On December 17th I posted an article here at America's Living Room taking a semi-serious pot-shot at Pajama Boy of Obamacare fame. In as much as I did disparage this "man-child" and the image he portrayed as basically a microcosm of the emasculation of the American male over the past few decades. In addition, I admit that my visceral reaction initially was also along the lines of the atypical youth camping out in their parents basement (aka living at home, still). It goes hand-in-hand with the left wing belief of "taking no responsibility for oneself" being behaviorally or professionally. That said, I came across an article this morning written by Jay Michaelson at "Forward.com" titled Obamacare "pajama boy" controversy wrapped in anti-Semitism.
We are to give credibility to this yahoo because his website is actually called "The Jewish Daily Forward". If you actually look closely at the original ad, there is absolutely no reference or credence to indicate the effeminate pajama boy as Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Kwanzic or any other religion what so ever. Yet, Mr. Michaelson wants us to connect the thought police dots that he is spewing.
He advocates the following -- "The Right went apoplectic, calling Pajama Boy “a metrosexual in a plaid onesie,” “an insufferable man-child,” and various other vaguely sexist and homophobic epithets. Apparently, real men don’t wear pajamas.
Or glasses. What’s interesting about the Right’s freakout about men who don’t measure up to the standards of the 1950s is how Pajama Boy’s obvious Jewishness has been subsumed by these other characteristics.
Yes, Virginia, Pajama Boy is a member of the tribe. Look at him. Pale Ashkenazic skin, Jew-fro’d black curls, Woody Allen specs. Even the smart-ass expression on his face screams of the Wise Son from the Passover Seder.
Parenthetically, the model himself is one Ethan Krupp, an Organizing for America staffer who is, in fact, Jewish. But whether Krupp himself is circumcised or not, Pajama Boy is semiotically Jewish, even stereotypically so."
First, let me address the last sentence -- Ewwwww.... I did not need that visual on top of the stereotypical one I already had (which I wrote about).
According to this author we were to draw the Jewish conclusion because of "Pale Ashkenazic skin, Jew-fro’d black curls, Woody Allen specs. Even the smart-ass expression on his face screams of the Wise Son from the Passover Seder."
Yeah, that is exactly what I thought when I saw that photo. He caught me, red handed (oops -- another racist term). I believe the Yiddish term for idiot liar is schakren putz.
He ends his screed by saying we (those who berated this man child) as facists. His exact words were --
"Whether or not the Pajama-Boy bashers are unconsciously anti-Semitic or not, I don’t know. Consciously, they are against everything “Judaism” stands for, at least as construed by its enemies: outsiderness, cosmopolitanism, liberalism, a progressive rather than nativist agenda, an opposition to the notion that there is one kind of “normal” person, a sympathy for the underdog and the immigrant as opposed to the successful and the privileged, and, yes, a rejection of a certain gendered, masculinist understanding of justice wherein the strong survive and the weak are trampled underfoot like the untermenschen they are.
That fascistic outlook has long been a part of far-right conservatism – whether in revisionist Zionism, contemporary French/Hungarian/Greek nationalism, American Republicanism, or German fascism. Real men are strong, and the weak don’t deserve our pity. Let them get sick for lack of healthcare; they probably deserve it. And as for women, and the parasitic “Jewish” men who resemble them? They are to be suppressed and domesticated, not empowered. Patriarchy is good. Sexism is natural. Get out of your onesies, America. And put on your jackboots.
Schakren putz indeed!
Update:
I came across this article just now, This is what I am talking about!!!!
Monday, December 30, 2013
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
CON, an apt acronym
The Wall Street Journal has just posted an article titled "What to do when Obamacare unravels" and provided me with insight to something I knew existed but did not quite understand, until now. Here is a quote from the article that I zeroed in on --
"There is an alternative. A much freer market in health care and health insurance can work, can deliver high quality, technically innovative care at much lower cost, and solve the pathologies of the pre-existing system.
CON = Certificate of Need
Since new hospitals cannot be constructed without proving a "need," the certificate-of-need system grants monopoly privileges to already existing hospitals. Consequently, Alaska House of Representatives member Bob Lynn has argued that the true motivation behind certificate-of-need legislation is that "large hospitals are... trying to make money by eliminating competition" under the pretext of using monopoly profits to provide better patient care.
As you can see from the reference above, CON laws have been repealed in many states already.
This fix, as the Wall Street Journal writer proposes is prophetic more than he knows. The reason why I was already familiar with the term CON was because of an article I wrote here at ALR titled "Making a Strong Case out of Circumstantial Evidence" (Link here).
As usual, Obama has ties to the massive corruption associated with CON. Here is a quote from that article --
"It is ironic that Obama will probably go unscathed in the “Board games” prosecution because Obama contributed a great deal that allowed it to happen. I speak of Obama’s Illinois Senate role when he pushed through the legislation that reduced the number of Illinois Health Facilities Planning board (This is the governmental entity that determines and then issues the CON's) from 15 down to 9 that allowed Blagojevich to pack the board with a majority of 5 to control it. The majority of those 5 members gave heavily to Obama’s campaign after they were appointed by Blagojevich.
In addition to facilitating this change of Board membership through legislative means that utilized Obama’s position on the Committee responsible for the review of the legislation, he was also tasked with vetting the 5 candidates (including Levine) during the “confirmation hearings” of Blagojevich’s picks which sailed through the Illinois Senate. Obama was one of the first recipients of “tainted kickback money” from Operation Board games when he received $20,000 from a bank account held by the pizza business Rezko owned.
Obama wants the public to believe that his associations were merely circumstantial and random in nature but, like the “Fibonacci Sequence”, it is a pattern that is detectable if you look at all the evidence that is being amassed that appears random in the singular but collectively paints a true sequence of events that is interrelated.
Obama, Blagojevich, Emanuel, Rezko, Giannoulias, Allison Davis, Valerie Jarrett, Robert Harris, William Cellini, Sr., Broadway Bank, Campaign Contributions followed by political appointments, political endorsements followed by campaign contributions, land deals and kickbacks."
All the familiar names are involved. Three of them ended up in the White House. This is why it is prophetic that with the Obamacare implosion, CON is the first suggested repeal efforts for reform. When you think about the monopolistic aspect of CON's and the monopoly that existing Hospitals have enjoyed as a result of these "Certificate of Needs" it has stifled true free market competition. Competition is what drives down cost. You hear the same false arguments from politicians that the reason of high health care is because of evil insurance companies or frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. The rampant corruption of the Boards to swerve construction contracts to their crony's or political contributions to their politicians like Blagojavich has more graft expense that insurance or lawsuits.
I advise that my readers read the link to the 2009 article above and think about what you are reading and remember Obama's involvement in it back then as well as the other things that he was connected to involving health care. For instance, Blagojavich wanted Obama to appoint him to the HHS position now occupied by Sebelius in return for placing Jarrett in the Seat. Blagojavich also wanted to run SEIU if the HHS job wasn't on the table for Obama's vacated seat. All the usual suspects.
"There is an alternative. A much freer market in health care and health insurance can work, can deliver high quality, technically innovative care at much lower cost, and solve the pathologies of the pre-existing system.
The U.S. health-care market is dysfunctional. Obscure prices and $500 Band-Aids are legendary. The reason is simple: Health care and health insurance are strongly protected from competition. There are explicit barriers to entry, for example the laws in many states that require a "certificate of need" before one can build a new hospital. Regulatory compliance costs, approvals, nonprofit status, restrictions on foreign doctors and nurses, limits on medical residencies, and many more barriers keep prices up and competitors out. Hospitals whose main clients are uncompetitive insurers and the government cannot innovate and provide efficient cash service."
CON = Certificate of Need
Since new hospitals cannot be constructed without proving a "need," the certificate-of-need system grants monopoly privileges to already existing hospitals. Consequently, Alaska House of Representatives member Bob Lynn has argued that the true motivation behind certificate-of-need legislation is that "large hospitals are... trying to make money by eliminating competition" under the pretext of using monopoly profits to provide better patient care.
As you can see from the reference above, CON laws have been repealed in many states already.
This fix, as the Wall Street Journal writer proposes is prophetic more than he knows. The reason why I was already familiar with the term CON was because of an article I wrote here at ALR titled "Making a Strong Case out of Circumstantial Evidence" (Link here).
As usual, Obama has ties to the massive corruption associated with CON. Here is a quote from that article --
"It is ironic that Obama will probably go unscathed in the “Board games” prosecution because Obama contributed a great deal that allowed it to happen. I speak of Obama’s Illinois Senate role when he pushed through the legislation that reduced the number of Illinois Health Facilities Planning board (This is the governmental entity that determines and then issues the CON's) from 15 down to 9 that allowed Blagojevich to pack the board with a majority of 5 to control it. The majority of those 5 members gave heavily to Obama’s campaign after they were appointed by Blagojevich.
In addition to facilitating this change of Board membership through legislative means that utilized Obama’s position on the Committee responsible for the review of the legislation, he was also tasked with vetting the 5 candidates (including Levine) during the “confirmation hearings” of Blagojevich’s picks which sailed through the Illinois Senate. Obama was one of the first recipients of “tainted kickback money” from Operation Board games when he received $20,000 from a bank account held by the pizza business Rezko owned.
Obama wants the public to believe that his associations were merely circumstantial and random in nature but, like the “Fibonacci Sequence”, it is a pattern that is detectable if you look at all the evidence that is being amassed that appears random in the singular but collectively paints a true sequence of events that is interrelated.
Obama, Blagojevich, Emanuel, Rezko, Giannoulias, Allison Davis, Valerie Jarrett, Robert Harris, William Cellini, Sr., Broadway Bank, Campaign Contributions followed by political appointments, political endorsements followed by campaign contributions, land deals and kickbacks."
All the familiar names are involved. Three of them ended up in the White House. This is why it is prophetic that with the Obamacare implosion, CON is the first suggested repeal efforts for reform. When you think about the monopolistic aspect of CON's and the monopoly that existing Hospitals have enjoyed as a result of these "Certificate of Needs" it has stifled true free market competition. Competition is what drives down cost. You hear the same false arguments from politicians that the reason of high health care is because of evil insurance companies or frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. The rampant corruption of the Boards to swerve construction contracts to their crony's or political contributions to their politicians like Blagojavich has more graft expense that insurance or lawsuits.
I advise that my readers read the link to the 2009 article above and think about what you are reading and remember Obama's involvement in it back then as well as the other things that he was connected to involving health care. For instance, Blagojavich wanted Obama to appoint him to the HHS position now occupied by Sebelius in return for placing Jarrett in the Seat. Blagojavich also wanted to run SEIU if the HHS job wasn't on the table for Obama's vacated seat. All the usual suspects.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
The Un-Rev. Jesse Jackson
The Master of the Race Baiters has weighed in the Duck fiasco. Jesse Jackson said the following --
"These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago," Jackson said in a statement obtained by ABC News.
"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was 'white privilege."
Jackson was referring to the comment by Phil Robertson when he said --
"Nazis needed Jesus, that he never saw the mistreatment of African Americans while growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era and that homosexuality was a sin."
I'm not quite sure what part of the Robertson statement that Jackson equates to the bus driver that ordered Rosa Parks to give up her seat for a white passenger? Perhaps it was the mistreatment part. I am 54 years old and I did not personally witness any racial mistreatment of African Americans where I grew up (Ohio, Los Angeles) except those images that came through our television sets. Personally, as always, I find anything that Jackson says, offensive and disingenuous. I find it offensive because I believe he spews his bigotry for profit. I also think that as an ordained Christian Reverend he should be more equipped to understand the context of what Robertson was saying when he quoted the bible. But then again, the collar around Jackson is just a prop as is the color of his skin (I will probably be labeled a racist for saying this and taken out of context).
"These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago," Jackson said in a statement obtained by ABC News.
Jackson was referring to the comment by Phil Robertson when he said --
"Nazis needed Jesus, that he never saw the mistreatment of African Americans while growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era and that homosexuality was a sin."
I'm not quite sure what part of the Robertson statement that Jackson equates to the bus driver that ordered Rosa Parks to give up her seat for a white passenger? Perhaps it was the mistreatment part. I am 54 years old and I did not personally witness any racial mistreatment of African Americans where I grew up (Ohio, Los Angeles) except those images that came through our television sets. Personally, as always, I find anything that Jackson says, offensive and disingenuous. I find it offensive because I believe he spews his bigotry for profit. I also think that as an ordained Christian Reverend he should be more equipped to understand the context of what Robertson was saying when he quoted the bible. But then again, the collar around Jackson is just a prop as is the color of his skin (I will probably be labeled a racist for saying this and taken out of context).
Barack Obama, who?
So, the President of the United States pay taxes every year right? In order to become eligible for President he had to submit his birth certificate, right? In spite of all the above board information that he has provided to us the rabble it should be no problem to find him and verify him from multiple sources, right? Wrong!
In a publicity stunt to show how easy it is to sign up for his signature legislation, his legacy, the website could not verify Barack Hussein Obama. This forced his handlers to come back to the media and explain that because he is, you know, ah, the commander in chief his personal information is restricted from government databases? Wait a minute, didn't he post his birth certificate on the White House website so it can't be his birth certificate. If he files taxes every year, his social security number must be on that database, right?
If a website touted as easy peasy to enroll into an affordable healthcare plan for every American then it should be able to enroll the most famous American today, right?
If not, then maybe there is a problem with his records that need to be looked into. Wait, does this qualify me as a "birther" for just saying that? Ok, I'm a birther.
In a publicity stunt to show how easy it is to sign up for his signature legislation, his legacy, the website could not verify Barack Hussein Obama. This forced his handlers to come back to the media and explain that because he is, you know, ah, the commander in chief his personal information is restricted from government databases? Wait a minute, didn't he post his birth certificate on the White House website so it can't be his birth certificate. If he files taxes every year, his social security number must be on that database, right?
If a website touted as easy peasy to enroll into an affordable healthcare plan for every American then it should be able to enroll the most famous American today, right?
If not, then maybe there is a problem with his records that need to be looked into. Wait, does this qualify me as a "birther" for just saying that? Ok, I'm a birther.
Flash Mob of God
It is refreshing to see that some in the military still promote God though I doubt the leader of the Air Force Band will be around much longer after his choice of music. This occurred at the National Air and Space Museum that had tourists and school groups surprised at the impromptu concert.
Joy to the World , the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven, and Heaven, and nature sing.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/air-force-band-hits-high-note/#0TtIQIcbfiYBDsrb.99
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven, and Heaven, and nature sing.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/air-force-band-hits-high-note/#0TtIQIcbfiYBDsrb.99
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Death Penalty is the answer for Treason
I am sure that Obama's Socialist cheerleaders believe that "In the end, treason is a matter of dates"! Today I was struck by two separate articles in the news. The first was found on "Canada Free Press" and was titled
"Conservative Lawmakers' secret trip to Mideast could foreshadow Obama's downfall".
The second was found on "Breitbart" and was titled
"Dem Bill would End Death Penalty for Espionage-Treason-Assassinations"
The question I have is this -- Are the two mutually exclusive events or are they inextricably linked?
I'm sure it hasn't escaped the attention of the readers as it pertains to my opening sentence and the use of the term "Obama's Socialist Cheerleaders". There are a lot of detractors that believe throwing bombs and accusing someone of something such as being a "socialist" is to dismiss the author as extreme; racist; conspiratorial or worst. That said, I intentionally used that phrase because it is widely believed that Obama does in fact have deep roots of socialist proclivities. More specifically thought, I used the term to describe the Democrats who put forth the Bill (HR 3741) to end the death penalty. The sponsors and co-sponsors of that bill are:
Rep. Donna Edwards (D) - MD (Sponsor)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D) - CA (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Henry Johnson (D) - GA (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. John Lewis (D) - GA (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Jose Serrano (D) - NY (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) - MD (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Janice Schakosky (D) - IL (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D) - MN (Co-Sponsor)
Do not take my word for it, here is the list from the "Democrat Socialist of America" itself!
So, why do a bunch a socialists want to abolish the Death Penalty for Treason? After all, treason is just a matter of dates! It is of no surprise that it is a pet peeve of Democrats that America has a "Capital Punishment" statute on a Federal Level as well as in the States. That said, I find the timing of the two separate news items to be suspect. But, I will leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not they are related. If they are, why? To speculate a little, one could say that they are doing it in order to spare their "Dear Leader" from the ultimate punishment if in fact the trip by the three members of Congress turn up with irrefutable evidence that Obama has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Middle East.
The very definition of "Treason" is to "give aid and comfort to America's enemies". So the question we must ask is this. Was Egypt (at the time the Muslim Brotherhood were in power) considered an enemy of America? The answer is -- Yes. The reason is because the Muslim Brotherhood has been on the State Department list of terrorist organizations and one can say by extension that they were elevated to "State sponsors of terror" when they came to power.
The other question has to do with Iran. Are they enemies of America. Again, the answer is Yes. They are on the State Department list of States that sponsor terror.
Finally, according to Breitbart -- "The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act. (HR 3741) would "end the death penalty for assassination or kidnapping that results in the death of the president or vice president, and also ends it for the murder of a member of Congress."
The list goes on: "using a weapon of mass destruction, or murder done via torture, child abuse, war crimes, aircraft hijackings, sexual abuse, bank robberies or the willful wrecking of a train."
And there is even more like "using chemical or biological materials to kill could also no longer result in the death penalty, nor could deaths related to treason or espionage. The death or injury of an unborn child could not result in the death penalty either."
Just looking at the list defies reason as to abolishment? The one crime that does jump out is the murder of a member of Congress. If I were one of the three Republican Congressmen that took that secret trip in order to obtain evidence about our foreign policy transgressions that could possibly end in "Treason" charges then I would watch my back. Why, because if this bill passes, then the President would be spared death for treason and if anyone assassinated those three for their part in his downfall, then those assassins would also be spared. You decide. The trip and the legislation came about within one week of each other.
"Conservative Lawmakers' secret trip to Mideast could foreshadow Obama's downfall".
The second was found on "Breitbart" and was titled
"Dem Bill would End Death Penalty for Espionage-Treason-Assassinations"
The question I have is this -- Are the two mutually exclusive events or are they inextricably linked?
I'm sure it hasn't escaped the attention of the readers as it pertains to my opening sentence and the use of the term "Obama's Socialist Cheerleaders". There are a lot of detractors that believe throwing bombs and accusing someone of something such as being a "socialist" is to dismiss the author as extreme; racist; conspiratorial or worst. That said, I intentionally used that phrase because it is widely believed that Obama does in fact have deep roots of socialist proclivities. More specifically thought, I used the term to describe the Democrats who put forth the Bill (HR 3741) to end the death penalty. The sponsors and co-sponsors of that bill are:
Rep. Donna Edwards (D) - MD (Sponsor)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D) - CA (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Henry Johnson (D) - GA (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. John Lewis (D) - GA (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Jose Serrano (D) - NY (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) - MD (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Janice Schakosky (D) - IL (Co-Sponsor)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D) - MN (Co-Sponsor)
Do not take my word for it, here is the list from the "Democrat Socialist of America" itself!
So, why do a bunch a socialists want to abolish the Death Penalty for Treason? After all, treason is just a matter of dates! It is of no surprise that it is a pet peeve of Democrats that America has a "Capital Punishment" statute on a Federal Level as well as in the States. That said, I find the timing of the two separate news items to be suspect. But, I will leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not they are related. If they are, why? To speculate a little, one could say that they are doing it in order to spare their "Dear Leader" from the ultimate punishment if in fact the trip by the three members of Congress turn up with irrefutable evidence that Obama has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Middle East.
The very definition of "Treason" is to "give aid and comfort to America's enemies". So the question we must ask is this. Was Egypt (at the time the Muslim Brotherhood were in power) considered an enemy of America? The answer is -- Yes. The reason is because the Muslim Brotherhood has been on the State Department list of terrorist organizations and one can say by extension that they were elevated to "State sponsors of terror" when they came to power.
The other question has to do with Iran. Are they enemies of America. Again, the answer is Yes. They are on the State Department list of States that sponsor terror.
Finally, according to Breitbart -- "The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act. (HR 3741) would "end the death penalty for assassination or kidnapping that results in the death of the president or vice president, and also ends it for the murder of a member of Congress."
The list goes on: "using a weapon of mass destruction, or murder done via torture, child abuse, war crimes, aircraft hijackings, sexual abuse, bank robberies or the willful wrecking of a train."
And there is even more like "using chemical or biological materials to kill could also no longer result in the death penalty, nor could deaths related to treason or espionage. The death or injury of an unborn child could not result in the death penalty either."
Just looking at the list defies reason as to abolishment? The one crime that does jump out is the murder of a member of Congress. If I were one of the three Republican Congressmen that took that secret trip in order to obtain evidence about our foreign policy transgressions that could possibly end in "Treason" charges then I would watch my back. Why, because if this bill passes, then the President would be spared death for treason and if anyone assassinated those three for their part in his downfall, then those assassins would also be spared. You decide. The trip and the legislation came about within one week of each other.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Race baiters rejected in Chicago
A very promising thing happened in the City of Chicago (and not the windy kind being provided by Al Sharpton) -- An honest and open discussion about the problems that plague the crime ridden Chicago. On December 19th, Sharpton and company held a townhall meeting to discuss issues that would give him a racial anti-gun platform but instead was met with angry black constituents. It was truly amazing thing to watch. Watch here.
To hear angry blacks speak about "being trained to vote a certain way" or "It's not just the white people who are the problem, it's our elected officials" or even calling for "tea party townhalls" in the most affected neighborhoods "just like the Republicans hold".
Honesty broke out and the villagers are angry and restless.
To hear angry blacks speak about "being trained to vote a certain way" or "It's not just the white people who are the problem, it's our elected officials" or even calling for "tea party townhalls" in the most affected neighborhoods "just like the Republicans hold".
Honesty broke out and the villagers are angry and restless.
The Duck Call heard around the world
I would like to open this thread by making a declaration that constitutes my coming "out of the closet" -- "I am a married, heterosexual that has a personal relationship with God!" I am not the first to make this declaration. I follow the lead from Conservative Curmudgeon.
My faith took a long time to arrive as a good deal of my life was more based on scientific belief. I simply didn't believe if I could not "see it, taste it or touch" so to speak. I relied on proven, peer reviewed statistical data to form my opinions. So when it came to the subject of God I was essentially an agnostic. I did have some open mindedness that it was possible that God did exist, but that was small as I did not see much in the way of scientific evidence.
It wasn't until I read the "Bible Code" and the scientific proof, peer reviewed by esteemed Mathematicians around the globe, provided me the proof I needed. God does work in mysterious ways. In my case it was because of Eliyahu Ripps, Professor of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Now that I have made my declaration of faith it is now time to comment on the assault on it by those on the left. In some cases, the assault I speak of even constituted violent ones. The man that shot and killed a security guard at the "Family Research Council" premises comes to mind. The gunman was a "gay rights activist". Floyd Corkins, 28, punctuated his violent message by arming himself with posters and sandwiches from Chic fil a. As you recall, that fast food chain came under assault when their CEO advocated his belief in traditional marriage and was a financial supporter of the Family Research Council.
The gay community rose up and demanded a boycott of the restaurants but instead an outporing of support flooded in their doors.
Before I found my faith I found myself arguing with my brother who was a devout Christian. I pointed to TV evangelists as proof of exploiting believers into giving up their money all the while the preachers adorning themselves with Rolex's and Rolls Royces. I argued they were anything but pious.
Though I did not understand the ramifications of my brother's counter argument at the time, I surely do now. He told me that "yes" there are corrupt men and women that exploit religion for personal gain but in doing so are they not also spreading the word of God at the same time?
Jeannie DeAngelis at American Thinker put it like this -- "The more time the left spends vocally ruminating over what Phil Robertson said, the more the Word of God, which never comes back void, goes forth and impacts lost and hurting lives. A&E and GLAAD may not realize it, but thanks to mutual religious intolerance, they've assisted Phil Robertson in getting out the message that he was originally denounced for expressing. Let's not forget -- as with Balaam, if God has something to say, He will get a donkey to say it. And at present the message being sent clearly condemns homosexuality, but with it also comes the hope of God's unconditional love and forgiveness, and the free gift of salvation."
I do not pretend to know how the whole Duck Dynasty controversy will play out but I do know that it is already galvanizing the Christian Community just as they did with Chic fil a. At a time when the left is pushing religion out of schools, the public square and into basically the same closet the gays came out of they are advancing their lifestyles exponentially. It is obvious they are a minority as poll after poll and law after law is passed to preserve traditional marriage. Yet the incoherence and dementia like left hoists the Pope onto the cover of Time magazine as the person of the year. The left is allowed to teach our children, in our schools, on how to masturbate and the proper way to put on a condom yet the laws of child pornography is on the books do not apply to even mandatory reporters (which teachers are legally bound).
There is a reckoning coming and the land of Gammorah should be trembling.
My faith took a long time to arrive as a good deal of my life was more based on scientific belief. I simply didn't believe if I could not "see it, taste it or touch" so to speak. I relied on proven, peer reviewed statistical data to form my opinions. So when it came to the subject of God I was essentially an agnostic. I did have some open mindedness that it was possible that God did exist, but that was small as I did not see much in the way of scientific evidence.
It wasn't until I read the "Bible Code" and the scientific proof, peer reviewed by esteemed Mathematicians around the globe, provided me the proof I needed. God does work in mysterious ways. In my case it was because of Eliyahu Ripps, Professor of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Now that I have made my declaration of faith it is now time to comment on the assault on it by those on the left. In some cases, the assault I speak of even constituted violent ones. The man that shot and killed a security guard at the "Family Research Council" premises comes to mind. The gunman was a "gay rights activist". Floyd Corkins, 28, punctuated his violent message by arming himself with posters and sandwiches from Chic fil a. As you recall, that fast food chain came under assault when their CEO advocated his belief in traditional marriage and was a financial supporter of the Family Research Council.
The gay community rose up and demanded a boycott of the restaurants but instead an outporing of support flooded in their doors.
Before I found my faith I found myself arguing with my brother who was a devout Christian. I pointed to TV evangelists as proof of exploiting believers into giving up their money all the while the preachers adorning themselves with Rolex's and Rolls Royces. I argued they were anything but pious.
Though I did not understand the ramifications of my brother's counter argument at the time, I surely do now. He told me that "yes" there are corrupt men and women that exploit religion for personal gain but in doing so are they not also spreading the word of God at the same time?
Jeannie DeAngelis at American Thinker put it like this -- "The more time the left spends vocally ruminating over what Phil Robertson said, the more the Word of God, which never comes back void, goes forth and impacts lost and hurting lives. A&E and GLAAD may not realize it, but thanks to mutual religious intolerance, they've assisted Phil Robertson in getting out the message that he was originally denounced for expressing. Let's not forget -- as with Balaam, if God has something to say, He will get a donkey to say it. And at present the message being sent clearly condemns homosexuality, but with it also comes the hope of God's unconditional love and forgiveness, and the free gift of salvation."
I do not pretend to know how the whole Duck Dynasty controversy will play out but I do know that it is already galvanizing the Christian Community just as they did with Chic fil a. At a time when the left is pushing religion out of schools, the public square and into basically the same closet the gays came out of they are advancing their lifestyles exponentially. It is obvious they are a minority as poll after poll and law after law is passed to preserve traditional marriage. Yet the incoherence and dementia like left hoists the Pope onto the cover of Time magazine as the person of the year. The left is allowed to teach our children, in our schools, on how to masturbate and the proper way to put on a condom yet the laws of child pornography is on the books do not apply to even mandatory reporters (which teachers are legally bound).
There is a reckoning coming and the land of Gammorah should be trembling.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
New Obamacare Strategy
From the Obama website. The feminine male model in this ad is disturbing on too many levels. He was probably given Ritalin at age 3.
The best comment I read so far for this ad was "Wear cammies, drink scotch and talk about taking our country back"!
The best comment I read so far for this ad was "Wear cammies, drink scotch and talk about taking our country back"!
Merry Christmas from ALR
That's right I said Merry Christmas, not happy holidays! God bless all of you.....enjoy
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
When only the police have guns!
If anyone recalls this last September the NYPD opened fired on a man in NYC who was causing a disturbance and hit 2 women bystanders instead. The two officers that shot into the crowd while aiming at 250lb man thought he was reaching for a gun. There was no gun. Obviously these two officers missed the "situational awareness" part of the handgun course and perhaps didn't do so well on target practice either because let's face it, he was a rather large target.
Of course there are lawsuits pending, by the women, against the NYPD for their injuries but a funny thing happened on the way to saneville and the NYC District Attorney has filed charges against the man for causing the situation in which the women were injured. So the gist of the story is this -- "An unarmed man is prosecuted for shooting people.
I think if this actually succeeds we will see people being hauled off in paddy wagons from McDonalds because someone else has a heart attack and dies.
Of course there are lawsuits pending, by the women, against the NYPD for their injuries but a funny thing happened on the way to saneville and the NYC District Attorney has filed charges against the man for causing the situation in which the women were injured. So the gist of the story is this -- "An unarmed man is prosecuted for shooting people.
I think if this actually succeeds we will see people being hauled off in paddy wagons from McDonalds because someone else has a heart attack and dies.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
The Color of his Skin
Has anyone noticed Obama's feckless attempts to connect his persona to historical figures. The most recent is the death of Nelson Mandela. The media are scrambling to equate Obama's presidency to that of the anti-apartheid prisoner. It is despicable that they portrait Obama in this manner when in fact all he is doing is standing on the shoulders of those who have done great things without doing a damn thing to deserve it personally. Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela would not be who they are if not for Obama. That is what they want us to believe. It's all about the color of Obama's skin and nothing to do with his character.
Remember the death of Rosa Parks. Again, it's about the color of his skin and not the content of his character.
The Democrats and Obama have compared him to Abraham Lincoln on many occasions yet he did not attend the Gettysburg address commemoration. He did pen a tribute, but even then omitted God from the actual speech.
Obama also failed to attend the anniversary tribute of John F. Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetery. What do these two historic figures, that the Democrats and Obama supposedly cherish, have in common? Both were assassinated. Perhaps Obama has a superstitious side to him.
The way things are going for Obama and his lawlessness he will actually be on a bus, heading to a prison cell of his own where he can actually play a martyr for real because if he is prosecuted it will be because of the color of skin and not the content of his character. The media will ensure this narrative regardless of the facts.
The truth of Obama is that he has done nothing as a Senator or as a President that can equate to success. The economy, jobs, Obamacare, foreign policy, domestic policy are all suffering as the clock ticks. Everything he has touted, touched, advocated and boasted are abject failures. He is NOT a champion of civil rights for blacks or any color. He is the most racially divisive figure the world has not seen since World War II.
Remember the death of Rosa Parks. Again, it's about the color of his skin and not the content of his character.
The Democrats and Obama have compared him to Abraham Lincoln on many occasions yet he did not attend the Gettysburg address commemoration. He did pen a tribute, but even then omitted God from the actual speech.
Obama also failed to attend the anniversary tribute of John F. Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetery. What do these two historic figures, that the Democrats and Obama supposedly cherish, have in common? Both were assassinated. Perhaps Obama has a superstitious side to him.
The way things are going for Obama and his lawlessness he will actually be on a bus, heading to a prison cell of his own where he can actually play a martyr for real because if he is prosecuted it will be because of the color of skin and not the content of his character. The media will ensure this narrative regardless of the facts.
The truth of Obama is that he has done nothing as a Senator or as a President that can equate to success. The economy, jobs, Obamacare, foreign policy, domestic policy are all suffering as the clock ticks. Everything he has touted, touched, advocated and boasted are abject failures. He is NOT a champion of civil rights for blacks or any color. He is the most racially divisive figure the world has not seen since World War II.
Obama's Box
Just as the fable Pandora opened the box, so too has Obama! Just like the kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so too are the Democrats!
Obama and the Democrats own the box that was once called Obamacare though they are desperately trying to change the name, paint over the box and want us to pretend we do not see it for what it is. This is typical behavior for them and in most cases in the past, has worked but this time too much evil has escaped for everyone to see and feel.
Enough of the analogies.
You know what I am saying. In order to get this passed into law (which by the way they are ignoring most everything codified) the Democrats bamboozled the people of the State of Minnesota and gerrymandered the deciding vote in getting Al Franken elected. Not one Republican has ever voted for it. Pelosi lost her gavel as a result of the force feeding and her infamous words "you have to pass this law before you can read what's in it" will continue to haunt her and them.
The Democrats have poured millions into campaign-like propaganda ever since in order to try to sway the masses that we actually will want this crap. All of that money and effort has not moved the public opinion on Obamacare. Yet they continue to tout we will come to love it. All of the lies about being able to keep your current insurance, your doctor and the affordability have further damaged their reputations. HHS has announced it's winner in the video contest. No lie, the winner named their video "Forget about the price tag"! Now we find out that Obama and Sebelius have met once in all this time in spite of all the problems.
Conservative estimates show that by December 23 (deadline for enrollment to ensure coverage Jan 1) 5 million will have their policies cancelled. Only 6% of those will have them restored and that does not include anyone who has not had insurance in the first place. That means the Democrats or Obama will not be able to find a rock large enough to hide behind.
More aptly said, however, is the article at American Thinker about what will happen once the employer mandate kicks in. It says -- "So far, the law applies to a relatively small number of people -- when it expands to cover employer mandates and more millions are thrown into the UFA pool, the disaster will snowball. As my friend DoT notes: "Once the employer mandate kicks in they'll be hunting Democrats with dogs in this country."
Obama and the Democrats own the box that was once called Obamacare though they are desperately trying to change the name, paint over the box and want us to pretend we do not see it for what it is. This is typical behavior for them and in most cases in the past, has worked but this time too much evil has escaped for everyone to see and feel.
Enough of the analogies.
You know what I am saying. In order to get this passed into law (which by the way they are ignoring most everything codified) the Democrats bamboozled the people of the State of Minnesota and gerrymandered the deciding vote in getting Al Franken elected. Not one Republican has ever voted for it. Pelosi lost her gavel as a result of the force feeding and her infamous words "you have to pass this law before you can read what's in it" will continue to haunt her and them.
The Democrats have poured millions into campaign-like propaganda ever since in order to try to sway the masses that we actually will want this crap. All of that money and effort has not moved the public opinion on Obamacare. Yet they continue to tout we will come to love it. All of the lies about being able to keep your current insurance, your doctor and the affordability have further damaged their reputations. HHS has announced it's winner in the video contest. No lie, the winner named their video "Forget about the price tag"! Now we find out that Obama and Sebelius have met once in all this time in spite of all the problems.
Conservative estimates show that by December 23 (deadline for enrollment to ensure coverage Jan 1) 5 million will have their policies cancelled. Only 6% of those will have them restored and that does not include anyone who has not had insurance in the first place. That means the Democrats or Obama will not be able to find a rock large enough to hide behind.
More aptly said, however, is the article at American Thinker about what will happen once the employer mandate kicks in. It says -- "So far, the law applies to a relatively small number of people -- when it expands to cover employer mandates and more millions are thrown into the UFA pool, the disaster will snowball. As my friend DoT notes: "Once the employer mandate kicks in they'll be hunting Democrats with dogs in this country."
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
American Citizen Armed Revolt
An expert testified today to Congress -- "He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.
On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.
“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Mr. Cannon indicates that - “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.” This statement is ironic because if the people rise up they will be within the Constitution to do so and in fact not break the law in doing so.
On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.
“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Mr. Cannon indicates that - “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.” This statement is ironic because if the people rise up they will be within the Constitution to do so and in fact not break the law in doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)