Saturday, October 29, 2011


   Reuter's said that Herman Cain's "smoking ad" divided the Tea Party.  They referred to a poll they conducted.  I will argue that it did not.  The questions in the poll made it appear that it divided the Tea Party.  If you did not see the ad, you can find it all over the internet.  Here are a few points for discussion about the ad:
1.   Mark Block was talking about Herman Cain, not about smoking.  Did you hear what he said?  He was saying he joined Cain's camp because he believed in Mr. Cain's ability to run this country and get it back on track.  Of course, this is advertisement.  I'm sure he joined because he will be getting a paycheck.
2.   This government should not force people to stop smoking.  Smoking is a life style choice.  No body forced smokers to smoke.  The government needs to get out of everyone's business.  How can my government target smokers and the obese since that life style is unhealthy and not target homosexuals?
3.   Mr. Cain has a smoker for his CEO of his campaign, and he wears pink shirts.  Perhaps he is demonstrating the inclusiveness of his campaign to contrast the divisiveness of the current administration in Washington, D.C.
4.   Herman Cain has had issues raising funding for his campaign.  How much free advertising did this one ad give him?  Brilliant!

What are your views about the ad?  Disclaimer:  I am not endorsing any Republican candidate or President Obama at this time.

Friday, October 28, 2011


   The following piece was copied and pasted from The Blaze of Bill Ayers addressing the Occupy Wall Street crowd in Chicago:  Former terrorist-turned-university professor Bill Ayers (you may remember him from his ongoing presence in 2008 presidential campaign theoretic), made an appearance last week at Occupy Chicago.
The former radical, a member of the infamous and violent Weather Underground, discussed his experience with “revolutions,” gave advice about how to handle the Tea Party and took a solid jab at President Barack Obama — a man many believe he was once friends with.
Considering the Occupy movement’s ongoing calls for “revolution” and a major push for a fundamentally changed system, it’s no wonder Ayers was brought in to address the Chicago protesters. Among their many questions, his audience wondered how they should handle the media’s continued comparison between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
“A big bright line running through the Tea Party movement is Jingoism, Nativism, racism,” he told the protesters. “A big bright line is funding from the Koch brothers.” Of course, Ayers didn’t mention anything about the large-scale progressive groups that are assisting with Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests.
While he characterized the conservative movement in these terms, he also said it‘s important to remember that those who associate with the Tea Party aren’t the Occupiers’ enemies. ”Even when they’re huffed up with false stupidity and manipulated by all kinds of forces,” he reiterated.
Rather than violence — a tactic his Weather Underground was never afraid to employ — Ayers directed the students to rely on their natural “tools”:
“I think you should use your brilliance, your humor, your wisdom, your body to dramatize the violence that exists. But we do not live in a neutral — not when there’s a trillion dollar military budget — the biggest in the world, not when they’re recruiting kids to be in the service, not when every athletic event begins with guns and marching…that‘s a violent culture and that’s where we live…”
And, very oddly, he was sure to slip in a dig at Obama. ”Somebody like Barack Obama who drone strikes American citizens is saying ‘I want you all to be non-violent.’ Well, I want you to be non-violent,” he quipped.

Q. Why did Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin accuse Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists"?

A. She was referring to Obama's association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois  at Chicago.
Q. How are Ayers and Obama associated?

A. They both live in the Hyde Park area on the South Side, and Obama visited Ayers' home for a meeting at the start of his first state Senate bid in 1995. They were active in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform group, and attended meetings together from the mid-1990s to 2001.

Q. Is Obama "pals" with Ayers?

A. In February, Obama strategist David Axelrod told the Politico Web site that Obama and Ayers are "certainly friendly." More recently, campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told The New York Times that the two have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mails since Obama joined the Senate in 2005. Their last encounter, LaBolt said, was more than a year ago when they ran into each other on the street in Hyde Park. In a CNN interview aired Monday, Axelrod said that when Obama went to Ayers' home in 1995, "he didn't know the history" of Ayers' radical past.

Q. Was Ayers a terrorist?

A. He was a founding member of the Weather Underground, a radical group opposed to the Vietnam War. In his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," he wrote that he helped bomb official sites, including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. In bombings claimed by the group, no one was killed or injured. But some investigators have suspected the group in an unclaimed 1970 explosion that killed a San Francisco police sergeant. No one was ever charged in that case. Years later, while Ayers was no longer in hiding, fellow members of the group were linked to a Brink's robbery in which two police officers and a guard were shot to death.
Q. Was Ayers ever tried for his activities?

A. No. Federal charges had been dropped after FBI surveillance techniques were ruled unconstitutional.

Q. Has Ayers voiced regret for the bombings?

A. No. "We weren't terrorists," Ayers told the Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam" by the U.S.

Monday, October 24, 2011


   Did you hear the one where the federal government is taking control of the airwaves?  It was solely the responsibility of the President of the United States to determine when the Emergency Alert System (EAS) should be activated at the national level, but our President does not have time while he is out on the campaign trail to see to his responsibilities.  So, he delegated this minor responsibility to the director of FEMA.  Isn't that just what we need?  After all, FEMA has performed all other responsibilities in such stellar manner.  Oh, I don't know, maybe like providing FEMA trailers to Katrina victims with high levels of formaldehyde in them.  Or how about refusing to assist the victims of the massive wild fires in Texas.  Yes, I'm sure FEMA is better equipped to handle this responsibility than our President. 
   It just makes you want to ask WHY do a national test of the EAS now?  It has never been done before.  What is this Administration expecting?  Or what are they planning?  I have to say, I don't trust ANYONE in the Obama Administration. 
   The shut down of the airwaves is set for November 9, 2011 at 2pm EST.  I am so excited to have the government take full control of all media in this country.

You can also follow me at  Just click the link.

Saturday, October 22, 2011


   The current Occupy Wall Street is similar to the Weathermen of 1969.  So is the so called "Day of Rage".  It is a shame that the "community organizers" of today could do nothing original.  The following was copied and pasted from Wikipedia.  It takes a little studying to understand who President Obama pals around with.  These are the people with whom he identifies himself:

The Days of Rage demonstrations were a series of direct actions taken over a course of three days in October 1969 in Chicago organized by the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. The group planned the October 8–11 event as a "National Action" built around John Jacobs' slogan, "bring the war home."[1] The National Action grew out of a resolution drafted by Jacobs and introduced at the October 1968 SDS National Council meeting in Boulder, Colorado. The resolution, titled "The Elections Don't Mean Shit—Vote Where the Power Is—Our Power Is In The Street" and adopted by the council, was prompted by the success of the Democratic National Convention protests in August 1968 and reflected Jacobs' strong advocacy of direct action as a political strategy.[2]


  • 2 Events of Days of Rage
  • 3 Aftermath
  • 4 Notes
  • 5 References
  • [edit] Events leading to Days of Rage

    In 1969, tensions ran high among the factions of SDS. Weatherman was still part of the organization but differences were coming to the surface. “Look at it: America 1969” put forth SDS’s bottom line regarding the National Action. By the end of August, the differences between Weatherman and RYM II had emerged, leading to the resignation of RYM II leader and member of SDS Mike Klonsky from the Weatherman-controlled National office leadership.[3][4] He accused Weatherman of going back on the convention’s mandate.
    Weatherman members Mark Rudd and Terry Robbins responded, saying that priority must be given to building an anti-imperialist youth movement.[5]
    In the months before the Days of Rage, despite the tensions within SDS, many members of Weather/SDS worked non-stop in promoting the demonstration. Lyndon Comstock was sent, along with three other members, to Lansing, Michigan to organize and promote the event. Leaflets were printed and distributed to high school and community college students during the day, while at night members would spray paint anti-war graffiti on local school campuses.[6]
    On October 5, 1969 the statue commemorating the policemen killed in the 1886 Haymarket affair was dynamited. The blast broke nearly 100 windows and scattered pieces of the statue onto the Kennedy Expressway below.[7] No one was ever arrested for the bombing.[8]
    As October 8 approached, Weatherman found itself isolated from SDS,[9] but maintained high hopes that thousands would attend the mass demonstration in Chicago.

    [edit] Events of Days of Rage

    [edit] October 8, 1969 Despite efforts to recruit youth and promote involvement, participation in the "Days of Rage" demonstrations was not as broadly based as advertised, or as participants had hoped. About 800 Weatherman members showed up prior to October 8 and faced 2000 police officers. No more than 300 were left willing to face the enormous gathering of police a second time around [10] on the evening of Wednesday, October 8, 1969, in Chicago's Lincoln Park, and perhaps half of them were members of Weatherman collectives from around the country.[1] The crowd milled about for several hours, cold and uncertain. Tom Hayden gave a short speech, telling the protesters not to believe press reports that the Chicago 8 disagreed with their action.[11] Abbie Hoffman and John Froines, other members of the Chicago 8, also came but decided not to speak and quickly left.[11] Late in the evening, Jacobs stood on the pedestal of the bombed Haymarket policemen's statue and declared: "We'll probably lose people today... We don't really have to win here ... just the fact that we are willing to fight the police is a political victory."[12] Jacobs' speech compared the coming protest to the fight against fascism in World War II. By this time there were around 350 protesters.[11] Jeff Jones announced "I am Marion Delgado" an adopted folk hero of Weatherman (Delgado was a five-year-old Chicano boy who had derailed a passenger train in 1947 by putting a slab of concrete on the track) and for the first time told the crowd the target of the march: the Drake Hotel, home of Julius Hoffman, the judge in the Chicago 8 trial.
    Finally, at 10:25 p.m., Jones gave the pre-arranged signal over a bullhorn, and the Weatherman action began. John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, David Gilbert and others led a charge south through the city toward the Drake Hotel and the exceptionally affluent Gold Coast neighborhood, smashing windows in automobiles and buildings as they went. The protesters attacked "ordinary cars, a barber shop...and the windows of lower-middle-class homes" as well as police cars and luxury businesses.[11] The mass of the crowd ran about four blocks before encountering police barricades. The mob charged the police breaking off into small groups, and more than 1,000 police counter-attacked. Although many protesters had motorcycle or football helmets on, the police were better trained and armed; nightsticks were aimed at necks, legs and groins. Large amounts of tear gas were used, and at least twice police ran squad cars full speed into crowds. After only a half-hour or so, the riot was over: 28 policemen were injured (none seriously), six Weathermen were shot and an unknown number injured, and 68 protesters were arrested.  Jacobs was arrested almost immediately.

    We will look at October 9th and 10th in my next installment.

    You can also follow me on,, and  Just click the links.

    Monday, October 17, 2011


       In order to understand what is going on today, it is imperative that we understand who is behind the chaos.  My President has surrounded himself with these people.  As a parent, I have always told my children that they are who they hang around with.  It is no different from my President.  So if you will bear with me, we will travel the arduous road to understanding.  This may take a little effort but it will be worth the investment.  Pay attention to the players in this information, because President Obama has surrounded himself with them.  His presidency is a long way from being over, and so is the "Occupation of Wall Street", if history is repeating itself.
      We will begin in the 1960's with the Weather Underground.  The following information has been taken from Wikipedia:
       " The Weather Underground Organization (WUO)... was an American radical left organization.  It originated in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society" (SDS).  The national organization leadership of the SDS and their supporters were mostly who composed the Weather Underground.
    "Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the American government.
       The origins of the Weathermen can be traced to the collapse and fragmentation of the Students for a Democratic Society...During the factional struggle National Office leaders such as Bernardine Dohrn and Mike Klonsky began announcing their emerging perspectives, and Klonsky published a document titled "Toward a Revolutionary Youth Movement" (RYM).  RYM promoted the philosophy that young workers possessed the potential to be a revolutionary force to overthrow capitalism, if not by themselves then by transmitting radical ideas to the working class.  Klonsky's document reflected the philosophy of the National Office and was eventually adopted as oficial SDS doctrine.
       During the summer of 1969, the National Office began to split.  A group led by Klonsky became known as RYM II, and the other side, RYM I, was led by Dohrn and endorsed more aggressive tactics  such as direct action, as some members felt that years of non-violent resistance had done little or nothing to stop the Vietnam War.  The Weathermen strongly sympathzed with the radical Black Panthers....
      The SDS convention in 19969 produced a position paper outlining the position of the group that would become the Weathermen.  It had been signed by Daren Ashley, Billl Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Howie Machtinger, and more.  The document called for creating a clandestine revolutionary party:
      'The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party will be impossible.  A revolutionary mass movement is different from the traditional revisionist mass base of "sympathizers.  "Rather it is akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle."'
       I need to stop here, but you can read the entire story on Wikipedia.  I will post about "The Day of Rage" in a latter post.
    You can also follow me on,, and

    Sunday, October 16, 2011


       There has been a resurgent of discussion of cults in the media lately.  I thought it would be interesting to research the subject.  Wikipedia states that "the word cult in current popular usage refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre."  The article continues with the origin of the word and how it morphed into how we use the word today.  It states that, "Sociologists still maintain that unlike sects which are products of religious shisms and therefore maintain continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, "cults" arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices."
      I have pasted two paragraphs below from Wikipedia:

    In the 1940s, the long held opposition by some established Christian denominations to non-Christian religions or/and supposedly heretical Christian sects crystallized into a more organized "Christian countercult movement" in the United States. For those belonging to the movement, all new religious groups deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy were considered "cults".[7] As more foreign religious traditions found their way into the United States, the religious movements they brought with them attracted even fiercer resistance. This was especially true for movements incorporating mystical or exotic new beliefs and those with charismatic, authoritarian leaders.
    In the early 1970s, a secular opposition movement to "cult" groups had taken shape. The organizations that formed the secular "Anti-cult movement" (ACM) often acted on behalf of relatives of "cult" converts who did not believe their loved ones could have altered their lives so drastically by their own free will. A few psychologists and sociologists working in this field lent credibility to their disbelief by suggesting that "brainwashing techniques" were used to maintain the loyalty of "cult" members.[8] The belief that cults "brainwashed" their members became a unifying theme among cult critics and in the more extreme corners of the Anti-cult movement techniques like the sometimes forceful "deprogramming" of "cult members" becoming standard practice.[9]
    Wikipedia went on to describe the practice of mind control before debunking the idea:
    What is interesting is not necessarily what is being said about mormonism, but what is currently going on in our government.
    What do you think?

    You can also follow me on
    Studies performed by those who believe that some religious groups do practice mind control have identified a number of key steps in coercive persuasion:[30][31]
    1. People are put in physical or emotionally distressing situations;
    2. Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
    3. They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
    4. They get a new identity based on the group;
    5. They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.[32]

    Tuesday, October 4, 2011


       My question is what does the FDA do?  The latest news is that they have stopped the over the counter sales of inhalers, to force the 3million Americans who depend on them to purchase insurance or stop breathing.  So, I had to question their authority to do so.  I went to their website looking for answers, because I cannot understand how the Food and Drug Administration is harming our fellow Americans and who gave them the power to do so.  What I found was that the FDA does not have the power to do this unless it is harmful to the patient.  Well, they are allegedly doing this because of the "global warming" hoax, not because the medicine harms the patient. 
        Let me post verbatem what the FDA website states:  they are "responsible for protecting the public health by assuring that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled; human and vetinary drugs, and vaccines and other biological products and medical devices intended for human use are safe and effective."  Then it goes on and the last thing listed reads:  "helping the public get the accurate science-based information they need to use medicines, devices, and foods to improve their health."
       You cannot say you want to improve the lives of those who are struggling financially and then say you want them to die for the lack of money to pay for insurance to purchase the same products that they have been able to obtain without purchasing insurance.  This just does not make sense.  Mr. President, you speak with a forked tongue!