Remembering Mary Jo Kopechne!

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/99960/Remembering_Mary_Jo_Kopechne

For all the glorious hoopla that democrats and the Kennedy family are seeking to shine on Ol' Ted and his championing of 'affordable health care for all Americans,' let's not forget that this is also a man with a very dark past. His death calls for remembering a person who today may have been one of the biggest supporters of Obama/Kennedy care had she not been left to die in a drowning car driven by Ted Kennedy. Way to go Ted...fight for your own life but disregard that of an innocent woman catching a ride with you in order to hopefully make her ferry home. And just when you think the Kennedy Camelot clan couldn't sink any lower they usher the Kennedy kids up to speak about their 'uncle's' wish for all Americans to one day have affordable health care. Sadly, the family didn't even try to pretend that the statement was written by a 12 year old. It sounds like it was written by a Kennedy speech writer. And this is Camelot?

Ted Kennedy has passed away, so how about a solemn tribute for the dead, said Henry Rollins in Vanity Fair. Not Kennedy—that's covered—but what about Mary Jo Kopechne? As people mourn Kennedy, it would be "negligent" to forget the young political activist who, at age 28, died trapped in Kennedy's car when he drove it off a Chappaquiddick bridge in 1969.

Fine, said Melissa Lafsky in The Huffington Post, but remember that Mary Jo Kopechne, a former Robert F. Kennedy campaign worker, "wasn't a right-wing talking point"—she was a dedicated civil rights activist who believed in the things Ted Kennedy spent his life fighting for. Nobody can say what she would have thought "about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history"—she might even have thought it was "worth it."

That may be the "most amazingly shallow, myopic, and ultimately self centered sentence ever written," said Rick Moran in American Thinker. Mary Jo Kopechne, no matter what her political beliefs, would have preferred to live a "full life" with family, career, and kids, over being "a catalyst" whose death pushed Kennedy to give up his presidential ambitions and serve in the Senate. "What a despicable thing to write."

No, what's despicable, said Zennie Abraham in the San Francisco Chronicle, is demonizing a man who dedicated his life to serving others over of an accident 40 years ago. Mary Jo Kopechne's death was tragic, but Kennedy had his day in court and took his punishment. (watch Kennedy's speech after Chappaquiddick) So forget what the "Internet trolls" say about Chappaquiddick, and give Kennedy credit for a "great life's work after a mistake."

So, as you can see, even in death the liberal left pundits and editorials still put this man above his fellow man and shower him with praise. These are the same liberal bloggers and media outlets who said of Ronald Reagan at the time of his death that he 'caused Aids and millions of deaths worldwide.' Liberals, when faced with the facts that Kennedy killed an innocent woman choose to only focus on his policy issues while with no shred of evidence, only pure lunacy, they attack a president who happened to simply be the leader of the free world at the time that AIDS was identified and during its initial spread around the globe. Personal responsibility never factor into their logic. At the time, it was unfortunately believed that AIDS was spread through drug use and homosexual intercourse. If you continued to participate in either these actions then its your fault, not President Reagan's. However, staying on the basis of personal responsibility, it appeared that Kennedy had little of it, at least at the time of Kopechne's death. And if one does recall, it was the Reagan's who pioneered the "Just say No" campaign to at least try and curtail drug usage...however, it's up to the individual to adhere to the moral choices that lie in front of them.

Mary Jo Kopechne, let it be known that on the day of Ted Kennedy's death and memorial there were hundreds of thousands of mourners for his life, but there are still hundreds of thousands of people who also remembered that it was at this man's hands that your life was snuffed out at an early age. Regardless of your political affiliation and whatever radicalism may or may not have come from you if you had survived that fateful day, a human life is God's gift and should be valued as such. It appears that Ted Kennedy valued his life over yours, much like he continued to value his life over the rest of ours until his dying day. For it's Kennedy's belief that we should have health care afforded to us by us, but it's not the health care that he, Ted Kennedy, would himself sign up for. People should remember that as they wait and see if their politician will sign them up for something that is not good enough for the politician. Mary Jo may you rest in peace and I can only hope that Ted is now there with you trying like hell to make his peace with you. It's your call if you choose to forgive him and you have my support either way. However, its ultimately up to God and that is where, I believe, Ted is trembling in his boots.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

Shared via AddThis

Eric Holder, Liberals and the CIA

Eric Holder, either runs the country or just does Obama's bidding while operating under the guise of pretending to be in direct conflict of what his boss, President Barrack Hussein Obama, says to do. However, to absolve himself from any responsibility and being able to claim bi-partisanship, Holder cleverly appoints a 'Special Prosecutor' to oversee the investigation into crimes (independent investigations only turned up 1 in 2004 and he was convicted) committed by the CIA interrogators. So Obama says not to investigate and lets 'look forward and not behind us' but Holder on his own (?) presses forward with the case but then turns it over to someone else? Sounds like pure partisan politics to me. Isn't there an astounding reverberation of hypocrisy here considering the Liberals, the CIA and Valerie Plame. Lest you forget:

"Once upon a time, Valerie Plame Wilson was a hero to liberals everywhere, a covert CIA operative whose cover was blown by a vindictive Bush administration out to ruin its critics. Today, liberals within government and without are betraying covert CIA operatives as if it were the very essence of virtue. Consistency, principled or foolish, has never been a hobgoblin of the liberal mind." (Bret Stephens writing in the WSJ)

"There is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officers. So I need everybody to be clear: We will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions."

—Barack Obama at CIA headquarters, April 2009.

So now that Pelosi has called the CIA liars, despite myriad documents totally dispelling that statement, and Obama said that the identities of the interrogators and legality of what they did during EIT's would not be made public nor see prosecution, why is that Holder who works FOR OBAMA decides to overrule his boss and maybe seek criminal prosecution? Liberals will tell you that the Justice Department works completely independently of the White House. Yet, doesn't the White House nominate the AG? Liberals respond, 'well, the president also nominates supreme court justices.' True, but those are LIFETIME appointees. In politics there is a very large difference between term and lifetime appointments.

Also, why won't the White House or Justice Department now release the memo's that show the plethora of attacks that were in planning stages or imminent that were thwarted by these EIT's so that we can see for ourselves how many lives were saved by such techniques? The 'holier than thou' crowd (Pelosi included) likes to stress that laws were broken and the constitution shredded by EIT's. What laws? And the last thing that liberals need to be doing now is speaking of how Bush shredded the constitution. Look in the Obama transparent mirror before you throw stones. When highly regarded legal teams are assembled and interpret the law as it is written and Justice Dept, CIA and Congress signs off on them as what should be done 'to save American lives' then why Monday morning quarterback only when its politically expedient for you to do so? Liberals didn't seem to have a problem in 2004 or even in 2006 when these cases were brought up and discussed. In fact, these same instances that Holder has chosen to investigate (AGAIN) have already been vetted and it turned up one criminal act and that person was punished and sentenced to a jail term. Is Panetta really standing up for his operatives? Do you really think this strengthens America's security?

Eric Holder is playing Obama's politics deflecting attention away from Obamacare. Liberals are making themselves look like asses when they blame everything on Bush and call the CIA liars. In fact, water boarding was not voted on as 'illegal' in the House and Senate until early 2008. Bush vetoed it and the House did not have the 2/3 vote to override the veto. This means that waterboarding along with other EIT's were never considered 'illegal' and so therefore how can you prosecute something that is not 'illegal'? Now, the CIA interrogators, whether under republican or democratic president, when asked to interrogate a prisoner will do so with major concern as to whether or not the techniques they use will be second guessed when 'politics of the day' sweep in on a 'mandate' of 'change'. This weakens our nation, lowers our defenses and puts our people at risk. But hell, as long as the terrorists aren't touched but instead are subjected to simple, pointed questions, then what do we have to fear, right? I am sure they will buckle under the pressure. Can we show them a naked picture of Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton? That is sure to make them buckle...but then, that is real torture to a Muslim!

A hypothetical question (liberals love to do it on so many issues so lets have some fun playing their game). To save your family from certain death, an interrogator places a drill beside a kidnapper and murderer's head, pulls the trigger, and pretends that he is going to push it through the man's eyeball (but never does); meanwhile the man begins to cry like a baby about the details of where your family is and who has them (even giving up other acts he has partaken in during his past). Now, once your family is found safe and you have hugged and kissed your wife and your kids is it wise to ask that the interrogator be investigated as to whether he broke the law? Let me then ask, if he is found innocent the first time, is it wise to ask again even if it's a liberal democrat now asking?

As everyone with half a brain knows, the New York Times (losing tons of subscribers) does the liberals and ACLU/Moveon.org's of the worlds bidding by pushing the liberal agenda. It's clear why they would release the names of CIA interrogators but not captured journalists abroad, right? They claim 'privacy rights' for captured journalists but with CIA interrogators the 'public has a right to know.' Interesting that those out gathering news should be kept secret but those keeping America safe from attackers hell bent on killing us should be exposed. Identifying an interrogator, against the wishes of himself and the CIA, is worse than identifying a journalist already in captivity. But to the Times, it lent credibility to their story. Yeah, right!

As Americans awaken to the fact that 'change' never happened, partisan politics are even more out of control now than before and we are finally paying attention to what is going on in DC is it any wonder that America seems to have moved center right? The evidence is in the following: 1) the nations liberal newspapers are losing scores of subscribers while the Wall Street Journal (generally conservative with great Op-Ed pieces) was the only top 20 of nations newspapers to actually gain subscribers, 2) the evening cable prime-time news slots are dominated by Fox news (sometimes winning against all others combined) while MSNBC, CNN and CNBC are losing viewership in droves, 3) liberal talk radio ratings are so low that even Al Franken, who could win a US senator seat but couldn't carry enough audience to stay on the air with his progressive left wing rants, and 4) the scores of 'grassroots' protesters showing up at town hall meetings that still carry larger numbers than the Moveon.org and liberal funded proponents of Obamacare. Liberals have played their trump cards and fortunately for the rest of the rational and logical common sense American thinkers, it appears their hand should have been folded a long time ago. An old wiseman, Kenny Rogers, once said, "You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. You never count your money when your sitting it the table. There will be time enough for counting when the dealing's done."

It seems the democrats just don't know how to play a stacked hand. They control the house, the senate and the presidency. Yet playing politics with the American people will be their downfall. The liberal madness in DC just proves one major point that both party's are guilty of but should again learn. If you are drunk on power it will turn into your kryptonite. Liberals didn't fold when they could have, they should have known to walk away and they counted their money too soon. Instead, they are left to hold their sucker bet hands and when the dealings done they won't have any money left to count and the people of America will run them out of town. Keep it up, good card players love to play at a table with suckers. It's "Easy Money!"

"We are God's partners"

Speaking in front of a group of Rabbi's this past week while trying to rally support from religious leaders to push his 'moral objective' of government run health care Obama made the following statement: "We are God's partners in matters of life and death." This is the same Obama who told Rick Warren that when asked the point when a human embryo achieves personhood, Obama said that the question is “above my pay grade.” As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama argued against a law requiring a second doctor be called to provide care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion. Obama argued that this would only make it harder for a woman to choose abortions, saying it was “…really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the decision to induce labor and perform an abortion.” This is also the same president who had the Crucifix covered up while giving a speech at Georgetown University, a Roman Catholic University.

So Obama says "we are God's partners in matters of life and death" but doesn't seem to make the "pay grade" to determine when life begins and once argued against a doctor administering care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion? Does this seem odd to you? There is One who knows when life begins and when life is going to end...God! Obama is not God but Newsweek columnist Evan Thomas seems to think so when he said, "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

"I thought the use of religion in order to convince the people to follow anything political was prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings," said Christians Reviving America's Values president Don Swarthout in a statement. "Now the President of the United States is using religion to convince people to follow his political position."

He continued: "As a Pastor I may understand the Bible a little better than the average person. Apparently, the President thinks the Bible says government should help the poor instead of the Bible calling upon Christians to give to the poor...The truth is our very salvation may depend upon helping those in need. However, there is no place in the Bible which tells us that the government is supposed to do these things for us."

As a Christian I have some words of advice for Mr. Obama. We are not God's partners. We are his children. God may have made us in His image but he did not grant us the insight into His complex creation of human existence and the universe's miraculous beginnings. He granted us the authority over earth's abundance and to administer its growth and evolutionary process until He returns. For Obama to say "we are Gods partners" to me demonstrates two very important aspects on the way he chooses to 'rule' America. First, it proves that he is a major megalomaniac; and second, he will 'use' God when it is politically expedient for him to do so. BHO had to run away from being labeled a Muslim and then tried feverishly to demonstrate to America that he was Christian. But then he ran away from Reverend Wright, his pastor of 20 years, when the seas got rough. So clearly one can see that Obama uses God for political expedience and in fact has done so more often than George Bush did in 8 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/09/politics/politico/main5074470.shtml). Although, to Bush's credit, he never denied God in any political forum or speech. However, Obama is using God to try and help his 'ends justify the means' argument on the government take over of health care. Obama had reinstated the 'Your Life, Your Choices' manual for our military veterans, which is a tip of the hand in how Obamacare will help you determine your termination from this existence.

Hypocritcal? Obama proclaims to the Muslim world that "America is NOT a Christian nation" but yet he uses God when trying to pass his main political agenda issue. Well, if we are not a Christian nation then I doubt God likes being used by the denier as a catalyst for his politics. Obama will wake up one day feeling naked...just like Adam and Eve did when they tempted God. It's a lonely world in that place. He should hope Waxman Markey passes so he can have some plants and leaves to use for cover.

'We the people'...the Sleeping Giant awakes!

November 4, 2008 happened and to the 67 million voters of Barrack Hussein Obama all was right with the world. Yep, to them the 'Evil one' that in their minds was George W. Bush was finally finished breaking all the priceless China, stealing the sterling silver flatware, and defacing the white house busts with sharpie mustaches and triangular shaped eyebrows. Oh, thank God (or whoever you worship, if anyone at all) the evil one with horns and a tail was to be replaced with someone so trustworthy, so flawless and of such high moral clarity that the nation would be reunited again and joined in a 'have a Coke and smile' Utopia that would heal our deep wounds.

Eight months into the formation of this Utopia we have begun to realize that there were serious flaws in paradise. Paradise is still being constructed, I guess, which to most should be extremely sobering and frightening. If we deconstruct the months since Utopia was created on January 20th, 2009, what is being learned is that the foundation seems built on sand, its erect pillars thin of support, its roof lacking adequate coverage and the amenity pool substandard on appeal. If this remains then the house will certainly collapse. And if it does, the "I told you so" voices will resonate in the ears of the snookered and the drum will beat louder. The evil empire that preceded Utopia of course had its flaws, without question, but that evil dictator that ruled for 8 years didn't threaten its own citizens and talk down to the elite and proletariat alike if you disagreed with its policies. Hell, if that was the case then 67% (approval rating when the evil one left office was 33%) of the population would have been imprisoned or quarantined...for breaking what law I have no idea.

But, in this new paradise, the Utopian King and his surrounding lords of the manor have taken to attacking its citizens for just that, disagreement. They demonize those who rule with them but who are of a different belief on ideology. But this was to be paradise right? Weren't we all told that the new King would bring everyone together and put aside the childish ways that had consumed the land on which the evil empire once stood? It was to be a new day, a new kingdom ruled with equality and to be defined as a love generation. Who wouldn't want that right?

Instead, the Utopian kingdom has been more defined as 'Rule by absolutes' and 'directives' as opposed to forums and debates that then construct law for the 'greater good' and equal representation under the law. No, this kingdom now defines the 'greater good' as only those who need assistance (poor) but that in most cases refuse to be gracious to those who actually provide for the service. The poor don't take time to 'thank' the hard working class who provide them the service, no, instead they ask, 'shouldn't I receive more?' The king then repeatedly demonizes those who provide jobs/services, own land, titles and other luxuries and now wishes to choose how much land, title and luxuries they can own. Damn the fact that the same citizens who own these luxuries and pay proportionately more for the services that are provided to the proletariat also employ the same proletariat. The king that now oversees the kingdom wishes to try and provide all goods and services to the proletariat at the expense of their employers, thereby trying to lift the oppressed up and depress those who possess the means of production and have wealth creation ability. In doing so, what the whole of this kingdom's citizens are now realizing is that when those who are willing to work and take initiative to better themselves have less and that the possessions they had are now given to those who don't care to work or make the choices to better themselves that you create class warfare, mediocrity and less initiative. In other words, you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. What you give to one must first be taken from another. Any employer with a solid business plan will succeed when it understands it cannot be all things to all people. You find your target audience and you devise how to best provide for that specific group.

But in Utopia, the king and the lords try to be all things to all people. In order to try and be all things to all people the king promotes 1) higher taxes on higher income earners to produce more revenues that he can then give as he sees fit to those less fortunate, 2) more spending at the kingdom level that will increase deficits and ultimately create a majority ownership of those debts by foreign nations with whom it trades and which are relied upon to produce the Utopia's goods, 3) hoarding the dollars that the kingdom is printing at record pace to try to stave off inflation, 4) what services are managed and controlled by the kingdom and who gets what and who actually pays for said services, 5) looting of the treasury by a supposedly independent and nonpolitical federal bank, 6) dividing power between those of his ideology against those of an opposing ideology, and 7) controlling the debate and crushing dissent of its citizens if its views differ from the kingdoms views, especially if the dissent is of how the previous 6 items listed should be managed, dissolved or altered.

It is now becoming more evident that when this Utopia is compared to previous great empires and why they fell its very easy to see the correlation. The main reasons for the fall of the Roman empire were a religion began to take away power from central government, its weakening of the military due to improper training, drastic inflation of silver (debasing its currency made up mostly of silver), poor management of the economy, a kind of feudalism (whereby a person with land, a possession, would sell it to a lord and thereby himself into slavery, since slaves didn't have to pay tax and freedom from taxes was more desirable than personal liberty), hoarding of gold bullion by its citizens, a gross imbalance in trade deficit and the looting of its treasury. Essentially, it ran out of money and was weak militarily. The great British empire collapsed as it transitioned into a commonwealth but could not afford the expense of defending and administering its large population (at the time 1/4 of the worlds population) and it lost revenue sources from the colonies that they used to control such as India, America, Iraq, etc., demanded its independence. It was also heavily in debt to the US after WWII, which capitalized on its position of banker and forced the UK to abandon the empire by threat of economic collapse otherwise. This was so that vast markets were opened to American companies and to weaken the UK in general.

Hopefully, you can see from the above examples of the fall of what many revere as the two greatest empires (prior to America's superpower reign) that our Utopia is ironically on the same path to collapse. If you do not grasp the similarities let me try to help you out. Our government mismanages everything it tries to control (Amtrak, postal service, social security/medicare, and education are just a few shining examples of efficiency and proficiency and is there a shred of logic to believe all that will change under this administration), and it is letting religious views (Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.) take away its power to govern by appeasing the minority religions in America at the expense of the religious majority's views. Further, its cutting funding for its military gradually over time thereby weakening it and it now has close to 60% of the population who no longer have any tax liability to the federal or state governments. Deficits are expanding at lightning fast speeds, its trade imbalances are grossly disproportional, it ultimately will debase its fiat currency through rampant inflation and it will inevitably have to raise taxes on all its citizens in order to try and pay for all the services it has promised its citizens. And I haven't even mentioned that 1) foreign nations own most of our debt thereby threatening (like America did to the UK) economic collapse if we don't play by their rules, 2) the fact that we are out of money ($1.8 trillion deficit means our expenses far outweigh our revenues) and our national debt is over $11.6 trillion (this means we are borrowing funds from the future to unfortunately consume today), and 3) the Utopia's citizens have learned a valuable lesson from the lifestyle of the last couple of decades, that it spent too much and saved too little. You now see the savings rate (see Rome's citizens hoarding gold) at near all time high's while many financial advisors are also trumpeting owning gold.

In other words, the Utopia that the majority on November 4th believed they were getting has unfortunately become a dispirited Dystopia in 8 very short (but long) months. The citizens are no longer finding the Utopia to be the triumphant Shangri-La it was assured it would inherit if this king was elected to govern. In fact, if anything this king assumed the evil empire's road map, expanded it three fold and then also is wanting to have its agenda adopted, but not later down the road. Instead it wants it now because time can't wait. Just because one ideological party won a 'mandate' that doesn't mean it can just jam through whatever it pleases based on what happened on election day. We the people are growing restless and while we have been lured to sleep with the king's elixir, the effects of it are wearing off and the sleeping giant is awakened. Hell hath no fury like a people scorned!

So we should once again recall the words our forefathers chose to begin our governing document: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.