When I first heard this story on the radio on the way home from work, my first thought was that it was a possible terrorist attack. However, the FBI stated that they did not believe that it was terrorist related (as if some guy randomly shooting and killing people didn’t cause terror to anyone). They later stated that the shooter was in military uniform, and that he was a known soldier.  At the time, they refused to give the soldier’s name. 

I had a bad feeling that I knew why. I remembered how back in 2003, there was a big story about how a U.S. soldier had rolled 3 grenades into his fellow soldiers’ tent, killing 2 officers and injuring 14 other soldiers. It turns out that the soldier was a Muslim; Sgt. Asan Akbar. Apparently, Sgt. Akbar felt that his fellow soldiers were unfairly “personalizing the war as being the fault of all Muslims”.

What better way to make your point that Muslims are not at fault than by rolling a few grenades into your fellow soldiers’ tent? 

Well, my suspicions that the soldier is a Muslim, or at least of Arabic descent, has proven correct so far. The soldier’s name? Sgt. Malik Nadal Hasan. 

I’m going to take a wild guess here; I’ll probably be wrong, but here it goes…

Sgt. Hasan, and possibly his accomplices who may also be Muslims, are unhappy with the war that is going on in Afghanistan.   They’re upset that their Muslim “brothers” are being killed by American soldiers. They’re ashamed to be American soldiers themselves, so they decided to arrange a little shooting spree to “redeem their honor”.   

Naturally, liberals will claim that they condemn the shooting, but the condemnation will be followed by something along the lines of “but it’s understandable why they would do that. If we weren’t over there killing innocent Afghanis/Iraqis to begin with, this would never have happened. The pressure to them must be unbearable”. 

Some have already tried blaming the shooting on the high levels of stress and the numerous deployments to Afghanistan that many of the soldiers have already been through. Naturally, they’ll conveniently leave out the part where hundreds of our soldiers have already gone through this, yet it never occurred to them that as much stress as they may be going through, they never thought to deliberately shoot up their fellow soldiers.

I know that this isn’t the politically correct thing to say, but hey… somebody has to say it. And yes, I’m probably jumping to conclusions, but let’s face it, I’m sure many of you are thinking along similar lines. 

It’s unfortunate that Sgt. Hasan chose to “express himself” in this matter. He’s done more harm to the Muslim image than anything we could have done. 

Sources:

12 Killed in Shooting at Fort Hood: Sig Christensen and Scott Huddleston, Express News, 111/5/09

Officers Testify of Warnings before Tent Attack: Richard A Serrano, LA Times, 07/17/03

As of late, the Republicans have been using the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to support their argument that the cost of the Democrats’ health care reform bill would cost billions more than originally projected. Now, the Democrats are using the CBO to push their argument that not only would just a small percentage of Americans would sign up for the public option (2%), but that it would also help insurers as well. 

That’s the thing about relying on a non-partisan organization like the CBO; it’s a double-edged sword. Their findings can be just as easily used against you by the other side, as you can use its data against their side. And that’s assuming that the CBO is correct to begin with. No organization is always right.

However, this really isn’t so much about the CBO, as it is about the “sandman” tactics that the Dems are using again. 

“Only 2% of Americans are going to use the public option.” the Democrats claim. “What’s all the big fuss about? You’re getting all worked up over nothing! 2% is hardly a government takeover, is it? Hell, it will even help private insurers out because the premiums for the private plans will be cheaper due to the higher premiums of the public plans. What’s everyone so afraid of? We won’t let a government takeover happen; we’re on your side!”

In other words… back to sleep, middle-class America… back to sleep.

This argument is strikingly similar to one that was used with another policy that the Democrats pushed way back in 1913… you know it now as the income tax.  

The Dems were successfully able to make it Constitutional for the federal government to grab a percentage of your income, by force, by using a tried and true tactic; they played the wealth envy game. They targeted their campaign towards poor and middle class Americans by soothingly assuring them; “Don’t worry…only the wealthiest 1% in the north-eastern United States would ever have to pay that mean ol’ income tax.  That’s hardly a government takeover, is it? After all, we’re only making the richest among you pay their fair share. They have plenty of money. You won’t be affected at all! Remember, we’re on your side!”

Not surprisingly, the tax was passed by an overwhelming majority, and the 16^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was added.  

We all know how that little promise turned out now, don’t we? 

You may be wondering right now, “Wait a second… I don’t live in the north-eastern U.S….I’m not wealthy; so why am I’m paying income taxes?”

I’ll get to that later but until then, I leave you with this; don’t listen to the sandmen, don’t fall back asleep, we have enough nightmares with the income tax as it is.

Sources:

After All the Fuss, Public Health Plan Covers Few: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, 11/01/09

“If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.” 

Unfortunately for the employees of the Burlington Coat Factory in Columbus, Ohio yesterday, at least 1,500 shoppers apparently forgot that little nugget of wisdom.

After a woman, later identified as Linda Brown, pulled up to the store in a rented limousine and loudly announced that she had just won the lottery and would pay for everyone’s purchases of up to $500, shoppers, convinced that they were being treated to free merchandise, began snapping up as many clothes as they could carry and bringing them to the register to have them rung up. 

It didn’t take long for the shoppers to call their friends and relatives to inform them of the “great deal”, and in no time, the store was filled with at least 500 shoppers, with another 1000 outside trying to get in. Registers were ringing up purchase after purchase. One customer, Candace Jordan, informed Ms. Brown that she didn’t need new clothes; she needed money to pay the rent. Ms. Brown wrote a check for the requested amount for her on the spot. 

I want you to remember Candace Jordan’s name; I’m coming back to her later.

Well, to make a long story short, it turned out that the entire thing was a hoax. Linda Brown had not actually won $1.5 million in the lottery. In fact, she had nothing, but by the time the customers had realized it, she had taken off in her rented limo. Unfortunately for Ms. Brown, she had made a crucial error; if you’re going to use a limo as a getaway vehicle, don’t rip off the driver. The driver turned her in to the police after he had realized that he was not going to get the $900 that she owed him. 

What Linda Brown did was reprehensible, and it turns out that she is a repeat offender; this was not her first brush with the law. Likely, she’s going to be spending some time in jail. However, in my opinion the behavior of the customers was even worse than Ms. Brown’s. 

You see, when they found out that they weren’t getting free merchandise after all, they decided to not only run out of the store with their ill-gotten gains, but vandalize whatever they couldn’t carry out. It was the looting in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina all over again. They were promised free merchandise, and by God, they were going to get it. The employees of the store lost hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars worth of stolen merchandise, not to mention a huge mess to clean up once the riot was over. 

The worst part about this riot was that it was completely senseless. These customers technically weren’t ripped off; the purchases weren’t under their names, they were under Linda Brown’s.   It wasn’t their money at stake. The worst that would’ve happened is that they simply wouldn’t have gotten the clothes for free.   If they really wanted them, they only needed to pay for what they actually could have afforded. They did plenty of ripping off of their own though, figuratively and literally.

Linda Brown, as bad as her behavior was, at least has an excuse; the woman is reported to be mentally disturbed to some degree. She has a history of odd behavior, centering on a desperate need for attention. The customers, however, have no excuses. 

So what would possess 1,500 people to act like sharks at a feeding frenzy?   It’s simple, really… the promise of free goods combined with the “entitlement” mentality that’s on the rise in America. It’s this mentality that has contributed to the drain of not only our finances but to the rise of the Democrat Party in general, along with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank (not that I believe people like the above shoppers have any idea who these politicians are) and most notably, the election of Barack Obama. 

I think it’s a pretty safe bet that most of those rioting shoppers are Obama voters, or vote Democrat in general. To the Democrats, there’s no better tactic than convincing the masses that not only do they “deserve” or “have the right to” various goods or services, but that they can actually deliver these to them; anything to keep the masses voting the Dems back into power. After years of such indoctrination in our government-run public schools, the media and entertainment industry, the result is incidents like the one in Ohio. 

Promise the world, blame the opposition for anything they can’t deliver, keep their delegates angry enough at the Republicans to vote for you again. Rinse and repeat. 

The liberals have done their job well.

Now, remember Candace Jordan? The woman who asked for money to pay her rent? In my opinion, she’s the worst moocher of the lot. This woman actually went to the store, not to buy a coat (she said she didn’t need clothes, remember), but for the express purpose of getting free money from someone she thought was a millionaire. Kind of reminds me of the woman who cried to Obama that she needed a house, or more recently, the unruly crowd who thought they were being handed “Obama checks” a few days ago.

Oh well, at least in the end the joke was on her, but like the other shoppers, she didn’t actually lose any money, she only didn’t receive something that she was promised (which she really didn’t earn in the first place). She’s no worse off than when she started.

Perhaps, in her own twisted way, Linda Brown was trying to teach us a lesson about just how selfish and irresponsible we’ve become. Unfortunately, she’s also demonstrated just how gullible we can really be. It’s just a shame that so many people have such a sense of entitlement, that they will learn absolutely nothing from this.

Sources:

Lottery Hoax Causes Riot at Ohio Coat Factory: Mehgan Barr, AP Writer, Associated Press, 10/14/09

I’m going to be blunt about this. Military recruiters have a hard enough time filling their quotas as it is, especially now. Ending this policy is going to make it tougher. 

I’m not suggesting that gays are incapable of serving their country with pride and honor. This has a lot more to do with the psychological factor of heterosexuals than the performance capabilities on the part of homosexuals. 

So-called “open minded” straights can brag all they want that they don’t care what homosexuals do behind closed doors, but I’m willing to bet that their tunes would quickly change if they were forced to share that same room with them while they did their business. 

As someone who has served in the navy, I can tell you first-hand that I’ve heard conversations between a few of my shipmates bragging about exactly what they would do if they ever found out that a fellow sailor was gay. Trust me, their plans weren’t very nice. Most of those stories would end with their victim doing an unplanned swan dive over the side. 

You can’t just force most people to change their psychological wiring, no matter how many new laws you introduce. Laws that are created to control one’s behavior do not change his beliefs, it just suppresses them.

Now, there may be some gays (or “open minded” straights) reading this who will say “So what if the recruitment of straights goes down? They’ll be plenty of gays perfectly willing to take those homophobes’ place! The recruitment numbers will barely change.”

This brings me back to the title of this article, which states that removing this policy will contribute to lower recruitment numbers. It is not the end-all. There are a few other policies that Obama has promised that concern me… policies that will affect the recruitment of both straights and gays.

One of the big attractions for a potential recruit is the promise that upon completion of his service, he will receive a large sum of money for his college tuition, notably the Montgomery G.I. Bill. When I enlisted back in 1990, it was $10,000 (for 4 years of service). Currently, it is now around $47,556. 

Guaranteed college money... sounded good to me at the time!

Another big attraction is the guarantee that many of your medical expenses will be taken care of under the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (commonly called “VA Benefits”) for life. Trust me when I tell you that in my experience as both a veteran and as a kid raised in a military family, VA medical care is not as great as it sounds… I prefer the private sector.  However, to most young recruits who have little to no military experience, this sounds like a good deal. It certainly did to me when I signed up.

Here’s the problem… President Obama has pledged that not only would he like to see a “single-payer” health care system in place (a government system in which everyone’s health care is provided for by taxpayer dollars, a practice embraced in socialist countries), but he has also stated that he wants the government to provide the funds for a student’s college education. After all, as his supporters would say, “everyone has the right to an education”.

What happens if these policies were actually put into place? The fact is, there are plenty of young folks who join the military not out of a sense of pride, duty and honor to serve their country, but because they’re getting ready to graduate from school, they don’t know what they’re going to do with their lives, and they want a chance to get some money for college. The military seemed to be a good solution to that problem. 

I hate to admit it, but this was true in my case. Patriotism and a sense of duty weren’t instilled into me until years after I had joined at the age of 19. 

Your typical teenage candidate, when approached by a recruiter, would probably be thinking along the lines of “Why should I join the military and risk getting killed for something I’ll automatically be getting as a civilian under President Obama?” 

As if I hadn’t made enough enemies already, the last policy that I’m about to discuss will probably have our fine servicemen and women ready to form a lynch mob against me. 

President Obama has also made a promise back in February to give a military pay raise of about 2.9 %. If anyone deserves a pay raise, it’s our service members, especially the ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Unfortunately, wanting to give someone what you think they deserve is a lot different than what is actually practical. 

Where is this extra money going to come from? True, Obama claims that it will come from cuts in wasteful military spending, such as on what he claims are “Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use” (I’m assuming that he’s referring to nuclear missiles), but who determines what we need or don’t need? Some would argue that it is those very missiles that prevent us from being attacked to begin with, but Obama has pledged to reduce our arsenal, an ideal that awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Too bad North Korea, China, Iran and Russia don’t share those dreams. 

Just as in the private sector, when you’re forced to raise the minimum wage for employees, you’re going to need to sacrifice something in order to achieve that goal and still maintain the bottom line, whether it means cutting programs, services… or employees. 

I wouldn’t be so concerned about the pay raise if our economy was booming, but unless you’ve been hiding in a cave for the past year like a certain Saudi terrorist leader has, you know that we’re not doing so hot right now. I hate to suggest this, but the pay raise may have to wait.

Let the accusations of “homophobe” and “Obama-basher” begin.

Sources:

Obama reaffirms will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’: Christine Simmons, Associated Press, 10/11/09

Obama’s budget calls for 2.9% military pay raise: Jeff Schogol & Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes, 02/27/09

Active Duty GI Bill User’s Guide: Military.com

Obama on Single Payer Health Insurance:  (Video) Posted by 6y2o12la, 06/29/08

In the event of an emergency landing, dumping excess fuel to lighten the weight of the aircraft was at one time a standard procedure. Now, a Japanese airliner is asking their passengers to do some dumping of their own before they even take off. 

A new policy introduced by All Nippon Airways (ANA) has encouraged their passengers to pay a visit to the restroom before boarding their planes. The reason? No, it’s not because their restrooms were removed… not yet, anyway. The logic behind it is that passengers with empty bladders will be lighter, which would add less weight to the plane, which in turn, would burn less fuel. The result is… you guessed it; lower carbon emissions. The things people will do to save the planet. I can’t help but wonder what the penalty is for using the restroom on the plane. 

On second thought, never mind.  I don’t want to know.

While I was reading this story, I looked at the picture that was provided on the website. As I observed the blue and white airliners, I couldn’t help but wonder; wouldn’t it have made more sense to simply have scrapped all that heavy paint off? How many pounds would be shed? However much weight would have actually been lost, it has to be more than anything the passengers could have… shed. 

Unless, of course, one of the jetliners was transporting a sumo wrestling team to their next meet, but that’s another matter. 

Believe it or not, this actually isn’t the most bizarre story I’ve heard about our attempts to lower our carbon emissions. That honor goes to the Australians, who were trying to figure out how to genetically re-engineer their native kangaroos (by replacing their stomachs with a cow’s stomach) so that they wouldn’t, to put it politely, pass as much gas. One scientist even urged Australians to eat kangaroo burgers as opposed to cow burgers, since a kangaroo’s flatulence emits more carbon into the atmosphere than a cow’s. Result… fewer kangaroos poisoning the atmosphere with their… ahem… farts.

Seriously, how many more stories like these are we going to see until these global warming nut jobs are laughed out of the public media? To be honest, I hope we see a lot more of them. The more stories like these are aired, the more people will realize just how ridiculous these folks are. I can hardly wait for the next one, keep ‘em coming, you tree-hugging wackos.

And remember… save the planet; eat more kangaroo.

Sources:

Airline Asks Passengers to use Toilet Before Boarding…. : Mail Foreign Service 10/06/09

Kangaroo Farts: Susan Reed, All About My Planet.com 12/15/07

“You lie!”

With those two little words, a Republican congressman who was barely known outside of South Carolina was instantly rocketed from relative obscurity to notoriety. 

 The outburst occurred on the House floor about mid-way through President Obama’s health care address to the Congress yesterday.  The President had been attempting to dispel what he referred to as “myths” in the proposed health care bill, one of them being that under his health plan, no illegal immigrants would be able to qualify for any benefits. 

Congressman Joe Wilson, who has read the bill at least twice and knows differently, spontaneously shouted “you lie!” There was immediately a mixture of gasps, boos and “oohs”, and a brief moment of complete shock on the faces of Vice President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

However, Obama, to his credit, quickly regained his composure, smiled and re-stated that “it’s the truth”. 

Soon after the address, Wilson called the White House and apologized for his outburst, explaining that he was caught in the moment when he blurted out his accusation. According to those who know him, his behavior was uncharacteristic of him. Even White House correspondent Jamie Dupree stated on the Neal Boortz Show that out of all the politicians he knew, Wilson would’ve been one of the last guys on his list to display that behavior, referring to him as normally “a pretty laid-back guy”.

It didn’t take long for Wilson to be excoriated by his fellow politicians, Democratic and Republican alike, for “disrespecting” both the President and the House floor.  Some have called for his resignation.

I should be angry at Wilson. I really should. I’ve lectured before in previous columns about the Republicans and conservatives needing to learn to think before acting, about not giving the opposition any more ammunition to use against us than they have already. And give them ammo he did. Not only has the focus shifted from the health care bill to Wilson’s outburst, allowing the Democrats to continue their plans with less of a spotlight on them, but it gave Obama an opportunity to present himself as the “benevolent leader” by graciously accepting Wilson’s apology. It also allowed Nancy Pelosi to dismiss him as just another typical, right-wing whack job, stating;

“Yes, there is a procedure that could have been implemented. I think that the president did the right thing; just continued on from it and didn’t give it any more attention than it deserved. We’re just going to move on.“

Yet, despite all the damage that he may have done, I just can’t get angry with Congressman Wilson. I simply can’t. In fact, a huge part of me wants to give him a big slap on the back. 

For Wilson is the only Republican to do what none of the others have had the spine to do; call Obama a liar straight to his face, right in the middle of yet another one of his propaganda speeches. True, he apologized soon after, which may make many of his supporters unhappy, but Wilson is of no use to us if he is forced to resign his position, so it was the prudent thing to do.

Before any of you give me any lectures about how we should “respect the presidency and the president, no matter who is in office, whether you agree with him or not”, let me remind you of something; how many politicians have shown that same type of respect to President Bush when he was in office? How many times has he been referred to as a “liar” or “Hitler”, both by rival politicians and private citizens?   Naturally, these same, two-faced critics are all smiles and handshakes whenever you see them with him right before any of his speeches. 

Hell, one Iraqi journalist even called him a “dog” and threw his shoes at him, though Bush, in true “The Matrix” fashion, dodged both missiles, later joking that “All I can report is it is a size 10 shoe.” 

Where was the concern for the respect for the Office of the Presidency when Bill Clinton decided to have himself a little “party-for-two” in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky?   I don’t recall the Dems falling all over themselves with concern with that one.

While I have respect for the Office of the Presidency, it's ridiculous to assume that this means I should automatically respect the man running the office.  As one who is familiar with Obama’s radical background, including his Socialist beliefs and questionable choices for associates, no one, whether a Democrat or well-meaning Republican, has the right to demand this out of me. If the president wants my respect, he’s going to have to earn it.

Demanding that I respect Obama is like demanding that I respect the head Don of a mafia crime family because of all the “accomplishments” that he has made. 

I’d like to end this by giving Congressman Wilson a big “thank you”, not only for actually having the guts to challenge Obama (even if only for a fleeting moment), but for proving to me that Nancy Pelosi is actually capable of projecting another emotion on her face besides that plastic, Joker-esqe smile.  That alone was worth suffering through the address.

We could use a few more guys like Wilson… and be prepared for an onslaught of “You Lie!” t-shirts and bumper stickers.

Sources:

SC Voters Surprised by Wilson’s ‘You Lie’ Outburst: Seanna Adcox, AP, 09/10/09

Pelosi: Joe Wilson’s Outburst ‘Stunning’: CNN, Counton2.com, 09/10/09

Bush Dodges Shoes Thrown by Iraqi Journalist: posted by “tpmtv”, Youtube, 12/14/08

Well, today was the big day. Obama has given his speech. Many kids heard it, many others didn't. I've finally had the chance to read the text of the speech, so now I can give my thoughts on it.

As many of us predicted, the speech, which wasn't actually written until after the ruckus started, was almost squeaky-clean, and focused mainly on the values of working hard, personal responsibilities, and "developing their talents, skills and intellect". He also encourages the students not to define themselves by their failures, citing a few examples of celebrities such as J.K. Rowling and Michael Jordan, who had failed in their previous endeavors before they found success.

I found this quote especially interesting...

"Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you. Here in America, You write your own destiny. You write your own future."

Call me crazy, but it almost looks as if the speech was written by a conservative. Every point mentioned so far are basic, conservative principles. This brings me to wonder... how much can Obama, who has not only constantly preached reliance on the government, but has actually been involved in the government takeover of private enterprises (not to mention has hired staff members and czars who share his socialist ideals), actually believe in what he said in that speech? It's no wonder that so many conservative parents were suspicious of Obama's motives for giving the speech in the first place. Though on the record, I still say it was a bad idea to try to prevent students from listening to the speech in the first place.

On a side note, heaven help those poor kids who decide to study to become doctors. They're going to be fleeing this country in droves if universal health care passes.

So, just what are Obama's motives here?

Is it possible that he actually believes in what he said, and just didn't correlate what he said in the speech with his socialist policies that would actually work against these beliefs?

Is he using similar tactics as he did when he used capitalist rhetoric to promote a socialist policy, as when he constantly stressed the words "competition" and "keeping the businesses honest" while trying to cram the "public option" for health care down our throats, only this time, using conservative rhetoric to hide behind his socialist policies?

Or maybe... just maybe... someone on his staff was actually clever enough to actually have planned this event exactly the way it just happened; announce a controversial speech, wait for the predictable conservatives to have a knee-jerk reaction and go crazy, then after observing the reactions, write the speech the exact opposite of what the conservatives anticipated.

Ha ha! Made you cry wolf! Now how stupid do you look?

It's a long shot, I know. I realize that I may be giving them too much credit, and I probably sound like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists about now, but I do think it's plausible.

I guess we're just going to have to wait and see.

Sources:

A Message of Hope and Responsibility for America's Students: Jesse Lee, Whitehouse.org, 09/08/09 

Due to an unfortunate, if understandable, knee-jerk reaction to the announcement of President Obama’s planned speech to our school children last week, the conservative movement has quite possibly lost a valuable opportunity to strike a major blow against the administration. 

Once the word got out of Obama’s plans to address the children this Tuesday about “working hard, staying in school, and personal responsibility”, angry conservative parents have vowed that their children will be pulled out of classes to avoid watching it. 

As I’ve said, the reaction is understandable. There’s something strangely Orwellian about it, especially considering that the speech about “personal responsibility, education and success” is coming from a man who has consistently preached that our salvation will come from relying on the government to take care of us… not to mention that he has taken actions to enforce this doctrine. It does rightly arouse suspicion.

But once again, our side has made the mistake of reacting, rather than thinking. 

A smarter move would have been rather than raising a fuss over the speech, but allowing Obama to say whatever he wanted to say.   In all likelihood, he would’ve said something that could have been exposed as some type of indoctrination.   Not only could we could have used those statements against him, we would’ve had audio and video proof of him saying it.  This is called “giving them enough rope to hang themselves with it”.

Unfortunately, that opportunity is greatly diminished. Due to the ruckus that has been raised, you can be assured that Obama’s speech writers have re-written the speech to keep it as squeaky-clean as possible. We have effectively given the opposition an almost guaranteed strike against us. It will fall along the lines of “See? They made this huge deal out of nothing. If they were wrong about this, imagine what else they are wrong about; like the public option, for example.” One could almost wonder if they actually planned for it to happen this way. This would be disturbing, as it would mean that we have been acting too predictably in their favor.

In the world of martial arts, there are styles that stress not just attacking your opponent with your own strength and momentum, but also by using the opponent’s strength and momentum against him (judo and aikido being the most well known) as well. The same principle can be applied here. If your opponent is aggressive, use that momentum against them to throw them off balance, then counter attack.  Don’t just blindly attack back, or you’re going to leave yourself exposed... like we just did.

However, it may not be too late. Obama, if anything, is arrogant and short-sighted, so there is still the possibility that he will make the mistake of inadvertently slipping in some subtle form of indoctrination in his speech. Use that opportunity. Rather than not allowing your child to watch the speech, why not have him listen to it carefully, then report back to you what was said? Perhaps it would be possible for him to take notes, or even bring in a recording device to tape the audio. Then, listen to the recording together and discuss with your child what Obama said, and ask what he thought Obama said, rather than just relying on the teacher to interpret Obama’s words for him. Not only would this negate any possible indoctrination that Obama might try, but it could teach your child to learn to listen to what someone (especially politicians) says carefully, rather than just taking his words at face value, as so many of Obama’s supporters did during the election (and continue to do).

It should also be noted that the Obama administration has announced plans to publish the text of the speech on the White House website this Monday. This will give you and your child the opportunity to compare what is written in the text, and what Obama actually says.

THAT is thinking strategically. 

Sources:

Obama’s Televised Speech to Students Sparks new Controversy: Libby Quaid & Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press, 09/04/09

Duncan Says Furor Over Obama Speech ‘Silly’: Associated Press, 09/09/09

Well, thanks to some knuckleheads who clearly didn’t think before they acted, CNN’s Campbell Brown, and the left in general, have obtained more ammunition to use against us, as demonstrated on the “Campbell Brown Show”. 

As the video points out, this event happened right outside of a town hall meeting that was being held by Barack Obama in Phoenix, AZ. Some demonstrators decided that it would be a great idea to flaunt their “open carry” of semi-automatic weapons law, presumably to prove some kind of point. 

Did you enjoy yourselves? Did you like having your 15 minutes of fame? I hope so, because you’re going to be seeing yourselves on the air, over and over again, as the Liberals single you out as examples of just how “dangerous and unreasonable” we are. You’ve just confirmed that idiotic statement by Ed Schultz and other left-wingers who seriously believe that we want Obama shot dead.  I know they’re going to spin it like this. Nice job, you morons.

I’m not criticizing your firearms, or your open carry laws. As a concealed weapons permit holder myself, I actually kind of envy your freedom to do such. I have no problems with your right to carry at all.

But seriously… right outside a town hall where the President of the United States is holding a meeting? You really thought that was necessary? You do know he has secret service agents watching you, right? How stupid can you be? Don’t you see that our opponents on the left look for this kind of thing? And then you GAVE it to them on a silver platter! If I could, I’d smack the back of each and every one of your heads.

Ok, deep breath… chewing out session is over now.

Look fellas, I understand why you did what you did. I realize that in your minds, you felt that you were giving Obama a little reminder about your right to carry firearms. You were determined to show that you can’t be pushed around. I know that you weren’t deliberately trying to make our side look bad, and you probably thought that you were doing us a favor by thinking that you were displaying our strength. I get that. I respect that. 

But ladies and gentlemen, you really need to start thinking before you act. You need to consider the long-term consequences of your actions before you carry them out. There are a lot of reporters with news cameras out there, and a vast majority of them aren’t friendly to our side. They are just waiting for us to screw up.

Let me give you a little lesson in history. 

Back in the days of the Vietnam War, our soldiers learned the hard way that they had to be extremely mindful of where they discarded their junk, particularly hollow objects like tin cans… and it had nothing to do with environmental consciousness. 

Why, you ask? Because our enemies of that time, the Viet Cong, AKA “Charlie”, collected the discarded junk and devised clever improvised explosives out of them.   Cans, bottles, even stuffed animals and ballpoint pens.   Charlie knew that Americans were, in general, naturally curious people. If they see a can, they kick it… boom! If they see a pen, or a toy, they pick it up… boom! That’s how a lot of these traps worked. Ever see that scene in “Full Metal Jacket” where the soldier picks up the stuffed animal and it blows up in his face? Yeah, like that. The very things that our soldiers had discarded were used against them later.

Here’s what I’m trying to tell you… don’t help Charlie. Don’t help Liberal commentators such as the likes of Campbell Brown and Ed Schultz by providing them with more ammunition then they already have. Think about the consequences of what you’re planning on doing before you carry it out.  What are the long-term effects? How could this possibly be used against us later? Remember… just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should.

Because if you don’t remember this, like Charlie’s clever traps; your actions could blow up in your face, taking not only you out, but your brothers-in-arms as well.

Sources:

Gun Toting Obama Protesters: Campbell Brown Show, CNN.com 08/18/09

A few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton alluded that the North Koreans were acting like spoiled children, due to their “constant demands for attention”.   The North Koreans shot back that she “looks like a primary schoolgirl”. 

Looks like the North Koreans weren’t far off. 

Last Monday, Hillary released her inner child and displayed a cry for attention of her own during a question and answer session with a Congolese university student in Kinshasa. The French speaking student, through a translator, asked her what her husband Bill Clinton and NBA star Dikembe Mutombo thought about an international financial matter. That didn’t sit well with Hillary.

“Wait. You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” she snapped. “My husband is not the Secretary of State; I am. So you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to be channeling my husband.”

Ouch. 

I have a visual image of a 2-year old, pant-suited Hillary, sitting on the floor, pounding and kicking her little hands and feet and screaming, with tears in her eyes, “I’M the Secretary of State! Not Billy! It’s ME, ME, MEEEE!”

The State Department tried to brush the incident off, saying that there was actually a misunderstanding. The student claims that he had meant to ask what President Barack Obama thought, not Bill Clinton, but this really doesn’t change the nature of Hillary’s response. 

So… just why was Hillary in such a snippy mood that day?   What could have set her off? Maybe it was the hot African sun? 

Could she have resented the fact that her trip to Africa was overshadowed by her husbands so-called “rescue” of the two U.S. journalists from North Korea who have recently been returned home? 

Could it be possible that she heard rumors earlier that day about her hubby putting the moves on those said journalists on the plane? Granted, there’s no proof of that, but I wouldn’t put it past the guy. Come on, admit it; we all wondered about that at least once. This is Bill we’re talking about.

Or maybe… just maybe… she’s feeling resentment of having to take a lesser office after being so close to winning the grand prize, the Presidency of the United States? 

I can’t help but wonder why she received that position. It certainly wasn’t for her international experience… she didn’t have any at the time. I’m talking about actual problem solving, not “meet and greets” and giving speeches. 

Perhaps she believes that Obama, using the old adage “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”, tossed her a bone and offered her the position of Secretary of State to better keep a closer eye on her?  

Perhaps she was thinking, while standing at the podium taking questions that day; “I could be sitting the Oval Office right now, in the air conditioning and planning my takeover of America, but no… that inexperienced, rookie buffoon is sitting in my chair, doing my takeover, with that idiotic smirk on his face, while I’m stuck here in some god-forsaken pit in the middle of Africa, listening to some ninny, some peon, ask me what my worthless, skirt-chasing husband’s opinion is instead of mine!? That does it!”

I’m probably wrong, of course, but doesn’t that sound just a little bit like Hillary?

Whatever the reason for her outburst may be, I imagine that as time goes on, we’ll be seeing more of this from her. Little by little, the real Hillary is going to come out… and it’s not going to be pretty.

Sources:

Hillary Clinton Trades Insults with North Korea: Times Online, 07/23/09

US Official Gropes to Explain Clinton’s Outburst: Associated Press, Yahoo News, 09/12/09