writes in the Wall Street Journal that the Republicans should create an office of chief party spokesman, one for the House and one for the Senate. This position would be analogous to the White House's press secretary (hopefully, the Republicans can find someone more charismatic than Jay Carney - shouldn't be difficult!). This might bruise a few egos of those politicians who like to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows, but so be it.  
Americans are hungry for real leadership and courage.  We're not getting it from this administration, so Republicans must step up to the plate and fill that void.  

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Propmaster

Some people are slowly coming to the realization that President Obama is a user of people.  As you may remember, when signing the "Affordable Care Act", a.k.a. Obamacare, he had a young black boy standing there beside him, a boy who, sadly, had lost his mother to cancer.  

After Hurricane Sandy, and just prior to the election, Obama was photographed with his arms around a woman who had suffered major losses in the storm as he promised her that he would cut through the red tape and get help for her from FEMA.  She has yet to hear back from him or to receive any assistance from the government and has belatedly come to the realization that she was merely a photo-op for him.  

Many Obama campaign workers are now complaining that they are being shut out of inauguration festivities.  They "worked their butts off" for him and now that he no longer needs them, they're getting the cold shoulder.

Today, the president is planning to make an appearance to propose sweeping changes in gun laws, using children who supposedly have written letters to him as a backdrop.  It wouldn't be surprising if he said "Gun lovers want to kill these children".   

To Barack Obama, people are props to be used and then tossed aside when they have served their purpose and are no longer useful to him.   It's particularly hypocritical for him to appear with children, whose futures are being compromised by the unsustainable debt with which he's saddling them.  

It takes some people longer than others to see this man's true nature.  Let's hope and pray that the majority of people will come to see this amoral narcissist for what he is and rise up to remove him from office.  

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Guns Can Save Lives Too

President Obama and Vice-President Biden are meeting today with victims of gun violence.  Since fairness seems to be important to Obama, having heard him use the word "fair" several times in his efforts to redistribute our wealth, I'm just wondering if Obama and Biden will also be talking to some of the people who have saved lives with their guns?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Did you know.....

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck. 
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. 
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. 
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. 
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. 
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two co-workers who carried concealed handguns. 
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. 
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon. 
2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance arrived. 

Of course, you probably didn't know any of this because mainstream media doesn't find it worth reporting. It's not sensational enough and doesn't fit with their agenda. What's insane is people who think removing rights from responsible people will somehow keep them safe. 
I wonder what else we have NOT been told, before it's too late.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

In the Crosshairs

In the wake of the shooting tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the anti-gun people are predictably calling for more restrictive laws on firearms.  No one is against common-sense regulations on weapons, e.g., background checks to make sure a prospective buyer doesn't have a criminal record or history of mental illness.  

The problem with gun laws, as with all laws, is that only law-abiding citizens obey them.  Criminals couldn't care less about the laws - that's what makes them criminals.  Thus, more restrictive gun laws are unlikely to reduce criminal behavior.  

The gun control crowd is focused on a symptom and not the disease.  Al Sharpton, in advocating for stricter gun laws, used the analogy of a headache.  To paraphrase the good reverend, if you have a headache,  you take an aspirin to get rid of it.  What Sharpton seems to miss is that a headache is a symptom of another, deeper problem.  If you only treat the symptom and do nothing about the underlying causative disorder, the symptom will recur over and over.  

In a similar fashion, enacting tighter gun control laws will do nothing to prevent future violence and will certainly not alleviate the underlying problem.    Clearly, in the shootings in Arizona (Gabby Giffords), Colorado and Connecticut, all three gunmen were mentally deranged to one degree or another.  It would be more useful to focus on recognizing and treating mental illness than to focus on the means by which they achieved their atrocities.  Charles Krauthammer, who at one time was a practicing psychiatrist, has said that it used to be easier to commit people who were believed to be a danger to themselves or others, but organizations such as the ACLU have made involuntary commitment more difficult.  While recognizing that abuse is certainly a concern with involuntary commitment, there surely is a way to formulate common-sense laws that will protect the community while preserving the rights of the mentally ill.  It's time to focus on the people who perpetrate these heinous acts instead of the inanimate weapons which they employ in their violence.  

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Can It Happen?

Happy New Year to everyone!  I usually start a new year full of hope and enthusiasm, but this year is different.  I awoke this morning feeling a little overwhelmed by all that's wrong with our government right now.

My dream wishes for 2013 are as follows:

  • A president and Congress who can put aside their egos and power trips to do what is best for our country.
  • A president who can get past his need for adulation.
  • A comeback for common sense and spending restraint.
  • Return of manners and respect for others.
  • Strengthening of traditional morality.
  • A revival of personal responsibility instead of passing the buck.
  • A realization among the electorate that we have an irresponsible president and an appalling lack of leadership in Congress; hopefully, this will result in voters removing many of these jokers in 2014.  
  • Restoration of respect for the United States in the world. 
  • Accountability and prosecution of those responsible for the fiascoes of Fast and Furious and Benghazi.
  • Last, but certainly not least, recognition and reverence for God, and restoration of Him in our public institutions.
Is there any real hope I'll get my wishes?  With God, all things are possible and I will continue to pray for our country.