Aug 09 2009

On Dissent

Category: Democrat,freedom,Obamaamuzikman @ 12:00 pm

Here is the now-infamous quote from President Obama on the subject of proposed nationalized health care and and those who oppose it:

But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.

Compare his statement with the following quotes on the subject of protest and dissent. All but one of the persons cited below are Democrats. The last quote is from a significant and influential German Nazi. I threw it in there as a nod to Nancy Pelosi, who seems to be fascinated with all things Nazi these days. I will leave it up to you, dear reader, to draw your own conclusions. In the mean time, if you haven’t already done so, be sure to report this blog to flag@whitehouse.gov. There is definitely something “fishy” about this posting!

We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.

Martin Luther King Jr.

We do not move forward by curtailing people’s liberty because we are afraid of what they may do or say.

Eleanor Roosevelt

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

Harry S. Truman

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Hillary Clinton

We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…

Bill Clinton

Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive.

John F. Kennedy

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Edward R. Murrow

Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.

Hubert H. Humphrey

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Theodore Roosevelt

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

Tags:


Aug 02 2009

The Beer Summit Protocol

Category: humor,Obama,race,racismamuzikman @ 1:41 am

(NOTE: All beers mentioned in this blog are actual brand names.)

As everyone knows the White House just concluded the so-called Beer Summit.  The Acting Chief of Protocol Laura B. Wills, must have had her hands full last week in preparation for such an austere Presidential event.  Just the selection of the correct beer alone have been pretty tricky business.  I’m sure Chief Wills had to summon all of her considerable suds-selection experience in order to pull this one off.

I think one of the biggest challenges would be in selecting beers with an appropriate name, given the seriousness of the occasion (a White House Summit) and the sensitive subject matter (racism).  Just a cursory investigation into the world of beer and breweries reveals there are literally hundreds of beer names in the world, running the gamut from mundane to clever to rude.  But not just any beer will do and I’m certain the selection process was handled with great care, since so much was at stake. For example, imagine what kind of message would be sent if the President greeted Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley while holding a frosty cold can of Arrogant Bastard Beer.  Not good, (Though I wouldn’t put it past someone like Hugo Chavez to stock up on cases of The Ugly American the next time Obama stops in for a Western Hemisphere Summit).  Other beer names are just so outrageous they were probably never considered.  There is just no place at a White House beer summit for Santa’s Butt Porter or Seriously Bad Elf, (Say..that reminds me…Whatever became of Robert B. Reich?).

Since so many beers are identified by their color, this presents serious potential for offending someone on the basis of their race. Given the fact the entire affair has been racially charged one would think that any light or dark beer would have to be removed from consideration.  Yet the President apparently drank a Bud Lite – and he is to be commended for such a significant demonstration of magnanimity.  Furthermore any beer with a color in its title would have to be carefully considered, especially if it is a color used in describing certain races.  So Red Kite, Red Label, Red Rooster, and Red Ass Ale are out – wouldn’t want to offend any American Indians.  Likewise say good bye to Amber Bitter, Yellow Belly and Yellowstone Pale Ale in order to avoid any Asian pejoratives.  Red Neck beer is also disqualified for it’s own reasons though it’s inclusion would certainly have been tempting to Obama had any of the guests been Republicans.  Sgt. Crowley maneuvered gracefully to a solution, selecting Blue Moon, (I can’t help but secretly wonder if this was a subtle, silent fist-pump to the men and women in blue) but only time will tell how this move will be received in the Smurf community.

With P.E.T.A. always lurking in the background I figure any beer mentioning animals would be off-limits.  This eliminates quite a few; Moosehead, Moose Drool, Cobra, Dog’s Bollocks, Elephant, Fat Weasel, Golden Eagle, Lion, Snowgoose, Old Speckled Hen, Sick Duck, and Pig’s Eye just to name a few.

We know the Second Amendment is not popular with the current crowd in Washington so I’m fairly certain Colt 45 was ruled out. For similar reasons relating to gun violence Valley Forge, Veterans, and Old Chicago were also probably put on the Do-Not-Serve list.

There are a couple of beer names that I thought would surely show up at a beer summit hosted by Obama.  What better message for him to send than to have everyone hoist a Robin Hood.  If ever there was a man who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor….  The other brand is 1984 Golden Choice simply because the Orwellian similarities are so profound.

Let’s face it, the choice of beer is fraught with potential peril.  The name must be politically correct, so naturally I assumed the White House would be serving PC beer.  That’s right, there is a PC beer.  It gets better – the initials stand for “President’s Choice”.  Wow! talk about your two-for-one acronym!!!  It seemed like a sure thing until I discovered PC is brewed by Whitewater Brewing Co.  Disqualified based on color.  I really feel for this company too.  If they had decided to pick a more politically correct name, it might have created other problems.  I mean, who would buy a beer brewed by the Brownwater Brewing Co.?

Perhaps the biggest surprise came from Professor Gates who consumed a Sam Adams Light.  That is a double faux pas, first for the aforementioned “light” connotation.  But even more important than that is the name, Samuel Adams.  Yes he was a brewer back in the day.  But more significant is the fact that he was white, he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an unabashed patriot.  He is partially responsible for the creation of this country and it’s most cherished founding documents.  I thought Gates would gag if he drank a beer named after someone like that!  I guess it just goes to show you how all those Harvard alums stick together through thick and thin.

This blog entry is silly – intentionally so.  But sadly no less silly than some of the claims that are made and things that are said in the name of racial diversity in this country almost every day.  Maybe if enough of us actually spoke up and called them silly it would help us put the nonsense behind us.  We will never get past the issue of race and racism as long as we are continue our obsession with color coding everyone and everything.

Finally I must acknowledge Vice President Joe Biden, who drank a non-alcoholic beer called Buckler.  There’s not much to say here except that drinking a non-alcoholic beer is like kissing your sister.


Jul 28 2009

In their own words

Category: illegal alien,left,Obamaharmonicminer @ 10:31 am

Latino Identity Politics and Immigration Payback

Over the past several years, pro-immigrant groups, Latino organizations, and Democratic Party-linked institutes in Washington have been on the same page about immigration and politics. Basically, it’s been a politics of numbers—bringing the growing number of Latinos and immigrants into the Democratic Party.

The entire article is basically a confession that both Democrats and “immigration rights” activists intend for people who entered the USA illegally to become Democrat voters, overwhelming the electorate with people who don’t understand the foundations of US society.  The article is not written by raving right-wing lunatics.  It is written by the people who are DOING it.

There is even a thinly veiled admission that “comprehensive immigration reform”  and “pathway to citizenship” are simply code phrases for “adding more Democrat voters who came here illegally.”

Read and weep, if you love your country.

Then call your senator and congressional representative. You haven’t been hearing so much about this issue lately, with economic issues center-stage. But “comprehensive immigration reform” is still back in the dressing room, waiting to make a dramatic appearance in the second act.


Jul 26 2009

Francis Collins: conflicted about embryonic stem cell research?

Category: abortion,Obama,religionharmonicminer @ 8:41 am

Francis Collins is an evangelical, and Obama’s pick to head the NIH.  Some have commented on Obama’s “inclusiveness” in giving the position to an evangelical Christian who is quite public about his faith, including in his book, The Language of God.

But a closer reading of Obama’s embryonic research policy, new NIH guidelines, and Francis Collins’ equivocations about the moral status of embryos leads to a lot of unanswered questions about the relationship between Collins’ faith and his public persona as scientist and future NIH head.

Read the link, and then ask yourself if Obama has not simply chosen a Christian who won’t rock the boat, yet again.


Jul 25 2009

Federal funding for abortions?

Category: abortion,Obamaharmonicminer @ 8:22 am

The Abortion Administration. Much more at the link.

In his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order overturning the Reagan-era Mexico City regulations, which had prohibited American foreign aid from going to organizations that finance overseas abortions. Just a few weeks later, the Gallup organization revealed that the executive order was the single most unpopular action taken by the president during his honeymoon period. At a time when American families had experienced an average 25 percent decline in their net worth, it would appear that increasing the net worth of foreign abortionists was not high on their to-do list.

Their reaction was even less surprising in the light of another recent Gallup finding: For the first time in over 10 years, voters who describe themselves as pro-life have taken the lead (by 51 to 42 percent) over voters who describe themselves as pro-choice. Even this understates antiabortion sentiment, since many people who describe themselves as pro-choice, when probed, favor restrictions on abortion that the present Supreme Court, with its five members who voted for or favor Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would never allow.

Given the breadth of his domestic agenda, the president might want to make a midcourse correction on abortion. Why highlight an issue where the bulk of the American people, including a sizable share of the 52.9 percent of the electorate who voted for him, are either going in the other direction or have severe qualms?

But by now, nearly six months in, the bottom line for Barack Obama is clear. After making a few polite noises about finding “common ground” with pro-lifers, his administration has shown zero interest in doing so. Instead, the Obama agenda is to weave government-backed abortion into the fabric of American life and make it a far more integral part of domestic and foreign policy than ever before.

……

Why is Obama pushing ahead with such a radical abortion agenda? Since there’s no way to accuse him of doing it out of poll-driven opportunism, sincere conviction becomes the most plausible motive. Sometimes the simplest, most straightforward answer makes the most sense. A president who once said he wouldn’t want his daughter punished with a baby if she made a mistake is deeply committed to making free and easy access to abortion an inescapable element of American culture.


Jul 20 2009

Obama, Sanger, Ginsburg and Holdren: the common thread

Category: abortion,government,healthcare,Obama,race,racismharmonicminer @ 9:49 am

Read it all.


Jul 16 2009

Hondurans standing for freedom *against* the USA?!? Yes.

Category: appeasement,freedom,government,liberty,media,Obamaharmonicminer @ 8:32 am

It is bizarre that the official US position about Honduras’ current political situation is to condemn the people who resisted an illegal takeover of Honduras by a wanna-be dictator for life.

The way in which nearly all the world’s media portray the legal, Supreme Court-ordered ouster of President Manuel (Mel) Zelaya is one major reason for the universal opprobrium. Because military men took part in the deportation of the sitting president, it has been portrayed as a classic Latin American “military coup,” and who can support a military coup?

The lack of context in which this ouster took place has prevented the vast majority of the world’s news watchers and readers from understanding what has happened.

I wonder how many people who bother to read the news — as opposed to only listen to or watch news reports — know:

— Zelaya was plotting a long-term, possibly lifetime, takeover of the Honduran government through illegally changing the Honduran Constitution.

— Zelaya had personally led a mob attack on a military facility to steal phony “referendum” ballots that had been printed by the Venezuelan government.

— Weeks earlier, in an attempt to intimidate the Honduran attorney general — as reported by The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady, one of the only journalists in the world who regularly reports the whole story about Honduras — “some 100 agitators, wielding machetes, descended on the attorney general’s office. ‘We have come to defend this country’s second founding,’ the group’s leader reportedly said. ‘If we are denied it, we will resort to national insurrection.'”

— No member of the military has assumed a position of power as a result of the “military coup.”

— Zelaya’s own party, the Liberal Party, supported his removal from office and deportation from Honduras.

— The Liberal Party still governs Honduras.

So, Dennis Prager has asked you, did you know those things? If you didn’t, and you’ve been watching/reading the news, you’ll have to ask yourself why didn’t you know them.  Hopefully you’ll come to the correct conclusion about the slant of US major media, which never saw a left-socialist South American dictator it didn’t like.

As we’ve commented here before, the actions of the Honduran military were legal, and supported by the Honduran Supreme Court AND by the political party of the Zelaya himself. 

I have absolutely no idea what’s behind Obama’s support of Zelaya…  except that maybe he recognizes a fellow traveler.


Jul 08 2009

The arbitrariness of anti-trust law

Category: capitalism,Democrat,economy,government,Obamaharmonicminer @ 8:59 am

In a takedown of the Obama adminstration’s apparent attempt to use its legal howitzer, anti-trust chief Christine Varley, to prevent the airline industry from doing mergers that would save it, keep it out of bankruptcy, preserve jobs, and allow it to continue to provide service for consumers, Holman Jenkins asks the question, Does Obama Want to Own the Airlines? While describing the Justice Department’s move to block mergers that would save troubled corporations, in the guise of protecting the public from evil monopolies, he makes this trenchant comment:

Even now, she has turned her attention from airlines to the mobile-phone business on the theory that any industry that hasn’t collapsed into government receivership must be doing something wrong.

It’s all worth reading.

And for background in the sorry history of anti-trust law, you might want to read this.  Just remember a simple principle: whenever the government gets involved, prices go up, supply goes down, and the only winners are the bureaucrats and successful lobbyists who wangle exceptions for their companies…  all the while pretending that they’re protecting the free market and competition.

For now, let’s just say this.  If you’re too successful and capture a larger share of the market than your competitors, look out; the feds are coming for you.  If you’re struggling, and need to merge with some of your competitors in order to stay in business, create economies of scale that allow more efficient operation, and provide a service or product that the public will buy at a price you can sell it, look out.  The feds are coming for you, too.

Basically, it’s simple.  The feds would rather own you than see you succeed.

Clear?

They have the only monopoly that matters, and they intend to keep it.


Jul 04 2009

Winning friends and influencing people… in all the right places

Category: abortion,Obama,religionharmonicminer @ 9:13 am

I’ve referred in earlier posts to the strange phenomena of Christians who voted for Obama, and continue to support him, on the theory that while Obama is not himself pro-life, his policies will lead to less abortion.   By now, it should be clear to anyone that Obama’s policies will increase abortions, yet many of his ostensibly pro-life supporters continue to support him, surely a case of refusing to see what must be painful to acknowledge.  And now, it’s difficult not to wonder if one of Obama’s chief “pro-life” supporters has been rewarded for his loyalty.

Professor Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine has been appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to Malta

Douglas Kmiec, the conservative Pepperdine University law professor and prominent supporter of President Barack Obama, is likely headed to the Mediterranean.

The White House said today that Obama has chosen Kmiec as the new ambassador to Malta, the archipelago nation south of Italy. Though originally a supporter of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, Kmiec has been a high-profile defender of the Obama administration and its personnel choices. He recently has come to the defense of Dawn Johnsen, nominated to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, even as Republicans have held up Johnsen’s nomination because of her views on abortion and national security.

I don’t know the professor, but it seems to me that if he wants to preserve his credibility as a “pro-life Obama supporter,” then he needs to turn down this appointment.   Otherwise, whatever the truth of the matter, he appears to be one more Obama supporter getting a payoff.   How can he serve in any way as a figure of conscience on the abortion issue for the Obama administration, when he works for them directly?

I hear that the going rate for state dinners in Malta is 30 pieces of silver.

 

UPDATE:  It would seem the Ambassador Kmiec didn’t quite fit the bill.  I wonder what his opinion is NOW of Obama’s governance…..


Jul 03 2009

Obama’s vision according to Thomas Sowell

Category: Obamaharmonicminer @ 8:57 am

Thomas Sowell is the author of “A Conflict of Visions,” to which reference is made in this video clip.  You could read Sowell’s book and not be easily able to tell what his political and social perspectives are, because it is a very even-handed presentation of the matter of “visions of the public good” and “visions of the nature of the human person.”  Here he is discussing the vision of Barack Obama.

What would you pay to see an extended discussion between Thomas Sowell and Barack Obama, on virtually any issue now before the republic?  It would be guaranteed to be eye-opening.


« Previous PageNext Page »