Thursday, September 27, 2012

Before We Completely Rewrite History . . .

Giving all respect due to the Veterans of WWII, I have to make a statement regarding some propaganda that is floating around the internet. I feel it's wrong for two basic reasons. One, it's politicizing war, WWII, and two; to be exact, it's revising history. Now that some encyclopedias are no longer in print, someone has to preserve the history, as it was taught in print. I've included the picture here in the blog, at least I've attempted to. Now, as I said, I mean no disrespect to the Veterans of WWII, but the USA didn't go to war to fight the Nazis. We went to war to get the allies to help us after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The history I was taught, was this. Hitler gained power in Germany through elections, with the campaign that the Nazi party would restore the economy and fight Communism. It sounded so good at the time, he was elected! He continued to gain power and by the mid to late 30's, Europe was under siege. The Russians are reported to have lost 20 million in that war . . . Now, the US did not go to the aid of Britain or France, and Jews were turned away at Ellis Island, until . . . the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. All of our big allies were pretty busy, so they couldn't come to our aid. That's when we got involved and it became a War that affected the entire world, not just Europe and Russia. The history is actually quite fascinating and I hope it's not all lost to future generations. My point for today, though is simple. The tag line in this picture is the WWII Veterans are the reason we don't speak German. Well, that's not exactly accurate. WWII Veterans are the reason we don't speak Japanese and General Motors isn't making Datsuns. To politicize WWII, I find disgusting. To revise the history of WWII, is reprehensible. If we lose the truth, we will lose what freedom we have left.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. words of Messiah

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Retraction . . . Well, Sort of but I'm Not Sure

It has been brought to my attention that Chick-Fil-A claims to have not changed their course of contributions, but the original report came after the negotiations in Chicago for a Chick-Fil-A franchise to be opened. I'm not sure any of these past few days of reports changes what I've said. From everything I've read, Cathy says his donations aren't about political agendas. And Chicago said, he's seeing things their way, so I really think what I said before, it's a bunch of publicity, but the word-crafting is becoming quite polished . . . meanwhile, if history has taught me anything, there's probably some really interesting executive orders in the works or international agreements on the table, now that this chickin issue has pretty much run dry, it's probably about time for a new abortion controversy.
Back to the retraction that isn't a retraction . . . I read that some alderman or someone in Chicago stated that they had come to some sort of agreement with Chick-Fil-A as to some sort of compromise as to the donations made by the Foundation backed by Chick-Fil-A. First, I will make my own retraction. I said I believed a man should be able to spend his own money in any way he sees fit, within the law. Well, when we need tax shelters and foundations, I guess that's enough of a statement of distance that perhaps others do feel invited to weigh in and that their input is justified. Times were simpler when people just lived what they believed and did what was in their power for their fellow man, but I digress. Back to our retraction/unretraction. Once this was reported by the person in Chicago, then Chick-Fil-A released a press statement that said they were not donating money to make any political statements or contribute to an agenda, but . . . It would seem what has actually transpired is both sides see a financially beneficial resolution in choosing their words more carefully. From everything I've read, it's simply a matter of crafting the words more cryptically so everybody gets the revenue they want. It does seem WIN/WIN. I get to blog about it yet again and get higher on the Google search. Chick-Fil-A probably doesn't win any body that was offended the first time around, but if they open another franchise, the company wins and the foundation gets more funding, and Chicago gets to increase the city's revenue with a new business collecting Sales and Use Tax. And who knows what "we the people" will have as a gift in the form of a new executive order?" Words are powerful, even when nobody is sure what was said and what was retracted!
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. words of Messiah

Thursday, September 20, 2012

From Open Mindedness to Open Madness

Chick-Fil-A really disappointed me today, but then I'm not on the board of directors, so I guess it really doesn't matter. Tolerance has already been redefined in our society, now I'm watching censorship take on a whole new face, and open-mindedness is nothing more than an outright display of hate-mongering, I now call open madness.

If gay rights won't affect heterosexuals, then why does where a man chooses to donate his money affect gays? Oh, I know there's an answer from someone, but really? Why does everyone think censorship and tolerance is where we want to be in the name of a "free society?" Who is still buying this bill of goods? I don't meet the CEO's criteria for proper sexual protocol in that I'm not married to anywhere close to my 1st husband, but I don't care where he donates his money, it's his money and I don't expect the religious group or civil group that sees things his way, to approve of me or anyone that doesn't see it their way. So? I'm really disgusted by the animosity demonstrated in the name of "open mindedness." And amazingly these people cannot see that they are just as hateful or even more-so than those whom they are accusing of intolerance. I'm really sorry the CEO caved to money pressure or whatever the pressure that he certainly didn't feel obligated to, when he first made his statement or answered the question. How can he back down after being so forthright? He makes his own case weak, in doing this! To be honest, I've still not eaten at Chick-Fil-A, but it has nothing to do with politics. Our week-end days of religious observance are reversed, so I guess it's not politics, but religion that keeps me from dining at Chick-Fil-A. I guess I could go in and ask what special treatment they offer serial brides. I just don't understand the aggressive, almost hateful enthusiasm of the so called secular humanists that claim to be open minded heterosexuals, against Chick-Fil-A. They sound like the extremists they loathe! And doesn't Mr. Cathy realize he's not going to gain any customers in this decision? These people he offended carry grudges, they carry other people's grudges! I've read more hateful comments about this from "would be" heterosexuals on behalf of the LBGT community than I've actually read from those claiming to be a part of the LBGT community. So this leads me to two schools of thought about the angry, self defined open-minded, self proclaimed tolerant crowd. One, the "angry, open-minded heterosexual" feels that by supporting gay rights, the competition will be reduced and women will find them both masculine and sensitive. Two, they have their own issues that can be resolved by upholding a manufactured grudge on behalf of "someone else". . . Meanwhile, I think Dan Cathy has made a terrible decision. He's not going to be applauded by the people that boycotted him, because he still let it be known how he feels and they, "the tolerant," are entitled to their long standing open-minded grudges, and he's just liable to lose some ground with those folks that stood in line for an hour at their local Chick-Fil-A to stand with him on grounds of religious conviction. Folks don't like to invest in backpedaling and wavering. Dan Cathy garnered more support in speaking what he believes and standing behind it, than he'll gain by backing down. And as for the angry open-minded straight tolerant community, they'll just find new injustices to shout about social grievances to "chew on" that taste like chickin.
He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Something Obvious is Amiss

This particular blog is a two part rant, and I don't believe either are tangents. I was deeply saddened by the horrific death of our ambassador to Libya, as well as some of his staff. In light of this tragedy, I am also saddened at what has transpired since. First, of course, it's America, so lets dissect comments made by Romney and analyze President Obama's and Clinton's reactions and confirm their professionalism. Well, whatever, but I'd rather look at some of the more long reaching potential "unintended consequences" of the blame and perhaps some circumvention that could avoid this in the future. First, about the amateur film. I'm sorry, any religious person feels justified to kill in the name of their religion when they are offended. I've seen Messiah depicted in some pretty heinous ways, and it's called free expression of art in this country, so I hope, I seriously hope, our country upholds the same standard for the 13 minute movie. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was immensely commercialized and contained overtones of anti-Semitism, but it grossed millions off of the evangelicals. So maybe the problem is not religious violence, but a problem with honor of the religious leader involved. Christians don't seem to mind their seeing their professed leader treated horribly, even killed. I could not bear to see the movie for many reasons, but the primary one was, I love Messiah, I couldn't bear to watch his death depicted. Feel free to quote me on this next statement. I don't want to watch anyone I love die, or have their death simulated. Although sometimes we may be called upon or feel the urgency to be vigil at a loved one's death bed, we needn't ever watch their death simulated . . . Yet, because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and our national aversion to censorship, these works have been allowed to be displayed and sold. The 13 minute movie should be no different. Now, on to more about our free speech and expression. It was just about a month and a half ago, our nation once again was up in arms over free speech and the subject was, of course, "gay." The controversy arose over the CEO of Chick-Fil-A's answer in an interview for a religious magazine, but oh my, the backlash and the anger. It was through various discussions I found myself in, with single men ranging between the age of 30-55, that I began to wonder just how deeply this issue runs in our society in general. Just how many boy-cotters and flag wavers and chickin' consumers had issues of their own? This brings me to one possible solution to avoid another incident like the one that took place in Libya this past week. First, let me say this is not anti- anything. I'm a serial bride, a fornicator and adulteress by many religious teachings, so there are extremists of all religions that think I should be stoned! As a matter of fact, I was actually asked to not speak my religious beliefs to my own Grandchildren, by a member of what I now call the American TEAliban. But I digress . . . back to our slain ambassador. Upon seeing his picture and reading his obituary, something just stood out starkly. We sent a single middle aged man into a country that believes not only, that homosexuals should not have the same rights as everyone else, but that they should die. His obituary made me do some searches and of course there were sites that confirmed my suspicions, but that doesn't make it a fact. The man was 52 years old, with no wife, no divorce, and no children mentioned in the obit. And there was some guy on face-book writing updates. Now, this isn't judgment against Christopher Stevens, at all. My question is, why in the world would our government send him into such an obvious harms way? Libya has been completely politically destablized in the last year. Considering there had been 42 years of reported oppression, any first year political science major knows that new found freedom is a hot bed of instability. Just because a man is single in middle age, doesn't mean he's gay, but when the circumstances could lead to the assumption, why take the chance in potentially volatile conditions? If he was gay, why would a government that has evolved to support gay rights, not protect him? Why would our people choose to blame a 13 minute movie rather than a few extremists that are no longer under oppression? While we're here in America, smugly arguing over where to eat chicken; why are we still buying oil products when Libya killed a presumed gay American and Saudi Arabia won't allow Jews in and Christians must be secretive?
But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods . . . prophecy of Holy Scripture

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Obama's Net Worth

I read the most interesting article in Yahoo Finance, the other day and I will include the link for those who are actually forming their opinions with information. I'm not saying it's full of facts, it is the American media, so that fact has to be taken into consideration, but I want to talk about the information and the article itself. First and foremost, this article confirms that President Obama is in fact a 1 Percenter! That's right, through the course of his time "tending to the interests" of the Middle Class, he's become in that lofty elite group in which the 98% are so disgusted. This article truly brought out the hypocrisy of the Obama followers regarding net worth. President Obama is now worth between 2.8 and 11 million. I would have thought the income would have been clearer on his taxes, since everyone is demanding to see Romney's. I'm guessing once you're in the 1%, and I have no personal knowledge of this, but still, you would know how much over that 1 million mark you've reached! Who was the accountant verifying this information? I cannot imagine any bank, accounting firm, or IRS auditor considering a spread over 8 million dollars to be accurate information. I remember very clearly sitting in my mother-in-law's living room as Candidate Barack Obama was introduced as the keynote speaker for the 2004 DNC. He wasn't even a US Senator at that time, only a state senator running for national office. He's certainly come a long way from total obscurity, eh! I've checked other DNCs. Every other DNC had some seriously well known names giving speeches, but in 2004, it as though the stage had been set for him, exclusively. I'm also going to include the link to Wikipedia entitled 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address.
Of course with this fantabulous speech entitled "The Audacity of Hope" came the book deal! It was a 7 digit deal. Then he "decided" to run for president, which skyrocketed the sales, WIN/WIN and with those big winnings he invested in Bonds and Treasury Bills to the tune of millions, and in one particular portfolio that was "more bond heavy" than most balanced funds. Wasn't that fortunate for him through those economically turbulent years for which we all blame President Bush? And rightfully so, or Greenspan or Bernanke, or someone besides Obama, he didn't have the authority, but it was as though he had a certain inside track that kept him from losing half of his saving and investments, when everyone else did. He was also a big enough player in investing by then, he was somebody with the banks who were bailed out. If I didn't know better, it would just seem like a serious of very fortunate wise decisions, but this is America and powerful people that are well taken care of are taken care of by even more powerful individuals.
To have the insight or inside info to be heavily invested in bonds and treasury bills and less in stocks before the crash, then gain the power to distribute as he chose. . . Now that he's controlling the economy, isn't that sort of a conflict of interest or double dipping? Everything about the ascension of Barack Obama just seems so orchestrated . . .

neither is his eye satisfied with riches . . . Holy Scripture

Monday, September 10, 2012

The Tax on Breathing

I've been wondering for some time now, just what this Health Care Reform was truly about. Oh, I didn't really think for a minute, any politician cared about any of the little people. Politicians have awesome health coverage, and that's who they are concerned about. So why this big health care reform bill that nobody really knows what it holds? The republicans have had a hey day making fun of Nancy Pelosi for wanting to pass the bill, so they could read it. I don't know why they are laughing if they really believe it will lead to death panels . . . The health care reform bill affects us all, one way or another, and it was the republican appointed Chief Justice that claimed it to be Constitutional, by calling it a tax. As far as the other side of the aisle is concerned, I just don't think you can be a democrat if you have any understanding of mathematics at all. There are way too many people not only NOT contributing, but living off of a government check. There is no way, this will make health care more affordable. I think I've figured it out. With weather of Biblical proportion the last several years, not to mention the insurance costs of 9/11 and the casualties of war, I'm thinking the insurance companies were running a bit low on perpetual income. We already know as the premiums continue to rise, and the coverage continues to decline, there are more and more citizens that are just carrying the basic minimum required by law. Folks have gone bare-bones insurance coverage for awhile now, and the insurance companies have begun to feel it. Remember when insurance and banking were practically interchangeable? Insurance companies offered CDs with decent rates and even checking accounts. Well, times have changed and insurance companies are scrambling . . . Justice Roberts gave the deciding decision to give the insurance industry the long term cash infusion that was so desperately desired by this corporate cow. Mandatory health care was deemed Constitutional, by calling it a tax. Wow, that's almost like taxing air or at least breathing. It really is, if you consider all breathing people are mandated to now carry health insurance, and Justice Roberts said it's a tax. So, we've sacrificed health care to keep the insurance companies alive and well to pay off cars and houses and other STUFF by mandating that everyone drawing a breath pay them or pay the penalty. The Health Care Reform Bill is proof fascism can be born of democracy.
Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Thursday, September 06, 2012

We Have Redefined the Word "LEADER"

Early this morning, it hit me! We aren't electing leaders, we are electing the best beggar for donations and the guy that will say what ever it takes to get enough votes to be called our leader. We're electing the popular people, just like in High School! Does that sound like a leader to you? No, it isn't even a decent follower. The men running for President are not leaders and they are pandering to people who know little about leading. Romney is pandering to people who know a little something about acquiring and amassing and have more of an elitist entitlement mentality. Obama is pandering to the people who make very little upfront investment in life, but believe they are entitled to the same payoff as those who do invest. Both men are pandering to people who have plenty of free time to be pandered to, and like to feel they are a voice to be reckoned with. The majority of America is really too busy trying to make a living or make a tangible difference to be swayed by the hot button issues which are basically manufactured in Washington DC, by a group of people we call Congress, who also pander to be elected, but they pander to the lobby, because the lobby treats them like aristocrats. It seems our members of Congress enjoy being wined and dined by the lobby of Big Corporations, then have a meet and greet with their constituents, a.k.a. the little people,to tell them how much they are listening . . .
Pandering results in being owned and a person who is owned is not a leader. Persons who are owned are slaves. Some are slaves to big corps, others are slaves to their own narcissism while some have simply sold their souls to the highest bidder, which is never "we the people." No matter the reason, the purpose, or the definition, none of this says LEADER. A leader has direction, a leader doesn't have to read the crowd to see where he/she is going. A leader has vision. A leader of "the free world" should have a vision for the next generation, not seek the approval of those that want to exhaust all resources for their own comfort. A LEADER leads people who know where they want to go and a GOOD LEADER, leads for the good of those who are yet to come, who as of yet, have no say. In the redefining of LEADER, the term public SERVANT has been thrown around to be synoymous. Well, the only place that mentions both leader and servant to be the same is Holy Scripture, and America does not share that definition, nor does either party want to. The only vision either of these men who are campaigning have right now, and it is shared, is the vision of being declared victor in November. What is the saddest observation to me, is the fact that no matter what happens, the victor's followers will revel in his every decision and excuse his every failing, and the followers of the defeated candidate will have four years of blame to cast and anger to feed. To have a real LEADER, we need a candidate with true vision beyond himself!
Where there is no vision, the people perish . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Brown Shirt, Blue Shirt - TSA, the Party Today

I remember vividly, my visceral reaction to TSA. That's Transportation Security Administration for those of us who are trying to keep track of the real meaning behind the initials and acronyms of our political regime. I'm also becoming very jaded when it comes to this "invasiveness" we are just accepting in this country, on every level. It is on every level! Disrespectful rudeness abounds in our nation, from sea to shining sea, from private homes to Washington DC, and everywhere in between. I'm sick of trying to hold a conversation with people staring at their phone pushing buttons and I am sick of being terrorized by a government that tells me they are doing it for our protection. I'm sick of threads being hijacked on forums boards, and to be honest I'm sure some of my old ideas of distractions seem like hijacks to someone else, so I've offered a solution that I'll share in a bit. Now back to TSA. Some of my grandchildren have moved cross country and I miss them terribly, but I hate the idea of my young teen-aged granddaughters being groped at the airport to come see me. and I hate the idea that this is supposed to be acceptable! I also hate the idea of technological strip searching, but that's acceptable now, too. I'm guessing the first bus load to a work camp in Germany in the 30's didn't seem too ominous, either. And every article I read about the TSA is always they are following procedure. Now, see, unlike the Nazi's at Nuremberg, who were just following orders, the TSA is just following procedure. See the difference? Me either! I have compared the blue shirts to brown shirts in this blog before, but we cannot overlook a bizarre set of facts that aren't really being connected, that I think should be. It's not party lines like "they" keep baiting us with, it's government agencies that are already in place to answer to both sides of the aisle and have been for some time. We have all sorts of agencies investing in bullets, we have TSA mentality in nearly every administrative agency and "we the people" have been trained for the past 11 years to accept it for our safety and our own good! So, while we all get on our high horses about this election, keep in mind TSA, SSA, NOAA, HSD all supposedly work for us, but they've got us trained and they all answer to which ever party is in control.
He hath hedged me about, that I cannot get out: he hath made my chain heavy. a Lament of Holy Scripture

P.S. I forgot to share my solution. Check it out. I've founded a group at Facebook for all those who like to argue politics, religion, you name; and have the last word. Or for those who want to gripe about those who like to argue politics, religion and what have you. The group is called: In Your FaceBook. Come on in and be rude, nobody cares.

Blog Archive