The link: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/27/tale-of-two-presidential-workout-fanatics/
No liberal bias here. No cult of personality around 'the one.' It should make you sick, but then, it's what we've come to expect from the American media.
No liberal bias here. Move along, please.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Article: "Violent Protests at Israeli Embassy in London"
The link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5408132.ece
"Campaign supporters, Palestinians and British Muslims stood on the pavement of High Street Kensington, west London, and chanted in unison: “Five, six, seven, eight - Israel is a terror state.” "
Let's see ... Hamas started this with rocket attacks when they broke the cease-fire about two weeks ago. Hmm...
Also, and due to political correctness, you won't be seeing this in the US - what have those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." been doing?
WAIT! I know the answer to this!
They've been hiding rocket launchers in residential areas. Here's THAT link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230456496945
And yes, in case you're wondering, that is a violation of the rules of war. You're not allowed to hide war material in residential areas. This includes putting weapons and/or ammunition in Mosques ... but then again, they've done that too.
Sounds to me as if the Israelis might actually be justified.
Now before anybody gets their hackles raised, Glenn Beck used to have in his free section of his site his "Glenn Beck Explains the Middle East" clip available. Listen to that and you'll learn a few things.
For example, those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." actually put themselves into their "refugee camps" because they said that the Israelis weren't entitled to any of the land given to them by the United Nations in 1948 (14-MAY to be exact.)
The Palestinians actually self-imposed their 'refugee camps' upon themselves! But you don't hear that in the US media. They (the Palestinians) aren't fighting for the 'occupied territories,' they kept turning them down!! This includes when they met with President Clinton in the Rose Garden!!
"Campaign supporters, Palestinians and British Muslims stood on the pavement of High Street Kensington, west London, and chanted in unison: “Five, six, seven, eight - Israel is a terror state.” "
Let's see ... Hamas started this with rocket attacks when they broke the cease-fire about two weeks ago. Hmm...
Also, and due to political correctness, you won't be seeing this in the US - what have those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." been doing?
WAIT! I know the answer to this!
They've been hiding rocket launchers in residential areas. Here's THAT link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230456496945
And yes, in case you're wondering, that is a violation of the rules of war. You're not allowed to hide war material in residential areas. This includes putting weapons and/or ammunition in Mosques ... but then again, they've done that too.
Sounds to me as if the Israelis might actually be justified.
Now before anybody gets their hackles raised, Glenn Beck used to have in his free section of his site his "Glenn Beck Explains the Middle East" clip available. Listen to that and you'll learn a few things.
For example, those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." actually put themselves into their "refugee camps" because they said that the Israelis weren't entitled to any of the land given to them by the United Nations in 1948 (14-MAY to be exact.)
The Palestinians actually self-imposed their 'refugee camps' upon themselves! But you don't hear that in the US media. They (the Palestinians) aren't fighting for the 'occupied territories,' they kept turning them down!! This includes when they met with President Clinton in the Rose Garden!!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
A Song That Should Never Have Been Recorded ...
... at least, not in my opinion.
Before I do name the artist or the song involved, I do want to state that I do have one of this artist's CDs ... purchased legally (are you listening, RIAA? As an aside, does anybody else remember this:
"In February 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded have received any of the settlement money.[49]"
Here's THAT link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing
You can find it in the "Counterclaims" section. Methinks that the RIAA has a lot of explaining to do.) (emphasis mine)
This artist was involved some years back in an accident (on 20-MAR-1990) when a speeding semi crashed into her tour bus. And yes, given that, I am speaking about Gloria Estefan.
I admire her spirit, I admire her opposition to Communism in general (and the Castro regime in particular) and I admire her hard humanitarian and philantropic works.
Having said that I do need to state that, in my opinion, her version of "Let it Snow" should never have been composed - let alone sung.
Yes, her voice is as I remember from older songs, but even her golden voice could not save this disaster of a song. Call me a reactionary, call me an old man, call me a 'purist,' call me what you will - but in my opinion, this song just doesn't work. At least, not for me.
I heard it for the first time on the radio tonight and my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe that somebody had slaughtered such a classic. Then when the DJ said it was Ms. Estefan, I was dumbfounded. I went to YouTube and found the song ... and that confirmed that the DJ hadn't made a mistake.
I was thunderstruck. Why such a luminious singer as Ms. Estefan should sing such a calamity of a song frankly escapes me.
Having said that, I'll admit that most of the comments on YouTube have been favourable. Various people have given their opinions on this particular song, and there is nothing wrong in voicing an opinion.
For me, and in my opinion, she should not have sung this song. Indeed, it should never have been composed in such a manner - again, in my opinion.
However, I'm not about to let this one blight of a song ruin my opinion of Ms. Estefan. She remains a true classic with a wonderful, golden voice. One horrible song should not a career make, and I'll be the first to admit that Ms. Estefan has earned every award she's received.
Artists (and actors) have gotten over bombs and catastrophies before - such as Gigli - which starred the wonderful and talented Ben Affleck. The movie, however, has become "...infamous as one of the worst movies ever made."* Frankly, it earned that designation.
The point, however, is that Mr Affleck's career is not defined by that misfortune of a film, nor should Ms Estefan's be defined by this one casualty of a song. They are both wonderful and talented people, neither of whom should have to suffer for one-time fiascos.
After all, we all make misteakes. (See?)
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigli_(film)
Before I do name the artist or the song involved, I do want to state that I do have one of this artist's CDs ... purchased legally (are you listening, RIAA? As an aside, does anybody else remember this:
"In February 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded have received any of the settlement money.[49]"
Here's THAT link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing
You can find it in the "Counterclaims" section. Methinks that the RIAA has a lot of explaining to do.) (emphasis mine)
This artist was involved some years back in an accident (on 20-MAR-1990) when a speeding semi crashed into her tour bus. And yes, given that, I am speaking about Gloria Estefan.
I admire her spirit, I admire her opposition to Communism in general (and the Castro regime in particular) and I admire her hard humanitarian and philantropic works.
Having said that I do need to state that, in my opinion, her version of "Let it Snow" should never have been composed - let alone sung.
Yes, her voice is as I remember from older songs, but even her golden voice could not save this disaster of a song. Call me a reactionary, call me an old man, call me a 'purist,' call me what you will - but in my opinion, this song just doesn't work. At least, not for me.
I heard it for the first time on the radio tonight and my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe that somebody had slaughtered such a classic. Then when the DJ said it was Ms. Estefan, I was dumbfounded. I went to YouTube and found the song ... and that confirmed that the DJ hadn't made a mistake.
I was thunderstruck. Why such a luminious singer as Ms. Estefan should sing such a calamity of a song frankly escapes me.
Having said that, I'll admit that most of the comments on YouTube have been favourable. Various people have given their opinions on this particular song, and there is nothing wrong in voicing an opinion.
For me, and in my opinion, she should not have sung this song. Indeed, it should never have been composed in such a manner - again, in my opinion.
However, I'm not about to let this one blight of a song ruin my opinion of Ms. Estefan. She remains a true classic with a wonderful, golden voice. One horrible song should not a career make, and I'll be the first to admit that Ms. Estefan has earned every award she's received.
Artists (and actors) have gotten over bombs and catastrophies before - such as Gigli - which starred the wonderful and talented Ben Affleck. The movie, however, has become "...infamous as one of the worst movies ever made."* Frankly, it earned that designation.
The point, however, is that Mr Affleck's career is not defined by that misfortune of a film, nor should Ms Estefan's be defined by this one casualty of a song. They are both wonderful and talented people, neither of whom should have to suffer for one-time fiascos.
After all, we all make misteakes. (See?)
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigli_(film)
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Rule of Law
All around me, I'm surrounded by people who tell me what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.
Example: The speed limit on a certain stretch of road is 35mph because it's zoned residential. Therefore, I'm supposed to drive no faster than 35mph.
PROBLEM: Not too long ago, a local cop passed me as if I were standing still. I thought he/she was on his/her way to a call until he turned into a driveway and then turned around facing the road. Since that is a local "speedtrap" I assumed that's where he/she was heading. A call to the local police department confirmed it.
RULE FOR ME: Obey the speedlimit. Rule for cops on way to speedtrap: do whatever the hell you want.
Example: The text of the $700billion bailout defines who the money is for and then clearly defines: "FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government."*
That doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Remember that according to my now ex-wife I'm none too bright so I guess I missed the words "automaker" or "Detroit" or "General Motors" or "Ford" or "UAW."
RULE FOR ME: This money is for financial institutions only. Rule for politicians: Do whatever the hell you want.
OK...now we come to insurance companies. I have a certain insurance company that tells me first with one "advocate" that the policy covers the driver, and that is done through the SSN of the driver (as an aside - remember when the SSN was 'only' to be used for retirement benefits?)
PROBLEM: Another "advocate" tells me that the policy doesn't follow the driver, it follows the vehicle and that that is done through the VIN.
RULE FOR ME: Listen to what I tell you. Rule for insurance company: We don't know what the hell's going on, so don't ask us.
So why do people take offense when I point out the problems?
OH - let's go one step further. People everywhere will tell you that they want the truth. The problem is, try to tell the truth.
Fat underworked, immoral politicians take note: If you expect me to obey your rules you'd damned well be following them yourselves. Otherwise, you can stick your objections where the sun don't shine.
Clear?
* - SOURCE: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/12/tarp-now-a-slush-fund-for-detroit/
Example: The speed limit on a certain stretch of road is 35mph because it's zoned residential. Therefore, I'm supposed to drive no faster than 35mph.
PROBLEM: Not too long ago, a local cop passed me as if I were standing still. I thought he/she was on his/her way to a call until he turned into a driveway and then turned around facing the road. Since that is a local "speedtrap" I assumed that's where he/she was heading. A call to the local police department confirmed it.
RULE FOR ME: Obey the speedlimit. Rule for cops on way to speedtrap: do whatever the hell you want.
Example: The text of the $700billion bailout defines who the money is for and then clearly defines: "FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government."*
That doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Remember that according to my now ex-wife I'm none too bright so I guess I missed the words "automaker" or "Detroit" or "General Motors" or "Ford" or "UAW."
RULE FOR ME: This money is for financial institutions only. Rule for politicians: Do whatever the hell you want.
OK...now we come to insurance companies. I have a certain insurance company that tells me first with one "advocate" that the policy covers the driver, and that is done through the SSN of the driver (as an aside - remember when the SSN was 'only' to be used for retirement benefits?)
PROBLEM: Another "advocate" tells me that the policy doesn't follow the driver, it follows the vehicle and that that is done through the VIN.
RULE FOR ME: Listen to what I tell you. Rule for insurance company: We don't know what the hell's going on, so don't ask us.
So why do people take offense when I point out the problems?
OH - let's go one step further. People everywhere will tell you that they want the truth. The problem is, try to tell the truth.
Fat underworked, immoral politicians take note: If you expect me to obey your rules you'd damned well be following them yourselves. Otherwise, you can stick your objections where the sun don't shine.
Clear?
* - SOURCE: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/12/tarp-now-a-slush-fund-for-detroit/
Monday, December 1, 2008
Article: "Mumbai terrorists were 'funded by cash raised in UK mosques'."
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090565/Mumbai-terrorists-funded-cash-raised-UK-mosques.html
(Mumbai is the new name for Bombay, India.)
"A banned Islamic terrorist group funded with cash raised in British mosques is believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks.
"Kashmiri separatists Lashkar-e-Taiba, ‘The Army of the Righteous’, which has strong links to Al Qaeda, is accused of previous terrorist outrages in India.
"And intercepted telephone and radio communications before and during the latest attacks apparently suggest a link."
A few notes on the article: First, they called them not militants or gunmen, but what they are (well, were now. All but one of them is dead.) They're called terrorists. Not militants, terrorists.
We in the United States are drowning in this political correctness which I and others believe is going to destroy us. We can't call terrorists what they are. They're militants. Bull.
I didn't read that in the US media, the article came from the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom! I didn't read that those terrorist attacks were funded by cash raised in UK mosques in the American media, I read that from the UK media!
This is going to get me into a lot more trouble, but there goes: Let's assume that the article is correct, and that the cash for the attacks was raised in UK mosques. Let's assume that to be accurate.
If it happens in the UK, it could happen here in the US.
Note that I'm not saying that all mosques are radicalized. Consider this quote:
"The power of the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam in the United States was created with generous Saudi financing of American Muslim communities over the past few decades. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," Barsky said." Here's that link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Now let's tie something else together - where does Saudi Arabia get a lot of their money from? Revenues from the sale of crude oil. You read that right. That's yet another reason we need to get off of oil. We're funding these people.
It should make you sick ... and mad. It should galvanize you to action, to kick the corrupt US politicians in their fat buttocks and force them to wake up.
(Mumbai is the new name for Bombay, India.)
"A banned Islamic terrorist group funded with cash raised in British mosques is believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks.
"Kashmiri separatists Lashkar-e-Taiba, ‘The Army of the Righteous’, which has strong links to Al Qaeda, is accused of previous terrorist outrages in India.
"And intercepted telephone and radio communications before and during the latest attacks apparently suggest a link."
A few notes on the article: First, they called them not militants or gunmen, but what they are (well, were now. All but one of them is dead.) They're called terrorists. Not militants, terrorists.
We in the United States are drowning in this political correctness which I and others believe is going to destroy us. We can't call terrorists what they are. They're militants. Bull.
I didn't read that in the US media, the article came from the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom! I didn't read that those terrorist attacks were funded by cash raised in UK mosques in the American media, I read that from the UK media!
This is going to get me into a lot more trouble, but there goes: Let's assume that the article is correct, and that the cash for the attacks was raised in UK mosques. Let's assume that to be accurate.
If it happens in the UK, it could happen here in the US.
Note that I'm not saying that all mosques are radicalized. Consider this quote:
"The power of the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam in the United States was created with generous Saudi financing of American Muslim communities over the past few decades. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," Barsky said." Here's that link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Now let's tie something else together - where does Saudi Arabia get a lot of their money from? Revenues from the sale of crude oil. You read that right. That's yet another reason we need to get off of oil. We're funding these people.
It should make you sick ... and mad. It should galvanize you to action, to kick the corrupt US politicians in their fat buttocks and force them to wake up.
Where were you born, Barack Hussein Obama / Barry Soetoro / Barry Obama?
All three of those are names we know he's used. I'd call those aliases.
But does it matter? And if so, why? I'm now going to quote from The Roth Show* dated 28-NOV-2008 (Friday.) This takes place in hour #2 at 40:31 minutes. Article I Section II of our US Constitution says that whoever wants to be the President must be a naturally born US Citizen. From here on, I'm quoting. This is Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network**
"Well, you know what - if it doesn't matter, then what the hell does matter? For those people out there who are saying 'Well, it doesn't matter where he's born,' okay, why don't you tell me what matters? Go ahead and cherry-pick the various parts of the Constitution and you tell us what you think matters.
"What rules should we adhere to? You want to, like, keep this one rule, or do you want to toss this one out? What kind of arbitrary bull-crap arguement do you want to engage in? We either follow the rules the way they were set up, the way the Founding Fathers set them up, or we just throw the whole thing out the flippin' window and it's just anarchy and chaos.
"Because for gosh sakes we've got the flippin' messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah] now, we've got change for the sake of change, for God's sakes it's not Bush - and thank God it's not Bush; no more Bush, no more of his, you know, blundering, babbling, baloney out there, it's change.
"Now we've got the messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah], we've got a great ... uh ... just this great messiah going to save us all. We're not going to have to pay for mortgages, we're not going to have to pay for utilities. God, thank God for Obama. And these are the very same people that are saying 'Well it really doesn't matter, the Constitution - the various aspects of the Constitution.'
"Well then let's throw the whole damn document out. Alright? Let's throw it all out. Why not?
"It just makes me sick to think that we've had our men and women in Uniform die for a document that is being trampled on by these bums in Congress, by these bums in the Senate, by these bum, these politicians who are nothing more than a bunch of bums that wouldn't know how much a loaf of bread costs, or a gallon of milk costs, or a tank of gas costs; because they're so far removed from the People, they're so far removed from society, from everyday life.
"They wouldn't know how to balance a chequebook - they couldn't even balance a chequebook - and we've got these people leadin' us." (emphasis his)
... "And it just angers me because we've got people dying [our Armed Forces] every day over a document [the Constitution] that is being trampled on by these idiots in this country who don't know a good thing when they see it. We're living the good life, I mean we don't see people trying to get the hell out of the United States we see them sneaking into the United States to enjoy the freedoms that we have. The very same freedoms that are being trampled on by these Obama robots who think that this guy's gonna deliver us from everything - and yet he can't produce a freakin' peice of paper, he's gonna have to spend nearly a million [$800,000 - some of which appears to have come from the Council on American-Islamic Relations***] dollars in court costs so he doesn't have to? That's baloney, and I'm sick and tired of it."
As Dr Manning said "Produce your birth certificate, man! That's all you got to do! Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." (emphasis his)
Mr Hagmann makes quite a few valid points. First, there is enough anecdotal information to suggest that Obama was in fact, not born in Hawaii.
Second, we do know of three names that he's used; Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, and Barack Hussein Obama. I've already written that I've heard that disqualifies him from the Illinois Bar Association. (Again, I can't prove that, but that's what I've heard.)
And finally, Mr Hagmann's right - we can't just take the parts of the Constitution that we like and agree with and throw the rest of it out. That's not the way a government should work.
This Nation, the United States of America, is a nation of laws. Our government is based on laws, and like it or not, Article I Section II of the Constitution states who is and is not eligible to be the President.
Also, if you remember, those same politicians who told us that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was ineligible to run for the office of the President are now strangely silent about Mr Obama. Is this yet another example of the double-standard?
The rules must be fairly and evenly applied or they mean nothing. Strangely, Mr Obama seems to be getting (another!) free pass.
I've written this next before but I'll write it yet again: I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. Unfortunately, General Colin Powell didn't seek the office.
I would also have no problem with a woman being the President. Unfortunately, Dr. Condoleezza Rice wasn't running either. For me, it's not about gender or colour. It is about who is qualified.
*- The Roth Show. Hosted by Dr. Laurie Roth, it can be found at http://www.therothshow.com/
** - The Northeast Intelligence Network. Directed by a licensed private investigator, Douglas Hagmann, of over two decades' experience it can be found at http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
*** Source: The Roth Show.
But does it matter? And if so, why? I'm now going to quote from The Roth Show* dated 28-NOV-2008 (Friday.) This takes place in hour #2 at 40:31 minutes. Article I Section II of our US Constitution says that whoever wants to be the President must be a naturally born US Citizen. From here on, I'm quoting. This is Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network**
"Well, you know what - if it doesn't matter, then what the hell does matter? For those people out there who are saying 'Well, it doesn't matter where he's born,' okay, why don't you tell me what matters? Go ahead and cherry-pick the various parts of the Constitution and you tell us what you think matters.
"What rules should we adhere to? You want to, like, keep this one rule, or do you want to toss this one out? What kind of arbitrary bull-crap arguement do you want to engage in? We either follow the rules the way they were set up, the way the Founding Fathers set them up, or we just throw the whole thing out the flippin' window and it's just anarchy and chaos.
"Because for gosh sakes we've got the flippin' messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah] now, we've got change for the sake of change, for God's sakes it's not Bush - and thank God it's not Bush; no more Bush, no more of his, you know, blundering, babbling, baloney out there, it's change.
"Now we've got the messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah], we've got a great ... uh ... just this great messiah going to save us all. We're not going to have to pay for mortgages, we're not going to have to pay for utilities. God, thank God for Obama. And these are the very same people that are saying 'Well it really doesn't matter, the Constitution - the various aspects of the Constitution.'
"Well then let's throw the whole damn document out. Alright? Let's throw it all out. Why not?
"It just makes me sick to think that we've had our men and women in Uniform die for a document that is being trampled on by these bums in Congress, by these bums in the Senate, by these bum, these politicians who are nothing more than a bunch of bums that wouldn't know how much a loaf of bread costs, or a gallon of milk costs, or a tank of gas costs; because they're so far removed from the People, they're so far removed from society, from everyday life.
"They wouldn't know how to balance a chequebook - they couldn't even balance a chequebook - and we've got these people leadin' us." (emphasis his)
... "And it just angers me because we've got people dying [our Armed Forces] every day over a document [the Constitution] that is being trampled on by these idiots in this country who don't know a good thing when they see it. We're living the good life, I mean we don't see people trying to get the hell out of the United States we see them sneaking into the United States to enjoy the freedoms that we have. The very same freedoms that are being trampled on by these Obama robots who think that this guy's gonna deliver us from everything - and yet he can't produce a freakin' peice of paper, he's gonna have to spend nearly a million [$800,000 - some of which appears to have come from the Council on American-Islamic Relations***] dollars in court costs so he doesn't have to? That's baloney, and I'm sick and tired of it."
As Dr Manning said "Produce your birth certificate, man! That's all you got to do! Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." (emphasis his)
Mr Hagmann makes quite a few valid points. First, there is enough anecdotal information to suggest that Obama was in fact, not born in Hawaii.
Second, we do know of three names that he's used; Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, and Barack Hussein Obama. I've already written that I've heard that disqualifies him from the Illinois Bar Association. (Again, I can't prove that, but that's what I've heard.)
And finally, Mr Hagmann's right - we can't just take the parts of the Constitution that we like and agree with and throw the rest of it out. That's not the way a government should work.
This Nation, the United States of America, is a nation of laws. Our government is based on laws, and like it or not, Article I Section II of the Constitution states who is and is not eligible to be the President.
Also, if you remember, those same politicians who told us that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was ineligible to run for the office of the President are now strangely silent about Mr Obama. Is this yet another example of the double-standard?
The rules must be fairly and evenly applied or they mean nothing. Strangely, Mr Obama seems to be getting (another!) free pass.
I've written this next before but I'll write it yet again: I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. Unfortunately, General Colin Powell didn't seek the office.
I would also have no problem with a woman being the President. Unfortunately, Dr. Condoleezza Rice wasn't running either. For me, it's not about gender or colour. It is about who is qualified.
*- The Roth Show. Hosted by Dr. Laurie Roth, it can be found at http://www.therothshow.com/
** - The Northeast Intelligence Network. Directed by a licensed private investigator, Douglas Hagmann, of over two decades' experience it can be found at http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
*** Source: The Roth Show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
