I fail to see how people can still believe anything this guys says.
When Rev. Wright first came to the public's notice and refused to stop being an issue of the Obama campaign, Obama came out and gave his big "racial healing" speech. I was not impressed. He threw his Grandmother under the bus and told us all to stop over-reacting to Wright. We needed to consider the times that had framed his opinions and impressions and get over it.
Obama really hoped that would be the end of it.
But alas! In recent days, Obama's pastor of 20 years has become a media darling and has been spouting his hatred in well-publicized venues. And the stuff he's been saying -- well, the claim can no longer be made that the statements were "taken out of context."
What has Rev. Wright been saying? Well, it is all on YouTube and you can watch it if you want, but the gist of it is pure unadulterated racism.
What else do you call it when he is making a claim that there are genetic differences between whites and blacks? He claims things about black people being descended from one preferred group and whites from another. It is all so disgusting!
So much for "racial healing." Martin Luther King, Jr. is rolling over in his grave. I don't think this is what he dreamed about anyway...
But, back to Obama. As you recall, the first time Rev. Wright made the MSM, Obama came galloping up on a white horse to defend his crazy uncle. He could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community, remember? And yet, now that Rev. Wright's own distinct brand of racism is back again in the national spotlight and so obviously vile as to no longer be brushed under the carpet and ignored, he repudiates the man and his statements.
Now we are to believe, Obama has finally heard the real message this man preaches. A message he's apparently not been preaching consistently for the past 20 years, despite all evidence to the contrary.
This is pure politics. Obama is still trying to tie up the Democratic nomination and Hillary is still not fading into the sunset. The last thing Obama needs right now is ties to a crazy racist minister that he's apologized for before. Obama has to distance himself. Has to. So don't go trying to convince me that he's a "different" kind of politician. That's a lie. He's got the playbook and he is following it to the letter.
Article 36: Be sure to disavow any politically inconvenient relatives, friends, or acquaintances as soon as it becomes necessary.
Once again, it is all about the eeeeevil influence of the West.
In 1996, the head of a government-backed children's agency called Barbie a "Trojan horse" sneaking in Western influences such as makeup and revealing clothes.
Barbie is sold wearing swimsuits and miniskirts in a society where women must wear head scarves in public and men and women are not allowed to swim together.
Or, maybe Barbie's popularity is a giant glaring message that the Iranian people want their government officials to just chill out.
Attention would-be entrepreneurs: Giant opportunity here in the sales of Barbie-sized hijabs and jilbabs. You know, because Barbie is too hot to stand without the traditional coverings...she might incite Ken to rape her for dishonoring her family.
The past two weeks have been particularly stressful, as you might have guessed based on my lack of posting. It has been a rough ride, no doubt.
Last Monday at 6:00 a.m., my husband was informed that he was being layed off. Because it is a union shop and he only has been working there 9 years (!), he was on the list to go. This really had nothing to do with how he performs, his reliability, or anything based on merit. It was all about hire date. By 6:30 a.m. he had an interview scheduled for another job with a firm that had been trying to hire him away from his employer for 4 years. By the end of the day, he had a second interview scheduled (with a second prospective new employer).
On Tuesday, he was offered a job by the firm that had been courting him for several years. It is less money, but the savings in gas, windshield time, and childcare were going to make up for it. We decided the second prospective job was the wrong direction (more hours, less money), so that was an easy decision. But, we were still mulling over the new job offer and had found a way to make sure that our health insurance never lapsed. All good, right?
Well, so we thought...
Fast forward to yesterday afternoon. It seems that the management of his current employer (who did the lay-off) has re-thought the layoffs and realized that a strict hire-date layoff was going to leave them with serious deficits in certain departments. Essentially, it was creating a skill drain, leaving them without the people who they count on. For example, they would be stuck with a bunch of guys who can run screw guns...and not much else. My husband, as it turns out, is one of those special skills guys.
So yesterday, they came to my husband and told him his job was safe again. Of course, they already knew that he'd been offered and accepted another job. But, management really doesn't want him to leave. Why? Because he actually works, performs, gets things done. When they need him to work late or weekends, he works. He's just that way. Now they are realizing that he's got another offer.
Suffice it to say that we're going to be okay. I am pretty confident that he's going to take the new job. When we boiled it down, it came back to the argument that his job is safe now, but what about 6 months from now? There won't be much dead weight left, and his number could come up again.
It is not lost on me that we have lost a lot of sleep over this. I like to call it exquisite torture. We are see-sawing back and forth emotionally, subject to the whims of corporate middle managers who couldn't manage their way out of a cardboard box. I am also mindful of how lucky we are. Ours wasn't the only family affected by this. There are lots of families out there looking at no job and here we have the choice of two. It is a testament to my husband's value as a skilled employee, but I still feel a bit guilty. Not too guilty though.
I'm just hopeful he can get out from under the dirty, lazy, wicked thumb of the union.
So, apparently, the separation of church and state is not as much a separation as we thought, or at least not if the religion in question is a Christian or Jewish one. Islam, on the other hand, well that appears to be totally and completely cool.
Welcome, my friends, to the absurdity of political correctness.
I have discovered the appropriate carrot, now where's my stick?
Yesterday, I laid out a new plan as regards the potty training of Bunny Boop.
The plan was part bribery, part blackmail. That plan has shown some progress.
When I arrived home yesterday, I showed Bunny Boop the bag of miniature peanut butter cups I had bought for her. She is a huge fan of these, rabid even, and wanted to dig into the bag immediately.
But I said no. I explained to her that she could have one if she went potty in the potty. I then showed her the m&m's. I explained that she could have one of these if she sat on the potty.
I wish I had had a camera at that moment. My child looked at those m&m's with blatant, unmasked, disdain. In fact, when I gave her an m&m after helping her to sit down on the potty, she threw the m&m into the bowl.
She doesn't need no steenkin' m&m's! Not when there are peanut butter cups!
I feel like a crack dealer. After she had sat on the potty for 5 or 10 minutes, I finally gave her one of the peanut butter cups so that she would associate them with the potty. Next time? No pee, no peanut butter cup. Just like a crack dealer: get 'em hooked for free, then bleed 'em dry.
Extortion, blackmail, bribery, and a little crack-dealer-esque hook-n-bleed. All in a day's work for a mother.
By the way, bibi did get to go to the baby sitter's with Bunny today. She sat on the potty this morning like a big girl, so as promised, bibi got to go to the sitter's house. But, since she didn't do her business, no peanut butter cup was given. And, the m&m reward for sitting was again treated disdainfully and tossed into the bowl without regret.
I have posted a number of times about bibi. This is another such post.
Last night, I snuck bibi into the washer again. It needed a good soak. The thing wasn't filthy, but it wasn't exactly clean either. And, how could it be? Bunny loves her bibi. She wipes snot on it. She sucks on it. She drags it behind her. She stuffs it in corners and all kinds of containers of every shape and size. She sleeps with it, plays with it, and talks to it.
I am convinced that it talks back to her.
Anyway, I have tried to refuse to let her take it everywhere. If we are going somewhere overnight or on an extended car trip, I let her take it. If she's sick, I usually let her take it with her. But, I don't let her take it into stores and only rarely does she get to take it to the babysitter's house.
I purposely left it behind this morning, in fact. You see, I am still trying to potty train the little obstinate child and she isn't exactly embracing the concepts. So, after she threw a fit at 6:00 a.m. over the potty, I decided to strike a deal with her.
We got to the sitter's this morning and no sooner had I put the car in park than she had begun asking about bibi. I take her inside and she knows I don't have bibi in my hands. She begins crying (they have a very close relationship, she and bibi). Crying becomes wailing. Wailing is joined by additional drama of throwing oneself on floor and calling out for bibi. And of course, she gives me the look.
You know the look. The one that she'll give me again when she's a teenager if she perceives a slight against her boyfriend. That youareevilIhateyou! look. That's the look I got for not immediately driving home to retrieve bibi. So, I explained that if she will sit on the potty and go potty, I'll let her bring bibi. But if not? No bibi.
Harsh? Maybe. But the candy rewards aren't working as I had hoped. And, unfortunately for Bunny, blackmail is totally in my repertoire.
Look, she's a bright kid. I am convinced that if she can just get past the mental block it will be cake. But the mental block is currently the equivalent of a three-feet deep concrete wall. So, I'm hoping that dangling bibi before her will help her climb over the wall.
It is time.
Yes, I've heard it before and I'll hear it again, I'm sure: I am a bad bad mommy.
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during)altercations."
Egad. This is just stupid.
Do you know how many states have concealed carry laws on the books? Take a gander at the map below. Source here.
Thirty-six states have concealed carry licensing for law-abiding citizens. If concealed carry really lead to the sort of danger that Obama alludes to, it would be all over the national news. Headlines would practically scream about licensed concealed carry gunowners going postal on the highways, in parking lots, grocery stores, etc. But the fact is, that simply doesn't happen. Statistics prove that. Check this out.
In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.
Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”
Dave Kopel has written, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”6 A article related to Michigan’s RTC law said, “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”
More importantly, Liberals, like Barack Hussein Obama - the Senator with the most liberal voting record - forget one very important thing: criminals don't apply for concealed carry licenses, only law-abiding citizens do.
And, this is an important distinction. You and I have a natural right, a Constitutionally recognized right to protect our life, liberty, and property. Moreover, as you may or may not know, the police are not required to protect you.
In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
So apparently, according to Obama's own words, you shouldn't be protecting yourself and legally the cops don't have to. That's a fine kettle of fish, eh?
Yeah. I'm still no closer to actually voting for this Liberal. My life is still more important to me than that of my attacker. Sorry, Obama. (Well, actually, I'm not sorry. I just don't like his ridiculous positions.)
You know, it used to be that nothing was sticking to Barack Hussein Obama. Maybe that was because they weren't bothering to do the spaghetti test, I don't know. But, the longer he is out there in the bright of daylight, the more little cockroaches that are associated with him go scurrying back into their corners.
"We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated."
"You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man," Meeks said in a sermon tape which he later defended in an interview with Chicago CBS2 reporter, Mike Flannery.
On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."
The man has a really weird group of friends, does he not? I mean, come on! Bigots, homophobes, crooks, and terrorists. Oh My!
You know, if he can get people to swallow all of this ugliness and vileness, maybe he will earn that title of "uniter."
I just can't believe that Democrats are getting behind this man. That party is supposed to be the party that fights racism, that supports homosexuals, and...it turns out, not so much.
Yeah. As the days pass by, I learn more and more about how much this man shouldn't be the leader of the free world.