09 June 2009

I just don't get it

Pravda in Russia is saying "America is running towards marxism at an alarming speed". The EU is shifting to the right, France and Germany are saying our economic policies are dangerous and will not work. We almost lost our triple-A credit rating. Our main debter, china is worried that they will be unable to collect this huge debt of ours. Supreme dictators Chavez and Castro are saying Obama makes them look like "conservatives" in comparison. The government now owns the banks, housing, auto, and wallstreet.

Obama and his party of miscreants continually blame bush for this economy. "they inherited it". Now according to Obama himself, FDR didn't do enough, didn't spend enough. So they spent 4 1/2 times the amount bush spent with his TARP money. And the country is still messed up and is not going to get better in the immediate future. Using their logic of spending, why are they bashing bush?. He did the very same thing they did. The only difference being, he didn't spend enough. So bush was trying to save the economy also. Right?. Of course not, he's an evil republican, and Obama is a benevelent democrat. I've laid this all out there, mainly because I just don't get it. How is it that those who voted for Obama still believe his BS, still believe that he's some kind of savior?. What prevents them from seeing the basic truth that is in front of them?. Do they not realize a rising tide lifts all boats. That the freebies they receive will not benefit them in the end. When the price of everything goes up because of, in this case "super- inflation, their meesly $1000 a month plus foodstamps will be worthless. That they will stay poor for the rest of their lives. Is it worth it, just to see Obama and democrats stick it to the "rich". Governments pockets get lined with this money, government lives like the rich, off the rich. You peasants will never see any of that money in an amount that will change your circumstances. So I ask again, why do you put soo much "blind faith" in this man as your savior?.

03 June 2009

Will blacks ever...

will blacks ever admit that they voted for the wrong guy,And for the wrong reason?. I work in the oil industry, and was talking with a fellow employee about the economy and how our business is going to be affected by the rising price of oil. The very first thing he said was "and I'll bet you'll say it barak's fault. Yes, he's black, which also allows him to call the president by his first name. I didn't feel like arguing, especially in a no win situation. So I just moved on. Which brings to mind another incident with a fellow employee(black). That happened right after the election. He asked me if I voted, I said yes. For who, I answered mcain. "it's because he's black, that you didn't vote for barak". I quickly replied "it's because he's black, that you did vote for him". Back to the now. Of everything Obama promised to fix, nothing is. As a matter of fact, everything getting worse. And this by his own admission. Does Rome have to burn before they(blacks) admit their wrongdoing?. That Obama is nothing more than a unqualified joke as president. I hope not. Mid-term elections are coming quicker than you know. I hope they(blacks) will do what is right for the country, and vote for real change. It may seem like I'm picking on blacks. I'm not. They did vote for him as a race at 95%. For them this past election was purely about race. All that mattered was the color of his skin. The one and only qualification they needed to elect him.

02 June 2009

Freedom for one, freedom for all

dick Cheney said this quote the other day. "anyone should be able to enter into any union, any arrangement". I tweeted about this and it caused a firerstorm. Cheney has a lesbian daughter, and says this has been an issue for his family for a long time. Basically he's saying she(his daughter) should have the right to marriage. As the former veep he knows that is not constitutional, and the courts have no business trying to make it legal. It's an issue of the heart for him. And I can understand that. My legal issue with all of this is the "slippery slope" theory, or dominoe effect. Let's say that I believe that I have the right to have sex with and marry an underage girl. Who are you to deny me my "right" to do this?. I'm sure there are plenty of men who would support this. Do we then go before the courts and demand that we be recognized?, that they and the people shouldn't have the power to deny us what makes us happy. Under Cheney's premise " any union, any arrangement". I should be allowed to do this. Is this what's next?. What about more than one wife, men with boys, humans with animals, etc. I don't have the right to do what I wrote earlier. It is against the law. Does that mean the law is unfair, or unjust?. No, the law makes everone equal when it is blind, and shows no favoritism to anyone. We are not talking about blacks being treated unfairly and in need of civil rights. gay marriage is not the "new" civil rights. It is political activism at it's worst. It will not end with gay marriage. There will always be a "new" civil rights problem.

Words have meaning

let's talk about "rights", constitutional rights. We have the right to bear arms, freedom of speach is a right. These were passed down to us by the founding fathers of this great country. In today's society we have been dumbed down to the point where words have become meaningless. Where one can "love" ice cream, like they love a spouse. Constitutional "rights" are not a joke, they are not political. They are in fact "unalienable". The 14th ammendment gave "equal rights" to blacks. Because they were treated as subhuman. These rights were not given at the cost of everybody else's rights. That is they weren't called out, made special, and protected more than the rest of society. The civil rights movement came about because there were those who just wouldn't accept blacks as equal. For all men are truly created equal. Next came abortion. Abirtion was the new black. It is the "right" of every woman to choose this procedure. Words have meaning, just because you change the terminology of a word does not change it's true definition. Abortion IS murder. It is the taking of a human life. Now we have "gay marriage". Which is the new abortion. They cry that it is their "right" to marry a person of the same sex. What about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?. Nobody is stopping you from having such a relationship. My problem is that you want to be called out, seperated, made special, and protected. All this at the expense of MY freedom. You are not looking to be equal, but superior to me. You seek to make me subhuman. By destroying the institution of marriage. The constitution did not give me the right of marriage between one man and one woman. It only recognizes it for what it is. The foundation of society on this planet. It's no longer about rights as equal under the law, it's about forcing people to accept an unnatural premise. I've learned something about the constitution recently. An ammendment is just an add on to the original document. It is much different than a revision, where the original is changed to reflect the new. Roe v wade is "unconstitutional", it's not even an ammendment to the constitution. It is a court ruling. Which is why liberals care so much about supreme court nominees. If the SC leaned more to the right, roe v wade would be turned over in a heartbeat. Gay marriage is not a "right", which is why it's proponents use the liberal courts to get what they want. Government is by the people and for the people. The courts have no business in the way we are governed, yet in this day and age, they exert unprecedented power over our everyday lives. Gay marriage is a political agenda, not about "civil rights" as they claim
, it's not about making people equal, but about suppressing the voice of the majority.