More election stuff...

alright, so some of you might be tired of hearing me bash Obama, but really, if McCain did anything worth bashing you'd hear about it, because I don't entirely like him either. Right now he is the lesser of two evils.

Read This, or at least skim it please.

The problem I find with this is that like the article says it is inappropriate for Obama to even attempt to do this. It displays a lack of tact and foresight, that are so necessary for our President to have.

There are actually two reasons that this is inappropriate and disgraceful.

#1 Like the article cited, there is a certain lack of sensitivity in using another nations symbol of unity and patriotism for the personal and political gain of a person from another country.

#2 Runs deeper. Why is Obama campaigning in Germany at all? Does the German public have the right to elect the president of the United States? No. Here is my theory on what Obama is trying to do. This is theory and conjecture only, but quite serious if it is true. By courting and winning the favor of the populaces of the foreign countries he can portray himself as the choice of the "World Community" to be our next leader, or at least as an acceptable and approved of man by the other people of our planet. This ,Obama needs since he is incurring the wrath of the Muslim countries by forsaking his Muslim birth. (I shall need to tell you about that sometime)

This is downright wrong, unethical and irrelevant. The choice of our leader belongs to the American public and to the citizens of our country alone. By campaigning in another country, Obama is trying to undermine a vote that may perhaps go against him. (again, this pure conjecture and theory but a likely one you must admit) This is as much wrong as it would have been for President Bush to accept the endorsement (I can't remember in which election) of the French President.

A Social Outrage

Well, at least I thought so.

This is going to be a somewhat politically incorrect post, with no attempt to be anything other than straight truth as I saw and observed. This post creates racial profiles and makes not attempt to be "color blind". I shall not try to keep from offending people, because anybody who is offended by what I shall say shall more seriously offend me than that type of people already have. I must say that that was very refreshing.

Alright, so I was invited to attend the Independence Day Celebration at Independence Hall in Philly this morning. Before the celebration, there was a breakfast where I was given the opportunity to meet Mayor Nutter and talk briefly with him. I find that I liked the man's personality, ideals and sense of humor very much.

The ceremony was the most horrendous mockery of a celebration of our country that has ever been seen on public television, and I had second row seating for the whole thing.

Complaint #1: Sunoco sponsored it. I have no problem with companies supporting a celebration like this instead of the money coming from private sources or taxpayer money. Not that I see any money at all necessary, why can't business "donate" equipment for the 6 hours it takes to set up, have a program, and take down stuff? Why do they need to be reimbursed for contributing to the community like that on a day that should be above others in the recognition of the need for a greater awareness of community and what we can all do to make life better for each other out of our own free will instead of communist compulsion. But I got off on a tangent there, sorry. Well, Sunoco put their logo on everything. Signs, name tags, banners, podiums (thankfully not the main podium). That definitely annoyed me. Is there sense of patriotism so small that they will only agree to support something like this if they can get their publicity and advertising (distastefully from my artist's perspective) plastered everywhere. Why can't they give out of their own bounty that the people supplied them with, without all the ugly logos and publicity. Has the recognition of the birth of our country come down to a publicity stunt for an oil company?

Complaint #2: The speakers. Most would call it "politically correct". I call it absolutely disgusting. Every speaker, save one, gave a lecture on civil rights and how all the injustices of the past are coming to an end (but only if we elect a black man to president) and how their is more racial equality being shown in events like these (Nutter very clearly and intentionally brought to attention how many black mayors had come before him, but it was also interesting to note that there was only one white person who was given the opportunity to say something other than a token sentence or two) . Nutter highlighted his initiatives to make sure that "people of color" have more opportunity for educational advancement, and spoke of how the politics of the past were now coming to an end with Obama as Democrat nominee and himself as mayor. A (black) woman with the President House Project spoke of how George Washington held slaves, and about how he signed the Fugitive Slave act, demeaning one of the most loved men in our nation's history, and also tactfully ignoring how Washington freed all of his slaves. There were others too. We are supposed to be color blind, we are supposed to be the society that doesn't care what color your skin is, but here they were highlighting their black culture in a celebration that is supposed to be representative of the feelings we all are supposed to share and express. (please note that I have restrained myself from my rants on BET, and other such equality hypocrisies) No speaker highlighted the true cause for our presence that day, which (in case from watching it you have become confused) was to honor the signing of the Declaration of Independence 232 years ago.

Complaint #3: The music. I sat there and watched, and the only word that came to mind was: Irreverent. The program said that the agenda was to "feature patriotic songs". During the opening, they played country guitar music. Oh, there were two songs. They played the national anthem (black singer) and then moved on to "Somewhere over the Rainbow". Now I shall boldly call "stupid" whoever thinks that "Somewhere over the Rainbow" is a patriotic song. A nostalgic and wistful song of dreaming for the ideal country, but never patriotic, they distort and demean the meaning of the word. All this was turned into another "civil rights" as well as a cultural statement when it was sung by "Patty LaBelle's Boom Boom Choir", very black, very obnoxious choir who sang the song so that you could not understand the words, and any beauty that you remembered from Judy Garland or some other artist singing it was lost. I proudly say that though there were cheers from around me, I did not applaud or smile. I call it disrespectful junk that disgraces a ceremony of that repute (although it fit in rather well with the other disgusting motions they went through). Later, the same choir sang "He's Got the Whole World". It is a very nice song that paid tribute to God, but was sung just like the other. With no attempt to put any beauty or dignity into it. They were dancing and bouncing to the music, screaming all the time. I did applaud that time, because instead of paying attention to the bouncing people on stage, I was more focused on the sign-language translator. She got as much into it as the singers did, but she was a more dignified (white) person going completely out of character and going along with the beat. She was very entertaining and amusing and therefore, even though not as dignified as the ceremony deserved, worthy of applause. The other patriotic song was played as people filed out of their seats to go home. I think it was America the beautiful. Oh well.

Complaint #4: The wanton disrespect of the military, by not only people in the program, but also the crowd. Symbolic of the willingness of the soldiers who were serving, there was a brief ceremony where a soldier reaffirmed his oath to serve his country. This was met with token applause from the crowd. (and he got almost no introduction to the stage) Both spectators and participators made it clear that this sort of thing was not politically correct or welcome at this event.

I shall not be participating in any future ceremonies of any kind hosted in Philly, especially by Mayor Nutter. The words that would best describe me this afternoon are: outraged, disgusted, incensed, and disappointed.

Again, you don't have my apologies if you are offended. Call it revenge? :-p

I'm not racist

Check this out...

Alright, so I really don't have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is the protests and the moves to shut this down. That is a restriction of our freedom of speech. It is not slander, it is not a bunch of lies that fall under the constitutional exception, it is merely an expressed political view that people don't like. (the fact that this political view is expressed in a humorous way is merely what got people stirred up)

And really, if Obama can't take it, why doesn't he quit. The President is historically the man most slandered and spoken against in our country. He wants to be the next President, but he refuses to take what comes with it. Take his wife for example she goes around shouting for him and offending people, and then when she is attacked and pointed out as pushy etc... he tells everyone to just "leave her alone". Suck it up, or maybe we will have the first black woman president....

I probably sound very racist here, and maybe a little chauvinistic, but it is not intentional, and I make no apology if I am. I am using my right to freedom of speech and expression, not forcing anyone to conform to my views, or saying that you're wrong and I'm right. I am just letting you all know how I see a very subjective issue. (I can do this because the issue is subjective and not objective. I rant on absolute truth is forthcoming)

As a side note, I found this rather interesting.

Rule this unconstitutional... (to be added to later)

Our Government. Based on our Constitution, is it not? Not really. You see, we live in a country very different from what our founding father's intended. Most of this comes from the national government taking on powers that are not its own. (please bear with me?)

Here is a list quoted directly from Article 1 Section 8 in regards to the Legislative branch of the government.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Please notice now, how many of these powers include farm subsidies, medicaid, social security, or even imply that it is within the power of the government to begin such programs. Only the last one. Which is the phrase of this document most used by legislature to take on all these programs, pork and expenditures. the Foregoing Powers = the powers listed before. Now, how is it necessary for the government to institute those programs to fulfill these "Foregoing powers". It isn't. That's anticlimactic. Now, to look at another Government function gone astray: the power of the government over the states.

Let's see what the Constitution says about that.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There now, how does the national government get around this? Were we ever meant to have a large central government that took care of us? No. This can be clearly seen in our method of electing a president. What we have today is the remnants of what once was. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a popular vote selection instead of the electoral college? Well, it would if we were meant to have a central government with state borders being merely geographical like they almost are today. Instead, the popular vote in the state decides where all the electoral votes go. Doesn't this rather imply that the way the nation used to be, there were a bunch of independent state/countries much like the EU is today? With open borders, a continental council of policy makers and treaty signers (please note, that the meeting of the FF (founding fathers) was called the Continental Congress, not the national congress) and a common currency? But back to the question, how does the federal government get around this? Because of our ignorance. People these days just don't care about what happens. They want their government handouts, subsidies etc... and vote into office those people who they think will give them to them. These are the statesmen who turn around and take freedom from the people and turn us more and more into a Marxist communist state. These are also the people who believe that we should be working towards a one world unity and government.

Now we come to another question (please read on?) What is wrong with one world government. If you are a Christian, read your Bible. If you are non-Christian, read 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451. Super states with unlimited government power of censorship and laws. The very people who make their grand speeches about tolerance silencing the publication of any opinion or truth whatsoever, or worse silencing by force those who disagree with the commonly held practice. If it were in only one country, such as Russia or China, people could flee elsewhere, but with a one world government, if you disagreed to such an extent that you could not in conscience live under circumstance, you could not speak out because of fear of reprisal from a restrictive government, then there would be no place to flee. No place to speak your mind and to be tolerated. Everyone would live under the same restrictions and rules. The very human nature defies it. We must do all we can to prevent such a time.

A Few of the world's most famous (or infamous) men speak on our public education system and our government's role in it...

Wow, that was a long title.

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” - Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. speech, Nov. 6, 1933. Quoted in William L. Shirer, “Education in the Third Reich,” ch. 8, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959)


They have taken the care and upbringing of children out of the hands of parents, where it belongs, and thrown it upon a gang of irresponsible and unintelligent quacks. - H. L. Mencken

s better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. - Thomas Jefferson.

"Of the people, by the people, and for the people..." no longer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban."
The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.


Here is the most recent example of the trend you can get, and it is not just happening in California. Our government taking more and more action against the greatest threat to world power and social downfall: the people. Most of the people in government think of "the people" (and probably say it in private) as "proles". The commoner is thought to no longer know what they want, so the Supreme Courts must decide what is best. This is in violation of the very principles that our country was founded on, that one group of people should not have absolute rule of the populace. Whether you believe that gay marriage should be allowed or not, this is an outrage that cannot be tolerated. We who are coming into power soon as adults and voters need to take the initiative to not vote on laws, but to make constitutional amendments that are so clear in their language that the courts are left with no other option than to "interpret the law" like they are supposed to instead of writing new ones to fit their own personal beliefs. REMEMBER: Judges are appointed, they are not chosen by voters. They do not require your approval, and so they may be ill qualified for the positions. The only way to ensure that we get judges and justices who will fulfill their constitutional duties is to get wise and constitutionally minded men in government, especially as President and Governors. When voting (if you are of that age) remember to vote with someone you know will have the best interests of the common people at heart, instead of those that appoint justices to over-rule the will of the people.

I must end this short discourse, with a couple quotes I found very appropriate, by people I have (over the last day or two) come very much to admire for his subtle political views:

"I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves."

August Strindberg (1849 - 1912), A Madman's Diary, 1895

We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed. - Unknown American


The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. - Stendal