The Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., has always had as one of its editorial obsessions the “rights” of the homosexual community, no matter how much those “rights” impinged upon the “rights” of others. This is currently in evidence per the editorial of 30 March demonizing a small business, Hands On Originals, for its refusal to produce T-shirts for the local homosexual group, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, in preparation for the “gay pride” festival in June.
The reason: Christian convictions that militate against homosexual physically-perverted-practices, not the homosexuals themselves. The editorialist chose to accuse the firm of bigotry, the catch-all term for anything the paper doesn’t like, when the actual reason is as stated – religious convictions obviously based on a multitude of biblical scriptures condemning not homosexuals but homosexual behavior, which, in the best light can only be described as lurid or, as scripture has it, “unnatural,” unacceptable by God, as are fornication and adultery.
HOO offered to make available the identification of another provider at no greater cost, but the GLSO would have none of that, even though it was never imperiled in any way. Instead, it chose to file a well-publicized grievance with the local human-rights-commission, thus attempting to shut down HOO for good and throw its employees out of work at a time when the total unemployment rate is about 16%. The editorial headline: “Bad business move.” The editorialist, citing some institutional boycotts already in place, rooted for the same objective, bankruptcy or worse.
In its “news” accounts front section, the paper also publicized a protest meeting, entitled “staff report” and shaded for effect, thus affording GLSO free publicity, giving time and place. A boycott effort has also been engendered, largely through Face-book or some such thing, the objective being to bankrupt HOO. Strangely, Kroger donates 4% of the charges on certain gift cards to GLSO, thus possibly offending many of its customers who consider homosexual behavior antisocial and unhealthy.
This is nothing new for the paper. A few years back, the University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, Ky., acting in accordance with its student-handbook, expelled a homosexual student who outed himself on his Internet web-site and even offered pictures such as young men kissing each other. On seven days of a nine-day period in April 2006, the paper made the subject front-page-above-the-fold stuff, positioned in the area devoted to the most important news of the world. The effort was obviously designed to hurt the school in any way possible, especially with respect to recruiting students, notwithstanding that at least 200 institutions of higher learning in the country had a similar provision governing students.
In addition to the massive front-page segments, pictures, and headlines (unimaginable overkill), the paper dedicated a huge plethora of columns and pictures to the subject on its interior pages, all in the front (A) “news, editorial, op-ed” section. In the process, it furnished free-of-charge in the supposed “news accounts” the information that a protest drawing people from all over the state would be held at UC, Williamsburg, Ky., on 19 April 2006.
On the evening TV-news-accounts of that “protest effort,” there seemed to be more interviews with law enforcement people than with the participants (maybe one officer per “protester”), with the officers standing around sort of slack-jawed and obviously wondering why they were there. The paper said “about 50” showed up, so there might have been 35-40 actual participants. There were 1,700 students (now 3,300, including 1,554 graduate students) at the school at the time, so it might be correctly assumed that their apathy was evident. The paper had gambled on a huge turnout and came up empty and embarrassed, leaving Cumberlands unscathed and probably greatly helped in its recruiting and fundraising.
The students knew what the handbook said: “Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw from the University of the Cumberlands.” At the time, this was true of the U.S. military, as well, and the law turning it around has not yet been fully inculcated by the services, whose commanders in the field want no part of having to deal with the problems presented by homosexuals in close quarters with “straights.”
The H-L may realize its animus toward “bigoted” heterosexuals because religion is also involved. The paper itself presents a pronounced bigotry toward religion and people of faith, having ridiculed a local church in December 2005 for not having services on Christmas Sunday, and a few weeks before its attack on Cumberlands it attacked the governor’s prayer breakfast. The governor was a Baptist and Cumberlands receives some small support from the Kentucky Baptist Convention, the largest denomination in the state, ergo, Baptists, especially, are bigots as far as the H-L is concerned, even its subscribers who might deign to be (gasp) hateful Baptists.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Addendum: By the newspaper’s account, the demonstration against HOO involved “about 60” protesters, who made their objections known on 30 March in Triangle Park (downtown), some 2.5 miles from the HOO location, where, apparently, no protesters showed up to show their elitist righteousness in behalf of the GLSO. This represented about .02% of Lexington’s population of some 297,000 or so souls. The demonstration against the Cumberlands – a statewide affair advertised by the H-L in 2006 – attracted some 50 or so demonstrators, or about .00125% of the state population of some 4 million souls. The paper should congratulate itself on the recent improvement of its efforts to structure turmoil in a good cause, in this case the ruination of a local small business.
And so it still goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Political Correctness Gone Further Amuck
The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) is a Lexington, Ky., outfit obviously made up of mostly homosexuals and most likely the LGBT constituency. There may be other groups represented in the GLSO as well. It has an office and at least one paid employee, a board of directors, newsletter, etc.
Its main objective currently seems to be the bankrupting of a local small business named Hands On Originals, which produces customized T-shirts, notably as containing graphics, lettering and whatever else a customer desires. The effort against Hands On Originals is keyed on convincing potential customers to boycott the business until it collapses, primarily, it seems, through a Face-book effort, whether or not sponsored, though it probably is, by the GLSO. Plans for a protest have been made, as if this is a world-shaking matter.
Hands On Originals won a contract from the GLSO for producing T-shirts on which would appear the three words Pride, Lexington, and Festival entwined within or accompanying the number five. That seems innocent enough but a problem occurred when it was discovered belatedly by Hands On Originals that the product was to be delivered in conjunction with a “gay-pride festival” in June.
The company spokesman, in explaining why Hands On Originals would not produce the shirts but could recommend another company to do the job at the same price, indicated that religious convictions (Christian, in this case) formed the reason for reneging. The GLSO decided to lodge a complaint with the local Human Rights Commission, which is the same as guaranteeing that whatever legal or other means it has will be brought to bear on Hands On Originals, thus enhancing the boycott and further driving Hands On Originals out of business.
Already, the local school system has shut down its business with the company and the university likely will not renew a contract with it that is expiring ($200,000 in the last nine months, according to the local newspaper). The city also is a customer but the mayor is openly homosexual and has offered his personal condemnation.
No harm has been done to the GLSO; indeed, the publicity it has received is something it probably conceives of as a godsend, especially for encouraging contributions in a city of nearly 300,000 in which the consensus seems to be that within it there is a voluminous homosexual community.
There’s a huge irony in all of this. According to the GLSO web-site, anyone using a certain Kroger gift-card guarantees that 4% of the amount charged on the card at a Kroger store will go to the GLSO, courtesy of Kroger.
Hands On Originals is not alone in its convictions concerning homosexual behavior, though it does business with all types of people, including homosexuals. It simply does not do business that encourages homosexual behavior. There are multitudes of like-minded people and institutions in both Lexington and elsewhere.
Suppose the people who believe as Hands On Originals does decide to simply boycott Kroger and set up web-sites and Face-book spots to explain Kroger’s largesse and encourage shoppers to go to Walmart or other grocery chains or local groceries in order to express their disapproval of Kroger’s practices. Suppose they decide to protest on public property at Kroger stores.
None of this creates a pretty picture and there would have been no problem if the GLSO, which certainly understands that multitudes of people consider homosexual behavior not only sinful but just plain wrong naturally (no denying it as a biological and always potentially unhealthy perversion), had just honored Hands On Originals’ right to be against what GLSO is for, especially since GLSO will have no problem getting its T-shirts produced. Vindictiveness is its only purpose. Nothing could be more mean-spirited nor more unnecessary.
This is the new United States, in which political correctness as particularly determined by the “anything goes” crowd will rule the day and the devil take the hindmost. As for the June festival, it will feature perversion as normal, just being politically correct. Religious convictions have been rather well buried under the secularism of the marketplace and particularly by governments on all levels.
In a unique sense, a ruling against Hands On Originals by the Ethics crowd or the city government actually represents an infringement upon the rights of Hands On Originals under the First Amendment. Hands On Originals has the right to practice its faith in this matter without any threat from any government agency. “Congress [any government agency] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This includes the local so-called Human Rights Commission and city government.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Its main objective currently seems to be the bankrupting of a local small business named Hands On Originals, which produces customized T-shirts, notably as containing graphics, lettering and whatever else a customer desires. The effort against Hands On Originals is keyed on convincing potential customers to boycott the business until it collapses, primarily, it seems, through a Face-book effort, whether or not sponsored, though it probably is, by the GLSO. Plans for a protest have been made, as if this is a world-shaking matter.
Hands On Originals won a contract from the GLSO for producing T-shirts on which would appear the three words Pride, Lexington, and Festival entwined within or accompanying the number five. That seems innocent enough but a problem occurred when it was discovered belatedly by Hands On Originals that the product was to be delivered in conjunction with a “gay-pride festival” in June.
The company spokesman, in explaining why Hands On Originals would not produce the shirts but could recommend another company to do the job at the same price, indicated that religious convictions (Christian, in this case) formed the reason for reneging. The GLSO decided to lodge a complaint with the local Human Rights Commission, which is the same as guaranteeing that whatever legal or other means it has will be brought to bear on Hands On Originals, thus enhancing the boycott and further driving Hands On Originals out of business.
Already, the local school system has shut down its business with the company and the university likely will not renew a contract with it that is expiring ($200,000 in the last nine months, according to the local newspaper). The city also is a customer but the mayor is openly homosexual and has offered his personal condemnation.
No harm has been done to the GLSO; indeed, the publicity it has received is something it probably conceives of as a godsend, especially for encouraging contributions in a city of nearly 300,000 in which the consensus seems to be that within it there is a voluminous homosexual community.
There’s a huge irony in all of this. According to the GLSO web-site, anyone using a certain Kroger gift-card guarantees that 4% of the amount charged on the card at a Kroger store will go to the GLSO, courtesy of Kroger.
Hands On Originals is not alone in its convictions concerning homosexual behavior, though it does business with all types of people, including homosexuals. It simply does not do business that encourages homosexual behavior. There are multitudes of like-minded people and institutions in both Lexington and elsewhere.
Suppose the people who believe as Hands On Originals does decide to simply boycott Kroger and set up web-sites and Face-book spots to explain Kroger’s largesse and encourage shoppers to go to Walmart or other grocery chains or local groceries in order to express their disapproval of Kroger’s practices. Suppose they decide to protest on public property at Kroger stores.
None of this creates a pretty picture and there would have been no problem if the GLSO, which certainly understands that multitudes of people consider homosexual behavior not only sinful but just plain wrong naturally (no denying it as a biological and always potentially unhealthy perversion), had just honored Hands On Originals’ right to be against what GLSO is for, especially since GLSO will have no problem getting its T-shirts produced. Vindictiveness is its only purpose. Nothing could be more mean-spirited nor more unnecessary.
This is the new United States, in which political correctness as particularly determined by the “anything goes” crowd will rule the day and the devil take the hindmost. As for the June festival, it will feature perversion as normal, just being politically correct. Religious convictions have been rather well buried under the secularism of the marketplace and particularly by governments on all levels.
In a unique sense, a ruling against Hands On Originals by the Ethics crowd or the city government actually represents an infringement upon the rights of Hands On Originals under the First Amendment. Hands On Originals has the right to practice its faith in this matter without any threat from any government agency. “Congress [any government agency] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This includes the local so-called Human Rights Commission and city government.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Obama's Empathy & Flexibility
One wonders at times how supposedly intelligent people who gain elective office can make such unearthly mistakes in both judgment and action. President Obama, after making himself look silly when he opined that Cambridge policemen acted stupidly a while back has now at least intimated that Sanford, Fla., policemen act accordingly regarding the Trevon Martin shooting. In both cases, he delivered himself of opinions without knowing the facts surrounding the instances precipitating his responses.
Without a clue as to the circumstances accruing to the Martin killing, he reckoned that if he had a son the boy would look just like Martin, the statement itself stretching one’s credulity as to the president’s state of mind (or mindlessness), unless Obama figures that anyone with two ears and one nose would look okay enough to be his son. He would have been better off if he had just said that the Sanford policemen acted stupidly, since the other statement (similar son) was so utterly foolish and had no bearing whatever on the matter. Apparently, he wanted to make sure that the black voters hadn’t forgotten his blackness, especially since Obama is half-white.
Okay…that was bad enough, but far worse was the president’s unspeakable gaffe when he was unaware of being on a “hot” mike when making unbelievable statements to the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev , during his latest clambake and photo-opportunity-gig in South Korea.
Obama: "This is my last election … After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replied in English, according to ABC News: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin, recently reelected president]."
The Obama White House has been in full damage-control since this mess occurred, the story being that this remark applied only to the matter of missile-defense, as if it made any difference what matter was under discussion. The president placed himself squarely on the record as purposely being deceitful vis-à-vis the U.S. citizenry with respect to anything he plans to do once he’s reelected.
More to the point, he described himself in no uncertain terms with regard to his dealings with not only Russia or the U.S. but with any entity, individual or collective, domestic or international. This is the definition of “flexible” [Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th Edition]: “Capable of being flexed: PLIANT; yielding to influence: TRACTABLE; characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements: ‘a flexible foreign policy’.”
The president has already given evidence of his “flexibility.” In 2008, he made it plain that marriage is between a man and a woman, just as federal law requires, as well as state laws and constitutions. Now, his stance is “evolving.” In other words, flexibility means that he will recant the 2008 position when he is inaugurated in 2013, not losing any of the homosexual vote or neglecting payback. A normal man or woman will not change his/her mind on this matter, so empirically decided and not just biologically though that’s enough.
The prez promised to close Gitmo by January 2010 but became “flexible” and Gitmo remains, not that anyone actually expected him to do that. He was all for trying Khalid the butcher in a U.S. mainland court but became “flexible” and the big bad K, former U.S. university student and planner of 9/11, remains at Gitmo.
So…the prez is “capable of being flexed: PLIANT.” This is another way of saying he’s capable of being used, just as he was used by the likes of Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers in his silly statement concerning Martin and son-ship. He probably thought he was being eloquent but he obviously should not have spoken without his teleprompter, presumably prepared by someone who would have known better than to have him make such an obviously racist statement.
When the president reached over and patted Medvedev’s hand, was he “yielding to influence” and being “TRACTABLE?” Who knows? He stopped the missile-defense system planned for eastern Europe in its tracks, much to the dismay of the folks close to Russia and wondering about the viability of U.S. commitments (especially NATO) and a potential new Soviet Union, not to mention possible action courtesy of Iran, much closer to Europe than the U.S.
Is the president susceptible to the third definition of “flexible:”…“characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements: ‘a flexible foreign policy’?” Even the dictionary definition of “flexible” mentions foreign policy. Obama declared war on Libya a year ago and initiated the destruction of that benighted country by a simple executive order, with not so much as a by-your-leave from the Congress.
Instead, Obama went to the United Nations for some kind of resolution structured by the “women’s mafia” of the White House – Clinton, Rice, and Powers, and then later to NATO. That’s a definitive departure from U.S. policy, which is to tend to its own affairs and not let any other entity dictate what that means, and certainly not to allow a president to start his own little wars. Obama’s foreign policy is obviously “flexible” enough to crown him as some sort of king when it comes to whatever he wants, the elected legislators be damned.
Yeah…the prez is “flexible,” and chances are that “we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.”
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Without a clue as to the circumstances accruing to the Martin killing, he reckoned that if he had a son the boy would look just like Martin, the statement itself stretching one’s credulity as to the president’s state of mind (or mindlessness), unless Obama figures that anyone with two ears and one nose would look okay enough to be his son. He would have been better off if he had just said that the Sanford policemen acted stupidly, since the other statement (similar son) was so utterly foolish and had no bearing whatever on the matter. Apparently, he wanted to make sure that the black voters hadn’t forgotten his blackness, especially since Obama is half-white.
Okay…that was bad enough, but far worse was the president’s unspeakable gaffe when he was unaware of being on a “hot” mike when making unbelievable statements to the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev , during his latest clambake and photo-opportunity-gig in South Korea.
Obama: "This is my last election … After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replied in English, according to ABC News: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin, recently reelected president]."
The Obama White House has been in full damage-control since this mess occurred, the story being that this remark applied only to the matter of missile-defense, as if it made any difference what matter was under discussion. The president placed himself squarely on the record as purposely being deceitful vis-à-vis the U.S. citizenry with respect to anything he plans to do once he’s reelected.
More to the point, he described himself in no uncertain terms with regard to his dealings with not only Russia or the U.S. but with any entity, individual or collective, domestic or international. This is the definition of “flexible” [Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th Edition]: “Capable of being flexed: PLIANT; yielding to influence: TRACTABLE; characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements: ‘a flexible foreign policy’.”
The president has already given evidence of his “flexibility.” In 2008, he made it plain that marriage is between a man and a woman, just as federal law requires, as well as state laws and constitutions. Now, his stance is “evolving.” In other words, flexibility means that he will recant the 2008 position when he is inaugurated in 2013, not losing any of the homosexual vote or neglecting payback. A normal man or woman will not change his/her mind on this matter, so empirically decided and not just biologically though that’s enough.
The prez promised to close Gitmo by January 2010 but became “flexible” and Gitmo remains, not that anyone actually expected him to do that. He was all for trying Khalid the butcher in a U.S. mainland court but became “flexible” and the big bad K, former U.S. university student and planner of 9/11, remains at Gitmo.
So…the prez is “capable of being flexed: PLIANT.” This is another way of saying he’s capable of being used, just as he was used by the likes of Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers in his silly statement concerning Martin and son-ship. He probably thought he was being eloquent but he obviously should not have spoken without his teleprompter, presumably prepared by someone who would have known better than to have him make such an obviously racist statement.
When the president reached over and patted Medvedev’s hand, was he “yielding to influence” and being “TRACTABLE?” Who knows? He stopped the missile-defense system planned for eastern Europe in its tracks, much to the dismay of the folks close to Russia and wondering about the viability of U.S. commitments (especially NATO) and a potential new Soviet Union, not to mention possible action courtesy of Iran, much closer to Europe than the U.S.
Is the president susceptible to the third definition of “flexible:”…“characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements: ‘a flexible foreign policy’?” Even the dictionary definition of “flexible” mentions foreign policy. Obama declared war on Libya a year ago and initiated the destruction of that benighted country by a simple executive order, with not so much as a by-your-leave from the Congress.
Instead, Obama went to the United Nations for some kind of resolution structured by the “women’s mafia” of the White House – Clinton, Rice, and Powers, and then later to NATO. That’s a definitive departure from U.S. policy, which is to tend to its own affairs and not let any other entity dictate what that means, and certainly not to allow a president to start his own little wars. Obama’s foreign policy is obviously “flexible” enough to crown him as some sort of king when it comes to whatever he wants, the elected legislators be damned.
Yeah…the prez is “flexible,” and chances are that “we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.”
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The NOH8 Gang…Hedonism Incarnate
Two-thirds of the news-section of the front page of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., was devoted to something labeled NOH8 (pronounced “no hate”) on 21 March. The headline above the fold: FIGHTING HATE WITH…. Under the headline was a picture of two guys, naturally, with duct-tape covering their mouths (automatically ruling out a bit of fellatio) and NOH8 painted on their faces. Under the picture, the further headline: …SILENCE.
Get it? Fighting hate with silence…how cute! Seems that NOH8 is national in scope and features a “photographic silent protest” that advocates for “equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.” So…NOH8 was in the news on the front page (far more important than anything like a war in Afghanistan) because it held its “first Kentucky photo shoot” in one of the city’s hotels.
There were other photos, one of a being called Trinity (single-word names are big these days), sex (or no sex) undetermined and undisclosed and another of three ladies and a baby, the latter ironically an impossibility accruing to “actions” performed on each other by the folks involved.
NOH8 apparently came on line in California (where else?) in 2008, when the voters approved Proposition 8 (get it?…8?), thus banning same-sex marriage. The duct-tape-over-mouth installed by the supposed aggrieved instead of by another entity supposedly symbolizes the loss of freedom of speech, though one wonders what that has to do with the freedom to take it off and shout to the heavens whatever the protest-mantra du jour is, with no government allowed to abridge that right.
Also, no government on any level is allowed to stop the folks involved from doing whatever “sexual” act they desire, so the “duct-tape-to-the-mouth” gimmick fails on that point, also. The NOH8ers could have placed the tape on other anatomy-areas, as well, but the photos might not have made the paper in that case…or at least the front page, although with McClatchy (H-L owner) these days…who knows? Its head honcho has just taken over as CEO of Associated Press, perhaps the most liberal (sometimes a euphemism for tawdry-sophisticated) “news” organization in the country, part of the mainstream Obama-propaganda machine, along with NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN and ABC, not to mention the leftist big-city newspapers.
I resent this obvious effort to make people who agree with Proposition 8 into haters of some sort. I agree with the big-8 and I resent being called a hater. I don’t hate the folks in the LGBT gang…I hate their physical behavior, which is damnably perverted and unhealthy, something a public-school freshman recognizes just from his general health textbook, if nothing else. Trying to make “straights” into the “heavies” on this subject is a pronounced exercise of hate in and of itself.
The NOH8ers have become the haters and the muddle-headed press, itself damned by a preponderance of liberal operators with vacuums between their ears, are only too happy to be the propaganda arm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s rear (okay, that’s supposed to be “ear”). The subject calls for the former.
According to the L-H, more than 20,000 NOH8ers have been photographed, along with the Lexington gang, with no mention of how the pictures will be used or misused or abused but it’s a lead-pipe cinch that NOH8ers might rue the day their pictures were made available to every weirdo, psycho, or just plain good ol’ boy throughout the world.
As for their solution being SILENCE in the face of all of us haters…that’s worth a 14-carat belly-laugh. These folks are among the loudest screamers in the country for their “rights,” so loud that in 2008 the democrat contenders for the presidency, excluding Dodd and Biden but including Clinton and Obamessiah, made a weird appearance at a debate staged by the downtrodden, tortured LGBTers, now the NOH8ers.
They have every logical right any other American has. The idea that they should marry is so illogical, as proven by nature itself, that it does not represent a right any more than a dog-lover has a right to marry Fido, something of which the NOH8ers might approve, come to think of it.
The idea that something as off-the-wall as NOH8 and its pictures deserves a huge write-up on a metro newspaper front-page is unseemly at best, perverse at worst, not least because it encourages a procedure that could make for a dangerous situation for a multitude of people being led down the primrose path. Worse, it’s just another example of the irresponsibility connected to making perversion into normalcy, something the newspaper should consider, especially with respect to young people. It’s hedonism in its worst form, which is tearing at the very fabric of the nation now. The paper should be ashamed.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Get it? Fighting hate with silence…how cute! Seems that NOH8 is national in scope and features a “photographic silent protest” that advocates for “equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.” So…NOH8 was in the news on the front page (far more important than anything like a war in Afghanistan) because it held its “first Kentucky photo shoot” in one of the city’s hotels.
There were other photos, one of a being called Trinity (single-word names are big these days), sex (or no sex) undetermined and undisclosed and another of three ladies and a baby, the latter ironically an impossibility accruing to “actions” performed on each other by the folks involved.
NOH8 apparently came on line in California (where else?) in 2008, when the voters approved Proposition 8 (get it?…8?), thus banning same-sex marriage. The duct-tape-over-mouth installed by the supposed aggrieved instead of by another entity supposedly symbolizes the loss of freedom of speech, though one wonders what that has to do with the freedom to take it off and shout to the heavens whatever the protest-mantra du jour is, with no government allowed to abridge that right.
Also, no government on any level is allowed to stop the folks involved from doing whatever “sexual” act they desire, so the “duct-tape-to-the-mouth” gimmick fails on that point, also. The NOH8ers could have placed the tape on other anatomy-areas, as well, but the photos might not have made the paper in that case…or at least the front page, although with McClatchy (H-L owner) these days…who knows? Its head honcho has just taken over as CEO of Associated Press, perhaps the most liberal (sometimes a euphemism for tawdry-sophisticated) “news” organization in the country, part of the mainstream Obama-propaganda machine, along with NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN and ABC, not to mention the leftist big-city newspapers.
I resent this obvious effort to make people who agree with Proposition 8 into haters of some sort. I agree with the big-8 and I resent being called a hater. I don’t hate the folks in the LGBT gang…I hate their physical behavior, which is damnably perverted and unhealthy, something a public-school freshman recognizes just from his general health textbook, if nothing else. Trying to make “straights” into the “heavies” on this subject is a pronounced exercise of hate in and of itself.
The NOH8ers have become the haters and the muddle-headed press, itself damned by a preponderance of liberal operators with vacuums between their ears, are only too happy to be the propaganda arm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s rear (okay, that’s supposed to be “ear”). The subject calls for the former.
According to the L-H, more than 20,000 NOH8ers have been photographed, along with the Lexington gang, with no mention of how the pictures will be used or misused or abused but it’s a lead-pipe cinch that NOH8ers might rue the day their pictures were made available to every weirdo, psycho, or just plain good ol’ boy throughout the world.
As for their solution being SILENCE in the face of all of us haters…that’s worth a 14-carat belly-laugh. These folks are among the loudest screamers in the country for their “rights,” so loud that in 2008 the democrat contenders for the presidency, excluding Dodd and Biden but including Clinton and Obamessiah, made a weird appearance at a debate staged by the downtrodden, tortured LGBTers, now the NOH8ers.
They have every logical right any other American has. The idea that they should marry is so illogical, as proven by nature itself, that it does not represent a right any more than a dog-lover has a right to marry Fido, something of which the NOH8ers might approve, come to think of it.
The idea that something as off-the-wall as NOH8 and its pictures deserves a huge write-up on a metro newspaper front-page is unseemly at best, perverse at worst, not least because it encourages a procedure that could make for a dangerous situation for a multitude of people being led down the primrose path. Worse, it’s just another example of the irresponsibility connected to making perversion into normalcy, something the newspaper should consider, especially with respect to young people. It’s hedonism in its worst form, which is tearing at the very fabric of the nation now. The paper should be ashamed.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Women’s History Month…Sacred?
In 1987, the U.S Congress delivered itself of a proclamation making March Women’s History Month. And why not? After all, February, the birth-months of Washington and Lincoln, is Black History Month.
Actually, March is observed as Women’s History Month throughout the world, though not necessarily in March everywhere. To see the same irony as that mentioned in the paragraph above, one notes that Mohammad, who set the tone for making women hardly one step above a mule, was born in the third month of the Islamic calendar, which would correspond to March in the U.S calendar.
The theme of the celebration this year in the U.S. is “Women’s Education – Women’s Empowerment.” There’s a colossal irony connected to this, as well, since women already outnumber men in colleges and universities as well as law schools. They are gradually taking over the courts and probably will soon outnumber men in all judicial systems. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 17,672 women applied to attend medical school in the 2003-2004 school year, compared with 17,113 men, the first time more women than men entered the medical profession. This trend has doubtlessly continued, so the ladies are taking over the health industry, too.
This makes one wonder about the theme for this year’s observance since education doesn’t actually seem to be too problematic for women. It would appear that the men are getting the short end of the stick but one would not do well to hold his breath until a Men’s History Month is declared by Congress, especially since men are hanging on to a majority there currently. This is bound to change soon, also, and the wonder will be if the women try to pass a reverse voting amendment and deny men the right to the ballot box, probably marked “so there.”
In a speech the other day at something called the Women in the World Summit (where else would they be?), State Secretary Clinton said, “Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn't matter what country they're in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies.”
And just who are those “extremists,” you ask, who cause such a mystery? MEN, of course, no matter in what country! It’s been a while since Ms. Clinton was in college and law school so she may not have noticed how men have not denied education to the distaff side, and it’s a sure fact that hubby Bill did not deny her all those vacations in foreign countries when she was first lady, courtesy U.S. government. Even current first lady Michele hasn’t caught on sufficiently to that perk yet, though she’s trying, with “his” and “her” Air Force-chauffered transportation and the army of apparatchiks that tag along.
Clinton doubled down on the religion, lumping Baptist men with Muslim men with Jewish men…probably even with “moonie” men. Her main enemy is probably Paul the Apostle, who said something about women being quiet in church; however, he also said men shouldn’t have long hair so he was middling fair. She didn’t say how the Baptists control their women but she probably has a good idea about the Muslims since she spends a lot of time in Arab-land still flying at government expense in perpetual vacation-mode and giving sage opinions such as that Bashir Assad just has to go.
She may or may not have a point about the way women dress. In TV-land, they appear as undressed as possible, especially in the “news-as-commentary” programs. The men are dressed formally from Adam’s apple to Achilles heel, but the ladies do the off-the-shoulder, deep-cleavage, thigh-high number, probably just what some male honcho demanded. Anyone who believes that can buy a bridge for 79 cents right here. The ladies in the “oldest profession” might be envious…or suspect that the glamour-gal pundits/reporters are on the make for some more cash.
When the intrepid secretary (remember those snipers she outwitted in Bosnia in 1996) mentioned health and bodies, she was using code for contraception/birth-control/abortion, as if men have anything to say about the subject with respect to its control, denial, or otherwise.
This works so well in Women’s History Month that fem-dems are blaming the evil repub-men for their declaration of war on women, with POTUS having the exceptional sensitivity and wisdom (grand warm-fuzzy intellectual that he is) to make that famous phone-call to soothe a damsel in distress because condom-expenses were bankrupting lady law-school students, of which crowd she was one, account she had been called a bad name by a radio-guy – almost as bad as one used by a millionaire male-narcissist, who had just contributed a million bucks to the POTUS super-pac, about a former lady-governor. POTUS has not phoned her yet.
Oh well…POTUS by executive order last year declared September to be National Preparedness Month, making one wonder why he didn’t do that in January 2009. Shouldn’t there be a month for children, too? Or…what about left-handed cocktail waitresses on roller-skates? One supposes, since DHS Secretary Napolitano warned a while back that everyone should be on the lookout for potentially dangerous GIs returning from Iraq, that POTUS was taking care of the welfare of the citizens, and thus encouraging them to be prepared to fight the vets off. EGAD!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Actually, March is observed as Women’s History Month throughout the world, though not necessarily in March everywhere. To see the same irony as that mentioned in the paragraph above, one notes that Mohammad, who set the tone for making women hardly one step above a mule, was born in the third month of the Islamic calendar, which would correspond to March in the U.S calendar.
The theme of the celebration this year in the U.S. is “Women’s Education – Women’s Empowerment.” There’s a colossal irony connected to this, as well, since women already outnumber men in colleges and universities as well as law schools. They are gradually taking over the courts and probably will soon outnumber men in all judicial systems. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 17,672 women applied to attend medical school in the 2003-2004 school year, compared with 17,113 men, the first time more women than men entered the medical profession. This trend has doubtlessly continued, so the ladies are taking over the health industry, too.
This makes one wonder about the theme for this year’s observance since education doesn’t actually seem to be too problematic for women. It would appear that the men are getting the short end of the stick but one would not do well to hold his breath until a Men’s History Month is declared by Congress, especially since men are hanging on to a majority there currently. This is bound to change soon, also, and the wonder will be if the women try to pass a reverse voting amendment and deny men the right to the ballot box, probably marked “so there.”
In a speech the other day at something called the Women in the World Summit (where else would they be?), State Secretary Clinton said, “Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn't matter what country they're in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies.”
And just who are those “extremists,” you ask, who cause such a mystery? MEN, of course, no matter in what country! It’s been a while since Ms. Clinton was in college and law school so she may not have noticed how men have not denied education to the distaff side, and it’s a sure fact that hubby Bill did not deny her all those vacations in foreign countries when she was first lady, courtesy U.S. government. Even current first lady Michele hasn’t caught on sufficiently to that perk yet, though she’s trying, with “his” and “her” Air Force-chauffered transportation and the army of apparatchiks that tag along.
Clinton doubled down on the religion, lumping Baptist men with Muslim men with Jewish men…probably even with “moonie” men. Her main enemy is probably Paul the Apostle, who said something about women being quiet in church; however, he also said men shouldn’t have long hair so he was middling fair. She didn’t say how the Baptists control their women but she probably has a good idea about the Muslims since she spends a lot of time in Arab-land still flying at government expense in perpetual vacation-mode and giving sage opinions such as that Bashir Assad just has to go.
She may or may not have a point about the way women dress. In TV-land, they appear as undressed as possible, especially in the “news-as-commentary” programs. The men are dressed formally from Adam’s apple to Achilles heel, but the ladies do the off-the-shoulder, deep-cleavage, thigh-high number, probably just what some male honcho demanded. Anyone who believes that can buy a bridge for 79 cents right here. The ladies in the “oldest profession” might be envious…or suspect that the glamour-gal pundits/reporters are on the make for some more cash.
When the intrepid secretary (remember those snipers she outwitted in Bosnia in 1996) mentioned health and bodies, she was using code for contraception/birth-control/abortion, as if men have anything to say about the subject with respect to its control, denial, or otherwise.
This works so well in Women’s History Month that fem-dems are blaming the evil repub-men for their declaration of war on women, with POTUS having the exceptional sensitivity and wisdom (grand warm-fuzzy intellectual that he is) to make that famous phone-call to soothe a damsel in distress because condom-expenses were bankrupting lady law-school students, of which crowd she was one, account she had been called a bad name by a radio-guy – almost as bad as one used by a millionaire male-narcissist, who had just contributed a million bucks to the POTUS super-pac, about a former lady-governor. POTUS has not phoned her yet.
Oh well…POTUS by executive order last year declared September to be National Preparedness Month, making one wonder why he didn’t do that in January 2009. Shouldn’t there be a month for children, too? Or…what about left-handed cocktail waitresses on roller-skates? One supposes, since DHS Secretary Napolitano warned a while back that everyone should be on the lookout for potentially dangerous GIs returning from Iraq, that POTUS was taking care of the welfare of the citizens, and thus encouraging them to be prepared to fight the vets off. EGAD!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, March 19, 2012
POTUS & His Proxy-Apology Craze
For all of his absolutely excellent traits, it must be admitted that President Obama is a pronounced latecomer to the “personal-proxy-apology-protocol” (has a nice ring, doesn’t it) as opposed to that of statehood, i.e., he quite early in his presidency (2009) eloquently apologized in proxy-mode to Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the very existence of the U.S. citizenry but only recently has managed to do so on the personal level, with his eloquent proxy-apology on behalf of talking-head Rush Limbaugh to Ms. Sandra Fluke account Limbaugh’s calling her a naughty name. His S-Q (sensitivity-quotient) went up 25 points with the women voters but, of course, he wasn’t thinking of that when his empathetic gene kicked in.
This doesn’t mean that the prez can’t apologize personally. He certainly can, as when he apologized to the Cambridge police for remarking them as acting stupidly, though it’s unclear as to any recanting of that opinion. Perhaps his biggest failure to date account lack of proxy-apology awareness has been no offer of apology on behalf of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright to Americans for the reverend’s beseeching of God in the matter of damning the nation and therefore damning its citizens into some sort of perdition, with feathers all over the place as the chickens come home to roost.
The most prominent failures lately of the prexy’s insensitivity to proxy-apology awareness had to do with remarks made last year by comedians Maher and Colbert about Sarah Palin, “dumb twat” and “f—king retard,” respectively. Somehow, those appellations didn’t rise to the level of “slut;” therefore, no response from the nation’s apologist-in-chief was felt necessary. It would have been embarrassing to do so now anyway, since Maher just contributed a cool million to Obamessiah’s campaign.
But there have been other times during Obama’s tenure when he might have exhibited some modicum of responsibility for making proxy-apologies. For instance, MSNBC’s fair-haired boy Ed Schultz (reincarnation of Keith Olbermann but without the requisite amount of mouth-frothing) went public last May with his opinion of Laura Ingraham and called her a “right-wing slut.” Since that so nearly approximated Limbaugh’s pronouncement vis-à-vis Ms. Fluke, one might have expected a terse proxy-apology for Mr. Schultz but Obama didn’t feel the need, and it wasn’t an actual election year anyway.
Or, take the case of Mr. Schultz when he opined a while back that Army Major Nidal Hasan was a “terrorist.” No one appreciates being called a terrorist and yet the prexy didn’t perform a proxy-apology on behalf of Schultz to a member of the military, of which he’s the commander-in-chief. The killing of 13 civilians or military personnel and wounding of many others hardly rises to the level of terrorism, so the prez was certainly derelict in not making things right with the major, who only committed cold-blooded murder, certainly not terrorism.
Schultz went even further and blamed Vice President Cheney for Nadal’s crimes, and Cheney wasn’t even in office at the time. One supposes the prez, sensitive to the circumstances of any administration, no matter the party, would have done a proxy Schultz-apology to a former veep, but he was derelict in his duty.
Or, take the case of David Corn, Washington bureau-chief for Mother Jones, who said in the same clambake with Schultz that he thought Nadal was psychotic. Obama offered no proxy-apology in that matter, notwithstanding that no one wants to be called “crazy,” not even by a Mother Jones intellectual of the caliber of Corn. Again, Obama didn’t stand up for the major. However, the major, 2.5 years after the fact, has never even been brought to trial, so maybe the prez is exhibiting a different kind of sensitivity.
One harkens back to the president’s performance in Tuscon in January 2011, a sort of run-up to the state-of-the-union harangue of last year, when, unlike the memorial service for Nadal’s victims, he had the people applauding at the end of nearly every sentence, virtually dancing in the aisles, much like the Wellstone funeral back in the day when Senator Harkin waged a foot-stomping travesty of that affair, which was in an election year. The president’s theme in Tucson was the need for a more civil discourse, yet he accepts a million cool ones from a slime whose discourse is beyond uncivil, strictly cesspool material on roughly the intellectual level of a porcupine.
Okay, most of this is tongue-in-cheek…for a reason. It points up the fact that the president, besides being subjectively selective in his approvals, tacit or otherwise, has trivialized his office to the extent of getting into a petty fight over condoms, of all things. One can only guess at the laughter other world leaders exhibit when considering this. Is the president a flake? Perhaps he will apologize to himself on my behalf for bringing up the question, thus bringing the “personal-proxy-apology-protocol” to a level unheard of.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
This doesn’t mean that the prez can’t apologize personally. He certainly can, as when he apologized to the Cambridge police for remarking them as acting stupidly, though it’s unclear as to any recanting of that opinion. Perhaps his biggest failure to date account lack of proxy-apology awareness has been no offer of apology on behalf of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright to Americans for the reverend’s beseeching of God in the matter of damning the nation and therefore damning its citizens into some sort of perdition, with feathers all over the place as the chickens come home to roost.
The most prominent failures lately of the prexy’s insensitivity to proxy-apology awareness had to do with remarks made last year by comedians Maher and Colbert about Sarah Palin, “dumb twat” and “f—king retard,” respectively. Somehow, those appellations didn’t rise to the level of “slut;” therefore, no response from the nation’s apologist-in-chief was felt necessary. It would have been embarrassing to do so now anyway, since Maher just contributed a cool million to Obamessiah’s campaign.
But there have been other times during Obama’s tenure when he might have exhibited some modicum of responsibility for making proxy-apologies. For instance, MSNBC’s fair-haired boy Ed Schultz (reincarnation of Keith Olbermann but without the requisite amount of mouth-frothing) went public last May with his opinion of Laura Ingraham and called her a “right-wing slut.” Since that so nearly approximated Limbaugh’s pronouncement vis-à-vis Ms. Fluke, one might have expected a terse proxy-apology for Mr. Schultz but Obama didn’t feel the need, and it wasn’t an actual election year anyway.
Or, take the case of Mr. Schultz when he opined a while back that Army Major Nidal Hasan was a “terrorist.” No one appreciates being called a terrorist and yet the prexy didn’t perform a proxy-apology on behalf of Schultz to a member of the military, of which he’s the commander-in-chief. The killing of 13 civilians or military personnel and wounding of many others hardly rises to the level of terrorism, so the prez was certainly derelict in not making things right with the major, who only committed cold-blooded murder, certainly not terrorism.
Schultz went even further and blamed Vice President Cheney for Nadal’s crimes, and Cheney wasn’t even in office at the time. One supposes the prez, sensitive to the circumstances of any administration, no matter the party, would have done a proxy Schultz-apology to a former veep, but he was derelict in his duty.
Or, take the case of David Corn, Washington bureau-chief for Mother Jones, who said in the same clambake with Schultz that he thought Nadal was psychotic. Obama offered no proxy-apology in that matter, notwithstanding that no one wants to be called “crazy,” not even by a Mother Jones intellectual of the caliber of Corn. Again, Obama didn’t stand up for the major. However, the major, 2.5 years after the fact, has never even been brought to trial, so maybe the prez is exhibiting a different kind of sensitivity.
One harkens back to the president’s performance in Tuscon in January 2011, a sort of run-up to the state-of-the-union harangue of last year, when, unlike the memorial service for Nadal’s victims, he had the people applauding at the end of nearly every sentence, virtually dancing in the aisles, much like the Wellstone funeral back in the day when Senator Harkin waged a foot-stomping travesty of that affair, which was in an election year. The president’s theme in Tucson was the need for a more civil discourse, yet he accepts a million cool ones from a slime whose discourse is beyond uncivil, strictly cesspool material on roughly the intellectual level of a porcupine.
Okay, most of this is tongue-in-cheek…for a reason. It points up the fact that the president, besides being subjectively selective in his approvals, tacit or otherwise, has trivialized his office to the extent of getting into a petty fight over condoms, of all things. One can only guess at the laughter other world leaders exhibit when considering this. Is the president a flake? Perhaps he will apologize to himself on my behalf for bringing up the question, thus bringing the “personal-proxy-apology-protocol” to a level unheard of.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Pelosi & Fluke...WEIRD
The special hearing ginned up by Minority Leader Pelosi the other day before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee so that a law-student could lecture it account there not being a woman on a panel that appeared before a Senate committee earlier represented the same situation. There was no male present on the panel when the law-student made her speech because there was no panel. She probably wasn’t even sworn.
The subject in both hearings had to do ostensibly with responsibility (or not) of both government and private entities regarding contraceptive devices. The Senate hearing had nothing to do with health but with government accountability vis-à-vis church/state issues. Pelosi’s hearing had to do with…well, who knows?
The third-year law-student, Sandra Fluke, actually was an activist, not just some gal caterwauling about how mean white men, both of the cloth and Congress, wage war against women. She’s a past-president of something called the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. She said she was on a public interest scholarship, whatever that is, and that an entire summer salary (didn’t say doing what) was gobbled up, presumably because of those old white guys, just paying for contraceptives, obviously an outrage perhaps leading to unwanted pregnancies requiring the final resort – abortion or just having the brat.
Fluke said this to Super-heroine Pelosi (actually to all those TV cameras, the actual purpose of the fiasco): “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.” A month’s supply of condoms can be bought at Walmart or Target for $9, so apparently this couple may be eating only on alternate days. Fluke didn’t say. You can’t make up this stuff.
Fluke mentioned another woman who couldn’t get birth control stuff even though she’s a lesbian who needed it for a medical problem. Her insurance company apparently didn’t buy that but Fluke didn’t mention whether or not the lady’s doctors might have suggested alternative “medicines” or activities.
Fluke provided the perfect example of the “liberated woman,” who is free to engage in whatever delights she desires – or even in medical problems – with the caveat that somebody else has to pay for those indulgences, even if their spiritual convictions militate against such support. This was the matter before the Senate committee. Pelosi tried to turn it on its head and looked silly in the process, attempting to make clerics, especially, into Satan incarnate. After all, don’t third-year law students lack the sense to know how to ward off pregnancy, and they certainly should not be expected to traumatize themselves psychologically by using common sense in handling fits of passion.
Okay…it’s all about “reproductive justice.” Isn’t someone or some protest movement all about some sort of justice (actually lack of it) these days? Well…yes, though usually these folks are more interested in some sort of “mercy,” not justice. The Occupy Wall Street gang was all about economic justice last year, when what they actually wanted was the mercy of having the infamous one-percent gang subsidize their lifestyles. The weather is improving so they will be at it again soon but most likely not with Obama’s help during an election year.
According to the Merriam-Webster, 11th edition, justice is: “a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments; b: JUDGE; c: the administration of law.” Just is defined as: “having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: REASONABLE.” So…what is the “reproductive justice” that so enthralls Pelosi and Fluke and, presumably, requires total support by the taxpayers, whether they like it or not or whether or not it violates religious convictions?
Pelosi and Fluke seem to think that reproductive justice can be achieved by the legislative process, i.e., governmental fiats concerning the bearing, or not, of children, with government and insurance companies making all the decisions applying thereto and based on the use of contraceptives. This implies, of course, that whatever government, particularly, decides is REASONABLE. This takes the responsibility for procreation, or not, from the potential makers of children and places it in the hands of government. Nice! This is the way it’s done in China, where even family-size is determined by government.
By definition, Pelosi/Fluke would consider an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment, not a reward accruing to the act of passion. Since justice must be served “reasonably,” the man and woman should be shielded by the government from an unwarranted PUNISHMENT, ergo, the body politic should see to it that they are not mistreated by fumbling into a pregnancy, thereby protecting them from themselves, which is what socialism is all about. The answer: unlimited access to – drum-roll, please…VOILA! – birth-control vehicles designed to preserve justice, peace of mind and forestalling the vicissitudes connected to having a baby. Egad!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The subject in both hearings had to do ostensibly with responsibility (or not) of both government and private entities regarding contraceptive devices. The Senate hearing had nothing to do with health but with government accountability vis-à-vis church/state issues. Pelosi’s hearing had to do with…well, who knows?
The third-year law-student, Sandra Fluke, actually was an activist, not just some gal caterwauling about how mean white men, both of the cloth and Congress, wage war against women. She’s a past-president of something called the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. She said she was on a public interest scholarship, whatever that is, and that an entire summer salary (didn’t say doing what) was gobbled up, presumably because of those old white guys, just paying for contraceptives, obviously an outrage perhaps leading to unwanted pregnancies requiring the final resort – abortion or just having the brat.
Fluke said this to Super-heroine Pelosi (actually to all those TV cameras, the actual purpose of the fiasco): “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.” A month’s supply of condoms can be bought at Walmart or Target for $9, so apparently this couple may be eating only on alternate days. Fluke didn’t say. You can’t make up this stuff.
Fluke mentioned another woman who couldn’t get birth control stuff even though she’s a lesbian who needed it for a medical problem. Her insurance company apparently didn’t buy that but Fluke didn’t mention whether or not the lady’s doctors might have suggested alternative “medicines” or activities.
Fluke provided the perfect example of the “liberated woman,” who is free to engage in whatever delights she desires – or even in medical problems – with the caveat that somebody else has to pay for those indulgences, even if their spiritual convictions militate against such support. This was the matter before the Senate committee. Pelosi tried to turn it on its head and looked silly in the process, attempting to make clerics, especially, into Satan incarnate. After all, don’t third-year law students lack the sense to know how to ward off pregnancy, and they certainly should not be expected to traumatize themselves psychologically by using common sense in handling fits of passion.
Okay…it’s all about “reproductive justice.” Isn’t someone or some protest movement all about some sort of justice (actually lack of it) these days? Well…yes, though usually these folks are more interested in some sort of “mercy,” not justice. The Occupy Wall Street gang was all about economic justice last year, when what they actually wanted was the mercy of having the infamous one-percent gang subsidize their lifestyles. The weather is improving so they will be at it again soon but most likely not with Obama’s help during an election year.
According to the Merriam-Webster, 11th edition, justice is: “a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments; b: JUDGE; c: the administration of law.” Just is defined as: “having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: REASONABLE.” So…what is the “reproductive justice” that so enthralls Pelosi and Fluke and, presumably, requires total support by the taxpayers, whether they like it or not or whether or not it violates religious convictions?
Pelosi and Fluke seem to think that reproductive justice can be achieved by the legislative process, i.e., governmental fiats concerning the bearing, or not, of children, with government and insurance companies making all the decisions applying thereto and based on the use of contraceptives. This implies, of course, that whatever government, particularly, decides is REASONABLE. This takes the responsibility for procreation, or not, from the potential makers of children and places it in the hands of government. Nice! This is the way it’s done in China, where even family-size is determined by government.
By definition, Pelosi/Fluke would consider an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment, not a reward accruing to the act of passion. Since justice must be served “reasonably,” the man and woman should be shielded by the government from an unwarranted PUNISHMENT, ergo, the body politic should see to it that they are not mistreated by fumbling into a pregnancy, thereby protecting them from themselves, which is what socialism is all about. The answer: unlimited access to – drum-roll, please…VOILA! – birth-control vehicles designed to preserve justice, peace of mind and forestalling the vicissitudes connected to having a baby. Egad!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, March 12, 2012
DNC Memorandum #7
From the office of the chairWOMAN, 12 March 2012
***Listen up! There’s been a question about there not being a memorandum this year and the chairWOMAN resents this in no uncertain (or certain) terms. The staffer who remarked this on the George Bush dart/bulletin-board, when discovered, will be posted to canvassing duty in the Everglades. The reason: The chairWOMAN thought it unseemly to publish a memorandum until POTUS held a press conference, his first this year being on 06 March in an effort to fasten the minds of the hoi polloi on the desperate republicans’ “super-Tuesday” circus, concerning which staffers are directed to say little while the repubs are butchering each other big-time. They have all but made each other guilty enough to be in Leavenworth. Also, follow any lead possibly involving one of the candidates that shows he’s a pervert of some kind, but do not – DO NOT – mention that POTUS is evolving his position about marriage being only between a man and woman. He may have to take that stand again whether he likes it or not, besides which it’s the law of the land anyway and Attorney General Holder is too busy suing Arizona and Alabama now to figure a way to make it un-Constitutional.
***Despite all protestations to the contrary, the recession is still plaguing the party. By cooking the books a while back and officially eliminating jobs from the market, the unemployment rate was adjusted in one month from 9% down to 8.4%. Now, a multitude of folks are coming off unemployment compensation and seeking those eliminated jobs again, so the actual unemployment rate is actually about 16%. In your meetings, connect this with the fact that this is the anniversary month of the Japanese tsunami and the Arab Spring of last year, both of which POTUS declared threw the nation further into recession, thus blaming the Japanese and the Arabs for all his problems. Go easy on the Arabs, however, in fact, don’t even mention them unless questioned…for obvious reasons, one of which could be embarrassment for POTUS and FLOTUS and even COPOTUS (children of the president, for recent Harvard grads) when the next Ramadan comes along and POTUS does the usual, though do not mention anything about prayer rugs or presidential-limousine GPS coordinates pointing automatically east toward Mecca.
***Though POTUS considers his Libyan victory, that took only seven months to gain and was a marvelous success that guaranteed his bona fides as a superlative commander-in-chief, do not bring up this subject in Town Hall meetings, or at least not until the end of them, when, whether in schools or bars, most of the participants are too boozed-up to notice. Unfortunately, the New York Times mentioned in December that 7,700 bombs and missiles were dropped by POTUS and NATO on the Libyans, meaning that if each bomb killed only one Libyan…I’m sure you get the picture. If a question arises about this, mention that not all of them hit their proper targets even though POTUS and NATO have insisted that there were virtually no misses, meaning that an awful lot of Libyans bit the proverbial dust…make that sand (little joke there). Also, under no circumstances – that’s NO circumstances – mention anything about Syria, since POTUS and even resident-intellectual State Secretary Clinton have said that Bashar Assad has to be eliminated, either by himself or any other means. They said that about Qaddafi, but Syria has a big army and air-force, meaning that POTUS as C-in-C has no intention of flexing his bona fides there.
***The wag who taped a picture of POTUS to the George Bush dart/bulletin-board over the caption CONDOM-IN-CHIEF will be severely disciplined when apprehended. AG Holder has put the NCIS, FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA and other investigative agencies to work on this matter, which could involve an act of treason. In phoning Sandra Fluke to smooth her feelings that were ruffled by that evil Rush Limbaugh, POTUS, as rumored, did not promise her that the federal government would award her a top-citizen medal, along with a ten year’s supply of Trojans, for standing up for women’s privacy rights with regard to fighting the disease known as pregnancy, for which no antibiotics have proven effective. POTUS has vehemently denied doing this and has insisted that he will not do it again.
***Staffers are to emphasize that new “green” methods are in the works, though no mention is to be made in any groups regarding the “Solyndra Meltdown,” for which the taxpayers were hit for $535 million, though the Solyndra head honchos earned huge bonuses requiring them to pay their “fair share” in taxes not covered by loopholes, said to amount to almost as much as a 70% reduction, nearly as good as that of Congresspersons. One new plan, rumored to be suggested by Sandra Fluke, is something called “Condoms for Clunkers.” Under this protocol, used condoms would be turned in for new condoms made of biodegradable material at a huge discount, thus saving the planet from manmade-global-warming while lowering the birth-rates to near-zero, thus eliminating the need for excessive producing of food, especially beef-cows that fill the air with methane gas every time they burp or otherwise heed the call.
***Along this line, Head Czar Sunstein will soon announce a recruiting program for “Green Inspectors.” He got the idea from a short story in the book December in May, published recently. Inspectors will be trained for such efforts as monitoring all cars on public properties for tire under-inflation, with fines being given to those who are guilty of neglecting their tires. There will be inspectors for checking households to determine proper light-bulb usage, salt content in foods, overuse of toilet tissue, excessive pizza-consumption, etc. Inspectors are already at work checking the lunches kindergarteners bring to school, with possible fines for such things as peanut-butter/jelly sandwiches, for instance. Parents and guardians are being warned that something as serious as a ham-sandwich-with-mayonnaise could mean a jail term. Staffers who bring their lunches to work are being warned herein. Even tofu is being critically examined.
***Keep your eyes and ears out regarding the republican debates, at least one-a-week. If you hear anything suspicious, like someone telling the truth, report it immediately.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
***Listen up! There’s been a question about there not being a memorandum this year and the chairWOMAN resents this in no uncertain (or certain) terms. The staffer who remarked this on the George Bush dart/bulletin-board, when discovered, will be posted to canvassing duty in the Everglades. The reason: The chairWOMAN thought it unseemly to publish a memorandum until POTUS held a press conference, his first this year being on 06 March in an effort to fasten the minds of the hoi polloi on the desperate republicans’ “super-Tuesday” circus, concerning which staffers are directed to say little while the repubs are butchering each other big-time. They have all but made each other guilty enough to be in Leavenworth. Also, follow any lead possibly involving one of the candidates that shows he’s a pervert of some kind, but do not – DO NOT – mention that POTUS is evolving his position about marriage being only between a man and woman. He may have to take that stand again whether he likes it or not, besides which it’s the law of the land anyway and Attorney General Holder is too busy suing Arizona and Alabama now to figure a way to make it un-Constitutional.
***Despite all protestations to the contrary, the recession is still plaguing the party. By cooking the books a while back and officially eliminating jobs from the market, the unemployment rate was adjusted in one month from 9% down to 8.4%. Now, a multitude of folks are coming off unemployment compensation and seeking those eliminated jobs again, so the actual unemployment rate is actually about 16%. In your meetings, connect this with the fact that this is the anniversary month of the Japanese tsunami and the Arab Spring of last year, both of which POTUS declared threw the nation further into recession, thus blaming the Japanese and the Arabs for all his problems. Go easy on the Arabs, however, in fact, don’t even mention them unless questioned…for obvious reasons, one of which could be embarrassment for POTUS and FLOTUS and even COPOTUS (children of the president, for recent Harvard grads) when the next Ramadan comes along and POTUS does the usual, though do not mention anything about prayer rugs or presidential-limousine GPS coordinates pointing automatically east toward Mecca.
***Though POTUS considers his Libyan victory, that took only seven months to gain and was a marvelous success that guaranteed his bona fides as a superlative commander-in-chief, do not bring up this subject in Town Hall meetings, or at least not until the end of them, when, whether in schools or bars, most of the participants are too boozed-up to notice. Unfortunately, the New York Times mentioned in December that 7,700 bombs and missiles were dropped by POTUS and NATO on the Libyans, meaning that if each bomb killed only one Libyan…I’m sure you get the picture. If a question arises about this, mention that not all of them hit their proper targets even though POTUS and NATO have insisted that there were virtually no misses, meaning that an awful lot of Libyans bit the proverbial dust…make that sand (little joke there). Also, under no circumstances – that’s NO circumstances – mention anything about Syria, since POTUS and even resident-intellectual State Secretary Clinton have said that Bashar Assad has to be eliminated, either by himself or any other means. They said that about Qaddafi, but Syria has a big army and air-force, meaning that POTUS as C-in-C has no intention of flexing his bona fides there.
***The wag who taped a picture of POTUS to the George Bush dart/bulletin-board over the caption CONDOM-IN-CHIEF will be severely disciplined when apprehended. AG Holder has put the NCIS, FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA and other investigative agencies to work on this matter, which could involve an act of treason. In phoning Sandra Fluke to smooth her feelings that were ruffled by that evil Rush Limbaugh, POTUS, as rumored, did not promise her that the federal government would award her a top-citizen medal, along with a ten year’s supply of Trojans, for standing up for women’s privacy rights with regard to fighting the disease known as pregnancy, for which no antibiotics have proven effective. POTUS has vehemently denied doing this and has insisted that he will not do it again.
***Staffers are to emphasize that new “green” methods are in the works, though no mention is to be made in any groups regarding the “Solyndra Meltdown,” for which the taxpayers were hit for $535 million, though the Solyndra head honchos earned huge bonuses requiring them to pay their “fair share” in taxes not covered by loopholes, said to amount to almost as much as a 70% reduction, nearly as good as that of Congresspersons. One new plan, rumored to be suggested by Sandra Fluke, is something called “Condoms for Clunkers.” Under this protocol, used condoms would be turned in for new condoms made of biodegradable material at a huge discount, thus saving the planet from manmade-global-warming while lowering the birth-rates to near-zero, thus eliminating the need for excessive producing of food, especially beef-cows that fill the air with methane gas every time they burp or otherwise heed the call.
***Along this line, Head Czar Sunstein will soon announce a recruiting program for “Green Inspectors.” He got the idea from a short story in the book December in May, published recently. Inspectors will be trained for such efforts as monitoring all cars on public properties for tire under-inflation, with fines being given to those who are guilty of neglecting their tires. There will be inspectors for checking households to determine proper light-bulb usage, salt content in foods, overuse of toilet tissue, excessive pizza-consumption, etc. Inspectors are already at work checking the lunches kindergarteners bring to school, with possible fines for such things as peanut-butter/jelly sandwiches, for instance. Parents and guardians are being warned that something as serious as a ham-sandwich-with-mayonnaise could mean a jail term. Staffers who bring their lunches to work are being warned herein. Even tofu is being critically examined.
***Keep your eyes and ears out regarding the republican debates, at least one-a-week. If you hear anything suspicious, like someone telling the truth, report it immediately.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, March 10, 2012
POTUS in Marriage/Apology-Mode
This is from the New York Times of 18 June 2011: “In 1996, as a candidate for the State Senate in Illinois, Mr. Obama responded to a questionnaire from a gay newspaper. ‘I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,’ Mr. Obama wrote, ‘and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.’”
In 2008, Obama made it plain in campaign-mode that he considered marriage as only between a man and a woman. This is from The Telegraph of 03 November 2008: “The White House front-runner said in an interview with MTV he did not support same-sex weddings and believed ‘marriage is between a man and a woman.’”
This is from the NYT article mentioned above: “Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’ and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.”
Was the president for “gay marriage” before he was against it or against it before he was for it, as is obviously the case now? It all depends on the politics of the matter. Chances are that prexy doesn’t give a rap about the homosexuals who want to tie the knot but, having promised to raise a billion dollars for his current campaign, needs every million or so that’s lying around out there for any politician willing to sell his soul.
Yeah…it’s all about the money and where to get it. In an amazing display of jackassery the other day, the POTUS of the United States, amid his storied slate of activities being a statesman and the most important man in the world, took precious time from his hectic schedule (okay, maybe he was just chilling on Air Force One, his daily residence) to call Sandra Fluke, a 30-something Georgetown law student, to apologize for something naughty that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh had said about her that had to do with her claim that contraception costs a woman a cool $1,000 a year, presumably accounting for her own expense and, one supposes, depending on how exotic the condoms in her stash are.
This little exercise was a huge pander to the distaff voters, illustrating the prexy’s concern about condoms and all such, which simply enhances his sensitivity to a “woman’s privacy rights” vis-à-vis her (gasp) sacred body, speaking of which one is reminded that when Obama supporter (to the tune of a cool million the other day) Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” last year, the president – not even from Air Force One, his daily accommodation for avoiding Michele’s veggie-diet – didn’t call Palin and apologize, though, of course, what’s a vulgarism here or there among friends with gobs of greenbacks? After all, Limbaugh is a bitter enemy.
This is from the Huffington Post of 25 May 2011: “Using Sarah Palin's defense of Rush Limbaugh against her, last night Stephen Colbert proudly pronounced that ‘Sarah Palin is a f—king retard.’” Strangely, there’s no record that the most important president in the world called Ms. Palin to apologize for what Colbert said. It’s not known whether, like Chris Matthews, Cobert’s leg tingles when the prexy speaks, but the prexy should have at least done in this case for a possible friend (Colbert) what he did in the case of Limbaugh, a bitter enemy.
Well…it could be that the prexy’s teleprompter had simply been too overloaded in these instances to do what it naturally did in the case of Limbaugh/Fluke. It’s noteworthy that, while Limbaugh used some vulgar language, he didn’t seem to call Fluke stupid, which is what elite intellectuals Maher and Colbert (a couple of sick, sick comedians) did in addition to their equally slimy names for Palin.
POTUS, of course, probably is not aware of the strangeness of his behavior (dirty minds could wonder about his motive), though he is known worldwide as the most prolific apologizer ever to come down the proverbial pike. He even had sense enough to apologize for his own remark when he stated that police acted stupidly in doing their jobs that, unfortunately, involved a sort of colleague of his in the racist business.
Unaccountably, however, there seems to be no record of his apologizing to his own grandmother when he was in campaign-mode in 2008 and labeled her as the “typical white person,” i.e., uncomfortable around people not like her (Obama, for instance)…a snobbish racist, in other words. Maybe the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah (God damn America) Wright, Obama’s spiritual mentor for 20 years, should have thought to suggest an apology and sneaked out from under the bus for a tete-a-tete with POTUS, but, then, he might have antagonized his friend, Calypso Louie, head honcho (probabaly some Rev.-Dr.-Imam-thing or other), thus riling the latter’s bodyguards, something no sane person would do.
Most politicians, it seems these days, are cynics, the president being perhaps the most cynical, changing his positions on the basis of where the votes are. Who but a rabid opportunist would make a very public phone call to a strange woman (more ways than one) over a sex matter? As for the marriage thing, POTUS apparently hasn’t noticed the difference in the sexes and certainly pays no heed to the Christianity to which he very publicly aspires, based as it is on the scriptures, which condemn homosexual behavior as an abomination, ergo, the same for homosexual marriage, defined explicitly in scripture as only a man/woman thing.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
In 2008, Obama made it plain in campaign-mode that he considered marriage as only between a man and a woman. This is from The Telegraph of 03 November 2008: “The White House front-runner said in an interview with MTV he did not support same-sex weddings and believed ‘marriage is between a man and a woman.’”
This is from the NYT article mentioned above: “Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’ and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.”
Was the president for “gay marriage” before he was against it or against it before he was for it, as is obviously the case now? It all depends on the politics of the matter. Chances are that prexy doesn’t give a rap about the homosexuals who want to tie the knot but, having promised to raise a billion dollars for his current campaign, needs every million or so that’s lying around out there for any politician willing to sell his soul.
Yeah…it’s all about the money and where to get it. In an amazing display of jackassery the other day, the POTUS of the United States, amid his storied slate of activities being a statesman and the most important man in the world, took precious time from his hectic schedule (okay, maybe he was just chilling on Air Force One, his daily residence) to call Sandra Fluke, a 30-something Georgetown law student, to apologize for something naughty that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh had said about her that had to do with her claim that contraception costs a woman a cool $1,000 a year, presumably accounting for her own expense and, one supposes, depending on how exotic the condoms in her stash are.
This little exercise was a huge pander to the distaff voters, illustrating the prexy’s concern about condoms and all such, which simply enhances his sensitivity to a “woman’s privacy rights” vis-à-vis her (gasp) sacred body, speaking of which one is reminded that when Obama supporter (to the tune of a cool million the other day) Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” last year, the president – not even from Air Force One, his daily accommodation for avoiding Michele’s veggie-diet – didn’t call Palin and apologize, though, of course, what’s a vulgarism here or there among friends with gobs of greenbacks? After all, Limbaugh is a bitter enemy.
This is from the Huffington Post of 25 May 2011: “Using Sarah Palin's defense of Rush Limbaugh against her, last night Stephen Colbert proudly pronounced that ‘Sarah Palin is a f—king retard.’” Strangely, there’s no record that the most important president in the world called Ms. Palin to apologize for what Colbert said. It’s not known whether, like Chris Matthews, Cobert’s leg tingles when the prexy speaks, but the prexy should have at least done in this case for a possible friend (Colbert) what he did in the case of Limbaugh, a bitter enemy.
Well…it could be that the prexy’s teleprompter had simply been too overloaded in these instances to do what it naturally did in the case of Limbaugh/Fluke. It’s noteworthy that, while Limbaugh used some vulgar language, he didn’t seem to call Fluke stupid, which is what elite intellectuals Maher and Colbert (a couple of sick, sick comedians) did in addition to their equally slimy names for Palin.
POTUS, of course, probably is not aware of the strangeness of his behavior (dirty minds could wonder about his motive), though he is known worldwide as the most prolific apologizer ever to come down the proverbial pike. He even had sense enough to apologize for his own remark when he stated that police acted stupidly in doing their jobs that, unfortunately, involved a sort of colleague of his in the racist business.
Unaccountably, however, there seems to be no record of his apologizing to his own grandmother when he was in campaign-mode in 2008 and labeled her as the “typical white person,” i.e., uncomfortable around people not like her (Obama, for instance)…a snobbish racist, in other words. Maybe the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah (God damn America) Wright, Obama’s spiritual mentor for 20 years, should have thought to suggest an apology and sneaked out from under the bus for a tete-a-tete with POTUS, but, then, he might have antagonized his friend, Calypso Louie, head honcho (probabaly some Rev.-Dr.-Imam-thing or other), thus riling the latter’s bodyguards, something no sane person would do.
Most politicians, it seems these days, are cynics, the president being perhaps the most cynical, changing his positions on the basis of where the votes are. Who but a rabid opportunist would make a very public phone call to a strange woman (more ways than one) over a sex matter? As for the marriage thing, POTUS apparently hasn’t noticed the difference in the sexes and certainly pays no heed to the Christianity to which he very publicly aspires, based as it is on the scriptures, which condemn homosexual behavior as an abomination, ergo, the same for homosexual marriage, defined explicitly in scripture as only a man/woman thing.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
McCain's Folly
It’s a well-known fact that Senator John McCain will find it if there’s a TV camera within 25 miles or an interviewer most anywhere. He is also given to floor speeches in the Senate, some of them saber-rattling warmongerings such as those he devoted to Obama’s Libyan massacre by the U.S. and NATO last year.
Here is part of his latest hawk-speech, delivered the other day on the floor of the Senate: “Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower. Therefore, at the request of [opposition forces], the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces.” (Politico)
Sound familiar? This was his position on Libya, a nation that posed no threat to this country last year or in any other year and, in fact, turned over most of its weaponry to the U.S. nearly ten years ago. He was joined in that position by Senators Graham and Lieberman, who have expressed their support of his present position, which is simply to bomb the bejesus out of a government of which they disapprove.
There’s no such thing as an actual “Free Syrian Army,” just like there was no such thing as a “Free Libyan Army.” One remembers McCain’s trip to that beleagured nation, during or after which he indicated that he had found the good guys and it was okay to support them. Has anyone ever heard of them since? According to Jim Michaels of USA Today, “Libyan militias that are sitting on stockpiles of portable anti-aircraft missiles will probably not relinquish them until they reach a broad political agreement with the country's fledgling central government, a top state department official said.”
So…Libya has its militias and the country is 97% Muslim, an attribute of which is that killing fellow Muslims is okay if necessary. Militia is just another term for “tribe,” most likely, and one can only wonder how many more Libyans will die as the militias/tribes stake-out their territories.
Syria is 74% Sunni Muslim, 10% Christian and 16% other Muslim, including Assad’s branch, the Alawites. In other words, his is a pronounced minority government, just as was Saddam’s Iraq. Therein lies much of the reason for the turmoil. Assad controls the army, which so far has been loyal enough to obey his orders to put down the insurrection, during which the consensus is that some 7,500 people have perished. Assad seems to have total control, notwithstanding the rebellion.
The “Terrible Three” senators insist that the U.S. should start killing Syrians (guided missiles and bombs targeting military installations, if found, are sometimes grossly misguided) because Assad has no right to remain the president. President Obama, who probably knows no more about the Middle East than most folks, has said that Assad must go. What would he do if the dixiecrats, for instance, should start taking over the southern states and even (gasp) protest in Washington? What did Lincoln do under those same circumstances?
Qaddafi insisted that “outside forces” were fueling the rebellion in Libya. According to Euronews, Assad has blamed such forces for the ten-month bloodletting in his country, those forces, according to him, backed by western powers. Well…of course they’re backed by western powers if one concludes that McCain and his cronies are deemed powerful enough to gain leverage vis-à-vis throwing out Assad, who certainly watched Obama’s bloodbath in Libya last year.
In a Congressional hearing on 07 March, Defense Secretary Panetta made it clear to McCain that he isn’t about to put American GIs in harm’s way in yet another Middle East mess not of this country’s making, though Obama’s foolish statements and those of State Secretary Clinton make one wonder. They should treat their respective mouths with a modicum of respect by simply not putting their feet in them constantly.
After what he suffered as a POW in the Vietnam conflict and in light of what he sees happening now in both Iraq and Afghanistan, how could McCain possibly believe anything good can come from even more military meddling…anywhere right now? He watched as the U.S. and NATO literally bombed Libya to pieces for seven months and now should understand that Libya is no better off now than it was under Qaddafi.
Iraq is devolving into civil war, as is Afghanistan, something that knowledgeable people knew would be the case after the rest of the world got out of the way. In Egypt, the Arab Spring this year has Egyptians fighting each other instead of tearing up things in and around Tahrir Square, with the army still in control. The bloodletting in Muslim countries is just part of the politics. In this country, people vote. In Muslim countries, people choose up sides and shoot at each other.
McCain, Graham, Lieberman (has he forgotten the murderous holocaust?), Obama and Clinton should shut up. The U.S. military has been under far too much stress for ten years. The time has come to chill but of greater import is the fact that Syria is not a threat to this country and therefore should not be bombed to pieces, as was Libya.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Here is part of his latest hawk-speech, delivered the other day on the floor of the Senate: “Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower. Therefore, at the request of [opposition forces], the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces.” (Politico)
Sound familiar? This was his position on Libya, a nation that posed no threat to this country last year or in any other year and, in fact, turned over most of its weaponry to the U.S. nearly ten years ago. He was joined in that position by Senators Graham and Lieberman, who have expressed their support of his present position, which is simply to bomb the bejesus out of a government of which they disapprove.
There’s no such thing as an actual “Free Syrian Army,” just like there was no such thing as a “Free Libyan Army.” One remembers McCain’s trip to that beleagured nation, during or after which he indicated that he had found the good guys and it was okay to support them. Has anyone ever heard of them since? According to Jim Michaels of USA Today, “Libyan militias that are sitting on stockpiles of portable anti-aircraft missiles will probably not relinquish them until they reach a broad political agreement with the country's fledgling central government, a top state department official said.”
So…Libya has its militias and the country is 97% Muslim, an attribute of which is that killing fellow Muslims is okay if necessary. Militia is just another term for “tribe,” most likely, and one can only wonder how many more Libyans will die as the militias/tribes stake-out their territories.
Syria is 74% Sunni Muslim, 10% Christian and 16% other Muslim, including Assad’s branch, the Alawites. In other words, his is a pronounced minority government, just as was Saddam’s Iraq. Therein lies much of the reason for the turmoil. Assad controls the army, which so far has been loyal enough to obey his orders to put down the insurrection, during which the consensus is that some 7,500 people have perished. Assad seems to have total control, notwithstanding the rebellion.
The “Terrible Three” senators insist that the U.S. should start killing Syrians (guided missiles and bombs targeting military installations, if found, are sometimes grossly misguided) because Assad has no right to remain the president. President Obama, who probably knows no more about the Middle East than most folks, has said that Assad must go. What would he do if the dixiecrats, for instance, should start taking over the southern states and even (gasp) protest in Washington? What did Lincoln do under those same circumstances?
Qaddafi insisted that “outside forces” were fueling the rebellion in Libya. According to Euronews, Assad has blamed such forces for the ten-month bloodletting in his country, those forces, according to him, backed by western powers. Well…of course they’re backed by western powers if one concludes that McCain and his cronies are deemed powerful enough to gain leverage vis-à-vis throwing out Assad, who certainly watched Obama’s bloodbath in Libya last year.
In a Congressional hearing on 07 March, Defense Secretary Panetta made it clear to McCain that he isn’t about to put American GIs in harm’s way in yet another Middle East mess not of this country’s making, though Obama’s foolish statements and those of State Secretary Clinton make one wonder. They should treat their respective mouths with a modicum of respect by simply not putting their feet in them constantly.
After what he suffered as a POW in the Vietnam conflict and in light of what he sees happening now in both Iraq and Afghanistan, how could McCain possibly believe anything good can come from even more military meddling…anywhere right now? He watched as the U.S. and NATO literally bombed Libya to pieces for seven months and now should understand that Libya is no better off now than it was under Qaddafi.
Iraq is devolving into civil war, as is Afghanistan, something that knowledgeable people knew would be the case after the rest of the world got out of the way. In Egypt, the Arab Spring this year has Egyptians fighting each other instead of tearing up things in and around Tahrir Square, with the army still in control. The bloodletting in Muslim countries is just part of the politics. In this country, people vote. In Muslim countries, people choose up sides and shoot at each other.
McCain, Graham, Lieberman (has he forgotten the murderous holocaust?), Obama and Clinton should shut up. The U.S. military has been under far too much stress for ten years. The time has come to chill but of greater import is the fact that Syria is not a threat to this country and therefore should not be bombed to pieces, as was Libya.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Apologist-in-Chief Obama & the Lady
Just when one might have suspected that the nadir in political discourse had been reached in the president’s three-page apology to Afghan head honcho Karzai over the burning of some paper alleged to be sacred, as if paper can be ordained these days, Obama has managed to so further trivialize his office that he phoned a woman the other day and apologized not for some dumb thing he had done – like the Karzai apology – but for something talking-head Rush Limbaugh had said. Election years are expected to be silly seasons at best but the prexy gave the term “silly” a brand new elevation.
Even funnier was the question posed to Newt Gingrich by NBC’s resident Obama propagandist David Gregory on Meet the Press 04 March, to wit, how badly had Limbaugh’s remark hurt the republican chances for winning the presidency, whereupon he received a lecture by Gingrich that almost literally cut him off at the knees. People like slack-jawed Gregory never learn.
The question of the latest apology points to the fact that a heretofore-creeping crudity in the nation has advanced to warp speed. The fact that Obama insists on being apologist-in-chief (though not a constitutional responsibility) had to do with the subject of sex, never mind that he would claim it was all about women’s reproductive rights or health care or whatever. It was occasioned by what had to be one of the silliest appearances before a congressional committee (though not an “official” one in which, presumably, a witness is not sworn) that can be imagined.
The witness, a Georgetown Law student, lamented the fact that birth-control vehicles cost a woman $1,000 a year, making it an unseemly expense. Limbaugh approached what she said from the standpoint of sex only…and that is certainly the way most people would take it. The sex-act is necessary for a birth to be inculcated, the obvious way to avoid that catastrophe simply being not to have “unprotected” sex, ergo, have a supply of either pills or condoms at all times.
In passing, it might be noted that the president, while insisting in 2008 that marriage can be defined only as between a man and woman, has changed his mind and now believes that homosexuals should have that privilege. On a widespread basis, that would solve the problem, i.e., women should become lesbians and VOILA! the problem of “unprotected” sex is solved.
The committee members probably lacked the temerity to question the lady witness but a simple check on the Internet alone might have been instructive. From the web-site of Trojan, perhaps the best known conveyor of condoms, one learns that the basic condom costs 43 cents (100-pack) and can be had with free shipping. So… a woman could have sex twice every night (or day, for the frisky ones) for a paltry 86 cents, or less than one-third of the $1,000-per-year cost for fun-and-games. If she’s only interested in once-daily, the saving is obvious, though it must be admitted that the more exotic condoms are more expensive…but these are hard times for everyone and sacrifices have to be made.
It is also learned from the Internet (Cost-helper site) that in most states Walmart, Target and Kroger pharmacies offer a limited selection of generic birth-control pills for $9 a month, or less than that of a burger-and-fries at McDonald’s. That works out to $108 a year, one-tenth of the lady’s claim. If she had been sworn, would the lady have been subject to a perjury charge? Even if the cost were triple this amount, she would have been grossly misleading the panel that sat through that “hearing.”
Predictably, Planned Parenthood, whose chief aim is either obstructing or aborting fetuses, offers discounted birth-control pills to “women who qualify,” presumably only those who are breathing when they apply. So, with the caveat that Limbaugh should have used better language, was he wrong in actually making fun of the whole thing?
The president, showing his disdain for white policemen, put his foot in his mouth when he accounted them as acting stupidly. He showed his disdain for the military when he put his foot in his mouth and apologized for soldiers who probably had no idea about the paper being sacred but were just following orders. It’s a sure bet that they wouldn’t kill an Afghan if they saw him burning Holy Bibles. Obama would have accounted that action as freedom of speech.
In trivializing his office in this latest apology to the lady whose testimony is at least partly sullied with lying, he has reached rock-bottom. Nor did he have any license whatever to apologize for something he didn’t say or to apologize for someone else who was merely using the “freedom of speech” thing, something the president surely believes in.
In the final analysis, one concludes that Obama didn’t give a fig about the lady witness. On his tortured mind was the fact that in an election year he has to appeal to women, notwithstanding that they are already drawn to him like flies to one of those sticky fly-catcher-things people sometimes still use to clear the air of the varmints. To them (the women, not the flies), he is the alpha male “with a heart.” Egad.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Even funnier was the question posed to Newt Gingrich by NBC’s resident Obama propagandist David Gregory on Meet the Press 04 March, to wit, how badly had Limbaugh’s remark hurt the republican chances for winning the presidency, whereupon he received a lecture by Gingrich that almost literally cut him off at the knees. People like slack-jawed Gregory never learn.
The question of the latest apology points to the fact that a heretofore-creeping crudity in the nation has advanced to warp speed. The fact that Obama insists on being apologist-in-chief (though not a constitutional responsibility) had to do with the subject of sex, never mind that he would claim it was all about women’s reproductive rights or health care or whatever. It was occasioned by what had to be one of the silliest appearances before a congressional committee (though not an “official” one in which, presumably, a witness is not sworn) that can be imagined.
The witness, a Georgetown Law student, lamented the fact that birth-control vehicles cost a woman $1,000 a year, making it an unseemly expense. Limbaugh approached what she said from the standpoint of sex only…and that is certainly the way most people would take it. The sex-act is necessary for a birth to be inculcated, the obvious way to avoid that catastrophe simply being not to have “unprotected” sex, ergo, have a supply of either pills or condoms at all times.
In passing, it might be noted that the president, while insisting in 2008 that marriage can be defined only as between a man and woman, has changed his mind and now believes that homosexuals should have that privilege. On a widespread basis, that would solve the problem, i.e., women should become lesbians and VOILA! the problem of “unprotected” sex is solved.
The committee members probably lacked the temerity to question the lady witness but a simple check on the Internet alone might have been instructive. From the web-site of Trojan, perhaps the best known conveyor of condoms, one learns that the basic condom costs 43 cents (100-pack) and can be had with free shipping. So… a woman could have sex twice every night (or day, for the frisky ones) for a paltry 86 cents, or less than one-third of the $1,000-per-year cost for fun-and-games. If she’s only interested in once-daily, the saving is obvious, though it must be admitted that the more exotic condoms are more expensive…but these are hard times for everyone and sacrifices have to be made.
It is also learned from the Internet (Cost-helper site) that in most states Walmart, Target and Kroger pharmacies offer a limited selection of generic birth-control pills for $9 a month, or less than that of a burger-and-fries at McDonald’s. That works out to $108 a year, one-tenth of the lady’s claim. If she had been sworn, would the lady have been subject to a perjury charge? Even if the cost were triple this amount, she would have been grossly misleading the panel that sat through that “hearing.”
Predictably, Planned Parenthood, whose chief aim is either obstructing or aborting fetuses, offers discounted birth-control pills to “women who qualify,” presumably only those who are breathing when they apply. So, with the caveat that Limbaugh should have used better language, was he wrong in actually making fun of the whole thing?
The president, showing his disdain for white policemen, put his foot in his mouth when he accounted them as acting stupidly. He showed his disdain for the military when he put his foot in his mouth and apologized for soldiers who probably had no idea about the paper being sacred but were just following orders. It’s a sure bet that they wouldn’t kill an Afghan if they saw him burning Holy Bibles. Obama would have accounted that action as freedom of speech.
In trivializing his office in this latest apology to the lady whose testimony is at least partly sullied with lying, he has reached rock-bottom. Nor did he have any license whatever to apologize for something he didn’t say or to apologize for someone else who was merely using the “freedom of speech” thing, something the president surely believes in.
In the final analysis, one concludes that Obama didn’t give a fig about the lady witness. On his tortured mind was the fact that in an election year he has to appeal to women, notwithstanding that they are already drawn to him like flies to one of those sticky fly-catcher-things people sometimes still use to clear the air of the varmints. To them (the women, not the flies), he is the alpha male “with a heart.” Egad.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Friends of Syria - Egad!
According to Lexington Herald-Leader columnist Robert Olson in the 01 March issue, “On Feb. 24, some 50 countries, notably minus Russia and China, calling themselves the ‘Friends of Syria,’ gathered in Tunis calling for more forceful intervention in response to the bloodshed occurring. Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Saud al-Feisal, the main advocate of Asad's overthrow and the main United States ally in the Middle East, along with Israel and Turkey, called for armed intervention.”
The “Friends of Syria” tag has little to do with the actual relationship between Syria and the other countries. Friends do not call for armed intervention in another friend’s country but that’s neither here nor there. The so-called “friends” are dedicated to the overthrow of Syria President Bashar al-Assad, ostensibly because he is murdering insurgents within Syria though he is not bothering anyone else. Indeed, U.S. President Obama and State Secretary Clinton have publicly called for his departure, the implication being through any means possible.
The Middle East elephant in the living-room is Iran, greatly hated by folks such as the Saudi fat princes, who understand quite well that but for the good graces of George H.W. Bush in 1991, Saddam Hussein would be in Riyadh today and they would be either waiters or wine-tasters, working in the oil-fields or part of the aquifer under the deserts. The current fear is that Iran’s Terrible Twosome of Ayatollah Khameini and Irani butcher/strongman Ahmadinejad will stir up real trouble, perhaps eventuating in doing what Bush stopped Saddam from doing.
So…Syria is of little actual importance or threat; however, it is Iran’s only ally in the Middle East, maybe also a sort of dumping ground for armaments…maybe even the location of Saddam’s WMD not found in Iraq in 2003 and onward. The fat princes don’t give a fig about the Syrians, so disregard any altruistic caterwauling. When they felt threatened enough by al Qaeda thugs a while back, they got tough and ran them out of their doll-house.
The Saudis also invaded tiny, neighboring Bahrain in March 2011, albeit supposedly at the invitation of the Bahraini government, to put down an “Arab Spring” uprising by the Bahraini hoi polloi, so there’s little doubt as to the princes duplicitous ideas about the people’s right to protest. For them, it was wrong in Bahrain last year but it’s okay now in Syria.
The hypocrisy is obvious. Significantly, the governing Muslims in Bahrain, Iraq and Syria were/are in a pronounced religious minority, thus holding on to power by use of force, either theirs or someone else’s, such as in the case of Bahrain most recently. Assad’s Alawite ruling tribe comprises only 10-12% of the population. Sunni Muslims make up 74%, but have no military standing. Saddam’s Sunnis were only 40% of Iraq’s population, while the Shiites made up 60%. This accounts for the bloody payback in Iraq now, as the Shiite government works its will, courtesy Uncle Sam.
But, to the point of intervention! Code for what happened in Tunisia is quite simply that the U.S. should just DO something about evil Assad, such as what it did to Libya through a simple direct order by Obama – bomb the bejesus out of Qaddafi and the Libyans, never mind the Congress or the American people, who were not consulted last March lest Obama’s misplaced and disgraceful effort at being a military leader get unhinged at the gate.
Ironically, the Saudis walked out of the “friends” meeting because of inactivity, i.e., nobody was planning on bombing the bejesus out of Assad’s living-room. What a laugh! The Israelis routinely bomb Syria whenever they figure to destroy a threat to their country. They’re not about to join a full-scale attack, though one never knows what Obama, a loose cannon, might do.
Syria has 304,000 active troops; 4,950 tanks; and 830 aircraft. Saudi Arabia has, respectively, 233,500; 1,305; 1,200, not a small force and its northern-most point is only 150 miles from Damascus. Okay…the princes might figure those odds not good enough to correct the “inactivity.” Turkey has, respectively, 612,900; 4,246; 1,940, and shares a 540-mile border with Syria. On paper at least, it could end the inactivity by invading Syria with its overwhelming force tomorrow.
Not good enough? Put the forces of Saudi Arabia and Turkey together and VOILA! the combined force includes 846,400 troops, 5,551 tanks, and 3,140 aircraft – enough power to blow Syria away in (as Obama said about the seven-month war with Libya) days, not months. So, if the fat princes want to end the inactivity and “friend” Turkey wants to help, there’s the perfect solution. Quit crying about other “friends” not doing anything, and get on with it.
That won’t happen. Two countries which are not “friends of Syria” but are friends of Syria are China and Russia, who do not share the “inactivity” position, meaning that military intervention in Syria could precipitate the next world war. Even Obama probably understands that, though one could wonder if he might order an attack and then go on vacation somewhere to announce it, as was the case with Libya.
So…stay tuned.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The “Friends of Syria” tag has little to do with the actual relationship between Syria and the other countries. Friends do not call for armed intervention in another friend’s country but that’s neither here nor there. The so-called “friends” are dedicated to the overthrow of Syria President Bashar al-Assad, ostensibly because he is murdering insurgents within Syria though he is not bothering anyone else. Indeed, U.S. President Obama and State Secretary Clinton have publicly called for his departure, the implication being through any means possible.
The Middle East elephant in the living-room is Iran, greatly hated by folks such as the Saudi fat princes, who understand quite well that but for the good graces of George H.W. Bush in 1991, Saddam Hussein would be in Riyadh today and they would be either waiters or wine-tasters, working in the oil-fields or part of the aquifer under the deserts. The current fear is that Iran’s Terrible Twosome of Ayatollah Khameini and Irani butcher/strongman Ahmadinejad will stir up real trouble, perhaps eventuating in doing what Bush stopped Saddam from doing.
So…Syria is of little actual importance or threat; however, it is Iran’s only ally in the Middle East, maybe also a sort of dumping ground for armaments…maybe even the location of Saddam’s WMD not found in Iraq in 2003 and onward. The fat princes don’t give a fig about the Syrians, so disregard any altruistic caterwauling. When they felt threatened enough by al Qaeda thugs a while back, they got tough and ran them out of their doll-house.
The Saudis also invaded tiny, neighboring Bahrain in March 2011, albeit supposedly at the invitation of the Bahraini government, to put down an “Arab Spring” uprising by the Bahraini hoi polloi, so there’s little doubt as to the princes duplicitous ideas about the people’s right to protest. For them, it was wrong in Bahrain last year but it’s okay now in Syria.
The hypocrisy is obvious. Significantly, the governing Muslims in Bahrain, Iraq and Syria were/are in a pronounced religious minority, thus holding on to power by use of force, either theirs or someone else’s, such as in the case of Bahrain most recently. Assad’s Alawite ruling tribe comprises only 10-12% of the population. Sunni Muslims make up 74%, but have no military standing. Saddam’s Sunnis were only 40% of Iraq’s population, while the Shiites made up 60%. This accounts for the bloody payback in Iraq now, as the Shiite government works its will, courtesy Uncle Sam.
But, to the point of intervention! Code for what happened in Tunisia is quite simply that the U.S. should just DO something about evil Assad, such as what it did to Libya through a simple direct order by Obama – bomb the bejesus out of Qaddafi and the Libyans, never mind the Congress or the American people, who were not consulted last March lest Obama’s misplaced and disgraceful effort at being a military leader get unhinged at the gate.
Ironically, the Saudis walked out of the “friends” meeting because of inactivity, i.e., nobody was planning on bombing the bejesus out of Assad’s living-room. What a laugh! The Israelis routinely bomb Syria whenever they figure to destroy a threat to their country. They’re not about to join a full-scale attack, though one never knows what Obama, a loose cannon, might do.
Syria has 304,000 active troops; 4,950 tanks; and 830 aircraft. Saudi Arabia has, respectively, 233,500; 1,305; 1,200, not a small force and its northern-most point is only 150 miles from Damascus. Okay…the princes might figure those odds not good enough to correct the “inactivity.” Turkey has, respectively, 612,900; 4,246; 1,940, and shares a 540-mile border with Syria. On paper at least, it could end the inactivity by invading Syria with its overwhelming force tomorrow.
Not good enough? Put the forces of Saudi Arabia and Turkey together and VOILA! the combined force includes 846,400 troops, 5,551 tanks, and 3,140 aircraft – enough power to blow Syria away in (as Obama said about the seven-month war with Libya) days, not months. So, if the fat princes want to end the inactivity and “friend” Turkey wants to help, there’s the perfect solution. Quit crying about other “friends” not doing anything, and get on with it.
That won’t happen. Two countries which are not “friends of Syria” but are friends of Syria are China and Russia, who do not share the “inactivity” position, meaning that military intervention in Syria could precipitate the next world war. Even Obama probably understands that, though one could wonder if he might order an attack and then go on vacation somewhere to announce it, as was the case with Libya.
So…stay tuned.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, February 27, 2012
Clinton Nannies Assad
This is from Bloomberg of 28 March 2011: “‘No’,” [State Secretary] Clinton said when asked on the CBS program ‘Face the Nation’ if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest.”
This is what State Secretary Clinton said in Rabat, Morocco, on 26 February 2012: “Syrians in the military and business who still support President Bashar al-Assad should turn against him. The longer you support the regime’s campaign of violence against your brothers and sisters, the more it will stain your honor.”
She apparently went from making a statement in a press conference to speaking directly to selected people in Syria, about 3,000 miles away, much as a schoolmarm might have done in a one-room school out in the boondocks circa 1905. She had dropped in on official business (groundbreaking for a new embassy) in Rabat after starting yet another “tour” in Tunisia and also hitting Algeria in an apparent effort to further lionize the “Arab Spring” uprisings of last year, which began in Tunisia.
While the secretary continues her life as guest of the U.S. Air Force, spending about as much time being pandered-to in their huge planes as on the ground most anywhere but Washington, she represents what probably 99% of the people in the Muslim world (maybe the whole world) would call the “ugly American.”
The idea that she should lecture anyone in Syria concerning violence is her way of telling the Syrians that they’re too dumb to remember that her president, without any constitutional or otherwise legal authorization declared war on Libya last March (same month she was sanitizing Assad) and began systematically killing Libyan women and children ostensibly because Qaddafi was doing what Assad is doing, i.e., trying to protect his turf in the only way Muslims expect, to wit, killing other Muslims, with victory going to whoever is left standing.
This would be comedic if it weren’t so serious. One has the feeling that everyone from tinhorn dictators throughout the world to Olde-Europe’s well-educated but unbelievably misled bureaucrats/citizens is laughing behind Clinton’s back and wondering why her president spends about all his time campaigning (enjoying the almost daily hospitality of Air Force #1 at taxpayers’ expense) instead of showing his presumed superior intelligence by actually impressing…just anyone, or getting anything done about the miserable recession that’s still in place.
Obama and Clinton are in a box built by themselves regarding Syria, all their words now, as the apostle Paul would have it, as “sounding brass.” Libya had an army of 76,000, a pushover for a few units of SEALS. Assad has 295,000 active troops. If Obama was not willing to put “boots on the ground” (just kill ’em from the air) in Libya, does anyone believe he will wax serious about Syria? Of course not, but in predictable inane utterance he has told Assad that he has to go. One suspects he is not willing this election year to con NATO into more atrocious behavior while “leading from behind” in order to make that happen.
With Americans being shot in their respective backs by Afghan soldiers, he’s busy apologizing to Karzai when he ought to have the guts to tell his military advisers to form plans immediately for precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, whether declaring victory or not and notwithstanding anything his military gurus tell him about “winning.” This won’t happen, of course, especially since Senators, McCain, Graham and Lieberman might call him a sissy. Making war is one thing, but allowing supposed “friends” to work their will on Americans like “shooting fish in a barrel” is unacceptable.
Obama has the strange notion that civilized people can parley with uncivilized people, blatantly exhibiting this trait in glibly insisting in his campaign years ago that he would sit down with Iran’s Ahmadinejad and just make things “all well.” Muslim governments are made up of bloodthirsty uncivilized leaders who do not take a back seat to even the equally uncivilized Japanese sadist-leaders of World War II, to whom animal behavior against defenseless POWs and Chinese citizens was considered normal. Think the “Rape of Nanking” of 1937-38, with half the Chinese city’s population murdered (300,000 souls) in cold blood. Shades of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who wasted 400,000 fellow Muslims, though it took him a bit longer!
The Obama/Clinton axis is mired in ignorance of how the Muslim jihad-mind works. Both would have been much better served in the last three years by keeping their mouths shut about the Middle East and let nature take its course, something that will happen anyway no matter how much they caterwaul. They seem to have tongues tied in the middle and loose at both ends, constantly telling this or that foreign leader exactly how to govern and exactly when to get out of Dodge.
In Obama’s case, he decided to pull a “shootout at the OK Corral” with respect to Libya, except that his side had all the guns. Disgusting!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
This is what State Secretary Clinton said in Rabat, Morocco, on 26 February 2012: “Syrians in the military and business who still support President Bashar al-Assad should turn against him. The longer you support the regime’s campaign of violence against your brothers and sisters, the more it will stain your honor.”
She apparently went from making a statement in a press conference to speaking directly to selected people in Syria, about 3,000 miles away, much as a schoolmarm might have done in a one-room school out in the boondocks circa 1905. She had dropped in on official business (groundbreaking for a new embassy) in Rabat after starting yet another “tour” in Tunisia and also hitting Algeria in an apparent effort to further lionize the “Arab Spring” uprisings of last year, which began in Tunisia.
While the secretary continues her life as guest of the U.S. Air Force, spending about as much time being pandered-to in their huge planes as on the ground most anywhere but Washington, she represents what probably 99% of the people in the Muslim world (maybe the whole world) would call the “ugly American.”
The idea that she should lecture anyone in Syria concerning violence is her way of telling the Syrians that they’re too dumb to remember that her president, without any constitutional or otherwise legal authorization declared war on Libya last March (same month she was sanitizing Assad) and began systematically killing Libyan women and children ostensibly because Qaddafi was doing what Assad is doing, i.e., trying to protect his turf in the only way Muslims expect, to wit, killing other Muslims, with victory going to whoever is left standing.
This would be comedic if it weren’t so serious. One has the feeling that everyone from tinhorn dictators throughout the world to Olde-Europe’s well-educated but unbelievably misled bureaucrats/citizens is laughing behind Clinton’s back and wondering why her president spends about all his time campaigning (enjoying the almost daily hospitality of Air Force #1 at taxpayers’ expense) instead of showing his presumed superior intelligence by actually impressing…just anyone, or getting anything done about the miserable recession that’s still in place.
Obama and Clinton are in a box built by themselves regarding Syria, all their words now, as the apostle Paul would have it, as “sounding brass.” Libya had an army of 76,000, a pushover for a few units of SEALS. Assad has 295,000 active troops. If Obama was not willing to put “boots on the ground” (just kill ’em from the air) in Libya, does anyone believe he will wax serious about Syria? Of course not, but in predictable inane utterance he has told Assad that he has to go. One suspects he is not willing this election year to con NATO into more atrocious behavior while “leading from behind” in order to make that happen.
With Americans being shot in their respective backs by Afghan soldiers, he’s busy apologizing to Karzai when he ought to have the guts to tell his military advisers to form plans immediately for precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, whether declaring victory or not and notwithstanding anything his military gurus tell him about “winning.” This won’t happen, of course, especially since Senators, McCain, Graham and Lieberman might call him a sissy. Making war is one thing, but allowing supposed “friends” to work their will on Americans like “shooting fish in a barrel” is unacceptable.
Obama has the strange notion that civilized people can parley with uncivilized people, blatantly exhibiting this trait in glibly insisting in his campaign years ago that he would sit down with Iran’s Ahmadinejad and just make things “all well.” Muslim governments are made up of bloodthirsty uncivilized leaders who do not take a back seat to even the equally uncivilized Japanese sadist-leaders of World War II, to whom animal behavior against defenseless POWs and Chinese citizens was considered normal. Think the “Rape of Nanking” of 1937-38, with half the Chinese city’s population murdered (300,000 souls) in cold blood. Shades of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who wasted 400,000 fellow Muslims, though it took him a bit longer!
The Obama/Clinton axis is mired in ignorance of how the Muslim jihad-mind works. Both would have been much better served in the last three years by keeping their mouths shut about the Middle East and let nature take its course, something that will happen anyway no matter how much they caterwaul. They seem to have tongues tied in the middle and loose at both ends, constantly telling this or that foreign leader exactly how to govern and exactly when to get out of Dodge.
In Obama’s case, he decided to pull a “shootout at the OK Corral” with respect to Libya, except that his side had all the guns. Disgusting!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 24, 2012
Obama's Inconvenient Mouth & Syria
It’s been interesting to watch an obviously worn-out State Secretary Clinton and others in the administration caterwauling and otherwise expending great efforts at verbosity in attempting to work-up some sort of worldwide animus toward Syria, particularly its president, Bashar Assad, whose army and air force are decimating parts of the Syrian populace, mostly in Homs (Hama), the city virtually demolished in February 1982 by his father, Hafez al Assad, when he was president.
Bashar Assad is acting in retaliation to insurrectionists as was the case with his father in 1982, when armed Islamic militants tried to take over the country. The death toll in Hama was somewhere around 20,000 by the time the dust cleared. Hafez Assad himself came to power in 1970 by undermining the then government, just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq in 1979, as well as the ayatollah Khomeini in Iran the same year. Conclusion: This is the way things are routinely done in Muslim-dominated governments, the rest of the world’s condemnation notwithstanding.
So far, the report is that some 7,000 have died in Syria, not that this figure can be trusted. Secretary Clinton classified Bashar Assad as a reformer as recently as last year, so her bona fides for expressing any opinion are questionable. Actually, his father brought about significant reforms, too, and even supported the UN-sanctioned Gulf War in 1991. In the process, he also avoided assassination attempts, interfered in Lebanon, and, of course, maintained a hatred for Israel, all the while hoping to get back the Golan Heights, lost to Israel in 1967 when he was Syria’s defense minister.
The long-and-short of the matter is that this administration hasn’t any more clue about the Muslim countries than Jimmy Carter had in 1978-80, when he allowed American hostages to rot in Tehran for 14 months. Barack Obama showed his extreme ignorance this week in apologizing to Afghanistan because a bunch of Korans got burned by mistake, the upshot being an Afghan soldier murdering two American GIs in cold blood.
Instead of apologizing, Obama should have enough sense by now to understand that the Muslims consider an apology a sign of weakness. He should have warned Karzai and Mullah Omar that drastic measures would be taken if such a thing should happen again. But, apologizing to especially Muslim countries is a fine art with the president, raised a Muslim and showing it. Can anyone imagine action like that taken in this country if a gaggle of atheists burned some Bibles?
Contrarily, they would probably have been applauded by the mainstream press for having such mental acuity and courage, with the president chiming in on freedom of speech. One remembers the outright lie reported by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff in 2005 regarding the flushing down the toilet of Korans at Gitmo, the upshot being that 15 Afghanis were killed, apparently Afghans killing Afghans in a blind rage at the U.S. Of course, Isikoff, instead of being hounded out of his profession for such a colossal and sanguinary blunder (as Dan Rather eventually was), now works at NBC, Obama’s prime propaganda-arm.
Never realizing that the end would be worse than the beginning, as anyone with a smattering of understanding knew at the time, Obama publicly encouraged the so-called “Arab Spring” last year and even called for the replacement or murder of some Middle East despots. The results in Egypt, for example, have been disastrous, with the loss of a valuable ally and the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the country, i.e., if the army ever lets go. The people riot in the streets and continue in whatever suffering (or worse) than they had before the great awakening.
Assad has watched this and understands that the militant (Sharia-Law-driven) Islamic boneheads (yep…in Hama again) mean to take over his country, not that his chief ally, Iran, is any improvement. He’s wily enough to get China and Russia on his side, thereby being able to thumb his nose at Obama, who has become the laughing-stock of the world for his unpredictable antics and mindless apologies all around.
Who would have thought that an American president, for instance, would be dumb enough to bypass Congress entirely and take up war against Libya, population 2 million less than that of New York City, for absolutely no identifiable reason at all, except that Qaddafi was mean to his people, just the same as Assad? Flash forward to now and find the whole world looking to Obama to set Syria straight just like he did Libya, in which there is now no identifiable government.
This is from the Associated Press of 18 August 2011: “In a stinging written statement, Obama says Assad has overseen a vicious onslaught of his people as they protest for freedoms. He says the Syrian people should decide their country’s future and Assad is standing in their way and must go.” This is what he said about Qaddafi before personally attacking Libya and killing no telling how many Libyans. So…what’s stopping him from carrying through in Syria, since he obviously has decided to run that part of the world while he’s apologizing to it and running his inconvenient mouth at the same time?
Two American soldiers are murdered in Afghanistan and the U.S president is apologizing? Obama is a disgrace and has absolutely no understanding of the Middle East, Muslims, or even his Constitutional responsibilities, such as those regarding how war can be made. To its eternal shame, the Congress is even more pitiful than Obama.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Bashar Assad is acting in retaliation to insurrectionists as was the case with his father in 1982, when armed Islamic militants tried to take over the country. The death toll in Hama was somewhere around 20,000 by the time the dust cleared. Hafez Assad himself came to power in 1970 by undermining the then government, just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq in 1979, as well as the ayatollah Khomeini in Iran the same year. Conclusion: This is the way things are routinely done in Muslim-dominated governments, the rest of the world’s condemnation notwithstanding.
So far, the report is that some 7,000 have died in Syria, not that this figure can be trusted. Secretary Clinton classified Bashar Assad as a reformer as recently as last year, so her bona fides for expressing any opinion are questionable. Actually, his father brought about significant reforms, too, and even supported the UN-sanctioned Gulf War in 1991. In the process, he also avoided assassination attempts, interfered in Lebanon, and, of course, maintained a hatred for Israel, all the while hoping to get back the Golan Heights, lost to Israel in 1967 when he was Syria’s defense minister.
The long-and-short of the matter is that this administration hasn’t any more clue about the Muslim countries than Jimmy Carter had in 1978-80, when he allowed American hostages to rot in Tehran for 14 months. Barack Obama showed his extreme ignorance this week in apologizing to Afghanistan because a bunch of Korans got burned by mistake, the upshot being an Afghan soldier murdering two American GIs in cold blood.
Instead of apologizing, Obama should have enough sense by now to understand that the Muslims consider an apology a sign of weakness. He should have warned Karzai and Mullah Omar that drastic measures would be taken if such a thing should happen again. But, apologizing to especially Muslim countries is a fine art with the president, raised a Muslim and showing it. Can anyone imagine action like that taken in this country if a gaggle of atheists burned some Bibles?
Contrarily, they would probably have been applauded by the mainstream press for having such mental acuity and courage, with the president chiming in on freedom of speech. One remembers the outright lie reported by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff in 2005 regarding the flushing down the toilet of Korans at Gitmo, the upshot being that 15 Afghanis were killed, apparently Afghans killing Afghans in a blind rage at the U.S. Of course, Isikoff, instead of being hounded out of his profession for such a colossal and sanguinary blunder (as Dan Rather eventually was), now works at NBC, Obama’s prime propaganda-arm.
Never realizing that the end would be worse than the beginning, as anyone with a smattering of understanding knew at the time, Obama publicly encouraged the so-called “Arab Spring” last year and even called for the replacement or murder of some Middle East despots. The results in Egypt, for example, have been disastrous, with the loss of a valuable ally and the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the country, i.e., if the army ever lets go. The people riot in the streets and continue in whatever suffering (or worse) than they had before the great awakening.
Assad has watched this and understands that the militant (Sharia-Law-driven) Islamic boneheads (yep…in Hama again) mean to take over his country, not that his chief ally, Iran, is any improvement. He’s wily enough to get China and Russia on his side, thereby being able to thumb his nose at Obama, who has become the laughing-stock of the world for his unpredictable antics and mindless apologies all around.
Who would have thought that an American president, for instance, would be dumb enough to bypass Congress entirely and take up war against Libya, population 2 million less than that of New York City, for absolutely no identifiable reason at all, except that Qaddafi was mean to his people, just the same as Assad? Flash forward to now and find the whole world looking to Obama to set Syria straight just like he did Libya, in which there is now no identifiable government.
This is from the Associated Press of 18 August 2011: “In a stinging written statement, Obama says Assad has overseen a vicious onslaught of his people as they protest for freedoms. He says the Syrian people should decide their country’s future and Assad is standing in their way and must go.” This is what he said about Qaddafi before personally attacking Libya and killing no telling how many Libyans. So…what’s stopping him from carrying through in Syria, since he obviously has decided to run that part of the world while he’s apologizing to it and running his inconvenient mouth at the same time?
Two American soldiers are murdered in Afghanistan and the U.S president is apologizing? Obama is a disgrace and has absolutely no understanding of the Middle East, Muslims, or even his Constitutional responsibilities, such as those regarding how war can be made. To its eternal shame, the Congress is even more pitiful than Obama.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Professor & the Slave-mongering Republicans
The Lexington [Ky.] Herald-Leader seems to pick a University of Kentucky professor about each month or so to deliver a liberal/anti-republican/rant about something-or-other (doesn’t matter much just what…anything goes). In the 17 February issue, history professor Ron Formisano was the agitator du jour, using as his subject (at least in the headline) “states rights.” Of course, “slave past” also appeared in the headline, so one could see where this was going, especially during “black history” month.
In the H-L of 21 December, UK professor Robert Olson delivered the rant du jour, making the statement that four million people died during the Civil War to save the Union. They were located in the North, of course, which had a population then of 22 million, meaning close to a fifth of the Northerners died at a ratio of about one white northerner for each freed slave. Olson’s field of expertise is the Middle East, so perhaps he could be cut some slack as a history revisionist, such activity being in vogue on campuses these days. I’m still laughing, though.
Formisano: “During the decades before the Civil War, the slave South became obsessed with states' rights and stepped up its demands to limit Congress's ability to regulate the spread of slavery. … This [current] obsessive outcry, located primarily (and ironically) in the Republican Party, recalls the posture of the slavery-dominated antebellum democracy.”
A caveat is in order, to wit, my great-grandfather and two great-uncles arrived in Kentucky from England in 1857, could not by law be drafted, owned no slaves and volunteered in the Union army. My resentment, as a white person, at being constantly blamed for slavery because of my forbearers – especially during the month of Washington and Lincoln, now known as “black history month” – knows no bounds.
My great-grandfather was wounded once and critically ill once, affording him a pension. Moreover, the consensus probably is that only about 26% of all households in what Formisano calls the “slave South” actually included slaves. So, that other 74% of confederate soldiers were actually fighting for states rights, Formisano’s denigration of them notwithstanding.
Formisano: “The conservatives among the nation's founders wanted a strong central government. But these nationalists, in crafting our constitution, realized that widespread opposition to what contemporaries called ‘consolidation’ existed throughout a new republic born in rebellion against an empire.” The first part of that rant is patently untrue, as proven by the second part. Revising history is ugly on its face but Formisano is not much good at it.
The last thing the founders wanted was inordinate power in the hands of the few in federal government. All one has to do to discover this is read Article I, Section 8, and all of Article II of the U.S Constitution. The federal government was designed to provide for taxes, currency, foreign affairs, interstate issues, courts, and especially defense (the vast preponderance of the section) and little else. Amendment 10 awarded the responsibility of about everything else to the states (states rights, in other words).
Formisano is s-o-o-o unoriginal. When folks want to denigrate an entity, they sometimes juxtapose it/him/her with Hitler. Formisano used this tactic in comparing the evil Republican Party of today with the “slavery-dominated antebellum democracy” or with the “slave South.” One wonders why he didn’t throw in Mao-Tse-Tung while he was at it, or maybe Barack Obama, who by executive order last March started his own massacre in Libya, announcing it on his vacation in Brazil and then leading from behind. That’s real class.
Inordinate centralized government has become such a problem now that the big news of the week happened in North Carolina, when a government agent blew into an elementary-school cafeteria for a spot-on inspection of lunches the pre-school children had brought from home. A four-year-old was guilty of having only a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice, which sounds quite nutritious but the intrepid inspector insisted that the girl eat three chicken nuggets. At least she didn’t have to eat two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a pear tree.
It would be hard to make this stuff up but the government czars in Washington are running just about everything now from how much salt can go into a hamburger to legalizing light-bulbs to the proper procedures to follow in helping old codgers decide when they’ve had enough and would just as soon opt out, part of the wondrous Obamacare.
The federal government is overwhelmingly too big now, not least because it’s run mainly by career politicians, not statesmen, as was the case with the founders. The solons made sure in Amendment XXII in 1951 to limit the president to two terms, but made just as sure not to do that for Congress-people, whom they (especially themselves) deemed to approach near divinity status, not to mention greedily grasping great salaries and unbelievable perks, which they and their followers in the august halls have awarded to themselves.
Federal responsibilities in the Departments of Education, Energy, HHS, and HUD could be far better handled on the state level. The “No Child Left Behind” fiasco is a good example of just how the federal government can completely botch an enterprise. For good or ill, Kentucky has been granted an exemption from that or some form of it. The damage has been done, of course.
One suspects some of the students at the university can read Formisano and also read between the lines, discovering fringe-lunatic liberalism, the socialist approach championed by Obama, for the subversion it is.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
In the H-L of 21 December, UK professor Robert Olson delivered the rant du jour, making the statement that four million people died during the Civil War to save the Union. They were located in the North, of course, which had a population then of 22 million, meaning close to a fifth of the Northerners died at a ratio of about one white northerner for each freed slave. Olson’s field of expertise is the Middle East, so perhaps he could be cut some slack as a history revisionist, such activity being in vogue on campuses these days. I’m still laughing, though.
Formisano: “During the decades before the Civil War, the slave South became obsessed with states' rights and stepped up its demands to limit Congress's ability to regulate the spread of slavery. … This [current] obsessive outcry, located primarily (and ironically) in the Republican Party, recalls the posture of the slavery-dominated antebellum democracy.”
A caveat is in order, to wit, my great-grandfather and two great-uncles arrived in Kentucky from England in 1857, could not by law be drafted, owned no slaves and volunteered in the Union army. My resentment, as a white person, at being constantly blamed for slavery because of my forbearers – especially during the month of Washington and Lincoln, now known as “black history month” – knows no bounds.
My great-grandfather was wounded once and critically ill once, affording him a pension. Moreover, the consensus probably is that only about 26% of all households in what Formisano calls the “slave South” actually included slaves. So, that other 74% of confederate soldiers were actually fighting for states rights, Formisano’s denigration of them notwithstanding.
Formisano: “The conservatives among the nation's founders wanted a strong central government. But these nationalists, in crafting our constitution, realized that widespread opposition to what contemporaries called ‘consolidation’ existed throughout a new republic born in rebellion against an empire.” The first part of that rant is patently untrue, as proven by the second part. Revising history is ugly on its face but Formisano is not much good at it.
The last thing the founders wanted was inordinate power in the hands of the few in federal government. All one has to do to discover this is read Article I, Section 8, and all of Article II of the U.S Constitution. The federal government was designed to provide for taxes, currency, foreign affairs, interstate issues, courts, and especially defense (the vast preponderance of the section) and little else. Amendment 10 awarded the responsibility of about everything else to the states (states rights, in other words).
Formisano is s-o-o-o unoriginal. When folks want to denigrate an entity, they sometimes juxtapose it/him/her with Hitler. Formisano used this tactic in comparing the evil Republican Party of today with the “slavery-dominated antebellum democracy” or with the “slave South.” One wonders why he didn’t throw in Mao-Tse-Tung while he was at it, or maybe Barack Obama, who by executive order last March started his own massacre in Libya, announcing it on his vacation in Brazil and then leading from behind. That’s real class.
Inordinate centralized government has become such a problem now that the big news of the week happened in North Carolina, when a government agent blew into an elementary-school cafeteria for a spot-on inspection of lunches the pre-school children had brought from home. A four-year-old was guilty of having only a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice, which sounds quite nutritious but the intrepid inspector insisted that the girl eat three chicken nuggets. At least she didn’t have to eat two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a pear tree.
It would be hard to make this stuff up but the government czars in Washington are running just about everything now from how much salt can go into a hamburger to legalizing light-bulbs to the proper procedures to follow in helping old codgers decide when they’ve had enough and would just as soon opt out, part of the wondrous Obamacare.
The federal government is overwhelmingly too big now, not least because it’s run mainly by career politicians, not statesmen, as was the case with the founders. The solons made sure in Amendment XXII in 1951 to limit the president to two terms, but made just as sure not to do that for Congress-people, whom they (especially themselves) deemed to approach near divinity status, not to mention greedily grasping great salaries and unbelievable perks, which they and their followers in the august halls have awarded to themselves.
Federal responsibilities in the Departments of Education, Energy, HHS, and HUD could be far better handled on the state level. The “No Child Left Behind” fiasco is a good example of just how the federal government can completely botch an enterprise. For good or ill, Kentucky has been granted an exemption from that or some form of it. The damage has been done, of course.
One suspects some of the students at the university can read Formisano and also read between the lines, discovering fringe-lunatic liberalism, the socialist approach championed by Obama, for the subversion it is.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 17, 2012
"Horsy Set" Rides Again!
Governor Beshear and all the other members of the “horsy set” have made it as a prime objective of the drive to legalize Kentucky casinos the huge infilling of the state coffers with taxes generated by the gambling industry and confiscated by the state. This is a bunch of baloney, of course. These folks have it in mind to make boatloads of money for…yep…members of the horsy set.
Yeah…there will be some revenue as the state “empowers” the operators to make some bucks off the backs of the “gamers,” as Beshear would call the suckers, but make no mistake about it. The main objective is the protecting and enlarging of the horse industry, which, according to the horsy set, employs 100,000 people, as if anybody in his right mind actually believes that. These track folks couldn’t turn up 100,000 names – at least legal names – if they had to.
Most of those 100,000 folks would be employed in the Bluegrass and the so-called “Golden Triangle” bounded roughly by Lexington, Louisville and Covington/Newport. Somehow, one believes the economy in this area would be far different if those workers actually exist. In any case, they wouldn’t be doing much better than minimum wage, if that, so even if the numbers were true, they represent negligible amounts of income taxes to the state. Compare the average hourly wage at Georgetown Toyota – at least $30 plus perks that up it to about $48 – and see the difference. The UAW folks in Louisville come in at about $69 per hour total.
The proof that the horsy set has its collective mind on money for the horsy set is seen in the governor’s proposition for a Constitutional amendment as delivered through legislator Thayer – five casinos at the racetracks and two others not within 50 or so miles of a track. These two others, by virtue of cronyism, would likely belong to the horsy set, also, with the books out of sight, of course.
One presumes that even the horsy set must figure that casinos are not all that great since it recommends only seven for the WHOLE STATE! That’s only one casino for every 570,000 people or so. Even the horsy set would agree that alcoholic beverages cause more death and destruction than anything else in Kentucky but the group probably would not take issue with the fact that the stuff is sold in groceries and in establishments on virtually every street in much of Kentucky, with more localities legalizing booze practically every week. There are hundreds or thousands (who’s counting) of alcohol oases in the state.
So…why just seven casinos, which, of course, do no harm at all? After all, lottery tickets can be bought on every corner, so why not a casino on every corner. The “game” is the same and every sucker should be treated with respect. To disallow him the same privilege to lose his shirt as mostly just those who go watch the ponies while they lose their shirts is actually – DISCRIMINATORY, the vilest and most often used adjective in the lexicon these days.
The answer is obvious, of course, especially taking into account that graft and corruption are hallmarks of both the legislative and administrative branches these days. One has only to look at the redistricting fiascoes foisted upon the population recently to see just how crafty and cynical the solons are. Simply moving a legislator 200 miles from his district is not exactly what one considers copasetic, but then what does an average citizen know? Besides, that legislator’s former district included a (gasp) racetrack, though in fairness it must be said that his new district 200 miles removed (gasp) also includes a racetrack…such thoughtfulness!
This is not even to mention the shenanigans vis-à-vis the Congressional representation. That new map appears as what one would think a kindergarten finger-painter might deliver. It’s designed to keep a republican, at all costs, from getting his hands on the Sixth District…maybe even the Fourth, as well. The courts may be attacked by Truth and change things…but, who knows?
But one digresses! The horsy set knows that fairness would involve empowering all would-be casino-operators to have that privilege, about the same as the lottery folks. This means, of course, an inordinate, absolutely prohibitive diminution of racetrack proceeds since the vast majority of folks would not bother to drive out to racetracks when they could just truck on down to the nearest convenience store and play the slots or even get into an exciting game of blackjack that might amuse them for hours while they lose their shirts.
Just think what a mini-roulette operation might take in at a gas station while one’s car is being serviced. There’s much money in “them thar hills” just waiting to go to the operators…and the state, of course, to save the schools, or something like that…doesn’t really matter. The horsy set should get in line…or the guv and cronies should be forced to attempt putting on “straight faces,” though to do so might cause a massive number of jaw-breakers.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Yeah…there will be some revenue as the state “empowers” the operators to make some bucks off the backs of the “gamers,” as Beshear would call the suckers, but make no mistake about it. The main objective is the protecting and enlarging of the horse industry, which, according to the horsy set, employs 100,000 people, as if anybody in his right mind actually believes that. These track folks couldn’t turn up 100,000 names – at least legal names – if they had to.
Most of those 100,000 folks would be employed in the Bluegrass and the so-called “Golden Triangle” bounded roughly by Lexington, Louisville and Covington/Newport. Somehow, one believes the economy in this area would be far different if those workers actually exist. In any case, they wouldn’t be doing much better than minimum wage, if that, so even if the numbers were true, they represent negligible amounts of income taxes to the state. Compare the average hourly wage at Georgetown Toyota – at least $30 plus perks that up it to about $48 – and see the difference. The UAW folks in Louisville come in at about $69 per hour total.
The proof that the horsy set has its collective mind on money for the horsy set is seen in the governor’s proposition for a Constitutional amendment as delivered through legislator Thayer – five casinos at the racetracks and two others not within 50 or so miles of a track. These two others, by virtue of cronyism, would likely belong to the horsy set, also, with the books out of sight, of course.
One presumes that even the horsy set must figure that casinos are not all that great since it recommends only seven for the WHOLE STATE! That’s only one casino for every 570,000 people or so. Even the horsy set would agree that alcoholic beverages cause more death and destruction than anything else in Kentucky but the group probably would not take issue with the fact that the stuff is sold in groceries and in establishments on virtually every street in much of Kentucky, with more localities legalizing booze practically every week. There are hundreds or thousands (who’s counting) of alcohol oases in the state.
So…why just seven casinos, which, of course, do no harm at all? After all, lottery tickets can be bought on every corner, so why not a casino on every corner. The “game” is the same and every sucker should be treated with respect. To disallow him the same privilege to lose his shirt as mostly just those who go watch the ponies while they lose their shirts is actually – DISCRIMINATORY, the vilest and most often used adjective in the lexicon these days.
The answer is obvious, of course, especially taking into account that graft and corruption are hallmarks of both the legislative and administrative branches these days. One has only to look at the redistricting fiascoes foisted upon the population recently to see just how crafty and cynical the solons are. Simply moving a legislator 200 miles from his district is not exactly what one considers copasetic, but then what does an average citizen know? Besides, that legislator’s former district included a (gasp) racetrack, though in fairness it must be said that his new district 200 miles removed (gasp) also includes a racetrack…such thoughtfulness!
This is not even to mention the shenanigans vis-à-vis the Congressional representation. That new map appears as what one would think a kindergarten finger-painter might deliver. It’s designed to keep a republican, at all costs, from getting his hands on the Sixth District…maybe even the Fourth, as well. The courts may be attacked by Truth and change things…but, who knows?
But one digresses! The horsy set knows that fairness would involve empowering all would-be casino-operators to have that privilege, about the same as the lottery folks. This means, of course, an inordinate, absolutely prohibitive diminution of racetrack proceeds since the vast majority of folks would not bother to drive out to racetracks when they could just truck on down to the nearest convenience store and play the slots or even get into an exciting game of blackjack that might amuse them for hours while they lose their shirts.
Just think what a mini-roulette operation might take in at a gas station while one’s car is being serviced. There’s much money in “them thar hills” just waiting to go to the operators…and the state, of course, to save the schools, or something like that…doesn’t really matter. The horsy set should get in line…or the guv and cronies should be forced to attempt putting on “straight faces,” though to do so might cause a massive number of jaw-breakers.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Editorialist & Procreation Politics
The uproar over “procreation politics” has been interesting, not least because it’s based by the liberal establishment on the fact that pregnancy is a disease and that birth control vehicles form the vaccine against it. This makes pregnancy a health issue, though births do not usually mean dire disease or death for mothers in probably 99% of cases. The cynicism of the left is pointed up by Lexington Herald-Leader editorial-writer Jamie Lucke (15 February).
In her final paragraph, Lucke writes (actually states the obvious) that “contraception is cheaper than paying for a pregnancy and birth.” Prior to that, she rails against the Catholic bishops for attempting to impose their will on the public…or at least the women of the public, comparing their position to Sharia Law, which is a tad more sanguinary in its treatment of women, just stoning or beheading them for whatever is the crime du jour, adultery, fornication and abortion being certain winners.
Well…Lucke has a point with regard to contraceptives and the government, the subject of her piece, though not about pregnancy as a disease but about pregnancy as an inconvenience, the termination of which can save billions of government dollars. In 2007, last available year for figures, there were 231 abortions for every 1,000 live births. The vast majority were to unmarried women (74% of whites, 82% of blacks), meaning (the poverty-stricken single-mom thing) that a huge number of both babies and single moms would be on the dole if not for the abortions.
This has been the case since especially 1973, the year of Roe/Wade, meaning that these folks have been living off the fruits of the labors of other people (taxes) for some 40 years now. The current numbers, however, don’t even approach the banner year of 1984, when there were 364 abortions per 1,000 live births. Just think of the savings since then. In 1970, there were only 52 cost-saving abortions per 1,000 live births, hardly worth thinking about. The dear little expendable fetuses might just as well have lived for all the good their demise would have done the government.
Abortions since 1973 number about 50 million or so, give or take a few thousand fetuses here or there but there’s more to it, as Lucke certainly knows with respect to savings. Just those abortions amount to a great deal but then the procedures have been in place for two generations, meaning that those aborted in the first 20 years would have been having their own families now at about the average U.S. rate of 2.1 children per family. So, add a huge mostly poverty-stricken- single-moms-and-babies percentage of another 40 million or so and…well, the savings have simply been astronomical.
The president may be emulating China in attempting to determine the proper family-size, albeit in a more sanguine way, i.e., not by throwing couples in jail for having more than one child. He’s attempting to give the taxpayers that option through mandated contraception – brilliant, as Lucke would probably agree. Deficit-reduction would be a cakewalk if he could do this, thereby disarming those mean-spirited republicans who are not in either his intellectual or morality league.
This is vintage Lucke regarding employer plans: “Because only women use prescription contraceptives [the vaccine], denying this coverage is gender discrimination.” Since men do not use prescription contraceptives but are forced to pay for the women’s use of same (insurance premiums or taxes), that sort of seems like gender-discrimination, too, but who’s counting?
As in the case of most liberal editorial-writers, Lucke misses the actual point, to wit, that any freedom, whether religious or otherwise and which does not harm another citizen, that is taken from a citizen is done in violation of the Constitution. A woman’s right to privacy was the big argument in Roe/Wade, but how does that play out with regard to the privacy of others? Abortion involved the physical aspect (freedom of privacy); however, mandates directly contravening doctrinal beliefs that have no adverse impact on others involves freedom of religion. This is more than dollars and cents, but editorial-writers may not have noticed.
Mandating healthcare gave the government direct control over the citizen’s right to life, let alone liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mandating contraception-acquisition is in the same league. This is meddling with citizen freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, but that is precisely the agenda of Obama and the left, people like Lucke – getting rid of the Constitution as a governing document because it militates against centralized, federal control of every facet of a citizen’s existence.
It has been obvious from the beginning of his presidency that Obama intends to destroy Constitutional government, the thing that has made this country the envy of the world. The elections this year for both the presidency and the Congress will comprise a watershed development. Four more years to destroy the American way of life is unthinkable.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
In her final paragraph, Lucke writes (actually states the obvious) that “contraception is cheaper than paying for a pregnancy and birth.” Prior to that, she rails against the Catholic bishops for attempting to impose their will on the public…or at least the women of the public, comparing their position to Sharia Law, which is a tad more sanguinary in its treatment of women, just stoning or beheading them for whatever is the crime du jour, adultery, fornication and abortion being certain winners.
Well…Lucke has a point with regard to contraceptives and the government, the subject of her piece, though not about pregnancy as a disease but about pregnancy as an inconvenience, the termination of which can save billions of government dollars. In 2007, last available year for figures, there were 231 abortions for every 1,000 live births. The vast majority were to unmarried women (74% of whites, 82% of blacks), meaning (the poverty-stricken single-mom thing) that a huge number of both babies and single moms would be on the dole if not for the abortions.
This has been the case since especially 1973, the year of Roe/Wade, meaning that these folks have been living off the fruits of the labors of other people (taxes) for some 40 years now. The current numbers, however, don’t even approach the banner year of 1984, when there were 364 abortions per 1,000 live births. Just think of the savings since then. In 1970, there were only 52 cost-saving abortions per 1,000 live births, hardly worth thinking about. The dear little expendable fetuses might just as well have lived for all the good their demise would have done the government.
Abortions since 1973 number about 50 million or so, give or take a few thousand fetuses here or there but there’s more to it, as Lucke certainly knows with respect to savings. Just those abortions amount to a great deal but then the procedures have been in place for two generations, meaning that those aborted in the first 20 years would have been having their own families now at about the average U.S. rate of 2.1 children per family. So, add a huge mostly poverty-stricken- single-moms-and-babies percentage of another 40 million or so and…well, the savings have simply been astronomical.
The president may be emulating China in attempting to determine the proper family-size, albeit in a more sanguine way, i.e., not by throwing couples in jail for having more than one child. He’s attempting to give the taxpayers that option through mandated contraception – brilliant, as Lucke would probably agree. Deficit-reduction would be a cakewalk if he could do this, thereby disarming those mean-spirited republicans who are not in either his intellectual or morality league.
This is vintage Lucke regarding employer plans: “Because only women use prescription contraceptives [the vaccine], denying this coverage is gender discrimination.” Since men do not use prescription contraceptives but are forced to pay for the women’s use of same (insurance premiums or taxes), that sort of seems like gender-discrimination, too, but who’s counting?
As in the case of most liberal editorial-writers, Lucke misses the actual point, to wit, that any freedom, whether religious or otherwise and which does not harm another citizen, that is taken from a citizen is done in violation of the Constitution. A woman’s right to privacy was the big argument in Roe/Wade, but how does that play out with regard to the privacy of others? Abortion involved the physical aspect (freedom of privacy); however, mandates directly contravening doctrinal beliefs that have no adverse impact on others involves freedom of religion. This is more than dollars and cents, but editorial-writers may not have noticed.
Mandating healthcare gave the government direct control over the citizen’s right to life, let alone liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mandating contraception-acquisition is in the same league. This is meddling with citizen freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, but that is precisely the agenda of Obama and the left, people like Lucke – getting rid of the Constitution as a governing document because it militates against centralized, federal control of every facet of a citizen’s existence.
It has been obvious from the beginning of his presidency that Obama intends to destroy Constitutional government, the thing that has made this country the envy of the world. The elections this year for both the presidency and the Congress will comprise a watershed development. Four more years to destroy the American way of life is unthinkable.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Obama & Constitutional Law
The worrisome thing about President Obama is that he was once a senior lecturer (accounted as a tenured professor) at the University of Chicago Law School and taught regular courses, not a full load since he was involved in other enterprises having to do with government or other activities, perhaps community-organizing. Obama referred to himself as a "constitutional law professor" during his campaign for the presidency.
That’s where the rubber hits the road. Was Obama a professor who was about as bright as a watermelon with regard to the Constitution, or did he then and does he now understand the Constitution and has decided it is too anachronistic or inconvenient to his agenda to be of any importance? Plainly, this is the case. During his campaign, he made it plain that the Constitution was remiss in that it did not allow for the proper redistribution of wealth, for instance.
Redistributing the wealth was the farthest thing from the founders’ minds. They were delivering the nation from a monarchy, which could be aptly be described as the penultimate governing agency in the matter of distributing as well as redistributing the wealth. They quite obviously meant that personal ownership – not serfdom to a king – was paramount in the new nation.
The founders were so intent upon establishing this fact that their design was to inculcate a small federal government that could not re-concentrate power to a small centralized cadre, while at the same time allowing for considerable emphasis on states’ rights, thus further diluting the power of Washington. They seemed to feel that the feds should mostly take care of foreign affairs, the currency, and provide a strong military to protect the citizens, and not much else.
A number of federal agencies have been brought on line since the 1780s, some necessary and some that ought to be deep-sixed as early as yesterday, like the Education and Energy Departments. Obama has added the new dimension called the czars in order to bypass a recognizable oligarchy in preference to un-elected or even congressionally un-investigated shadowy figures making key decisions affecting everything from oil-drilling to healthcare. The Cabinet secretaries are all in place but the czars call the shots.
Obama has circumvented the Constitution in other ways. The big deal currently is Obama’s budget. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives… . Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence [sic]… .
Obama knows his “budget” is not worth the reams of paper on which it’s printed, especially since the House has already routinely passed budgets on which Senate Majority Leader Reid has not for nearly two years allowed a vote. Obama can’t inculcate a budget any more than an orangutan can, but he can blame the Senate republicans for stopping the process even though the democrats control the Senate (and controlled both legislative bodies 2009-11) and could pass a budget tomorrow. All the president can do is sign or veto, something that won’t happen before the elections in November.
The president’s most recent un-Constitutional power grab concerning the contraception issue and the churches is a First Amendment violation, to be sure, but it’s also a Tenth Amendment issue: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The president is not empowered by the Constitution to mandate what citizens and entities such as businesses must purchase. That is a power/privilege granted to the people.
The president can’t even make people get flu shots, much less affect far more important items. Obama, however, has directed employers and insurance companies and people, all as individual entities, to do what he says with respect to insurance and what it must cover. He’s even mandated/regulated that insurance companies provide services at no charge, meaning that the taxpayers will pick up the tab. This is an egregious violation of the Constitution, about which he’s supposed to be an expert.
Last year, the most egregious violation had to do with his slaughter of Libyans in a war he conducted by executive order when the Constitution is plain in Section I, Article 8, that only Congress can declare war, though Congress itself expanded rightly or wrongly on that provision with the War Powers Act, which Obama also monstrously violated.
On the basis of his presidency vis-à-vis the Constitution, Obama the Constitutional scholar has either proven his abject stupidity or he has an agenda which is demonstrably anti-American. Some people liked to call George Bush a cowboy but he was a piker when compared to Obama, who in the kindest terms can be classified as a bona fide loose cannon threatening American civil rights and the existence of sovereign nations.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
That’s where the rubber hits the road. Was Obama a professor who was about as bright as a watermelon with regard to the Constitution, or did he then and does he now understand the Constitution and has decided it is too anachronistic or inconvenient to his agenda to be of any importance? Plainly, this is the case. During his campaign, he made it plain that the Constitution was remiss in that it did not allow for the proper redistribution of wealth, for instance.
Redistributing the wealth was the farthest thing from the founders’ minds. They were delivering the nation from a monarchy, which could be aptly be described as the penultimate governing agency in the matter of distributing as well as redistributing the wealth. They quite obviously meant that personal ownership – not serfdom to a king – was paramount in the new nation.
The founders were so intent upon establishing this fact that their design was to inculcate a small federal government that could not re-concentrate power to a small centralized cadre, while at the same time allowing for considerable emphasis on states’ rights, thus further diluting the power of Washington. They seemed to feel that the feds should mostly take care of foreign affairs, the currency, and provide a strong military to protect the citizens, and not much else.
A number of federal agencies have been brought on line since the 1780s, some necessary and some that ought to be deep-sixed as early as yesterday, like the Education and Energy Departments. Obama has added the new dimension called the czars in order to bypass a recognizable oligarchy in preference to un-elected or even congressionally un-investigated shadowy figures making key decisions affecting everything from oil-drilling to healthcare. The Cabinet secretaries are all in place but the czars call the shots.
Obama has circumvented the Constitution in other ways. The big deal currently is Obama’s budget. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives… . Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence [sic]… .
Obama knows his “budget” is not worth the reams of paper on which it’s printed, especially since the House has already routinely passed budgets on which Senate Majority Leader Reid has not for nearly two years allowed a vote. Obama can’t inculcate a budget any more than an orangutan can, but he can blame the Senate republicans for stopping the process even though the democrats control the Senate (and controlled both legislative bodies 2009-11) and could pass a budget tomorrow. All the president can do is sign or veto, something that won’t happen before the elections in November.
The president’s most recent un-Constitutional power grab concerning the contraception issue and the churches is a First Amendment violation, to be sure, but it’s also a Tenth Amendment issue: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The president is not empowered by the Constitution to mandate what citizens and entities such as businesses must purchase. That is a power/privilege granted to the people.
The president can’t even make people get flu shots, much less affect far more important items. Obama, however, has directed employers and insurance companies and people, all as individual entities, to do what he says with respect to insurance and what it must cover. He’s even mandated/regulated that insurance companies provide services at no charge, meaning that the taxpayers will pick up the tab. This is an egregious violation of the Constitution, about which he’s supposed to be an expert.
Last year, the most egregious violation had to do with his slaughter of Libyans in a war he conducted by executive order when the Constitution is plain in Section I, Article 8, that only Congress can declare war, though Congress itself expanded rightly or wrongly on that provision with the War Powers Act, which Obama also monstrously violated.
On the basis of his presidency vis-à-vis the Constitution, Obama the Constitutional scholar has either proven his abject stupidity or he has an agenda which is demonstrably anti-American. Some people liked to call George Bush a cowboy but he was a piker when compared to Obama, who in the kindest terms can be classified as a bona fide loose cannon threatening American civil rights and the existence of sovereign nations.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 10, 2012
Endangered Constitution
Well…after all, what’s a president to do when a recalcitrant Congress thwarts his will at every point? On 06 February in an “interview” with NBC’s morning guru Matt Lauer, President Obama displayed dismay that he couldn’t force the Congress to do his bidding and blamed the Constitution for making that his problem. He specifically blamed the “fathers” who wrote it but claimed that he was getting better as he proceeds in his presidency. Getting better at what? Getting better at satisfying his base, of course, Lauer already having mentioned that the people who voted for him in 2008 were disappointed!
The president thumbed his nose big-time at the Constitution when he instituted his personal – purely personal – war against Libya in March 2011, an action that has resulted in massive bloodshed as well as a devastated, ungoverned country. Not to be bothered by a possibly disagreeable Congress was paramount in his considerations, especially since both Defense Chief Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen had publicly stated he was making a mistake.
They made those statements in a congressional hearing, providing even more reason not to go to Congress. Only Congress has the power to either by declaration or a timely proviso (War Powers Act) make war. His action was all the more heinous in that Libya was no threat whatsoever to this or any other country. Now, he faces the dilemma with “what to do” about Syria, a situation exactly like that of Libya, as if he can do anything other than command decent GIs to bomb innocent women and children, as they were commanded to do regarding Libya.
Lately, Obama has decided to tell the churches/denominations what they can and cannot do, wiggling every which way to make his un-Constitutional approach work. Plainly, he hates the U.S. Constitution because it stands in the way of turning this nation upside down economically, morally, and spiritually. By regulations no one has ever conceived, his czars are turning his healthcare legislation into a nightmare of bad consequences, obviously more intentional than not.
Not even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when communists and socialists had their strong legal parties and tried to gain control of government, was the threat to personal freedom as pronounced as it is now. Proud, suffering Americans would have none of their poison then, when there were no “safety nets,” but under Obama and a Congress insipid beyond words, the nation is heading for “herd control.” Disgusting!
The Constitution Wins
He said the Constitution was a drag
And emphasized states-rights far, far too much,
When speaking of it, he sometimes would gag,
Dismissing it as too far out of touch;
He said it gave the Congress too much power
That limited executive fiat,
His thoughts about that daily grew more sour,
He felt constrained by every tittle, jot.
He campaigned toward the document’s demise
And felt that wealth should be distributed
By him because, of course, he was so wise
And voter’s thinking so inhibited;
The Constitution did not stand for that…
The founders felt that sloth would soon ensue
If those who worked and earned should give up that
For which they toiled…and soon be slothful, too.
He seems to favor courts to legislate,
The courts with nominees by him, of course,
Since with a pen-stroke judges can relate
To any group what it must do, enforce;
He thought the Constitution was unwise
In that it gave religion too much say,
Since he decided faith was his surmise
And that believers should just…well, obey.
He felt he could declare war when he chose,
Ignoring Congress as just too, too slow,
With teleprompters he could be verbose,
Inviting all the world to his war-show;
The Constitution does not give him leave
To undertake a war just on a whim
Or even if the Congress might believe,
Debate a declaration backing him.
His healthcare bill was fashioned on a theme
That bureaucrats decide when one is sick
And then decide for him a proper scheme
To heal him or let nature interdict;
And though the Constitution disallows
The government to mandate purchases,
His healthcare clearly disavows
That fact as arcane, simple silliness.
So…now his promised change is recognized –
Subversion of the founders’ wise edict…
He would be king, with Congress paralyzed,
No fortitude his scheme to just evict;
But citizens will not for long be conned,
This country’s way of life too precious…yes,
From office they can mandate he abscond,
The Constitution wins…he will confess.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The president thumbed his nose big-time at the Constitution when he instituted his personal – purely personal – war against Libya in March 2011, an action that has resulted in massive bloodshed as well as a devastated, ungoverned country. Not to be bothered by a possibly disagreeable Congress was paramount in his considerations, especially since both Defense Chief Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen had publicly stated he was making a mistake.
They made those statements in a congressional hearing, providing even more reason not to go to Congress. Only Congress has the power to either by declaration or a timely proviso (War Powers Act) make war. His action was all the more heinous in that Libya was no threat whatsoever to this or any other country. Now, he faces the dilemma with “what to do” about Syria, a situation exactly like that of Libya, as if he can do anything other than command decent GIs to bomb innocent women and children, as they were commanded to do regarding Libya.
Lately, Obama has decided to tell the churches/denominations what they can and cannot do, wiggling every which way to make his un-Constitutional approach work. Plainly, he hates the U.S. Constitution because it stands in the way of turning this nation upside down economically, morally, and spiritually. By regulations no one has ever conceived, his czars are turning his healthcare legislation into a nightmare of bad consequences, obviously more intentional than not.
Not even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when communists and socialists had their strong legal parties and tried to gain control of government, was the threat to personal freedom as pronounced as it is now. Proud, suffering Americans would have none of their poison then, when there were no “safety nets,” but under Obama and a Congress insipid beyond words, the nation is heading for “herd control.” Disgusting!
The Constitution Wins
He said the Constitution was a drag
And emphasized states-rights far, far too much,
When speaking of it, he sometimes would gag,
Dismissing it as too far out of touch;
He said it gave the Congress too much power
That limited executive fiat,
His thoughts about that daily grew more sour,
He felt constrained by every tittle, jot.
He campaigned toward the document’s demise
And felt that wealth should be distributed
By him because, of course, he was so wise
And voter’s thinking so inhibited;
The Constitution did not stand for that…
The founders felt that sloth would soon ensue
If those who worked and earned should give up that
For which they toiled…and soon be slothful, too.
He seems to favor courts to legislate,
The courts with nominees by him, of course,
Since with a pen-stroke judges can relate
To any group what it must do, enforce;
He thought the Constitution was unwise
In that it gave religion too much say,
Since he decided faith was his surmise
And that believers should just…well, obey.
He felt he could declare war when he chose,
Ignoring Congress as just too, too slow,
With teleprompters he could be verbose,
Inviting all the world to his war-show;
The Constitution does not give him leave
To undertake a war just on a whim
Or even if the Congress might believe,
Debate a declaration backing him.
His healthcare bill was fashioned on a theme
That bureaucrats decide when one is sick
And then decide for him a proper scheme
To heal him or let nature interdict;
And though the Constitution disallows
The government to mandate purchases,
His healthcare clearly disavows
That fact as arcane, simple silliness.
So…now his promised change is recognized –
Subversion of the founders’ wise edict…
He would be king, with Congress paralyzed,
No fortitude his scheme to just evict;
But citizens will not for long be conned,
This country’s way of life too precious…yes,
From office they can mandate he abscond,
The Constitution wins…he will confess.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)