Thank You, Pres. Obama!

I was anxiously awaiting the headline indicating the captain's rescue from the sea pirates... and I was overjoyed to see it.

Glenn Beck pointed out this morning - and I agree - that finally, President Obama, here's something we can totally support you on - rescuing US citizens being held hostage.

Awesome.

Thank you, sincerely, Mr. President.

If your hesitation was due to uncertainty on popular support for instant action, please know that even Congressmen from New Jersey feel we have the right to defend our citizens abroad.

Thank you again, and let's keep working together on this one. (h/t: Drudge)

Not Exactly, President.

Here's a snippet from Obama's speech about taking over GM (h/t: Drudge):

Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.

No, WE TAXPAYERS have NOT put up our hard-earned money.

You, working with a corrupt Congress, IGNORED OUR CALLS AND LETTERS OF PROTEST and put it up FOR US. And for our children. And for their children.

Against our wishes.

Quit making this sound like consensual nationalization, Mr. President. It isn't.

As He Signs, a Warning

Pres. Obama will sign that Omnibus spending bill.

Here's a very interesting set of sentences from that article:

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.

"More far-reaching change?"

That's a pretty clear statement. I wonder how many will be able to hear it for its promise; if we've been paying attention, we should have a pretty good idea of what he's planning a more far-reaching "departure" from.

Scary Point #3 from Obama's Address: Energy Fraud

Using China as a model of energy independence.

After he brought out China as a great example of energy independence, I started thinking he was certifiably insane. To wit:

Exhibit 1: China dumps toxic waste right into rivers without pretense and has no compunction about factories putting out any sort of emissions, leaded toys, and poison food. Well, I guess if he's talking about deregulation, I'm for it... but I'd still prefer to see at least a modicum of responsibility.

Exhibit 2: China is generally DIRT POOR. Not hardly a model of prosperity.

Exhibit 3: China is "energy independent?" Maybe because most of them barely have running water and electricity. I prefer refrigeration, air conditioning in the summer, and heat in the winter, thankyouverymuch. And I'd prefer NOT to control our consumption through infanticide.

Exhibit 4: Talking about improving the energy infrastructure and then "making our homes energy-efficient" - how? With poison light bulbs that don't last any longer than traditional, non-toxic ones and provide less quality light?

Hmm... let's move on to the last exhibit, since none of these sound like a "model" so far.

Exhibit 5: OK, maybe this is what he's talking about: Cap & Trade. It's a total scam that enriches the already-wealthy power brokers within the establishment. (*cough*AlGore*cough*GE*cough*) But as far as enriching party men and power players just like Communist China, I think he's hit that nail right on the head.

Scary Point #2 from Obama's Address: People as a Commodity of the State

Problematic Part 1: How many times Obama said things like "I will not allow," "we will not allow," and "not an option."

Problematic Part 2: The Federal government taking responsibility for citizens' welfare and education "from birth..."

Problematic Part 3: "Put our people back to work" and "ways to keep our people healthy"

The phrase "our people" isn't inherently scary, but when it's used in a context of ownership and supervised or "allowed" activity, it is.

I am a person.

I am not a pet, to be "kept healthy."

I am not a commodity, to be "put to work" as another self-important mortal decides.

And MY CHILD is a person.

MY CHILD is neither the PET nor the PROPERTY of the Federal government.

The only interest they should have in my child "from birth" is that he is protected from those who seek to harm him. And that responsibility is first MINE. The only role the government has is as I grant them.

The President didn't exactly come right out and say it, but his perspective claiming direct governmental responsibility for managing its citizens' life paths recurred throughout his speech; and it was all too evident in his choice of words and his dictation of what he will and will not "allow" or allow to be "an option."

That perspective, particularly in a position of power, is a direct threat to my family and my freedom.

We are NOT pets.

Neither are we a commodity to be employed at the government's will or by its good grace.

The government has no authority to direct my life, or anyone else's, in the interest of "our common prosperity."

Scary Point #1 from Obama's Address: Education

"Encouraged" post-secondary education and "dropping out of high school is no longer an option."

This worries me on several fronts. First, "encouraged" from a socialist means "required." That's mandatory education - not just mandated by the States, but mandated at the Federal level.

That's bad, just on principle.

Additionally, that "no longer an option" point constitutes such an egregious violation of:

1. The idea that we are free to pursue our happiness, however counterproductive or irrational our thoughts may be, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights.
2. Parental rights. How far will this "not an option" extend? Will I - or any parent - retain the right to "drop my child out" of public education by educating them at home? Sure, Obama paid lip service to parental rights later, but he didn't reconcile that with his grand vision of mandatory education duration and content.

Just a few thoughts... I'm trying to break this down into a series so that I (and the discussion) can focus on specific topics.

Look! It's a Spine!!!

Senator Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration as Pres. Obama's nominee for Secretary of Commerce. (My first thought was, "what? More tax problems?" But that wasn't it.)

To quote:

...on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. ... We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Wow. I have to wonder how much of a shock these latest actions were to him, (since it's not like Obama was playing a conservative during the election), but I do appreciate his willingness to resign rather than play the key role in creating and implementing policies that will further undercut the foundation of commerce in this country.

This is getting interesting...

[Update: Source at Yahoo! News.]

Class Warfare, Schmass Schmarfare

(Gee, I hope that's not a bad word...)

Looks like Pres. Obama's not above trying to get big businesses to sway their representatives.

He met with a bunch of CEOs today. Why?

Obama is trying to drum up support for the recovery package - which combines economic stimulus and tax cuts.

"I'm confident we're going to get this passed," (ed. note: they did) Obama said just before the meeting began. "These are people who make things, who hire people; they are on the front lines."

Way to get the money and lobbying out of politics, Prez... but I do appreciate the lip service to business's legitimate functions.

(I'm glad it didn't work for Idaho, at least... and wow - I mean, WOW. How embarrassing - complaining about Evil Corporations during your class warfare campaign and then begging them for help?)

Welcome, President Obama

Quite an emotional inauguration! I caught the last half hour or so and saw the swearings-in.

(And might I add, heaven help us after the "digital transition" - the consistency of the signals we receive leaves quite a bit to be desired... analog gets fuzzy; digital gets full-out unwatchable.)

Truly a historic occasion. Our morning prayer was quite tender, and it was very moving to read people's faces on TV and see a little part of what this morning meant to them.

Perhaps I'll parse his speech later, but speeches are one thing, and speculating about what he means by which phrases won't mean nearly as much as watching what he does.

May God bless him with discernment, strength, and courage... and the rest of us likewise.

Something "Republican" That I Can Support

Looks like the party is finally willing to call something as it is:

Bush and other leaders have embraced socialism.

Yep.

Better late than never, I suppose, but the damage has already been done.

The interesting part here, for me at least, will be to see whether this really opens up the debate on socialism in the US.

Together with our great-great-great-great-grandchildren, we are already set to pay a dear price for our ignorance and publicly-indoctrinated class warfare; but if we can educate ourselves now, we'll be that much better able to pick ourselves up and put ourselves back together.

And that'd be great news.

RUN Like the WIND!!!

Obama has announced parts of his New New Deal.

Hmm. I wonder how many part-time jobs he's planning on taking up to fund it, because we sure don't have extra dollars sitting around, and I don't think government programs run very well without taking more money from those of us paying taxes.

And I'd object to creating further dependence on the Magical Entity Known As "Government," anyway. Maybe I should turn that into an acronym: MEKAG. And let's call it, "ME," for short.

"We, the People" and all that, you know.

How about "We" quit increasing spending from "ME" for bureaucratic, populist, socialist programs designed primarily to enslave us?

Because government spending only increases every time we look at it.

Perestroika? Hmm...

Drudge has linked to an article about Gorbachev's recommendation for President-elect Obama: PERESTROIKA.

Hmm.

(Showing age...) I was fairly young when Gorbachev came to power, but I remember hearing perestroika and glasnost and some other seldom-used member of that triad... and I remember that they were "good things."

Anyway, that word caught my attention, and I looked it up.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

the Russian term (now used in English) for the economic reforms introduced in June 1987^[1] by the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Its literal meaning is "restructuring", referring to the restructuring of the Soviet economy.

And here's another - from Gorbachev himself in 1987 - read the whole thing if you're up for night terrors:

...overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism

...utmost respect for the individual

...the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods

...a resolute shift to scientific methods

...the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy

...ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care.

...elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics

ACK!!! Run like the wind, people!!!

*ahem... regaining composure* Let's take some of these one at a time:

• "Breaking down the braking mechanism?" You mean, like what's left of our divinely-inspired Constitution's checks and balances? In favor of "accelerat[ing]... social and economic progress?" Bad idea, especially since it depends on who's allowed to define, "progress."
  
• Combining science and technology with a planned economy? It's not too far from those words to "eugenics."
• Satisfying "people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care" - like FDR's Second Bill of Rights?
• Eliminating "the distortions of socialist ethics" - (I'm assuming he's not referring to the distortions that ARE socialist ethics...) - that sure sounds like shutting down criticism and silencing disagreement, to me.

We must fight these things!!!

Granted, from reading up on it at Wikipedia, it seemed to be a move in the right direction, the way it was sold: freeing up the economy - to a point. Freeing up political discourse - to a point.

But everything was still ultimately under state control - it seems like the populist Gorbachev and his glasnost were able to make the people (and world media) happier about it, though.

Let's be careful what we let ourselves be made happy about, because "utmost respect for the individual" is incongruous with the rest of those definitions.

The Weight of the Presidency

Everyone knows that the Presidency is not an easy job. You get the blame for pretty much anything anyone wants to throw at you, and most of your accomplishments won't even be known for a few decades. In fact, a recent article at the Onion - ever a source of keen satire - was titled, Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job.

That was the funny spin on the job (among other things... lingering racial tension, our propensity for demonizing people after we vote for them, etc.).

Then I saw the video I'd missed of Obama's press conference.

The biggest emotion I felt when I watched it (aside from the normal critique of his plans and a "that was unnecessary..." about his Nancy Reagan slam) was compassion. Empathy. Even pity.

He looked like he'd aged a decade overnight - did you see those bags under his eyes? And he seemed rather tired and distracted - so off his usual cool, collected presence that he couldn't remember what he was saying much after looking away from his prompter. I felt like I saw the thought, "Oh, crap... what have I gotten myself into" crease his forehead a couple times.

Why is this? My guess: he's getting more Presidential intelligence. He's starting to find out how big the problems really are - especially the ones we don't hear about.

In other words, I think the real weight of the Presidency is beginning to settle on him, and I pray that he really will be granted the strength and the wisdom to keep us free.

More Free Speech Issues

1. Obama boots opposition reporters from plane
   Hmm... yeah, that shows a willingness to "reach across the aisle"... not to mention a receptive attitude to different ideas from our "open-minded" candidate. Previous, SECOND shut-down effort on radio station hosting opposition here. And then there are his "truth squads."
   
2. Fairness Doctrine explained at Mormanity (and parallel drawn to religious freedom)
   Shows that - like most fascist schemes - it's not about "fairness" so much as shutting down opposition. From the article quoted in the article (in the house that Jack built):

   As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

We're going to need to fight loud and hard if Obama gains the presidency, especially if Congress has a liberal supermajority. Political correctness eroded the foundation of free speech, and now this "outlaw speech" idea is being extended to attack and quash simple dissent.

Dissent - free political discourse - is what "free speech" in the First Amendment is really about; and if we lose our First Amendment rights, all others will follow.

Really? (Okay, I checked Us mag online...)

From an Us magazine online article titled, "He's Just Like Us!":

"Spending the holidays in Hawaii is a tradition," wife Michelle (with Barack, then 28, in 1989) says.

Wow.

I don't know many people who have that tradition.

In fact, I'd bet that I don't know ANYONE who has that tradition. Most people I know have better ways to spend money than jetting to Hawaii annually during a peak travel season.

Good thing Obama knows how to relate to regular people, eh?

(In fairness, that article does have a cute little-kid pic of him riding a tricycle... and who didn't love tricycles when they were little?)

"Just like us," indeed.

Religious Tolerance on the Campaign Trail

I'll let other people tackle the Obama-for-Emperor-fest in Germany.

I'll mention his Jerusalem stop.

Obama supporters (since I'll give his campaign staff a very small benefit of the doubt) held signs at the Western Wall in Jerusalem when he either:

1. made a show of stopping by for a prayer, and people who knew he was coming brought their own signs; or
2. didn't try to make a show of stopping by for a prayer, and someone in the know - pro or con - planted the signs; or
3. just happened to show up at a location where some unsuspecting supporters had already hung signs.

...I'm open to other possibilities; just can't think of any more at the moment.

But this is a RELIGIOUS site. Political ads do not belong at a place of worship - even if the place of worship is open-air. Whoever's decision it was: baaaaaaaaaad decision.

Interestingly, the rabbi offering a prayer with him wasn't calling for America's damnation.

Just one thing I have to note - the signs had his name in Hebrew; and his first name, "Barack" ("blessed" in Arabic, I've heard... and it makes sense) was spelled "Baraq" - with the harder "q" letter - instead of the "k" character which would make the word "blessed" in Hebrew. I'm assuming "they" (whoever) didn't necessarily want to give him the title "Blessed Obama" or something, and/or accurately transcribing the sounds of his name probably took priority, but I'm not an expert on transliterating names, either. It just caught my attention...

Campaigning, JibJab Style

Yep, they're at it again! (Thank goodness!)

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

The Appropriate Response to the New Yorker Cover

... is LAUGHTER, for Lefties.

... and eye-rolling with a collective sigh and a shake of the head, for Righties.

Check out Stu's latest blog at Glenn Beck's site - here's an excerpt:

Since I don't think every Muslim is a terrorist and every person with a gun is a murderer, I assumed the cover of New Yorker was attempting to portray the Obama's liberating a terrorist stronghold.

More here...

You Tell Me

Obama has chosen to ramp up the hysteria of his acceptance speech by moving it from regular old DNC HQ to a football stadium.

Per the article, the only other time that sort of move has happened was with JFK's presidency.

[Note: Obama is NOT JFK. Kennedy at least had the sense to defend the US...]

And he has the arrogance to use the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

[Note: Obama is NOT MLK. MLK dreamed of a color-blind society...]

So you tell me what he's going for - a legitimate candidacy based on real issues or a rock-star cult following, based on open-ended, undefined promises to make sure life is peachy for all of us?