President Obama and the U.S. flag

I received this via e-mail recently. This is no surprise, but I do believe it to be revealing.

The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press."
From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008, 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. General Bill Ginn, USAF (ret.), asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention, facing the flag, with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

"Senator" Obama replied:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides...." "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression...." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air, and all that sort of thing."

Obama continued:, "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as "redesign" our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ....."

"When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts . We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice, which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag, and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past."

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

He is certainly accomplishing his goals.

Jay Carney

Wednesday, October 12th I watched Jay Carney speaking about the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador. He called it an act of terrorism. He also said that he is calling it what it was. I believe that he was referring to NOT calling it an act of war. So he as spokesman for President Obama is not going to call this plot that can be traced back to Iran, an act of war.

So an assassination of an ambassador is NOT an act of war? I must say that I define acts of war a little differently than our president. The embassies around the world are supposed to be the property and land of the owning country. So are the ambassadors. So what does it take to commit an act of war? Killing some of our soldiers? Attacking a general? Would the assassination of the head of SAC meet the qualifications? Maybe it would take a nuclear attack upon one of our cities, but that could also be an act of terrorism. And it would not be an act of war? I am making a jump here, but I do not believe it to be all that much of a leap, given the extreme views and ideology of the President of MY country. What the hell will we ever FIGHT wars for under this President’s leadership? We are sending a few hundred soldiers to Uganda to help with the situation there. What the hell is going on? Just days after an enemy has committed an act of war against us and we are reacting by sending soldiers to a different country on a different continent. Maybe President Obama sees a connection here, but I do not.

Plot to kill Saudi Ambassador

A plot was exposed yesterday that connected Iran to an assassination attempt on the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. A problem here is that we lose either way.

If this is just made up by the administration to bring pressure off of other issues, we are in big trouble because of the level of deceit required. Frankly, I can see President Obama going for something like this, but I doubt that this is it.

More likely this is true, but what does that say about our position? President Obama sure needed to go public in order to help his political position. Desperate situations call for desperate measures and President Obama’s political position IS desperate. Are we winning the war because we continue to play good defense? Or are we losing because the war is coming closer to home? Now that combat is low in Iraq and Afghanistan is winding down, we are not inflicting anywhere near the losses on our enemy’s ‘army’ as we have in the past. (I use the term ‘army’ loosely because I am referring to Islamic nationalists. This is the one unifying ideology that binds all of the Islamic terrorist groups.) Fighting a regular army is very expensive in human capital, but it also expends tremendous resources such as supply and finances. We are not draining our enemy capabilities today like we were just a few years ago.

Our frisky enemies are beginning to re-deploy. I am certain that Iraq and Afghanistan will continue a certain level of enemy activity, but we can expect more activity throughout the rest of the world. Even if not pulled off, this plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. is an act of war. They must be feeling pretty confident if they are willing to attempt something this bold. Iran is beginning to flex its muscles a little. I doubt our response will be anywhere near firm enough to begin to make Iran hesitant in whatever it is doing.

Unions

Last month, a group of Health Care workers in California went on strike. In order to meet the needs of the customers, the provider brought in 500 temporary workers. Unfortunately, one of these workers gave a woman a lethal dose by accident. That worker undoubtedly will punish him/her self for as long as he/she lives. This is the greatest fear of all health care providers. (One of my sisters is a nurse) This issue is not about pay. It is not about having more vacation time. Unions are very good at issues of pay and benefits for workers. As this incident demonstrates, quality of work is not at the top of the union priority list.

This incident brings up a question. Should temps have been brought in at all? Or should the providers even be allowed to walk out on their job like that? I suppose that allowing non-essential personnel the right to walk off the job may be a compromise, but who is to say a person is non-essential?

Another question is do we really want government run health care? After all, this type of incident would become much more common. Don’t think so? OK, lets see what the fall out from this is. The Heath Care provider (A private company) is liable and the relatives can easily (And probably will) sue for compensation. As they are probably entitled. Compare this with attempting to sue the Federal government. If you have any question as to how well that would work, go to Canada or England to see how well mistakes are handled. You should not have to look all that hard.

We have teachers call in sick in Wisconsin in order to travel to Madison so that they can protest about the governors’ policies. Yet that same organization talks about how important it is for students to not skip school. I guess that getting better pay and benefits are more important than doing one of the most important jobs in the country. OK, one day is not a big deal. Schools already have a ton of days off without counting the summer. On top of this, you should hear the president of the teachers union talking about the ‘ruling class’ and how important it is to fight them. “If teacher unions want to be strong and well supported, it is essential that they not only be teacher unionists, but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement for workers rights, oppressed peoples’ rights. That’s our responsibility.” Ruling class? Oppressed people? Sounds like class warfare. And also sounds Communist or Marxist to me. Not exactly the ideas that American was founded upon.

OK, I am against unions in general anyway. This is only a couple of examples of where I feel that unions are not good. I have an idea: Let’s unionize the military. Just think about how much better off we will all be if our soldiers have the ‘right’ to not go off and fight the dumb wars that our political leaders foolishly get us into. We could save so much money that we could afford to pay them all much more than what we pay them today. Talk about stupidity.

Unions may have had their purpose in the past. My personal experience has been as negative as the examples that I have talked about here. (The two times that I have worked in unions, I did not have a choice) I don’t work in a union, I don’t want to ever work in a union again and I certainly don’t want union ideology taught to my children.

Religion IS a factor in terrorism

I pulled this from the Daily Herald dated 9/30/11. It really says it all. (Posted 10/5/11)

Yes, religion is a factor in terrorism

This is in response to a Fence Post letter by Aabeda Masra on Sept. 24 in which the writer said not to blame religion for acts of terror. The letter stated that what happened on 9/11 and for all acts of terror are “motivated by political goals and religion should not be blamed nor should it even come into the picture”. I have to strongly disagree with that.

I know that there’s the whole “being PC” about this, but the facts are that all 19 hijackers on those four planes that day were Muslim. Fifteen of the men were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. They were not going for any political goals when they plotted 9/11; they hated America, Americans, and our way of life because we don’t all follow their religion and live by their beliefs.

Yes, they were extremists and I know not all Muslims feel as these terrorists do, but don’t tell me that their religion didn’t influence them to do what they did. It was even said by their leader Osama bin Laden that it was a “holy war” against the United States and the final words each of them were shouting as they slammed the planes into our buildings were calls to praise Allah.

I don’t see how much clearer it can be that what happened on that day and all the other terrorist attacks that have happened since the 1970s have all been based on religion and how they felt they were serving their god.

Shawn Killackey
Mundelein


Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110930/discuss/709309945/#ixzz1ZlL8etRc



A comment was then made that all religions have their ‘dark side’. True enough, but a significant difference emerges when you look at those in the ‘West’ who bomb abortion clinics and Islamic terrorism. The KKK does not field combat units nor does it have artillery to support it’s operations. To compare these extremes as being equally significant is to view the comparison so narrowly as to make that view extreme.

Class warfare

One of the Reasons that the Roman government and Roman civilization lasted so long was that they actively protected the property owners. In other words, they protected the revenue generating part of the population. This ensured that the government continued to receive income from the productive parts of the economy. The primary reason for the fall of the Western Empire in the middle of the 5th century was the loss of so much of the productive parts of the empire. The United States is not protecting this ‘class’ of people. For the past few generations, the United States has been doing the opposite.

A comment was made on this blog that Paul Ryan started the talk about ‘class warfare’. That discussion had actually begun long before then. An example: The capital gains tax was imposed to tax those people who owned stock but did not pay taxes on their gains when they sold. Back in the 1950’s only ‘rich’ people owned stock. The ‘talk’ may not have been about ‘class warfare’ but the actions were. President Obama is not just talking about it. He is actually DOING it. He believes that discriminating against the wealthy in this country is just and desirable. His actions demonstrate the degree of his belief in this concept. Just look at the ‘stimulus’ and taxes that he has and is proposing. This is not idle talk. The best part is that it is politically beneficial.

With the economy not doing so well and the instability in Europe that may be spreading throughout the world, President Obama needs something to talk about. He can’t run for re-election on how well the accomplishments that have been made on his watch are working out. So he needs a whipping boy. China is a great overseas target. (With plenty of justification) But internally, President Obama needs a group to pick on.

It is a natural tendency to be envious of others who have what you do not. Particularly if you are struggling as so many are in this country today. President Obama feels that we Americans have been ‘soft’ these past few decades and need to toughen up. So let’s go get those greedy ‘rich’ people who don’t have to work to make a living and just feed off the misfortune of others. Well, maybe a lot of people agree with him. I do know that this was NOT a principal that this country was founded upon, nor did it help build the greatest economy ever built. This was a country where the streets were ‘paved with gold’ because anyone who had a desire and was willing to work hard could make something of themselves. In other words, become ‘rich’. Today, this is actively discouraged. President Obama is only following a long tendency to penalize the ‘rich’ and ‘spread the wealth around’ so that everyone is the same. This is another concept that this country was not founded upon. In fact, this is quite the opposite.

Another crisis

Was it not just a little over a month ago that we had a crisis concerning the national debt? Now we have another? We are just lucky that we have President Obama to save us yet again.

This is beginning to sound as frustrating as the Incredibles. You know, Mr. Incredible stated at the beginning of the movie that he was wondering why he had to keep on saving the world. Could the world not just stay saved? At least for a little while? President Obama must be feeling the same way.

If the situation were not so serious we could all just laugh at it. In addition, we are seeing similar problems in Europe. The world markets are all showing signs of instability and no wonder. Two of the largest economic blocs in the world are going through financial crisis after crisis. Sooner or later, something big will happen.

Intervention by President Obama saved us from falling off an economic cliff back in 2009. We have been staving off disaster after disaster since then. It is very possible that sooner or later, our governments’ responses will become ineffective. Events will then be out of control and we will see the financial disaster that President Obama so artfully avoided. Well, hopefully things will not work out this way. I still have hope. However, I do not give President Obama any credit for saving us from anything but a temporary situation. Maybe what we really need is saving from those very
policies that seem to be so temporary at best.