Please take a moment to recall to your consciousness the following
non- exhaustive selection of events and factors; "The Cause":

Roosevelt's “New Deal”, Government Provided Welfare Payments,
Organized Labor, Organized Crime, The Mafia, The Ku Klux Clan,
Racial Discrimination, John Kennedy's Assassination,
Lee Harvey Oswald, Martin Luther King's Assassination,
The Watts Riot, Bobby Kennedy's Assassination,
Sirhan Sirhan, Black Panthers, I'm OK-You're OK, Free Love,
Drug Abuse, Flag Burning, Woodstock, Flower Children,
Civil Disobedience, If It Feels Good Do It, Hell's Angels, Black Muslims,
The Vietnam War Defeat and Disgrace, The Charles Manson Gang,
Bianca Family Murder, Treasonous Acts Without Consequences,
Sharon Tate(and her unborn child) Murdered, Draft Dodgers,
The Feminist Movement, The Burning of Bras, William Ayers,
Bernadette Dorn, The Weathermen, Madeleine Murray O'hare
The Advancement Of Scientology, Abortion Legalized "Roe v Wade",
The Bloods, The Crips And Other Street Gangs, Communes, Cults,
Jim Jones' Mass Suicide, Draft Card Burning, Pornography,
Explicit Adult Movies, Domestic Terrorism, Malcolm X, Atheism,
Employment Programs Based On Race Or Color, John Hinckley,
Rampant Entitlement Demands, Affirmative Action, Crooked Politicians,
Attempted Assassination of Ronald Reagan, Open Homosexuality,
Attacks On Prayer In School, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
National Organization of Women (NOW), Attacks On Public Prayer,
Hollywood Uncensored, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV),
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Latch Key Children,
Attacks On Public Displays Of Christian Faith, MoveOn.org,
Child Pornography, Ruby Ridge A National Disgrace,
David Koresh and The Branch Davidians, Same Sex Marriages,
The Waco Massacre A National Disgrace, Hedonism,
Attacks On Governmental Use Of Christian Symbolism,
Rampant Sexual Perversion, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
Attacks On, "In God We Trust", Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton,
Violent And Explicit Rap Music And Video Games, Sadaam Hussein,
Voter and Election Fraud, Attack On The Acchile Lauro,
Revisionist History, Socialist Control of Main Stream Media (MSM)
First World Trade Center Attack, Attack On The USS Cole,
Second World Trade Center on 9-11-2001,
Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now(ACORN),
Supreme Court's Repeated Failure To Uphold The Constitution,
Government Provided Compensation to Illegal Immigrants,
Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda And Taliban, Muslim Extremists,
US Border Agents Prosecuted, Socialists, Communists,


The Election Of A Muslim And A Marxist President.
Barack Hussein Obama.


Where did we think all of this would lead us? Barack Obama is the most transparent president in history. He never felt the need to disguise his intentions and is doing exactly what he said he would do, should he be elected president.

This nation did not elect one that it believed to be the Messiah and then later find that in reality he had evil intentions that are contrary to what was expected. No. What has become, and  is rapidly becoming  an ever more evil and foolish nation elected him for just what he is now proving himself to be: an Abortionist, a Muslim, a Blasphemer, a Marxist, a Racist, a Narcissist and a Tyrant, who despises American capitalism and the free enterprise system that has made it the most powerful and envied nation upon the earth.

 

He and all those who align themselves with him are resolute in their determination to destroy the moral basis upon which this great nation was founded, they intend to deprive us of the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution, and are bent upon the destruction of our very way of life.

The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. Psalms 12: 8

Wake up America!  Before it's too late!!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

I heard about the afternoon carnage at Fort Hood yesterday, while driving in from Plano and, upon arriving home, went straight to the computer and sent the following little note out to my wife and some of our friends and family:

"Sooooo U.S. Army Major Malik Hassan (now deceased), with the possible assistance of two other American soldiers, kills 12 and injures another 30+ at Fort Hood and it is uncertain whether it is a political act or just a case of some Arab Muslim in an American uniform who just cracked after having served in Iraq? I would laugh at the ridiculously implied denial if it were not such an undeniable, serious and tragic act of terrorism on U.S. soil. Wake up America!! "

She instantly fired back:

"YES!!!! They immediately come out with, "It isn't an act of terrorism...but we are not releasing the name right now..." I knew right then it was a Muslim.....AND the FBI went in right away....that doesn't happen on military bases....even Fox...won't "speculate" on whether it was terrorism or not....GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! The mall shootings...the guy who blew himself up outside the stadium...the freeway killer....GEE...they're all Muslims but it isn't terrorism."

Although the establishment media initially reported that Major Hasan had been killed, it has since been reported by CNN, ABC and others that he is in fact not dead. Rather, his condition is now described as stable.

This incredible act which apparently was perpetrated upon these, and all of the other innocent victims by Major Nidal Malik Hasan (and possible accomplices) is horrific, but it is just another in a series of incidents of domestic terrorism (yes by Muslim terrorists) that the establishment media and this current administration continue to deny the existence of.

Let’s give a quick factual review of what led up to this atrocity:
Nidal Malik Hasan was born about 1969 in Arlington Virginia. He apparently graduated from high school about 1988. He joined the army about 1988-89. By 2003 he had received a bachelors degree from Virginia Tech and a doctorate from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD., graduating with a degree in Osteopathy and later finished his residency as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. (all paid for by the U.S. Army -courtesy of 'we the people') He was promoted to the rank of Major in May 2009 after completing a fellowship in Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry at the Center for Traumatic Stress. He was subsequently advised that he would be deployed to Iraq in November , and that's when the (you know what) hit the fan . Major Hasan immediately hired an attorney in an attempt to get out of the military. He was soon advised by his attorney that he was unable to accomplish this, even if the Major paid back the money for his education, one that most other Americans could only dream of obtaining, he would still have to fulfill his current enlistment obligations which included deployment in Iraq. Major Hasan's response to this conclusion was yesterday's rampage.

According to establishment media news reports, Fort Hood base commander, Lt. General Cone, said the motive for the attack, which took place just after 1:30 p.m. CT, is unclear. While he said he could not rule out the incident as an act of terrorism, evidence does not support that theory.
That same media quoted Hasan's cousin Nader Hasan saying that she believed it was his upcoming deployment combined with the wartime horror stories he heard from his patients that set him off. Those same media sources also recorded cousin Nader Hasan saying that mass murderer Nidal Hasan was harassed after 9/11 because of his ethnicity, and was called a "camel jockey".

So some people may have called him names because he was an Arab Muslim,.......and that is more important for the establishment media to talk about than the fact that he has received a full ride education courtesy of the government (read taxpayers) with several years of applied medicine under his belt by the age of 39. Yeah,... this country has certainly not been very good to people like Nidal Malik Hasan. Unbelievable!!!! I cannot find the words to express the outrage that I feel when I read these transparent attempts to rationalize, or even justify acts such as this when they are committed in these modern times by Muslims. I agree with my wife. Give me a break!!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Back in the early 70s, my aunt Wanda and her very laid back husband, Howard, ran a wedding chapel right on the strip in Las Vegas. Uncle Howard took a phone call from a man one night who said that he and his fiancée wanted to get married that very hour, and were on their way over . My uncle said that the guy had acted a little nervous and wanted to know if it was alright if they were both gay. Howard said he told them that most people in Vegas were and my Aunt Wanda went into orbit.. “Howard, “ she said, “are you so clueless. Do you not know what he was asking ? Don’t you know that gay means they are homosexual.”  Uncle Howard rushed out to meet the taxi at the curb and said, “No!! Don’t get out. No can do?” You see, my uncle Howard knew what the word gay meant, he just didn’t know what the gay guy meant when he said, “we’re both gay.”

Merriam-Webster Online defines the word, gay, in the following manner:
gay: 1 a: happily excited ; merry ; in a gay mood b: keenly alive and exuberant ; having or inducing high spirits; a bird's gay spring song 2 a: bright; lively; gay sunny meadows b: brilliant in color 3: given to social pleasures ; also : licentious

Is it just me or is the practice of redefining the meaning and use of common words a relatively new thing? The English language is complicated enough without the meaning of a word arbitrarily shifting and changing until it means something entirely different than its original definition. I pondered this subject as I began this article because for a long time now I have refused to use the term "gay" when talking about homosexual behavior, even though it has become the preferred and politically correct form of reference. The reason for my resistance is not mean spirited or hostile, but rather simply that I can find nothing "gay" about the terrible circumstances that result from a homosexual lifestyle, and therefore find it to be a complete misuse of the term itself.

There is nothing in the Merriam-Webster definition of gay that properly defines a homosexual lifestyle, homosexual behavior or the result thereof except the curious addition of; also: licentious.  The definition of licentious is found elsewhere in that same reference file and is stated as follows:
licentious; 1: lacking legal or moral restraints ; especially : disregarding sexual restraints2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
Indeed, this use of "also" adds a contrasting dark side to the otherwise bright and joyous description of the word, “gay” , as it was originally stated.

In 2002, Raphael Kazmann released the now famous results of a five year study entitled: "Homosexuality - A Public Health Problem”, which found that the average age of homosexuals who were dying with AIDS in the United States was 39. Further, that the average age of homosexuals who died of all causes was only 41. The Kazmann study thereby concluded that homosexual conduct reduced life expectancy, when compared to the general population, by at least 30 years. Studies that have been done by other parties have suggested a reduction of life expectancy for homosexuals of as much as 40 years. Upon review of several thousand case studies, the Kazmann report recorded that only about one percent of homosexuals live to the age of 65.

According to studies done by Kazmann (and others), statistically significant factors which contribute to early death for homosexuals include the following:
A homosexual is:
......literally thousands of times more likely to contract AIDS than a heterosexual......
......up to14 times more likely to contract syphilis......
......up to 23 times more likely to contract one or more of a host of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)......
......up to 45 times more likely to die in a fatal automobile accident...... A homosexual woman is twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, and four times as likely to contract scabies as a heterosexual woman. A homosexual man is 50 times more likely to be murdered than a heterosexual man.

A doctor who was quoted in the New York Times Magazine stated that, “the average homosexual is a tropical island of exotic diseases". Homosexuals make up about 4% of the total US population, yet, they contribute :
......44% of all male syphilis cases......
......50% of all venereal disease cases......
......53% of all intestinal disease cases......
......43% of all hepatitis cases......
......88% of all AIDS cases......

"Gay Bowel Syndrome" is named because of the common bowel problems they have. Including intestinal parasites, chronic infections, ulcers, and oozing blisters in or around the intestinal tracts.

Merriam-Webster Online defines homosexuality in the following manner:
homosexuality: 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

I suggest that we stick to this unemotional, straightforward description of one who is defined by this lifestyle, and stop trying to be, “politically correct”, by giving a finer name to it , in the hope of making it more appealing

I will not call those who are living such tragic lives “gay”, because, they are not...........no matter how much they try to make us believe otherwise. My Cherokee great-grandmother used to say, “Show me the company that you keep , and I will tell you who you are.” If homosexuals were, or if they kept company with people who were, ‘happily excited’, ‘keenly alive and exuberant’ , ‘having or inducing high spirits’, they would not commit suicide at a rate that is over 60 times higher than the general population.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

This opinion piece was originally published on May 20, 2009 at http://denniskey.blogspot.com

 

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), boasted to the Las Vegas Sun this week, "We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it". The two-million-member union, which represents both government and private service employees, proudly proclaimed that its worker members, "knocked on 1.87 million doors, made 4.4 million phone calls and sent out more than 2.5 million pieces of mail in support of Obama." In the final weekend before the November presidential election, the SEIU sent union leaders to seven states to get out the vote for Obama and other Democrats. In return for his generous support and service to the Obama campaign, in a stunning illustration of quid pro quo, Stern now enjoys a prominent seat at the table of every major policy discussion at the White House, including economic recovery and health care radicalization.

In Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity Of Hope", published in 2006, he states,
"Few lobbyists proffer an explicit quid pro quo to elected officials. Their influence comes from having more access than the average voter, having better information, and more staying power when it comes to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients. For most politicians, money is not about maintaining status and power. It is about scaring off challengers and fighting off the fear. Money cannot guarantee a victory, but without money, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose. When I decided to run for the Senate, I found myself spending time with people of means. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class. I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the sense that I spent more time above the fray, outside the world of hardship of the people that I had entered public life to serve."

How, I wonder, does one distinguish between "quid pro quo", and "explicit quid pro quo"?
Webster's New World dictionary defines explicit as: 1. clearly stated; distinctly expressed; leaving nothing implied; definite; etc., 2. saying what is meant; without reservation or disguise; outspoken AND defines quid pro quo as: [Something for something], 1. one thing in return for another; hence, 2. something equivalent; substitute.

So from that, I gather, that the hair Obama is splitting is found in whether the exchange (or trade) will merely be: something implied (or disguised) for something implied (or disguised), rather than the more clearly stated: something equivalent for something equivalent. Either way, in the realm of liberal politics, favor is definitely expected in return for favor, and I personally have a problem with that, when it involves the use of the taxpayer's money, or the granting of huge rewards as repayment to those (such as trade unions) who have made inordinate contributions to election campaigns.

A few pages later, in the same book, Obama adds,
"The leaders of service workers unions [SEIU] broke ranks & chose to endorse me over [my opponent], support that proved critical to my [Senate] campaign. It was a risky move on their part; had I lost, they might have paid a price in access, in support, in credibility. So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I do not consider this corrupting in any way; I do not mind feeling obligated toward home health-care workers or toward teachers. I got into politics to fight for those folks, and I am glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles."

This sounds like a perfect example of quid pro quo to me, but perhaps it begs the question: "Is it explicit, or just the plain old vanilla version?" Whatever the case, since it worked so well in the Senate campaign, it was not such a great 'leap of faith' for Obama to elicit the support of organized labor leaders, in his campaign for the White House. And it wasn't just the SEIU who chipped in, in order to get him elected.

In a Christian Science Monitor posting on, February 2, 2009 we read,
Happier days are here for the labor movement in the United States. The AFL-CIO spent $53 million and its trade union affiliates $250 million to help Barack Obama win the White House, relying mostly on "field mobilization" campaigns to turn out a favorable vote and, Obama has promised to push for and sign the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) [which does away with private-ballot union elections in the workplace], should Congress pass the measure. Trade unionists see that bill as offering a major opportunity to enlarge their numbers by making it easier to organize more offices and more plants. Passage of this bill into law would mean that, among other things, trade-union workers would receive substantial wage and benefit increases. As it is, union workers earn 30 percent higher wages than comparative non-union employees.

Oh, I'm starting to get it now: a substantial Something, for Something substantial!!

Within two weeks of moving into the White House, Obama signed a series of executive orders championed by union bosses. One such measure immediately adopted by Obama requires that when a government service contract runs out and there's a new contract to perform the same services at the same location, the new contractor must retain the old workers. Mickey Kaus of the left-leaning Slate magazine dubbed the move the "Labor Payoff of the Day." Last week Obama slashed the Labor Department's funding to investigate union corruption -- another welcome move for Stern, and the SEIU, who have seen three of Stern's handpicked deputies resign in 2008-2009 over financial scandals involving cronyism, nepotism and embezzlement.

A further indication of the great Obama payback is found in the fact that he has placed SEIU-blessed bureaucrats in every corner of his administration to carry out the agenda, including incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The new rules, which he approved, authorize sweeping powers for the labor secretary that essentially blackball nonunion contractors targeted by labor organizers and prevent nonunion employees in the private sector from working on taxpayer-funded projects. Such regulatory favoritism limits freedom in the workplace and raises the cost of doing business. The SEIU had submitted maximum donations to Solis' first congressional campaign, providing nearly 300 canvassers and 'door knockers'. "I wouldn't be here, were it not for my friends in the labor movement," she gushed. According to sources, over four terms in Congress Solis received more than $900,000 in union campaign contributions.

Also newly installed within the Obama White House's inner circle is former SEIU chief lobbyist Patrick Gaspard, who served as the Obama campaign's national political director and transition deputy director of personnel. During the 2004 election cycle, he led the George Soros-funded group America Coming Together (ACT) as national field director. SEIU poured $23 million of workers' dues money into ACT in its failed attempt to put Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the White House. Under Gaspard's tenure at ACT, the get-out-the-vote group employed convicted felons as canvassers and committed campaign finance violations that led to a $775,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission. Gaspard was appointed White House political director shortly after Election Day 2008.

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger was appointed to the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide advice on "boosting the sagging U.S. economy" (translation: imposing new employment regulations on companies and expanding union membership rolls).

California officials also reported last week that the Obama White House gave the SEIU an unprecedented role in negotiations over federal stimulus funds. According to the Los Angeles Times, the union lobbied the feds to withhold nearly $7 billion in stimulus money from California unless it revoked a wage cut for unionized health care workers -- which had already been approved by Democratic lawmakers as part of a budget deal forged in February. Top SEIU officials participated in a conference call last month on the issue; the Obama White House backed the union demands.

Reuters, March 3, 2009:
President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the Bush administration had tried to undermine organized labor and he assured U.S. labor leaders they would always have a "place at the table" under his presidency. "We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests," Obama said in prepared remarks for a video address to the executive board of the AFL-CIO, the largest U.S. labor federation, meeting in Miami.

American union members are already by far the highest paid hourly workers in the civilized world. I wonder what Obama means when he repeatedly assures their representatives that he intends to, "level the playing field"? Perhaps he means in the same way that they 'leveled the playing field' for him during his presidential campaign [quid pro quo]. If you haven't been paying attention, the news is full of his repayment gestures to the trade unions.

According to The New York Times, December 12, 2008,
Hourly pay and compensation for most long-time United Auto Workers (UAW) union members is about $55 an hour. The figure ranges above $70 an hour when the automakers’ costs for health care for retired workers and retirement benefits is factored in. By contrast, workers in plants run by foreign companies in the United States earn about $45 an hour, and the non-union companies do not have the hefty burdens for future “legacy costs” that are faced by the Detroit companies. $45 versus $70 means the foreign, non-union companies have a $25/employee/hour labor advantage. Additionally, since pay and employment at non-union companies is dependent upon meritorious performance (not seniority), the efficiency of such companies are something in the neighborhood of 'light years' ahead of unionized companies, which are required to employ significantly more people than required for every task, just to make it possible to get the daily job done.

And while we are on the subject of pay and advancement based upon union rules rather than performance, let us consider the sorry state of public education in America today. In order to avoid offending those who are not the target of my comments, I offer this disclaimer: A good and dedicated teacher is worth every dollar of his/her pay, and more, and I don't have enough good things to say about such an individual. Unfortunately, however, after seeing my own children wade through the public school system, and having watched for another 10+ years, the continued and unabated degradation of public education in the United States, I have to say that the aforementioned teachers and school administrators are (sadly) in the minority. I am certain that some of you can relate to my personal experiences. Among other things, our children came home, K-12, with volumes of homework, most of which had never even been discussed in the classroom, and my wife and I (mostly my wife) had to do the teaching. This will never really be remedied until teachers are again properly compensated for meritorious performance instead of union seniority. This is the way it was done in earlier times when most teachers really were teachers, who carefully measured their worth by the degree of knowledge imparted unto their students. Of course, a lot of things have changed at school since those days, back when they taught the truth about our country,and the world at large, instead of the revisionist history that is taught today.

A good teacher is still worth his/her weight in gold, a bad, corrupt or indifferent one does far more damage than good. I recently discovered that the Los Angeles Unified School District is paying 160 teachers to stay home. Incredible!! These are California teachers who have been accused of things such as theft, drug possession and sexual harassment of teenage students. These teachers are being “housed,” as they call it, while their fitness to teach is under review. For some reason, reviews of this type may take years to complete. In the meantime, even now, when the budget cuts of a state [California] on the verge of bankruptcy, are forcing layoffs of other teachers, the cost of keeping this deadwood on salary runs L.A. taxpayers over $10 million-a-year. That doesn’t include the legal costs incurred by the city who has to fight the Teacher's Union in order to get these undesirables out of education and into a different line; preferably it will be one down at the unemployment office. The dumbing down of America, which is so obvious it has become an international embarrassment to our nation, is the result of teachers who simply don't care about much of anything except personal benefits. I said it and I meant it! If you really don't want to teach our children, and address them with responsible and nurturing care and behavior, then do us a favor and get out of the profession.

From Shikha Dalmia, Forbes, April 16, 2009, we have learned that teachers' unions contributed $50 million to Obama's campaign. Something for Something indeed: The Obama administration increased public education spending 10-fold for two years as a part of its $750 billion stimulus package including, among other things, money to weather-proof school buildings.

Though it should come as no surprise to the cynics among us, since taking office, this administration has quickly (and quietly) eliminated a popular Washington D.C. school voucher program. But for everyone else--or, rather, everyone who is not 'down' with the teachers' unions--its conduct has to come as a total shock. During his campaign, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected he would lead the most ethical administration in history, one immune from the corruption of special-interest politics. In reality, he has yet to offer even a pretense of resistance to one of the biggest Democratic special interest groups: teachers unions--even though it is evident that what's driving their opposition to the voucher program is not principle but rather, is motivated purely by self-interest. Oh yes, unions have pretended to oppose vouchers because they would drain resources from public schools and public school children. But the D.C. test program didn't do that. In fact, precisely to address this objection, the program was structured to keep D.C. public schools financially stable, meaning they lose no funding when their students transfer to a private institution. If anything, they have more money to spend on the remaining children. Obama would have done all D.C. children a service by pointing out this inconvenient truth--but instead, he chose to remain silent. The most blatant hypocrisy involves Obama's personal parental conduct. He chose to send his own daughters to Sidwell Friends, a private school, among D.C.'s most exclusive institutions, whose annual tuition runs around $30,000. If he felt so strongly that offering children an exit route would stymie the reform of public schools, then why not put his own daughters in one? It's sad that Obama's message of hope and change doesn't include children in the general population, yours and mine.

Our president would really like for all labor to be organized, and perhaps some of you agree. A union representative has stated that Obama made a clear promise to their 'bosses', at the very beginning of his campaign, that he would push for fair trade and protect work opportunities for U.S. workers. This was why many unions contributed so much to Obama’s run for the office. The AFL-CIO set up a campaign office for Obama in its headquarter with full time staff and 70 phone lines to get people to vote. The union’s local offices had similar setups. The representative stated that the members of the union, and their families, account for 25 percent of the total vote.

Picture a buffalo within a herd, relentlessly following those ahead of him who are all falling over a cliff. Albert Einstein once said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result", and someone else has said it another way: "What we learn from history, is that we do not learn". But the union labor drones, are not worrying about buffalo, or insanity, or history, they are instead worrying that corporate managers are exporting their jobs to foreign countries. Well guess what? They are moving to cheaper labor markets so that they can stay in business, as they strive to compete in the global marketplace. And here is a news flash for you. In every case in America, where the union has had a long term foothold we are failing in the international world of market competition. In some cases, we have already failed. Transportation (represented by Teamsters), Automotive (represented by United Auto Workers), Meat Packers, United Iron Workers, Teachers Unions and the list goes on and on. It is astounding to me that the members of these unions do not even seem to realize that they are organizing and negotiating themselves right out of their own jobs.

If you are an 'organized' citizen reader, I'm sorry if I come across too direct, but not really, for these are the blunt facts. Welcome to the real world, my friend! Quid pro Quo.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved

This opinion piece was originally publushed on June 10, 2009 at http://denniskey.blogspot.com.  I am re-inserting it to the web on the townhall blog as an exhortation to conservative fence riders, i.e. moderate Republicans.

 

Today I am attempting to break through "writer's block" in order to continue publishing my political blog, Introspection. I realized this morning that the stifling of creative writing that I have been experiencing for the past couple of weeks has been brought on by what I must now characterize as the "wimping down" of the Republican party. Oh I have works in progress that I have begun, and tentatively identified, with titles such as...................

The Cancer That Killed General Motors (about the destruction of the big three automakers by the UAW)

Which Congressman Has The Cajones To Stand Up And Call Her A Racist And A Liar? (about the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court)

Barack Obama, The Effect Not The Cause (about Republican abdication of responsibility)

Don't Tread On Me (a call to renewed patriotism)

The Chicken Or The Egg (about what came first, Socialism or Apathy)

If It Feels Good Do It (about the loss of our moral compass)

Not By Might, Not By Power But By The Spirit (about the condition of the world as it relates to biblical prophecy)

My Conservative Friends, Stop Promoting Foolish and Erroneous Stories. (about conservatives carelessly passing on ridiculous emails attributing great and patriotic statements to famous liberals such as Robin Williams, Andy Rooney, George Carlin, Bill Cosby and others that were never made, and in doing so, causing all conservatives to appear naive, misinformed and foolish)

Mr. Obama, You Are A Liar, A Blasphemer And A Traitor! (about the Cairo speech last week)

............................but I have been so bombarded by an emerging and disturbing trend that has invaded my consciousness in such volume that it has almost extinguished both hope and fervor within my heart and soul. Let me explain.

As I read the entire context of Obama's Cairo speech, I was struck by the fact that from start to finish he demonstrated an undisguised, disgraceful and treasonous intent to lie, distort facts, blaspheme and generally denigrate America, while fawning all over the Muslim audience that he was addressing .

Nevertheless, and incredibly I might add, well known conservative, Kathleen Parker wrote her own fawning critique of his speech in a Townhall piece published on June 7, entitled, Obama's Muslim Campaign, illustrating that she completely missed most of the salient points of his rant. To a somewhat lesser degree, popular talk radio host Dennis Prager in his June 9, Townhall article, Why The Cairo Speech Was So Sad, did basically the same thing.

Ms. Parker stated, "The nearly hour-long speech, which contained many inspired passages, was essentially a teaching moment. A lecture, if you will. Beyond delivering core messages of partnership and a new beginning based on mutual understanding and respect, Obama made three big scores: He essentially neutralized Osama bin Laden. He managed to call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a hateful ignoramus without ever mentioning his name, and he affirmed Western values of democracy, human rights, religious freedom and women's right to self-determination -- all while making Muslims feel complimented, appreciated and understood. No small feats."
"Finally, Obama was unflinching in defending American values, though he characterized them not as uniquely American values but as human rights."

Clearly Ms. Parker missed the fundamental anti-American message of his speech, did not hear the same speech that I did or worse, only heard what she wanted to hear. Where she got the idea that, "He essentially neutralized Osama bin Laden,managed to call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a hateful ignoramus without ever mentioning his name, and affirmed Western values of democracy, human rights, religious freedom and women's right to self-determination", or that he was, "unflinching in defending American values", is beyond my comprehension. Read in context, nothing that he said was complimentary to the US, nor to American women. Clearly his intent was to elevate his support for Muslim Nations and Islam by patronizing, chiding and denigrating America, our lifestyle, our place in the world, and Christianity.

Mr. Prager thought it was important for Mr. Obama to, "tell the Muslim world that there was a Holocaust, that anti-Semitism is evil, that Israel and America have an unbreakable bond, and that religious intolerance in the Muslim world is unacceptable".

Elsewhere in the article he stated, "Nevertheless the president made some courageous points, and an honest appraisal of his speech needs to note them. For example, telling an audience in Cairo and presumably hundreds of millions of Muslims elsewhere that America's "bond is unbreakable" with Israel was courageous and important".
"Yet, despite many objectionable aspects of the president's speech, it was very important for someone of President Obama's stature to tell the Muslim world that there was a Holocaust, that anti-Semitism is evil, that Israel and America have an unbreakable bond, and that religious intolerance in the Muslim world is unacceptable. But for precisely those reasons his speech was so sad".

It is well known that Mr. Prager, a Jew, has a sustained interest in the welfare of Israel, as well we all should. But a careful review of the entire Cairo speech reveals that Mr. Prager, who was obviously seeking encouragement for Israel, has also misinterpreted the meaning of Obama's words. When coherent, which was not always the case, this president clearly demonstrated a thinly veiled intent to support Palestinian and Muslim goals while patronizing and ultimately threatening Israel.

On another topic, Laura Bush, apparently felt the need to go on Good Morning America this week to lend her support to Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court, calling Sotomayor, who has unquestionably demonstrated that she is both a liar and a racist, "a very interesting and good nominee."
Bush further stated, "You know, as a woman, I'm proud that there might be another woman on the court...."

Condoleeza Rice, Oklahoma congressman J. C. Watts, and other noteworthy conservative political figures greatly disappointed many of us when they made it plain that they supported Barack Obama for president simply because he was black. It is now equally painful to observe that Laura Bush's litmus test for this nominee, to the highest court in the land, is gender.

Compounding the shift in attitudes by public conservatives is my observation that many of my conservative friends seem to now believe that the nicer we behave the more the voting public will like us. That moderate tone will be more acceptable to the masses than an urgent and uncompromising cry for reason. This is historically, emphatically and unequivocally false!

My dear friends, it is not difficult to understand why the people who give unconditional support to the socialist goals of Obama do so, (the Black Americans, Sodomites, Abortionists, Labor Unions, Muslims, Welfare Recipients, Illegal Immigrants, Hedonists and the like), but when I begin to hear a softening of tone, a rationalizing of standards, a move toward the left and compromise of substance from those who have been the public face of American conservatives, how can I not feel a little confused and demoralized. When I also hear a left shift from my personal friends and fellow conservatives toward a more moderate view, and an underlying criticism of those who would boldly speak out against the tyranny of socialism and yes, against this administration, it is difficult to believe that our national heritage is not at great risk.

When we become like sheep, the wolves will devour us.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

On Tue Jun 16 2009, the Drudge Report  reported the following excerpts: 
"ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
On Wednesday, June 24, the media and government will become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!"------

 "As an interesting footnote: The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who herself worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006."

"Highlights of the June 24th agenda:
1) Wednesday morning’s “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an exclusive interview with President Obama. He will sit down with Diane Sawyer to discuss healthcare and other issues on the nation’s agenda. Wednesday’s GMA program will also feature portions of Robin Roberts’ exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama.
2) That evening, the network will air a prime time "town hall" special entitled: “Questions for the President: Prescription for America".
3) Later that same evening, Charles Gibson will deliver “World News” from the Blue Room of the White House .
4) Then at 11:35pm ET “Nightline” will continue the discussion of, "Prescriptions for America", to conclude the unprecedented day's activities."

This all free, courtesy of ABC and it’s sponsors.

"Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS. In it he said:
"As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.”--------
“Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.”--------
“In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime."

Laughably, ABCNEWS responded with a refusal and a ridiculously ludicrous reply that included the following comment:

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue."

I said, laughably, but what I should have said is, “Don’t make me laugh!!”

I did not tune in to the gala events, though I may have read the transcripts, because I no longer spend time watching ABCNEWS, except occasionally to find out who is sponsoring them so that I can add their names to the list of companies that I refuse to spend money with. Oh, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think or how to behave anymore, but if you are an entertainer then you had better just entertain me if you want my financial support via the purchase of your entertainment products, movies, music and the like. If you produce or sell a product, and you want my business then don't shoot your mouth off about your destructive liberal views, and how your president is doing such a wonderful job, and don't advertise your own financial support for the socialists who are hell bent upon ruining this great nation of ours, because I will surely remove you from my list of those that I intend to patronize; and if you are a news reporter then report the news, don't spin it or fill it with your disturbed liberal bias or you will lose me and all other conservatives like me.

You may say, “who cares“, but I assure you my liberal friend that you will care because it is we conservatives who habitually follow the news. Liberals, as a demographic group, are too busy trying to figure out how to disprove the facts that invalidate Al Gore's global climate change lunacy. Or they are too engaged, trying to gain for homosexuals the right to marry each other so that they can become Daddy and Dad to some poor unfortunate child through adoption, or they are off protecting some abortion clinic so that irresponsible women and their mercenary doctors can destroy their "inconvenient truths" without fear of criticism or moral judgement. Liberals don't watch the news because they don't care what the facts are, they just want to be identified as liberals or socialists or communists or whatever segment of the left that they might have a desire to fit into. They don't really care what Obama's agenda is, as long as they get some free stuff and as long as they are never required to take responsibility for any irresponsible action that they may engage in. They will cheer anything that he does or says as long as he includes the words, “change” or “hope” in his commentary.

Who knew that it could be that easy. That he really didn't have to 'do' anything of substance in order to capture their adoring support.

Well I don't know about you, but as a very good friend of mine said recently, "There are two ways to vote, at the ballot box, and with your money; and I will no longer give my money to anyone who reveals himself to me as a liberal." I agree, and have added a third category: I will not give any of my time [read: attention or time spent viewing or listening] to liberals, or my money, or my ballots, and additionally, I will personally also continue to vote with my website.

It has been years now since I watched any news program on ABC, CBS, NBC, or really any of the others except FOX, but when I do occasionally pause to hear what is being said, it is so out of context that I, even now, are somewhat shocked. A little known and unreported fact is that all three of these, as well as MSNBC have lost an average of 25% of their viewing audience since January 1st of this year, and that, after an undisclosed erosion over the past few years. I predict that news, that is not news, but rather is undisquised biased,and "in your face" spin of the facts, is of no real interest to any serious observer.

While I have refused to give them any of my time, I have not fully concentrated on their sponsors so that I can refuse to spend any money with them. I will do that beginning today. I will make a list of who they are, and add them to a growing group of product companies and people that I no longer support with my time or my money. In the present, I no longer knowingly purchase products that are "union made", or that benefit people such as Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, Sean Penn, The Dixie Chicks, Jennifer Aniston, Barbara Streisand, David Letterman, Wanda Sykes, Janine Garafola, or Kathy Griffin, or companies such as Citgo, Starkist, Del Monte, Tyson, Heinz, Snopes, Wikipedia, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, etc., or producers that develop and promote movies such as Corpus Christi and The Omega Code or anything that America hating Michael Moore is involved with, or anti-American groups such as the ACLU, AARP, ACORN, AFT, NEA, UAW, the AFL-CIO, NOW, etc. I will not, going forward, knowingly purchase products from companies that are owned or managed by the government either. It is my intention in the near future to begin a regular publication that summarizes my findings, with associated justification, and I will continue to add names and companies to that list as they arrogantly offend me by their blatant and undisguised support of all those who would oppose the fundamental morality upon which this nation was founded, and the rules of the Constitution by which it has been so well governed.
You, my dear friends and family, may do as you please, but I would “hope”, that you would join those of us who refuse to vote for anyone whose goals include perpetuating radical “change” that would seek to deprive our citizens of the freedom to openly express that morality, and to be justly protected by the true, honest and unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution. I would further “hope” that you would joins us in refusing to vote for anyone who would sponsor, aid, abet, fund or provide any other form of support to those merchants of destructive “change“, which they contrive to impose upon this nation. In summary, I would greatly “hope“ that you would join us in our resolve to withhold from the lot of them, not only your election ballots but also your money and your time [remember, read: attention or time spent viewing or listening].

As proof of his commitment my friend, who I mentioned earlier in this article,  initiated an immediate “change”, cancelling an insurance policy that had for years been provided by a local agent who, in a moment of arrogance, flaunted his allegiance to Obama, and to the careless and foolish agenda of his administration. My friend now votes his money with an insurance agent that shares his conservative desire and “hope”, for our country.

You know, it occurs to me that, viewed in proper perspective, “hope” and “change” are really very good things, . . . . . .when they are found in the hearts and minds of right minded and thoughtful people.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.