Bin Laden's Book List

Since Osama Bin Laden recommended Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid I started speculating what other books he would recommend and here's the list:

1. The Quran
2. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
3. The Myth of American Exceptionalism by Godfrey Hodgson
4. The Camel, Its Uses and Management by Major Arthur Glyn Leonard
5. I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why He's Wrong About Absolutely Everything edited by Clint Willis
6. Cave Animals by Francine Galko
7. The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
8. Sex Tips from a Dominatrix by Patricia Payne
9. The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran by Robert Spencer
10. Cave Decorating by Osama Bin Laden

All these books by the way are real except for the last one. Some of these books of course Bin Laden would never read or even recommend for that matter.

The Olympic Commitee Rejected Obama

Or if you don't like that title how about "The Olympic Committee Wanted Obama to Fail." Sound better? This is pure and simple racism from the Olympic Committee. Where's is the national hemorrhoid Jimmy Carter's comment on this decision? After all Chicago was in the selection process before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the presidential race (can't blame President Bush on this decision). Maybe the committee wanted McCain for president. It couldn't be about anything else could it?

I mean surely the committee ignored the man-child messiah President Obama's negative remarks about America. Surely they could ignore Obama always apologizing for America. Not to mention Obama and his wife relating the Olympics to themselves when they were trying to convince the committee why the Olympics should be in Chicago. Narcissism anyone? Nah. The Olympic committee should have been mesmerized by Obama's charm and charisma like the rest of the world. Chavez sure likes Obama. It was racism even though Brazil's population is over 50% black people.

Sarcasm aside. Obama lost because him going there was overkill. If you remember Chicago was eliminated right off the bat. Wasn't his wife and Oprah enough? Couldn't he stay home and you know concentrate on growing the economy and winning the war in Afghanistan? Him going there was nothing but Obama repaying a favor to the Chicago powers-that-be in my opinion. We helped you out and now it's your turn to help us out. That sort of thing.

Only the committee itself knows why it did not pick Chicago. Unless someone asks the committee we will never know what the reason for their decision was. Here's an idea. Maybe the Obama Fan Club (the drive-by-media) could ask the members of the committee to find out why. Then again maybe the media does not really want to know why.

A Short Course on Political Power

Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look to anything but power for their relief.
-- Edmund Burke

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-- Lord Acton

The second quote is well known, but not the first. Power corrupts people because people are imperfect. Most major religions and any good psychological school knows that people are imperfect and will always be imperfect. Examine this syllogism: Man is imperfect. Gov't is composed of men. Therefore gov't is imperfect. This syllogism will always be true. Of course if you think mankind can be perfected, then you'll probably think gov't can be perfected. And that is a dangerous idea to have. That's what the Soviet Union thought. The so called "New Man." Well, neither man or gov't can be perfected. It is a delusion. We can be better moral smarter people but not a perfect people.
The first quote is just saying that power can be an addictive drug. The more you have the more you want. The more you have the more you think you are god-like. Your ego gets bigger. You also become paranoid. You become obsessed with who has power and who doesn't have power that wants to take your power away even if they don't want to. Hitler killed a supporter because Hitler got paranoid that the supporter was becoming more popular than him. And get this. The supporter was giving speeches praising Hitler.
Abraham Lincoln said this about power: Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Power is about what you do too another person. It can be for good or for evil. Or as William Hazlitt put it: The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves. Actually, "love of ourselves" maybe the wrong way to put it. Being narcissistic is a better term. Sociopaths are narcissistic people with no conscience who get their kicks out of controlling people. Show me a brutal world dictator and I'll show you a sociopath. You know why Satan was tempting Jesus? It was because he was trying to find out how human He was. To see if Jesus could pass up ultimate power or not. Jesus did not fall for the Devil's trick though like most politicians would.

The worth of men consists in their liability to persuasion. . . . Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals. Thus in a live civilization there is always an element of unrest. For sensitiveness to ideas means curiosity, adventure, change. Civilized order survives on its merits, and is transformed by its power of recognizing its imperfections.
-Alfred North Whitehead

Persuasion is hard. I took a class in it in college. There are several theories of how to persuade someone. All of them involve giving the person a choice to act. Coercion leaves a person no choice to act. True leaders don't need coercion. Using reason, listening, respecting free will, and trusting their fellow country men is all they need. Finally, a warning from founding father John Adams:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the People, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct [italics are mine] of their rulers. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free 'government' ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people.

Gee, he sounds sort of like Glenn Beck. Hmmm...

Indoctrination of Children

The below is from a Wikipedia article on Soviet Propaganda:

We must make the young into a generation of Communists. Children, like soft wax, are very malleable and they should be molded into good Communists... We must rescue children from the harmful influence of the family... We must nationalize them. From the earliest days of their little lives, they must find themselves under the beneficial influence of Communist schools... To oblige the mother to give her child to the Soviet state - that is our task."

Is this what the Left is doing to children in schools? I am not talking about turning them into Commies but maybe socialists? I mean substitute Communist with Socialists you don't get much difference.

On Glenn Beck's show and then on The O'Reilly Factor I seen a video of a teacher having her kindergarten class sing the "Mmmm, mmm" song. They would praises Obama and then go "Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm." If they would have added "good" at the end of the "mmmm" part they would have the Campbell's soup song. Exactly what does this song have to do with any kind of learning? The Left say this is cute and there is nothing wrong with what the teacher did. I wonder if they would have said that if instead of Obama the students were singing the praises of Bush. Probably not. No teacher should be having their students sing the praises of any president. Discuss their presidency yes, but not make up a song to them.

Then I seen a video of a Leftist "teaching" kids about how the gov't works. The Leftist said it is the responsibility of gov't to take care of its citizens. She wasn't talking about from military attacks. She was talking about the gov't being the parent, and the citizens being the child. She did not use the terms "parent" and "child" but I am sure that is what she meant. Then this person said pillow manufacturers put a neural-toxin in pillows and the gov't puts over 50% of the federal budget in the military. Both facts are wrong. By the way this video was funded by the far-left Tides Foundation.

One last example. I was the local news some months back and they showed a school teacher having her grade school kids march around carry signs saying "Health Insurance for Kids." The newscaster thought this was cute, but it made me nauseous. Exactly how is this educational? That is pure indoctrination. Those kids just wanted to take a field trip.

Nowadays if I was a parent I would be weary what the schools are teaching my kids. It might not be what you want them to be taught.

Thoughts on Universal Health Care

1. If America has Obama Care will the Hippocratic oath still apply? I mean doctors will no longer be working for themselves but the state so will the gov't change the oath or no longer use it?

2. Under Obama Care will the doctor-patient confidentiality contract still apply? Or will gov't be included in that contract. After all gov't will be approving/denying all the drug prescriptions and medical procedures a person has.

3. You can sue the gov't under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under this act the gov't agency that is sued has six months to respond. You might want to think about that if America has universal health care.

4. Under Obama Care there is no second opinion. The only opinion that counts is the government's opinion.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 4

• Why do we need a civilian force? We don't need one.

• Who is posing a threat to us? The jihadists but no-one domestically as bad as they are. Yes, there are radicals who want to change the structure of America. But that is what democracy is about. You can vote out the bums.

• Who will this "force" be made up of? According to a Wikipedia article it will contain middle school students, high school students, & college students. He will also create various corps like Americorps and the Peace Corps.

• Who is the real enemy? Anyone who disagrees with his policy.

• Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy? I don't know. As for the second question no-one who is sane.

• Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army? Because they adore the president still and don't see a story. Also they're philosophy is too much aligned with the White House. You aren't critical with your friends as much as your enemies.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 3

1. Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"? So there can be affirmative action in radio stations & TV stations.

2. Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves? He is the FCC diversity "czar." By restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations, ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing, and requiring commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting according to a Newsbusters.org blog.

3. Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse? Worse. The FCC would rescind any stations' broadcast licenses that would violate this thug's czar's rules.

4. Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next? Could be. Sunstein calls for popular or partisan websites to be forced to carry links to opposing viewpoints according to a Techliberation.com article.

5. Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation? Good question, probably not. If broadcasters go to the Internet then they we be bound by Sustein's rules. If they regulate private websites then could then presumably regulate satellite providers.

6. Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government won't regulate free speech? In a church. But even that is regulated. If a minister endorses a political candidate or expresses political views then the church may lose its non-profit status. Also, university professors and motivational speakers may not be regulated.

7. Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration? Because Obama's team are radical leftists and they don't hate companies who share the same philosophy as they have or companies that want gov't assistance.

8. If Lloyd has his way, stations who don't comply to the governments definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine --- that helps support public broadcasting:

   What will be the definition of "public interest"? It's whatever the gov't defines it to be.

9. Why should it be balanced? Because it's public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don't count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them) Funny. Or counting how many Republicans and Dems who walk on the sidewalks. The airwaves don't have to be balanced. If you don't like what you hear or see turn the medium off or switch to another station.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 2

• Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House? Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who was on the board of Freddie Mac while they misreported their net income in 2000 by 30.5%. He was the one that made the comment, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste; they are opportunities to do big things." When asked about the Town Halls this is what senior advisor Valerie Jarret said at a question-and-answer session:

  They are trying to scare people, elderly people, and I am ticked. It's what we are fighting against, but they underestimate the American people. and media is not focusing on the productive debates we are having, it's not just raucous. we need retail help from you all.

  The "you" she is talking about is far left groups.

• Do any of the President's advisers have criminal records? If you mean senior staff, no. Van Jones, the Green Czar was arrested twice.

• Are the President's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals? Better their own ideals. Unless you think making the country into a socialistic state is a good idea.

• Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington? According to US Chamber of Commerce these are some House members that got low scores: Nancy Pelosi (26), Henry Waxman (26), Maxine Walters (21), Jessie Jackson, Jr. (28), Steny Hoyer (32), Barney Frank (25), The number in parens is the average score. Some Senate member with low scores: Chris Dodd (32), Dick Durbin (34), Tom Harkin (37), John Kerry (38), Harry Reid (37), Charles Schumer (36), Harry Reed (36), Robert Byrd (32). If you noticed everyone I named is a Democrat. I did not deliberately look for Dems. I was just looking for names I recognize, then the score. Also, Obama got an average score of 32. Biden's average score was 36. Hillary Clinton's score was 46. These scores were when they were senators.

• What roles do they have in crafting bills? Congress always has a role in crafting bills. Obama and Biden has influence too.

• What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now? STORM stood for Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. It was a communist revolutionary organization founded by now Green Czar Van Jones.

• What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser? Trustworthy, knowledgeable in his/ her field, & pro-American.

• What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist? A community activist takes on community issues. A community organizer organizes communities for social causes. A community activist can be a community organizer too to accomplish his/her goals.

• Do the czars have power? Yes, too much power.

• Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States? No, because they are anti-democracy and anti-capitalistic.

• What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills? The group claims it influenced the "stimulus" package. It is an alliance of business, labor and environmental groups. Those groups have lobbyists. It is not too far fetched to think the Apollo Alliance has lobbyists too.

• Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance? I think he might be talking about Jeff Jones. Jones is a director of the New York State Apollo Alliance. He might know about him.

• How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society? Van Jones.

• What role does George Soros play... CONSTITUTIONALLY? None whatsover.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 1b

• Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor? Don't know. If Obama didn't know he should have known. Then again if he did know and was alright with Van Jones' beliefs that tells a lot about Obama's beliefs. Obama said in so many words, judge me on the people I surround myself with.

• The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill? Because they have connections to Congress. Two of the founders are Democrat congressmen. Basically this group is an alliance of big business, labor unions, and environmental groups.

• If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people? No, and if they did know they don't care.

• If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan? Because they know it isn't good and politicians always look out for their best interests.

• If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our minds—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening? Because they don't want to learn what's on our minds. They want the town hall participants to shut-up and not ask any questions. Just absorb and agree with what they are saying.

• Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted? Good one Glenn. He has a point. I mean they are accusing the town hall participants of doing what they do most of the time.

• Why would you want to overwhelm the system? To create a chaos and fear in the American people. Then you try to convince them that gov't intervention is needed to solve the crisis.

• Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about "not letting a crises go to waste"? Probably. That way you hope people are so wrapped up in their personal lives they are not paying attention to what is going in the gov't.

• What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices? As for the first question Glenn Beck answers that on czar page. Most salaries are unknown, and some are not paid at all. As for the budgets of the czars, who knows. Obama does not list any czar salary or budget on the White House website. So much for transparency.

Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 1a

Below are questions Glenn Beck asked on his TV show. I am going to attempt to answer them.

• Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America? No, not really. I myself would not have created these socialistic programs in the first place. They should be made optional. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. It depends on the elderly dying off and the young making a lot of money. The gov't should encourage people to save their money for when they need it in their old age by cutting taxes and making a non-taxable "old age" savings account like IRAs.

• We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red-ink? We shouldn't. Congress should live within a budget like all families do or should. You don't spend money you don't have. Congress is like a compulsive gambler. If you give the gambler more money to get out of his debt the more money he will gamble away. His debt increases. Unless he recognizes he has a problem, he will continue his gambling ways. That's Congress. The American public does not help either by enabling Congress. Both Congress and the public has got to have discipline. Congress has got to stop waste full spending and the public has got to stop signaling to Congress it does not need anymore wasteful pgms. Or any program at all until America is in the black.

• The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy? It doesn't. You just get more ACORN employees that's all. All ACORN is is a political community agitator organizer for the Left. You can make an educated guess why they got the money.

• If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later? Because they were in such a hurry to write it and to pass it they did not have time to read and comprehend it. Now they decided to read it.

• Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work? I have no idea, but what he did smacks of socialism. Obama has taken that idea to another level. The free market is not perfect because people are not perfect. But neither is gov't or the for that matter the justice system because they are composed of people. So how does one imperfect system make another perfect? It can't.

• Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them? Either they don't want to be bothered with reading them or they put total trust in the person creating the bill. Or both. Neither excuse works.

• Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them? Because the congress is arrogant and full of themselves.

• Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either? Could be both. But I think to save the earth more. On the cars.gov FAQ it states you have to buy a fuel efficient vehicle to decrease CO2 emissions and to reduce oil dependence. If the program was to save the economy it didn't work because more people bought foreign cars more than domestic. I don't believe it saved the earth either.

• How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president? I don't know. The White House won't even answer.

Making Congressional Bills Less Complex

The health care bill coming out of the House it way too long. Over a 1000 pages? Are you kidding me? This are my ideas how to make them shorter.

First, if the bill is over five pages the lawmakers that sponsor it has to write the bill by hand in either pencil or pen. Heck, use a crayola I don't care. But they have to write it by hand using in their own hand. I don't want no ghostwriters writing it. Or no staff writing it. If Congressman X sponsors a bill then I want to see that Congressman's handwriting. No one else. Only one person should write the bill. If more than one person sponsors a bill then the sponsors have to get together to decide who's going to write the bill. If writer doesn't want to use cursive then he can print it. It doesn't matter to me. The founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution by hand using a freakin' quill dipped in ink! (Yea, I know they had no choice. They didn't have typewriters or a computer.)

Second, once the bill is written it has to be examined by a independent team or panel of handwriting experts. If the panel determines that the any of the rules in the first part are violated then the bill invalid. Otherwise the read next paragraph.

Third, after the bill is validated by the handwriting panel then all the sponsors' peers has to read it in its entirely. Not only do they have to read it but sign a letter saying they have read and understood the bill. And then give a summary of the bill in their words. What I mean by peers is if you are a representative for example then your fellow representatives have to read the bill.

Or the sponsors do a walk through of the bill. Explaining line by line what the bill does to all of his peers. Then the sponsors peers can ask questions of the bill if they want. Both the walk though and attendance of the walk through is mandatory. When I went to college me and my fellow computer scientists had to give walk throughs of their computer programs. If it is good enough for programmers it is good enough for Congress.

What's the point of my idea? To slow down the process of making huge complex laws. If you have to write the bill by hand then your hand will get tired if it is too long. If you have your peers read it you better not make it too long or they'll will get ticked off at you. Or if you choose the walk through option you're voice will go out if the bill is too long.

Will Congress ever do this? Probably not. But I can dream. Keep in mind Congress not only makes laws for you but for themselves too. So, they are not going to make it rough on themselves.

Am I being mean? Maybe. But what is worse is to have a complex bill that is vague and no-one understands that is forced upon the constituents.

One final thought. If cars were built like bills are made no-one would ever buy a car. The complexest programs ever made are computer operating systems. And even they don't work all the time. But at least they are tested and updated. Can you say that about bills passed in Congress?

The Four Horsemen of America's Economic Apocalipse

Below I believe are the four legislatures that can wreck America's economic future if they are passed:

1. ObamaCare. Also known as socialized medicine. It's pretty simple economics why this won't work. It hasn't worked in Canada and England and it won't work here. Canada and England even has less population than the U.S. You offer health care "free" you will get shortages. Supply and demand. If you have too much demand (people in need of medical help) and not enough supply (doctors, nurses, medical equipment) to meet the demand, you will get a shortage. America is in debt and doesn't have enough money to pay doctors decent wages and not enough money to buy state-of-the-art medical equipment. Medical equipment businesses may initially sell equipment to the gov't but as soon as they don't receive their money (like the car dealers who haven't received their money from the gov't in the cash-for-clunkers pgm which ends today) they will stop selling equipment to the gov't and make something else. Again shortages. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the medical resources. Either the income tax or the gov't might tax ingredients it deems unhealthy like sugar, saturated fats, cholesterol, salt, etc. The powers-that-be will use America's health as an excuse to do it. This will hurt the economy even more by causing inflation.

2. The Cap-and-trade bill. Or as some call it "cap-and-tax." This is how it works according to Conservapedia:

   In a "cap and trade system," a regulating authority (the government) sells permits to companies for the right to emit pollutants. As with all costs of business, this additional cost would be passed on the consumer. A company may emit pollutants up to the permitted amount. Should a company find they routinely under-pollute, these permits may be sold back to the regulating authority or sold to other companies.

   Each source can design its own compliance strategy to meet the overall reduction requirement, including sale or purchase of allowances, installation of pollution controls, implementation of efficiency measures, among other options. Individual control requirements are not specified under a cap and trade program, but each emissions source must surrender allowances equal to its actual emissions in order to comply. Sources must also completely and accurately measure and report all emissions in a timely manner to guarantee that the overall cap is achieved. [read more]

   Italics added by me. When Spain passed this stupid legislature its electricity and energy increased by 31 percent. That will happen here. Even Obama had to admit that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." His words. Heritage.org did an analysis of the bill. Below is some of what they discovered:
   • Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38) above the baseline forecast, which already contains price increases;
   • Electricity prices will rise 90 percent;
   • A family of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy costs per year;
   • Including taxes, a family of four will pay $4,609 more per year;
   • Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million;
   • The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person.
   If that does not make you cringe you can read more of the article. Why do we have to have this legislature? To try to control a gas that all animals exhale out.

3. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Also called Card check. Basically this is employees voting if they want a union or not without a secret ballot. Think of it in this way: It would be like if you voted for a political candidate while the candidate looked over your shoulder. That wouldn't be right. That can lead to intimidation. Not "free choice" anymore is it? Why should unions care if you vote to join a union or not if unions are popular. It's because they are not. Union membership is dropping. In a March Rasmussen poll only nine percent of non-union workers want to join a union. According to an Heritage.org article:

   The EFCA applies only to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which does not cover government employees, agricultural workers, the self-employed, or railway or airline workers. The Act also excludes supervisors. Still, the EFCA would disenfranchise 105 million American workers, which encompasses more than two-thirds, or 68.8 percent, of the American workforce. [read more]

   Even liberal George McGovern and an ex-labor union leader does not support card check. McGovern and the ex-union labor union leader are not alone in their opinions. 30% say it’s okay to form a union without a secret vote, 52% disagree according to a July Rasmussen poll.

4. Finally, Amnesty. If you just let all the illegals be legal that will cause high unemployment, and put a drag even more on the health care system (illegals are covered in the House ObamaCare bill). Not to mention it will give incentive for even more illegals to come over here. Inflation will rise because now you have to pay them minimum wage, health benefits, etc. I understand why they are coming over here. Mexico has low wages, high unemployment, and deadly drug gangs. It's like a storm that follows low pressure systems. America is the low pressure system. The Left wants amnesty because they want to increase labor membership. They really don't care about the individual lives of illegals coming over here. They just see the numbers.

So, how can the four horsemen be stopped? Vote for any politician that will reverse the four legislatures. God help this country if any of the four passes.

The Psychology of Town Hall Meetings

More actually this blog is about the reactions of people in town hall meetings to Obamacare.

There is a psychological theory for what the people in the town hall meetings (and most of America including myself) is feeling it is called Reactance Theory. When you perceive you're freedoms are threatened or lost you react--hence the name. Makes sense doesn't it?

How do you react when you're freedoms are threatened? You get angry. You get frustrated. You can even attack whatever is causing you to lose your freedoms. The more you value a particular freedom that is threatened--the more you will react. The more freedoms you lose the more you will react. This theory is describing exactly the psychological dynamics going on in town hall meetings.

People are reacting to losing their choice of doctor, medicine, etc. If you don't like your doctor you can choose another in a free market system. If a medicine isn't working or you don't like the side effects you can choose another medicine. Under socialized health care the gov't makes those choices for you. You may get another doctor or may not. Same with the medicine. You may not get a second, third, etc. opinion. So, because of not having those choices, naturally according to the theory they are confronting Congressmen. What does Congress and the Left do? Say the town hall gatherers are being misinformed without giving any details of the plan themselves. These Congressmen and Obama say trust us, we won't do you no wrong. Here's a message to Congress and Obama: Do not treat the American people like children! We are adults and treat us as such. We are more informed than you would like to believe.

Not only can a single person threaten your freedom or take it away like a kidnapper but so can a gov't--even worse so because you can attack a kidnapper. How do you respond to a gov't once an oppressive law is made? America's founding fathers knew this well. That's why America has the Bill of Rights--too keep the gov't from oppressing its people. Like a wise man once said when a gov't fears its people you have freedom. When people fear their gov't you have oppression.

Also, keep in mind that health care is one of the basic needs of a person. You never want to restrict the basic needs (food, water, shelter) of a person or else they will react. Having a person wait in line for a drivers license is one thing. Having them wait while they are in pain or needing a life-saving operation is a totally different thing. Don't mess with basic needs.

Missile Defense Budget Could Open Vulnerabilities, Report Warns

From NTI.org (Aug. 13, 2009):

The Obama administration's proposal to emphasize battlefield missile defenses over systems for intercepting strategic ballistic missiles would save the nation money while potentially making it more vulnerable to future attack, says a report published yesterday by a Washington-based defense think tank (see GSN, June 2). [read more]

What Obama administration doing makes sense from their world view. Obama (and most libs) think that if America disarms so will the rest of the world. Well, maybe and maybe not. Every country has its own agenda. It's possible that that friendly countries may disarm. I'm not worried about friendly countries though. I am more worried about the dangerous countries like Iran and N. Korea. They will do whatever is in their best interest. And that doesn't include America.

Obama thinks that America is source of the world's problems (he keeps apologizing for America) and our enemies will happily disarm if we be nice and disarm. It doesn't work that way. A bad man with a knife approaching you will still cut you if you put down your weapon. Having wrong perceptions during a crisis can decrease your chance of survival. Thinking you caused the bad man being bad is not only stupid but can get you killed. Even if you made him mad at you--the criminal still has free will. He can choose not to harm you.

Just like the potential victim in the above scenario putting down his weapon won't make him safe, cutting military defenses in a dangerous world does not and will not make a country safer. But it can make a country less safe.

Obama's Email Controversy

Is it possible that Obama is collecting the emails for a mailing list? I mean people have received unsolicited emails from his advisor David Axelrod. When asked about this his press secretary could not answer the question whether or not the Obama administration was sending out those emails. The answer is either is yes, no, or I don't know but let me look into the matter. But Robert Gibbs (I am sorry this guy is a bonehead--he is the worst press secretary I've seen) acted like a pinhead. This suggests three possible scenarios: 1) The Obama gang is keeping Gibbs in the dark, 2) Gibbs knows but is protecting Obama's behind, or 3) Gibbs did not understand the question. You choose which three. I seriously doubt Gibbs did not understand the question.

I remember reading in a computer magazine article (I'm sorry I forgot the name of the magazine) the author claimed Obama was a spammer. This might be true. I remember a caller on the Rush Limbaugh said he went to a gov't website to get help with his mortgage. Later on he got phone calls from almost every mortgage lawyer in the country. And now I read that the White House is using chain emails to counter the "lies" about Obamacare. Keep in mind Obama and his crew are not adverse to using computer technology. Obama uses a Blackberry to communicate.

If the White House does not care about people's names and emails then why do you have to forward the email to the White House? Couldn't you just say my friend/brother/sister says this about Obamacare without naming names? What he could have done to get people's take on Obamacare is to use a contact form like the general "contact us" form on the White House.gov site. I noticed on that form your name and email is required. But a form could be made that did not include either one. That would make snitches people less nervous about giving Obama info about his health care system. Keep in mind according to law the White House has to save any correspondences it has with anyone as a matter of public record.

Programming a Teleportation Device

In the movie "The Fly" the main character (played by Jeff Goldblum) built a matter transportation ie teleportation device. The device he hoped would teleport a person from booth A to booth B or vise versa. It works perfectly for animals so he uses himself as a guinea pig. He enters booth A and turns the device on. Unbeknown to the main character a fly flies into booth A at the same time. The computer that runs the teleporter gets confused because there is only supposed to be one animal at a time in a booth. So, it combines the DNA of the main character with that of the fly. And then the scientist is teleported by the computer. Slowly the main character turns into a fly. Hence the name of the movie. A pretty disgusting ending in my opinion.

The main character may have been a brilliant inventor but he was a dumb programmer. If you are going to build a device that teleports you from point A to point B or from point B to point A you have to have some safeguards. If a telepod as it is called in the movie have two or more objects in it don't teleport and let the teleportee know there is something else in the telepod with him or her. Or even better yet have the computer teleport just the person and ignore the other object or person. If that object is another person that person has to wait his turn.

Another issue is if both telepods are occupied at the same time. This is not covered in the movie by the way. The computer does not do any teleportation. It has to wait for the receiving telepod to be empty. It could even tell one of the teleporterees to leave his or her pod. For instance it could tell whoever entered the pod last, to leave because the other person has the "right of way." If both teleportees entered the pods at the same time (which would be really rare because the computer could be programmed to measure the time to the nearest millisecond) then it could randomly choose a person to teleport. There could be a signal light in the pods to indicate what state it is. If a green light is on then you can teleport to the other pod. If a red light is on then someone else in the other pod and is about to be or is teleporting to that pod. If no light is on then the teleporter is not working.

It could be possible to have telepods in a network where you could teleport to any pod in the world. You just enter the position of the receiving pod.

I know the teleporter was just a plot gimmick. After all the movie was called "The Fly" not the "The Teleporter." I just thought the concept was interesting.

They could remake the movie call it "The Gnat" or "The Flea" or even "The Ladybug." Although the having the main character turn into a ladybug would not have been so gross. How about the "The Cockroach?". That would be disgusting too.

Assertive Training for Conservatives

Below is from Daniel G. Amen's book Magnificent Mind at Any Age (2008). The tips weren't exactly for conservatives but for anyone trying to be assertive in their life. I copied these tips for conservatives because it's the Left that tends to be angry all the time and demeaning. Although since the Left argues from an emotional point of view some of these tips may not work.

1. Do not give in to the anger of others just because it makes you uncomfortable.
2. Do not allow the opinion of others to control how you feel. Your opinion, within reason, needs to be the one that counts for you. Work on knowing what you think and believe.
3. Say what you mean and stick up for what you believe is right.
4. Maintain self-control. Being angry, mean, or aggressive is not being assertive.
5. Be kind, if possible. But above all be firm in your stance.

Obama is Watching You

The title of this blog sounds ominous doesn't it? Then again... On the White House.gov blog there is this message:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Mr. President since you did not apparently read your own bill how would you know what is fishy or not? I have looked at the bill. It is long and full legalese. I almost went brain dead. Two, who are these people spreading "rumors" about the bill you are talking about? Could they possibly be the same people polled who don't like ObamaCare? According to Rassmussen Reports 53% now oppose congressional health care reform. Then these same people show up to town hall meetings and ask honest questions and get ridiculed and dehumanized by you and people in Congress. Saying they are faking anger and being told to show up by the RNC. The powers that be should have more respect for people they are supposed to represent. They are not royalty--even though that how they think of themselves.

I just wonder what Obama is going to do about with that list of dissenters. Possibly a hit list? Who knows. Redstate.com comments that what Obama is doing, asking people to snitch, could be against the law. You know possibly an infringment against free speech. Maybe instead of flag@whitehouse.gov it should be bigbrother@whitehouse.gov. Just a suggestion.

In other related news, on the Cars.gov website was this message:

“This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and is the property of the United States Government.

“Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

Emphasis added by me. Isn't that nice. Actually, a Constitutional watchdog brought this to the attention to that rascal Glenn Beck (Glenn you got to stop exposing what the gov't is doing. They don't like that!) He mentioned it on his TV and radio show then the message was changed by the White House to be less unnerving. The question is even though the message is less frightening is the gov't still going to do what the message said?

Let's just do this. Replace the stars on Old Glory with a hammer and sickle or if you wish Obama's logo. Rename the United States of America, United Socialist States of America. Put in Government or Obama We Trust on all paper currency. That should do it.

While we're at it let's annex Mexico to save the illegals from coming over to America since we are going include them in ObamaCare anyway. After all we are just one big continent right?

Meet Obama's Czars

If you ever wondered who Al Capone's bosses Obama's czars (sounds like we are in Soviet Union doesn't it) are, well check out the list below:

1. Border Czar: Alan Bersin. As Secretary of Education and district head under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bersin took little action against the numerous illegal immigrants in schools under his supervision. Yea, Bersin sure sounds qualified like a drunk doing brain surgery.
2. Car Czar: Steven Rattner. He previously served as a reporter for the New York Times, advocating liberal approaches to economics, and is expected to continue to endorse such positions during his tenure as czar. As a czar, Rattner is not accountable to anyone except President Obama, and his responsibilities are similarly nebulous. Now, doesn't that make you feel all nice and warm.
3. Drug Czar:Gil Kerlikowske. Kerlikowske ran two small police departments in Florida, then became chief of police in Buffalo, N.Y. in 1994. He became Seattle's police chief in 2000 and brought the city's crime rate to a 40-year low, despite a resurgences in youth and gang violence. Kerlikowske has maintained a national profile, paying special attention to gun control, immigration and electronic data mining of private records.
4. Economic Czar: Paul A. Volcker
5. Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner. A lobbyist hired by President Barack Hussein Obama as energy czar and was the Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton Administration. She is also the former head of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. She has years of experience with environmental issues and takes an extremist viewpoint on Global Warming.
6. Government Performance Czar: Jeffrey Zients. A management consultant recently appointed as Chief Performance Officer, for Government Performance Czar in the Obama Administration. His role is to "promote technological innovation in government" (what's the point of that?), though his precise responsibilities are somewhat unclear. Zients was previously the Secretary of Technology in Virginia.
7. Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. Selected by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, her responsibilities will include coordinating a number of federal agencies on issues relevant to Great Lakes, including invasive species, polluted harbors, sewage overflows and degraded wildlife habitat. Ms. Davis is one of a number of environmental czars, joining Chuck Fox, charged with directing cleanup of the Chesapeake bay. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Davis served as the head of the liberal environmentalist organization Alliance for the Great Lakes.
8. Green Czar: Van Jones. Was an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader.
9. Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. She has been a tireless advocate of socialized medicine for many years.
10. Homeland Security Czar: John Brennan. He served in the administration of George W. Bush, where Brennan has generally used strong means to ensure the safety of Americans, and was an architect of the interrogation techniques criticized by many liberals.
11. Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair. A retired four-star admiral. As intelligence czar, Blair has pledged to end the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (no more loud rock music) and work closely with the FBI.
12. Pay Czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is changed with setting the salaries of officials at many companies which benefitted from the Bush and Obama administration's bailouts in 2008-9.
13. Regulatory Czar: Cass R. Sunstein. Sunstein has little background in regulation, and his appointment appears to have been motivated by his ties to Obama through the University of Chicago law school.
14. Science Czar: John Holdren. Professor Holdren has advocated multinational population restrictions, including mandatory abortion in the United States. Worse yet, in a book (Ecoscience) that he wrote in 1977, he advocated subtly poisoning the water supply with "sterilants."
15. Technology Czar: Vivek Kundra. He previously worked under the administration of Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia, and, like many other Obama appointees, for Obama's 2007-9 presidential campaign.
16. Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr. He previously acted as Borough president of the Bronx, where he was criticized for his actions following a large March 7, 2007 fire.
17. WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore. Samore was previously a high-profile negotiator for the Clinton administration, where his policies towards North Korea are widely accepted to have been largely unsuccessful.

Well, that's all the czars except for the Cyber Czar. Obama has not picked anyone for that yet. A lot of the czars could be combined like for instance the Great Lake Czar and Green Czar could be part of the "Environmental" Czar. Some of the "technology" czars can be combined. I believe he has more czars than any president before him. Keep in mind the czars are only accountable to Obama and no-one else.

In full disclosure I should say that the words in italics are mine and not Conservapedia.com where I got the info from. A thanks to them for that info.

Driving Distractions

What's the difference between a passenger talking to you while driving a car and talking on a cell phone? I mean both are distractions to the driver. The only difference I can think of is with a cell phone you don't have both hands on the steering wheel. If a passenger sits next to you and talks to you then you might get the urge to turn toward him to reply back. It's only natural. That's conversational etiquette--to face someone you are talking to. Then what about hands-free cell phones?

Let's face it any activity that takes away your attention away from driving can be bad. Talking to a passenger, talking on a cellphone, daydreaming, etc. all can be bad.

One other thing to think about. Even a sneeze during driving can be dangerous while driving. Your eyes close briefly. So, if you having a sneezing attack don't drive until its over or CRASH!

By the way, I am not saying any of the above should be banned. All I am saying is that just focusing on the cell phone or texting for that matter is not the issue.