Say Anything Blog

The job loss count so far this year is:
January - 598,000
February - 706,000
March   - 742,000
April   - 545,000
May     - 532,000

Looks like Obama has some work cut out for him and his admin.

One of most counterproductive activities practiced today by many is attempting to place blame for past actions.  This is daily illustrated by bloggers here at SAB particularly in the political arena where ex-presidents are villified for their alleged errors or misdeeds.  Having lived through many presidential terms, I can’t remember anything even close to the vemonous blame attacks agains former presidents.  Bush W. never put blame on Clinton; Clinton never blamed elder Bush who never casted blame on his predecessor and on and on..  Nor can I recall the ordinary citizens were overly interested in blaming past presidents for their current situation (of course that was before the internet and blogs).

Today it is vogue for people to blame others for their condition and in the current political arena to blame everything on the former president.  The energy used for ‘blame games’ is energy lost from problem solutions. i.e. if all one does is seek to blame others for their misfortunes, their problems will never be fixed.  Before I retired from 40+ years of technical work (engineering) many of my tasks were to fix problems left from the original creators.  Fixing blame was never a factor and indeed I would not have been as successful as I was if I had played any part of the blame game.

Back to politics, the unprecedented efforts of the Obama administration and the Democratic congress to place blame for previous actions is indicative of their inability or unwillingness to resolve current issues.  Obama has even gone beyond blaming Bush to blaming his own country (I think it’s the USA). This does not bode well for our country. The blame game must go if we are to see real progress in domestic and foreign affairs.

Much has been written and discussed about Notre Dame’s commencement invitation to president Obama.  Virtually all blame has been focused on Notre Dame’s president Rev. Jenkins although he must get his marching orders from others, most probably the universities Board of Regents. Many have wondered why the Board of Regents has not reverse the invitation.  As this article states there is No Likely Support From Notre Dame’s Board of Trustees For Rescinding Obama Invite because the regents may represent other interests more than they represent Catholic interests.

A great deal of criticism has been leveled at Notre Dame President, Rev John I. Jenkins, for his choice to honor President Obama at this year’s commencement. But Fr. Jenkins, like all university presidents, must consider the will of the school’s governing board. The Notre Dame Board of Trustees is a powerful organization, comprised of top international business owners, chairs of rich endowments, academic leaders, judges, attorneys, faculty, and prominent clergy. These individuals are typically very wealthy, well-connected and highly accomplished; many with broad interests outside the university. A closer look at the board and its affiliations might shed light on just how Notre Dame came to this decision.

The article goes on to examine the background and special interests of some of the regents.  Not surprisingly..

Many of the influential alumni on the Notre Dame board are from the nearby Chicago area, and are part of the same Chicago power structure that President Obama ascended.

Chicago power at Notre Dame extends to political posts as well. Justice Ann Claire Williams was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1999 to the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th District.

The article goes on to describe the shady backgrounds of several other regents and concludes as follows:

In conclusion, a review of the Board of Trustees at Notre Dame does NOT reveal a particularly strong Catholic identity. There are board members whose actions and associations put them in a position directly at odds with Church teaching and in line with the Obama administration. At the Notre Dame board we see a group of well-connected well-heeled individuals from all sectors of society, and at the most prominent levels. Taking a stand against inviting the President of the United States would likely jeopardize membership in the elite club where they travel. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be any movement from within the board to rescind invitation to President Obama.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit

Although Obama tried to play down words as he said ‘words, just words’, words and their meanings define popular understanding of all subjects, and words are often used to hide the real purpose and identity of a subject.  As an example, take todays version of liberalism which is really todays version of socialism which is really communism light.

Now homosexuals also use words to which they try to paint a more favorable picture of their obsession than they deserve.  First they have redefined themselves from queers, the popular way or addressing them 50 years ago, to gays implying that their nefarious lifestyle brings enjoyment and satisfaction.  Secondly they try to equate themselves with hetrosexuals or normals by spreading the notion that they are an equivalent life style.

What is homosex?  How is it different from hetrosex?  There is a name for sex which is not performed jointly by a man with a women. It is called masturbation.  A typical dictionary definition for masturbation is:

Excitation of the genital organs, usually to organism, by means other than sexual intercourse.

  So what is sexual intercourse?  Well the generally accepted definition is;

Sexual intercourse, or coitus, refers in a strict biological sense to the insertion of the male’s penis into the female’s vagina for the purpose of reproduction.

Since homosex is purely for orgasmic satisfaction without normal sexual intercourse, it is really not more than group masturbation involving two or more partners of the same gender.

From the New York Post.

Follow the link to Ann’s eulogy to her recently dead mother.  I think you will be moved.  I was.

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you’d notice.

Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets - suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner’s nerves, what you will.

On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot - but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

“Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America’s missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

The following is an interview with Jamie Glazov the author of the above titled book.  Read it all.  I think you will find it interesting and that it confirms all or most of what you believes goes on in a leftists mind.

Question: In your book, you outline the Left’s various love affairs with despotic leaders throughout history, from Stalin and Mao, to Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad. Will the cycle break under President Obama, who holds the respect of the radical Left, yet selected a strong war cabinet?

Answer: The signs now indicate that the cycle will by no means be broken. One only has to look at the choices being made in foreign policy to get a feel of what the Obama administration has in its heart. It’s clearly going out of its way to make sure that our adversaries will be able to hurt us. Obama has announced the closure of Guantanamo and the closing of all overseas CIA interrogation centers. The information and intelligence that was gathered through these vehicles prevented myriad strikes against the United States. Now our hands will be tied and our eyes blindfolded while jihadis plan to attack our soil not just 9/11 style, but with WMDs. It’s not a good picture. This is all not to mention where the hardcore terrorist inmates in Guantanamo will go.

Why would an American government indulge in this kind of thing in a time of war? The Obama administration also intends to provide approximately $900 million to Hamas. Why? Why are we giving money to Nazis whose hands are drenched in blood and whose sole purpose is to annihilate Israel and kill Jews?

Now Obama intends to make Chas Freeman, of all people, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Let’s just say that Freeman will exercise a huge influence on shaping U.S. policy. And who is Freeman? He’s a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. His views? He thinks that the Tiananmen Square massacre was a great thing, that Israel is the victim of terrorism because it brings it on itself, and that America needs to do soul- searching about what it did to anger the 9/11 terrorists. This is only a drop in the bucket in terms of the direction the Obama administration is heading. And one can just imagine the love affairs with despots that will develop on various levels throughout this administration.

Q: The self-reinforcing cycle you detail in your book – that the more victimized the “believer” envisions himself to be, the closer he feels to the supposed victims of capitalism – seems hopeless. Is there a way to rehabilitate “believers”?

A: Rehabilitation is possible but extremely difficult because a believer has to give up his entire identity if he is to accept the truth. Rehabilitation, therefore, is only really possible if the believer himself wants to change, just as a drug addict or alcoholic can only start recovering if they themselves truly want to.

In almost all cases, there has to be a huge amount of personal pain to ultimately force the believer to break through his delusions. In David Horowitz’s case, for instance, the Black Panthers killed his friend, Betty Van Patter, and he could not, in good conscience, just forget about her – as the rest of his Leftist community did. David could not sacrifice a life on the altar of leftist ideals, as the Left has perfected in doing. Because of his conscience, David had to undergo the excruciating experience of giving up his Leftist identity and community in order to see the Black Panthers for who they were and the cause of the Left for what it was. Phyllis Chesler had to be literally imprisoned by her Arab husband in Afghanistan in order to break through her utopian leftist vision and romanticization of adversary cultures.

Q: The Liberal Left is endlessly pessimistic when it comes to conservative ideals, yet you show that time and time again they have been willing to be deceived during their various visits to Cuba, China, Russia, etc. What explains this apparent contradiction?

A: The believer lives in a state of self-deception and so he also wants to be deceived. Leftists have an extremely difficult relationship with reality, because reality, on every level, contradicts every tenet of the political faith. Conservative ideals, meanwhile, are based on reality. So the [Leftist] believer must create a fantasy world for himself and is extremely grateful to the monsters that he worships when they feed him the lies and false imagery he needs to sustain his vision. The Leftist is pessimistic when it comes to conservative ideals because he cannot accept them, not because he knows or believes that they are false or unworkable. He has to reject them in order to keep his false self alive.

Q: How come the Liberal Left always seems to get off the hook so easy? Endorsing Stalin, Mao, Castro, and every evil dictator in modern history isn’t the best track record.

A: The Left controls the boundaries of our discourse, so it is able to hide its past and the truth very easily. Because it controls the cultural dialogue, it can move its own crimes into historical invisibility.

For instance, racial hatred is inexcusable in our society because the Left permits it to be. That’s because the Left uses its stance against racism as a weapon to wage war against its own society. Racism is, of course, bad, and that goes without saying; the point here is that the Left doesn’t really care about racism. If it did, then it would be outraged at and outspoken about how Muslim Arabs, for instance, still practice slavery in Africa, enslaving black Africans because they find them to be inferior.

Racial hatred [is unacceptable.] Meanwhile, class hatred is completely tolerated within our society. Even though it has caused more deaths in the 20th century than racial hatred, there is no movement against it and it is not demonized. So Stalin and Mao together might have killed 100 million people because of class hatred, but because class hatred is the oxygen which sustains the Left, those crimes need to be covered up with historical amnesia. For they bring light to the fact that the ideas underlying those massacres might have to be rethought.

The Left gets off the hook, therefore, because it controls the language and therefore the values of society and culture.

Q: How long before the extremist Left finds a new despotic leader to fall in love with?

A: It will not be long before new despots will emerge and new romances on the Left will begin. But there are love affairs starting up constantly. Today, for instance, we see many on the American Left idolizing Hugo Chavez. Just look at Sean Penn’s relationship with Chavez. Believers constantly have to worship adversarial authoritarian figures as a way to feel powerful and, of course, to disappear within a totalitarian whole, so they can shed themselves of their own individuality, which they despise.

Q: I find it extremely ironic how adamant the “believers” are in looking for the truth and for bettering the human race, but how intellectually dishonest they seem. Are they really that delusional, or is their supposed concern actually insincere?

A: Their agenda is deliberately destructive. Look at Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. As leaders of the anti-war movement during Vietnam, these two individuals know that the fall of Saigon was very much their doing. The North Vietnamese have themselves thanked the anti-war movement for making the takeover of South Vietnam possible. The fall of South Vietnam led to a blood bath in Southeast Asia. In other words, Fonda and Hayden both know that they are complicit in the massacres that the communists perpetrated in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, when those countries fell to communism. So, a generation later, knowing what the American withdrawal from Vietnam led to, both Hayden and Fonda were again pushing for an American withdrawal, this time from Iraq. They knew well what the consequences would be if America had lost and the jihadis had won in Iraq. The surge saved Iraqis from a monstrous Islamic caliphate and cemented the foundation for democracy and a civil society. It avoided a Khmer-Rouge style bloodbath. It scored a victory for U.S. interests and democracy everywhere. No wonder the Left opposed the surge so furiously and hates its success so much.

Q: You reveal how misogynistic the Islamic culture can be. How can the trademark “believer,” who ostensibly would be an adamant voice for women’s rights, really support Islamofascist regimes?

A: The key is that the believer pretends that he is for social justice and women’s rights and gay rights etc., but in fact he doesn’t care about any of these things. They are just weapons for him to wage war on his own society. If “women’s rights” is an issue that he can use to bash capitalism and democracy then he will do it, but if the issue is honor killings and female genital mutilation, then he has to ignore it. It makes the believer have to face the possibility that his society is actually a good one and that adversarial cultures and societies are bad. So, when it comes to Islam, he has to drop his interest in women’s rights. Because destroying his own society is the priority, he must constantly portray it as evil. The evil committed by enemies therefore has to be ignored. And if it means ignoring millions of women who are barbarically oppressed by Islamic gender apartheid, then that is the way it has to be.

Copied from WND.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed.
The legislation also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.”

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 “volunteers,” is the beginning of what President Obama called his “National Civilian Security Force” in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

According to a report by Canada Free Press, “‘volunteerism’ that kept America running since the days of its founding” would be “wiped out with the stroke of a pen.”

“It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service,” the commentary said. On paper, H.R. 1388 is the ‘Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act’; the more innocuous sounding ‘The Give Act,’ for short.

“The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky’s ‘Peoples Organizations’ and operating under Michelle Obama,” the commentary said.

“Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary,” the commentary said.

Groups of such “volunteers,” would, under the legislation, be “grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. … There shall be a superintendent for each camp.”

The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: “This is the equivalent of brown shirts.”

From WND

Chief justice accepts ‘eligibility’ petition
Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND’s 330,000 signers

So what would happen if Obama is declared to be ineligible?  Does Biden (shudder) become president?  In that case who would fill the vice president role?  Pelosi (extreme shudder)?  Or would there be another general election to select the presiden?  Hllary would most likely be the Democrat candidate (more shudder)?

I can’t see the Democrat alternatives to be much of an improvement over Obama if any.  What is your take on these possibilities?

A site called Obama WTF has compiled a list of Obamas lies.  For whoever is interested.

From the Daily Star

THOUSANDS of British-born Muslims have joined the Taliban in Afghanistan.

UK troops say they are facing a mini civil war as more Brits head out to fight for the enemy.

Senior officers said British-born Muslims from the West Midlands and Yorkshire have travelled to Helmand province and other parts of southern Afghanistan.

Interception of Taliban communications has revealed the sound of jihadists speaking with West Midlands accents.

Meanwhile the British seem to be helpless to stem this flow.

The US has stepped up surveillance inside Pakistan.

They believe the UK is not doing enough to curb radical Muslims.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons’ sub-committee on anti-terrorism, which has been examining the activities of British Muslim extremists, said: “We know the problem we have with UK-based jihadists.

“With the UK intelligence services at full stretch, it is not surprising some of these ended up in Afghanistan.”

Some?  Thousands are a bit more than some.  Indeed the British have shown a propensity to kowtow to their muslims.  Additonally one wonders what encourages the muslim youth to join up with terrorits.  It couldn’t be anything that comes from their indocrination in the ‘religion of peace’ could it?

A put up or shut up moment - During his todays radio program, Rush issued a challenge to Obama to a debate on one of his programs offering him free transportation and accommodations.  Rush stated that if he is the defacto Republican leader as the liberals claim than this would be a debate between leaders of the respective parties.  He further stated that this was an opportunity for the liberals to get equal time on a conservative program the crux of their fairness doctrine complaint.

What do you think is the probability that Obama will except the challenge?  When hell freezes over?

An anti-abortion measure approved by the North Dakota House says a fertilized egg has all the rights of a human being.

Representatives approved the measure by a vote of 51-41.The sponsor of the bill says the intent is to challenge Roe Versus Wade. The bill got a do not pass recommendation from the human services committee, one of the reasons is because it would put the state into an expensive legal battle.

"The committee seemed to feel that this was a pretty dramatic position to take," says Rep. Kari Conrad (D), from Minot. "That the estimates were between $5 million and $8 million that this will cost us."

"North Dakota`s willing to litigate the hemp farming law," says Rep. Dan Ruby (R), from Minot. "But yet we`re afraid to defend human life?"

The bill says the Legislature can also appoint one of its members to defend the law in court if its constitutionality is challenged

Now that Obama and the Dem congress have passed there ‘stimulus’ welfare program, it’s time for them to consider how they are going to pay for their spending extravaganza.  It should be to no ones surprise that their main thrust to get the necessary cash is to raise taxes on the ‘rich’ and cut military spending.  Confirmation of this strategy comes from the Washington Post. 

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on business and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from “winding down the war” in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes that the nation will continue to spend money on “overseas military contingency operations” throughout Obama’s presidency, the official said, but that number is significantly lower than the nearly $190 billion the nation budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, primarily by making good on his promise to eliminate the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 for wealthy taxpayers, whom Obama defined during the campaign as those earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule for the 2011 tax year, when the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to more than 39 percent.

Obama also proposes to maintain the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, instead of letting it expire next year. And he proposes “a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement” that would target tax havens and corporate loopholes, among other provisions, the official said.

How all this will improve our economy and not jeopordize our national defense remains to be seen.