As Richard Nixon used to say, “Let me make myself perfectly clear!” Although I vehemently disagree with President Barack Obama’s policies, I just as adamantly want him to serve the rest of his term in office whether it be through 2012 or 2016 in safety without any harm coming to him.
I’m an American who is proud that we always have a peaceful transfer of power as a result of what happens at the ballot box and not with bullets.
But, in the wake of the White House Party Crashers incident, and how ridiculous or embarrassing it may be for the administration, I have to say something crazy and devious because I put nothing past desperate Liberals wanting to pass the Liberal laundry list of policies that is representative of the Obama administration.
After John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Barry Goldwater instinctively knew that he had no shot of winning the presidency because he felt the country would rally around Lyndon Johnson to fulfill the agenda of a young charismatic president in John F. Kennedy.
Johnson won by a landslide and he went on to fulfill what Kennedy started.
Today, we have another young charismatic president in Barack Obama with sinking approval ratings.
My fear is that the movers and shakers that lurk in the shadows of the Democrat Party like billionare George Soros and others will arrange to have Obama taken out and sacrificed for the greater cause of ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, Card Check ect…
Of course laying the blame on Right Wing survivalists, tea baggers, birthers, or returning war vets will be part of the charade to hide the actual culprits.
Sounds crazy?
Yes, it does. But, I feel I have to put this crazy notion out there because Liberals are known for their deceit and they would stop at nothing to achieve their aims.
Some may feel that desperate times call for desperate measures.
Normally, this is not the kind of subject I write about because I hold Oprah Winfrey in very low regard. But, when I read this article in the paper this morning, a feeling inside me began welling up to the point of disgust and disappointment.
It seems that the great and wonderful Oprah Winfrey is producing a series on HBO that’s described as follows:
Oprah Winfrey's getting her kink on with a steamy new cable series about a sexually curious LA housewife.
TV's touchy-feely daytime queen will get down and dirty with the HBO series, which revolves around a married woman who suddenly leaves her husband and kids to act out her secret fantasies in LA's seamy underbelly, according to Variety.
Thanks Oprah, just what we need another voyeuristic romp into sexual escapism that glorifies the break up of the American family.
Now if Suzy Sausage were the producer of this series, I wouldn’t have given it another thought and moved on to the rest of my paper. But, is this the only kind of programming Winfrey thought was well worth her time and effort?
I’m not calling for a boycott of this show or any kind of censorship. I believe in freedom of the individual to produce whatever they want produce. But, I have to say I’m very disappointed that someone of Winfrey’s so-called stature chose to go for the titillating cheap thrill.
Why does the premise and lead character of the show have to be a suburban housewife that chucks away her husband and kids to indulge her pent up sexual fantasies?
Answer: This is exactly Oprah’s largest demographic who watches her show for the past 25 years. And I’ll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that Oprah feels so tuned in to these sexually frustrated women that she wants to tap into that dissatisfaction and turn it into a huge viewership.
Of course any consideration of the morality of a housewife who would be selfish enough to forgo her family to capture hedonistic pursuits seems to be out-dated, or old-fashioned, or outright irrelevant.
Well, it’s not irrelevant to me and others.
This is what makes Oprah a phony in my eyes. She gives away cars and opens schools in South Africa, and isn’t she so grand and special?
But, she also willfully questions the rock-solid tenets of Christianity and leads her sheep to do the same. On second thought, of course she would produce this type of show.
Marriage and family life and the stresses that go along with it are very real. But, did you really have to add your 2 cents, Oprah? And was this the best you can come up with?
Nevertheless, I guess this is a victory for Feminism and Women’s empowerment. Let’s kill our unborn babies and call it Reproductive Rights. Now, we can add housewives behaving badly just like husbands have done since the beginning of time.
As we get down to the nifty gritty stage of the debate over ObamaCare on the Senate floor, I got a feeling in my bones that the Dems will not hesitate to pull out the Race Card to deflect attention away from their own disagreements between the Liberal (aka Progressives), Moderate, and Conservative (aka Blue Dogs) wings of the Democrat Party.
Be prepared!
Somebody either on the Senate floor or most likely outside it will accuse the Republicans of preventing landmark legislation because they don’t care about Black people, or people of color, or poor people in general.
When this happens, and I think it’s very likely, you’ll know that Harry Reid has reached the end of his rope and the Race card button gets pushed. And even if ObamaCare goes down in flames, the Dems will need a scapegoat—The Republicans for its failure.
Of course it won’t matter a damn to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi that if ObamaCare were to get squashed on the Senate floor, it would really be as a result of the American people making their voices known to stop a piece of legislation they do not want.
Why pull out the Race Card?
As I’ve argued before on prior posts, this is what the Democrats do to keep the African American community (95% support rate and higher) mentally enslaved into thinking that the Democrat Party is their friend and protector.
I have been noticing while speaking to my Liberal friends that they don’t seem to have the same kind of swagger to their walk. They don’t want to carry a conversation about Obama for any length of time anymore.
Could reality be setting in in only 11 months of the Obama presidency?
Could they be begrudgingly admitting with their loss of swagger in their gate or bass in their voice, (if they ever had any bass in their voices, these are Obama supporters after all), that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm, mm, good) has as much substance to him as Rosie O’Donnell has brains?
Could they finally be witnessing that all that eloquence Obama throws around with the help of his trusty teleprompter is not the end all be all they thought was enough to be an effective president?
Conservatives, or at least the real Conservatives not named David Brooks, knew the real Obama all along. We saw past the great smile and the expensive tailored suits.
“Pretty decisive president you got there,” I said to my friend, “maybe he’ll send McKristol more troops by Christmas. This is what happens when you elect a Community Organizer president. ”
Ouch!
Dead silence.
I just hope this country doesn’t suffer another 911-type attack in the next 3 years and 2 months before this amateur show could be kicked back to Chicago.
Yesterday, Oprah Winfrey, the African American woman, daytime TV talk show host of dubious sexuality, announced that she will be going off the air in 2011.
What will middle-aged White woman, the bulk of Oprah’s audience, do now for their socialization and education? Can they ever survive without the Queen of TV that turned victim-hood-syndrome into a mega-billion dollar marketing empire?
I shudder to think of the consequences of having to be forced to live life without Oprah. How would millions face the world without knowing how she wants them to think or feel?
Her leaving may have catastrophic effects to the U.S. economy far worse than President Obama’s economic plan. Without her, how would we know what books to buy or movies to watch, or what doctors to see and for what?
But seriously folks, Oprah Winfrey should have left the airwaves 23 years ago. She’s done more harm than good for millions. The sad fact is many of her followers are blind to the damage she’s caused.
My theory as to the real reason she’s calling it quits is because she realizes she made a tremendous mistake endorsing Barack Obama. Her show has taken a ratings hit ever since. She said that this man should be president and just enough Americans were fooled into making it happen.
Why should her show be around for the fallout?
But, more importantly than that, Oprah has misled millions away from a relationship with our Lord!
The Oprah effect will still be felt because she intends to start her own cable network. But can we at least start pulling the curtain back and behold what she really is?
The New York Times’ token Conservative, David Brooks, takes a shot at Sarah Palin and refers to her as “a joke”. But, please understand, it’s the pain talking because Brooks can’t intellectually admit to himself that he along with other moderate Republicans were hoodwinked by Barack Obama into thinking that he was –The One.
Think of it as Brook’s defense mechanism. Sarah Palin has to be a joke in his mind, because he made a bad choice for president. So, the worse Obama does as commander-in-chief, the bigger a joke Palin needs to be.
Brooks, the same Washington-nized intellectual Conservative that once proclaimed the era of Reagan was dead, tells you all you need to know about the value of his opinion to the Republican Party, pretty worthless.
Brooks and his ilk currently control the GOP and that reality should alert all Conservatives to one thing; its time to take over this party once and for all and let these moderates go their own way like Ronald Reagan once said.
So if you’re a fan of Sarah Palin, its time to step up, be counted, and speak out! David Brooks, who prefers a softer, more fuzzy and moderate Republican party, needs to be left on the ash heap of history of the so-called thinkers in the Republican party who fell for a “Chicago pretender’s” candidacy because, well, they’re smarter than anybody else.
Yesterday after work I quickly tuned into Sean Hannity’s radio show for a quick second before hopping on the subway. Being Thursday, he has a segment of his show called, “Man on the Street Thursday”. It’s akin to Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking” in which one of Hannity’s staff hands a cell phone over to some commuter and asks basic questions like, “Who is the vice president” Do you know who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reed is?
On this occasion, I dropped into the middle of a heated argument between Hannity and an African American woman who insisted that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has too much money for one man and that it needs to be taken away from him [by the government] and passed along to other people less fortunate.
“How did Bloombeg make all that money?”
“He ran a successful business,” Hannity said, “He broke no law, and pays his taxes.”
“And who allowed him to make all that money, Sean?” she asked, “The government right, lets be real.”
I couldn’t believe the stuff she was saying. But, then I thought of this video of another Black woman:
Then Sean asked his setup question:
“Then you believe in taking from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, right”
“That’s right. He has too much money for one man.”
“You know who said that?” Hannity asked.
“No, who?
“Karl Marx!”
Now I’m not trying to write another hidden Communists/Barack Obama admirer post. But, that woman is representative to a mentality that I cannot identify with. However, a lot of Leftist thinks that spreading somebody else’s wealth via the claws of government is the way it ought to be.
It made no difference to this woman that Michael Bloomberg is an American success story who took himself from humble beginnings and work his way into becoming a billionaire. The entitlement mentality believers that the less fortunate deserved to be taken cared of.
But, how did they become less fortunate exactly? Oh, I’m not allowed to ask that, right?
The rich, according to the entitlement mentality, are all evil anyway, so why not take it away from them?
These aren’t stupid people. They just have a different worldview that I thank God I do not share. In my opinion, there are two types of people in this country:
1. Those that are about something 2. Those that are not about something
The first group is self-reliant. They make things happen for themselves. These people are the ones who stay in school, or develop marketable skill that helps them put food on the table. These people don’t stay at a minimum wage job without benefits, but rather use it as a stepping stone until something better comes along. This group doesn’t allow outsider forces to keep them from achieving their individual goals. They don’t care who’s sitting in the White House. They overcome barriers because they have a responsibility to themselves or others, because it just has to get done. Some people in this group achieve great success relatively quickly, others may take a lot longer, but their progress is steady.
Now let me talk about the second group in a blunt way. These people are not self-reliant. These are the first people who drop out of school, or never develop a marketable skill that puts food on the table. They always have excuses as to why they're not progressing in their life (racism, unfairness, the teacher doesn’t like me, I’m keeping it real, to name a few…). These are the type of people who do the same things at ages 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and beyond, and would tell you with a straight face at age 48, “I’m just trying to get myself together.” These people have baby mommas or baby daddies spread over different states so child support payments (if they’re even paying it) keeps them in perpetual poverty.
You never hear in Leftist circles, a discussion about the choices people make.
Life is the sum total of all our choices.
It always starts from the standpoint of 5 or 8 choices after the fact, like 70% of African American babies are born out of wedlock.
Self-inflicted wounds are not up for discussion.
Unless we fix our broken families, no amount of money spent by government will ever cure what really ails us. But, the entitlement mentality will always want to be fed by the sweat and toil of others. And it will always be the 1st group people that pays the price.
God bless all those who have served or died for the cause of freedom. There are still some of us who appreciate all your service and sacrifice to defend our nation.
With so much going on in the country right now, the debate on Health Care, an act of domestic Terrorism at Fort Hood, Texas, and 10.2% unemployment rate thanks to President Obama’s incompetent economic policies, I feel the need to write about something utterly different in the blogesphere.
J. Randy Forbes came to my attention in the spring when he made an impassioned speech on the House floor in response to President Barack Obama’s assertion that the United States is no longer a Christian nation. I’ve been watching him ever since and I can’t help being impressed with this man.
He’s not only a man of faith, he’s a patriot that oozes Ronald Reagan every time I watch a video of him. In my opinion, J Randy Forbes is everything that Barack Obama is not. Or more plainly, he’s the Anti-Obama that offers a clear choice of Conservatism over Big Government Liberalism.
Nobody heard of Barack Obama prior to 2004 and now he is president. Congressman Forbes may not have the name recognition of a Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney. And I don’t even know if he even seeks the presidency. But, I see great potential in him.
Randy Forbes represents the diverse and expansive Fourth Congressional District of Virginia. Sworn in after a special election in 2001, he is now serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. Randy focuses his efforts in Congress on protecting the security and sovereignty of our nation, preserving the moral and historical roots of our country, strengthening our military and supporting veterans, growing educational opportunities for our children, and promoting economic development through fiscal responsibility.
He serves as a Member of the House Judiciary committee and the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the Ranking Member of the Readiness Subcommittee.
Randy is the founder of the Congressional Prayer Caucus whose purpose is to recognize the vital role that prayer by individuals of all faiths has played in Congress and in America. He is also the founder of the Congressional Modeling and Simulation Caucus, the Congressional China Caucus, and co-chair of the Navy and Marine Corps Caucus.
Randy was born and raised in Chesapeake, Virginia where he still resides with his wife Shirley. He and Shirley have been married since 1978 and have four children: Neil, Jamie, Jordan, and Justin.
As the debate rages on in the House of Representatives over Barack Obama’s ill-conceived, deficit-busting, freedom removing, tax increasing and centralized government planned abomination of a Health Care bill, Ronald Reagan warned America about the perils of socialized medicine.
Today, the face of government oppression (Barack Obama) is different, some say historical. But, President Obama is an old package clothed in new bubble wrap. And even if he signs a new Health Care bill into law, I see it as a moment for optimism, because I see it as a death knell of his presidency.
Deuteronomy 23:5
However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you.
In the wake of Tuesday’s election results, I’m very happy with the outcome of Virginia and New Jersey. Honestly, I didn’t think Christie was going to pull it out in the Garden state, but I couldn’t be happier John Corsine was given the boot.
However, I really wanted Doug Hoffman to win the 23rd CD seat in Upper New York. That tri-fecta would not only have sent a megaton message to Washington, but Conservative would have staked a greater foothold in the GOP.
In the heat of battle, I said some harsh things about Newt Gingrich for endorsing De De Scozzafava, a Liberal Republican, over Conservative Doug Hoffman. In farness to Newt, he got a lot of grief but he wasn’t alone in his endorsement. House Minority Leader, John Boehner, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, and Sen Pete Sessions and others also backed Scozzfava, but to my knowledge, they didn’t receive the same wrath from other Conservatives that Newt did.
In an interview with Sean Hannity today, Gingrich explained that he was informed by 11 Republican Chairman that they had selected Scozzafava as the Republican candidate in the special election. I think Newt deferred to the judgment of the local party bosses and really didn’t know anything or knew Scozzafava from a can of paint. He also noted that the GOP bosses failed to consult Mike Long of the Conservative Party prior to selecting Scozzafava.
Well, it all became a big mess and Newt Gingrich got caught in the neat grinder.
Moving forward, I hope the GOP will learn its lesson of what happened in NY 23. Select candidates wisely and don’t blur the lines of Conservatism for political expediency. Follow what Ronald Reagan said:
Let Them Go Their Way March 1, 1975 2nd Annual CPAC Convention
“I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.”
“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
“I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
