Are you paying attention?

While it may seem that I'm big into conspiracy theories, I'm really not.  On the other hand, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.  More than ever we need to be paying attention to what is going on in our country.  And I do not mean we need to just be listening to what B.O. is saying because it doesn't have much to do with what actually is happening - but he makes it sound good.  Anyone who disagrees with him has apparently been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh, since B.O. must believe it's impossible for us to actually hold to thoughtful, logical, ideologies that differ from his on our own.  I'd always thought it was a hallmark of a sociopath (at least the few I've known) to neutralize/marginalize opponents by seeking first to use charm and charisma to dissuade them of their "wrong-headed" assumptions.  If that fails they will work to discredit the dissenters; failing that they'll be bent on their destruction.  Apparently it's a more broadly used approach than I'd realized.

When B.O. says he doesn't favor reinstatement of the fairness doctrine I'm pretty sure he just means it won't be called that and it will happen incrementally.  He says he doesn't want or intend to nationalize banking, but today they added Citigroup to their nearly-nationalized bank roster.  He says he wants to help individual states keep operating but states taking so-called stimulus money will have to expand their welfare and unemployment programs and lower requirements.  If they don't take the money they'll still have expand their unemployment programs to include unemployed part-time workers and figure out how to pay for it on their own.  And to make sure the money is not spent foolishly he's appointed fall-guy, ur, I mean VP Joe to oversee how the states are using their cut of the pork.

I've been trying to find a good definition for "socialism" but discovered that there isn't one.  There are more "types" of socialism than there are shades of blue and there are sub-types and variables within each classification.  Some consistent points seem to be:  nationalization to some degree of the economic system, the education system, the means of production (business), universal healthcare, media control, and the redistribution of wealth - often by taxation.  It's always couched in the language of helping the poor, the needy or "for the greater good of the people" so to disagree presupposes greed and heartlessness - not to mention being unpatriotic.  Does any of this ring a bell?

It is the antithesis of free enterprise (capitalism) and it's coming to a country near you - watch for it.

  

ACORN by any other name ...

At the national prayer breakfast earlier this month B.O. spoke of the new Office he'd be announcing later that day.  It's a revision of Bush's faith-based initiatives but expanded.  An official government "office" means that our money will be spent at the direction of the head of this office without any approvals or even too much scrutiny.  With B.O. the rhetoric intentionally obscures and overwhelms the reality hidden therein.  This is what he said:

"...This is not only our call as people of faith, but our duty as citizens of America, and it will be the purpose of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood partnerships that I'm announcing later today.

The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another - or even religious groups over secular groups.  It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.  The work is important, because whether it's a secular group advising families facing foreclosure or faith-based groups providing job-training to those who need work, few are closer to what's happening on our streets and in our neighborhoods than these organizations.  People trust them.  Communities rely on them. And we will help them."

It will also be interesting to see which faith-based organizations get involved, and which don't benefit.

Yesterday he announced another new office: The Office of Urban Affairs.  This is what he had to say about that (from a report on B.O.s meeting with mayors this morning:

"The meeting (Mayors) comes one day after Mr. Obama named a director, Adolfo Carrion Jr., for the new White House Office of Urban Affairs, which the president said will help ensure federal dollars targeting urban areas are well spent.

President Obama said the office will focus on job creation, improving housing and infrastructure, and creating new ways to make the country more globally competative."

Apparently the Department of Housing and Urban Development isn't enough - or perhaps not as easily controllable from the Oval Office.

Italics and bold print are mine to draw your attention to what I believe are the key parts in which the danger lurks.  I believe what's encrypted there is ACORN - If I had any, I'd bet money on it.

We've been robbed!

While thinking about what is occurring in DC the term "smash and grab" came to mind.  I think that's a good analogy for what this administration is doing.  In a "smash and grab" robbery the thugs have chosen their target with an idea of what they want to get but time is of the essence.  When the moment of opportunity arrives they power their way in by whatever means necessary and immediately begin to grab as much as they can in the shortest period of time possible.  They know the only hope they have of succeeding is to overwhelm the target, grab as much as they can and run off to hide the loot for later distribution and use.  They know they'll be missing out on  some things and will lose a few things in their haste but the objective is to get as much as possible in as little time as possible.  If they can't accomplish that they'll most likely be stopped and held accountable for their actions.  The cameras are on and the alarms are blaring but by the time the good guys arrive it's too late.

It has occurred to me that there is a well orchestrated scheme that has been in the planning stages for years, just waiting for the moment of opportunity.  I even think it's quite possible that B.O. and his owners/handlers know that it's likely he won't get a second term, and the 2010 elections may limit their options.  But for now - THIS is the moment, the lunatics are running the asylum and they have no time to waste.  They will continue to smash and grab for as long we give them opportunity and if and when they're finally stopped the damage will be nearly irreparable and what can be salvaged will take years and years to repair.  Even then, it will never be the same and we may never feel secure again.  We've been violated - and we're not even supposed to complain about it.

Homeschoolers, beware.

I haven't heard anything in this horrendous bill which specifically targets homeschoolers, but we're learning day by day what horrors it contains so it may come yet.  It has occurred to me that government schools are critical to socialism.  It is why Bill Ayers has turned from bombs to books to change society.  As I've mentioned before, much of what he does now is work to get socialism into schools.  He speaks to teachers' unions and other groups about it quite openly.  We all know history is being rewritten continually and it would be interesting to know how many high school students today know anything about the Constitution (as it was written), Bill of Rights, or even how the USA came to be.

Anyway - it won't be long.

Population Control at Both Ends

We are of the opinion that AARP is not really "for" the older segment of the population but is primarily a giant, left-leaning lobbying group that dupes a growing population of "maturing" citizens into supporting things that are not good for our country.

We're definitely qualified but are not partakers of anything AARP offers so we don't get their monthly propaganda piece.  Unless I hear or read something in the news I don't know what they're up to on a day to day basis.  But I started wondering how they felt about the "universal healthcare" (aka socialized medicine) provisions in the current so-called economic stimulus bill so I read their "AARP Bulletin Today", though it was yesterday's edition.  I mean, if AARP isn't standing up against the blatant discrimination against the aging when it comes to healthcare, who in the world will?  There are provisions in this very bill that would create an office or agency to oversee compliance with regulations pertaining to medical procedures - or lack thereof - for evaluating who is actually worth treating.  And trust me, it's not the old or infirm.  Goodbye Ted Kennedy ... hmmmm.

I don't know if there are exceptions for those "seniors" in DC (the liberals at least) but we baby boomers and older should be getting our affairs in order - we may not be long for this world.

Gutless wonders

I am beside myself with frustration.  As expected the Senate, thanks to the three RINOs, passed this "death to America" bill and it now goes to committee where it will probably inflate even further.  I'm angry, sad, fearful and frustrated that our country has come to this.  I expected Collins, Snow and Specter to show their true colors on this - they've never really been Republicans - but I was naive enough to hope that perhaps there were two Democrats or Independents  with enough courage to vote against what most of them must know is a horrible, dangerous bill with negative consequences that will likely outlive most of us.  If Congress maintains a Democrat majority in both houses after 2010 I think I'll be forced to give up all hope for the USA as I have known it.

Everything I suspected and feared about a B.O. presidency has proved to be well founded, but I have to admit I'm a bit stunned at how fast he made the hard left turn and with not much subterfuge.  Nothing in his actions backs up his contrived rhetoric which is aimed at the bewitched masses who buy into every word that glides off his tongue.  He is every bit as committed to the socialist ideology as his friend Bill Ayers is.  The difference is Bill Ayers is much more open about it.  He lectures and advocates for socialist ideas in our schools and is said to be a "respected college professor."

B.O. and Co. don't want the economic situation to improve too quickly - if at all.  They don't really want unemployment to drop or small businesses to succeed.  (By the way - about 80% of new jobs are created by small businesses.)  The more people that become dependent on the government for any and all reasons, the more democrat votes accrue.  It's been the same forever - point out the so-called problems, inequities, injustices, deficiencies and deprivations of the "poor and oppressed", make grandiose promises and feign conviction and compassion and you've got yourself a vote.  If any of the promises were ever kept and the poor became better educated, went to work, started feeling secure and hopeful - well, they'd probably vote Republican.  Reminds me of a joke about a guy who was down on his luck and got a visit from a couple of Baptist deacons wondering why they hadn't seen him at church.  He said he didn't have any decent clothes to wear and was ashamed to show up in the Lord's house in his threadbare, ill-fitting clothing.  The sympathetic deacons went out and got him a new suit, shirt, tie, shoes and socks and even took him to a barber for a haircut.  Sunday came and he didn't show up in church.  Another Sunday went by and he was a no-show again.  The deacons went to visit him again to find out just what was going on and this was what they heard:  "Well, sir - I fully intended to be there, but when I got my new duds on and looked in the mirror I looked so darn good I went to the Episcopal church."  The only real difference is, with B.O. it's no joke.

Good Morning, Comrade

Remember the weak outcry from conservatives against "globalization"?  The liberal side of the Supreme Court was making decisions based on European precedent and we had to play by the world's rules in order to all get along.  Remember when the most vocal critics of George W. Bush said prior to his election that if he won they'd move to Europe?  Of course they didn't go, but they're doing the next best thing; they are doing all they can to aid B.O. in bringing Europe here.  For all the denials and ridicule heaped on whomever dared to utter the word "socialism" in any way during the campaign - and since then I suppose - it appears to be official now.  The cover of the latest Newsweek magazine is celebrating our becoming part of the grand structure of socialism.

We've been tilting in that direction for some time now - since the 60's I'd say - but it's full speed ahead now.  I hope we haven't arrived yet, but how do you tell?  The most socialist countries are first of all, pagan.  That's not to say "religion" is not allowed, it's only true Christianity that is not well tolerated.  Secondly, the government controls almost everything and sets limits on what and how much they can do and how and when they can do it.  Thirdly, they "take care of" everyone - meet all needs from housing to medical care.  And we can't forget taxes - in order to "take care of" everyone they tax the bejabbers out of everyone and everything that has an income. Whatever is left after "administrative" costs gets spread around (redistributed) to the various entities that "take care of" those who need assistance which is almost everyone because the government takes almost everything from everyone.  Those in high office, heads of state, and others who manage to retain wealth, have always come here for good medical care.  I wonder where they'll go now?  

You do what you do because you are what you are

I'm actually a little sad to realize that what I'd suspected is true.  I was hoping that maybe - just maybe - Obama was at least pragmatic enough to want to find real solutions to problems and might be strong enough to stand up for them.  I wouldn't have bet money on it but I was hoping.  All doubt has been erased and his thin veneer of claiming to want "bipartisanship" is pretty much gone.  The liberal agenda is the be-all and end-all ... everything else be d***ed.  The liberal's idea of being bipartisan is "do it our way."  It's most obvious in the so-called stimulus bill but also in things like appointing a solidly  conservative Republican Senator (who really should have stayed in the Senate) to be Secretary of Commerce, and then almost immediately trying to usurp his position in regard to the national census.  Clearly, it is to be "politics as usual" after all.

Long before January 20th I was saying "Don't pay attention to what he says, watch what he does."  And beyond that, watch closely what those around him are doing.  It's like the work of an illusionist; you'll never figure out the trick if you watch him.  To have any chance of seeing reality you have to purposefully ignore what he's doing and concentrate on what's going on around, under, behind and beside him.  In Chicago, it's developed into an art form and the "fans" applaud the fraud for being so good at it.

I do think B.O. made the mistake of believing his own press and is probably more than a little shocked by the degree of opposition.  He seems to be still campaigning rather than actually leading and he can't figure out the difference.  Or perhaps it's because he thought Washington politics was the same as Chicago politics.  I'd be unable to give an extensive treatise  on either or give a point-by-point comparison but I have no doubt there are significant differences.  I lived in the Chicago area just long enough to recognize the stench of the Chicago style and, unfortunately, it wasn't limited to one party ... it ALL stunk.  I used to say something like "It may be that politics in Illinois is no more corrupt than anywhere else, it's just that they don't make much effort to cover it up."  I suspect that if the new President had been from anywhere else chances are good there would have been no recent change in governors.  In fact, when I first heard of "Blago's" troubles my immediate reaction was "Yeah - so?  It's Chicago."  With B.O. it may be a case of "You can take the boy (no racial implications intended- it's just part of the expression) out of Chicago but you can't take Chicago out of the boy."

I can't say I'm looking forward to it but I have no doubt the next few years will be very interesting.

Curious

Just wondering ... I'd really like to know who Obama stays in touch with via his Blackberry.  I can't seem to help imagining him constantly texting someone (Ayers, Wright, Michelle,??) with "What do I do now ... what do I say?"  Just wondering.

Is it just me?

I haven't even had breakfast yet and I'm shaking my head over the "stimulus" bill.  Admittedly, I'm not a politician nor am I an economist, but neither am I an idiot.  I have trouble thinking about anything if I first have to abandon all common sense - though it seems not many in Washington D.C.  have a problem with doing just that.  All the talk of billions and trillions is also beyond my comprehension but it seems pretty clear that spending that amount of money for any reason is going to mortgage our country to the hilt for generations to come.   It also annoys me that those who created much of the current problem are yelling the loudest and pointing fingers at the previous administration.  The only blame to be affixed there is in that some of these horrible policies and programs (Community Reinvestment Act) were permitted to continue and grow and that the S E C was apparently asleep at the switch.

What's coming off the top of my head now is the President's assertion that we absolutely have to pass this bill right now  because of the huge number of jobs being lost each month.  Back to the threats and scare tactics that seem to work for the Democrat electorate.  It may work with Obama supporters but for anyone with at least average IQ, can actually think logically and has even a little common sense it's pretty clear that very little in this bill will have a positive effect in that direction.  I actually think it may have the opposite effect - like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.  It also occurred to me that because of the prospect of this bill passing many small (and large) business owners may be paring down and actually escalating the problem.  I know we personally are  cutting back, reducing expenses, and putting off all purchasing other than what's necessary.

  

If it were up to me I'd be inclined to do nothing and let the market work as it was intended or at least pare down the thing to only what actually might help in the near future.  Conservatives know what will create jobs and even if they get a few crumbs in that direction, if it's added to multiple billions of bad stuff it won't have the desired effect.  Planting a rose on the top of a garbage dump isn't going kill the smell.

I would cut out everything that looked like new or increased entitlements, everything not based on sound economic theory and/or proven science (e.g. "green" mandates), and everything that fed into highly partisan groups or activities.  Nothing should be permanent because when we realize that it doesn't work we'll be stuck with an even larger government and more programs and entitlements to further burden taxpayers.  Am I wrong?  What am I missing?

OK, that's off my mind but I'll probably be back soon.