So let me get this straight…

Did you ever have one of those dreams where you wake up and can’t tell if you’re still dreaming? Not the really scary ones where you wake up naked in church or find out your mother-in-law is now living with you, but one where you just wake up to an average day you think is reality? Today was that day for me. Here were the headlines that befuddled me.

Saudi cleric tells students ‘Earth does not rotate’

Indian bride marries wedding guest after husband has epileptic seizure during ceremony

Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A Mental Disorder

Fort Lauderdale pays $65k for false arrest by police because ordering a slice of pizza is not a crime

Axelrod Claims The Obama Admin Hasn’t Had “A Major Scandal” Over Six Years

Terror suspect considered triggering volcano in U.S

An “A.S.S.H.O.L.E.” Will Be Everywhere, Promises President Obama

Twins Asking For 3somes

Police: Man in McChicken assault broke wife’s nose

That was it for me. I knew I needed to go back to sleep so I could wake up in ‘real’ reality. I mean, that is what I want, right? Reality must trump the make believe world the media wants me to live in. Right?

http://thisiswhywerescrewed.com/top

Advertisements

Trouble in Obama paradise?

Another Valentine’s Day has come and gone. Another round of questions from the media wondering why Barry and Michelle don’t spend it together.

Will the Obamas be apart for Valentine’s — again?

Now there’s a pressing issue if ever there was one. Perhaps the POTUS has ‘evolved’ on this issue as he has on others like gay marriage. Perhaps he’s just a bit more comfortable in his own skin after 6 years in office and doesn’t feel the need to keep up the charade any longer. As any good muslim would do.

Why Do We Muslims Not Celebrate Valentine’s Day?

In Islam, the festivals are clearly defined and well established, and no additions or subtractions may be accepted.

Celebrating Valentine’s Day means resembling or imitating the pagan Romans, then the Christian People of the Book in their imitation of the Romans in something that was not part of their religion.

Because Valentine’s Day goes back to Roman times, not Islamic times, this means that it is something which belongs exclusively to the Christians, not to Islam, and the Muslims have no share and no part in it.

Oh no. Another conspiracy nut claiming Taqiyya.

“Taqiyya” is deception by Muslims and pretending to be a Christian can be an act of “taqiyya.”

“Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.”

More people are jumping on-board with this thinking all the time.

Alan Keyes: Obama Is Funding ISIS To Wage ‘War On The People Of The United States’

Maybe it’s all just a bunch of hooey. Maybe his golf game just really sucks and he needed the practice.

Michael Jordan on Obama: He’s a ‘[expletive] golfer.’

All I know is Victoria Jackson says there’s a Muslim living in the White House. What more proof do you need?

Obama to end practice of official White House press conferences?

Rather than asking how our Narcissist-in-Chief could have the gall to participate in such a vomit inducing exercise, shouldn’t we be wondering what took him so long?

I have a suggestion. Attach a teleprompter to the POTUS selfie stick. Then Obama can hold press conferences anywhere at any time. Since he has such disdain for intrusive questions from the press, he can simply do pressers without them even being present.

CNN anchor says rights come from man, not God

In a heated debate over same-sex marriage with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Thursday, CNN morning anchor Chris Cuomo exclaimed that Americans’ rights “do not come from God.”

Cuomo’s abrupt response came after Judge Moore stated, “Our rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, do not come from the Constitution. They come from God. That’s clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Cuomo, a licensed attorney, sharply interrupted Judge Moore, arguing, “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that.

“They come from man. … That’s your faith. That’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/cnn-anchor-americans-rights-do-not-come-from-god/#5Q85lMxIVDQBWxOv.99

Rights are an issue that really rankles the conservative/libertarian base when you question the source or authority of them.

American history is replete with references to God as the ultimate source of man’s natural rights.

In fact, biblical scripture directly and profoundly influenced America’s Founding Fathers, who envisioned a nation based on Christian moral truth and natural law.

According to a peer-reviewed study titled, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late-Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” published in the American Political Science Review, an estimated 15,000 political writings produced by Americans during the founding era (1760-1805) revealed 34 percent of all quotations were drawn directly from the Bible, particularly Deuteronomy.

America’s Founding Fathers also drew inspiration from the philosophy of Englishman John Locke, who advocated limited government and recognized unalienable rights. Locke wrote, “In the state of nature, all men are equal to one another because they were created as such by God.”

All men are created equal? There is a key point to consider here. Context. All men are created equal in the eyes of God, however, not in the eyes of each other.

There is also another aspect of laws and rights that must be considered. Validity.

The Founders referred to Sir William Blackstone, an 18th-century legal scholar whose philosophy inspired the Constitution, more than any other English or American figure.

“[M]an, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator …” Blackstone wrote. “This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature … is of course superior to any other. … No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

This brings us to Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was inspired by natural law when he proclaimed this.

The Declaration of Independence, adopted just weeks later, relies heavily on divinely inspired natural law: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …”

The last and perhaps most important point to consider when talking about rights and laws is enforcement. If a right or a law is unalienable because it was derived from our Creator himself, should it not pass the most basic premise? Meaning, it can NOT be taken away. I mean, after all, it is coming from the highest authority possible, isn’t it?

Or how about we take the religious controversy aspect right out of the equation? Let us say that whatever the right or law under discussion is, that it can be derived from any source of your choosing. Whatever you believe is the granting authority. God, man, yourself, heck we can even go with Spongebob Squarepants if you want.

Who is the enforcing authority? Who guarantees that a right or law is upheld? Exactly where the CNN anchor said.

Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.

This point isn’t even debatable. It is the collective. Your peers. Your neighbors. The police. Government. Whatever. Not because this makes it right, so to speak. Simply because it is. I can point to any right or law that exists, derived from any source or authority you can imagine, and illustrate how it can be taken away. If an entity in the universe exists, whether perceived or real, that can infringe upon or take away your unalienable right, you never had it to begin with. Not debatable. It’s a privilege.

You may say it can still exist, It’s just that the law was broken or the right infringed upon. Sorry. That means it wasn’t unalienable.

If you are a Christian, you have only one right period. That is the guarantee of Judgement Day. Your Creator will judge you as to your worthiness to exist in the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s it. Nothing more. No guarantee of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness as any of them can be taken away by others. Not debatable. As our progressive friends tell us, a woman’s right to choose enables them to be executioner. They can snuff out your life right in the womb. What happened to your unalienable right to life?

Liberty? Our freedoms are taken away everyday. Maybe by statute. Perhaps by executive action. Or we just willingly surrender them in exchange for the perception of security.

Look, I’m not trying to tell anybody I’m any smarter than the next guy. That I know better than the Founders or the great philosophers of the past. I simply observe reality. Our so-called rights are merely privileges extended by others, the collective, as they can be taken away on a whim.

We may romanticize the concept of what our rights should be. We can aspire to uphold a higher standard. Of course it’s ideal that all humans should have their most basic needs fulfilled. Life on earth says differently.

Chris Cuomo likely has a political axe to grind in disagreeing with the good Judge Roy Moore. I don’t end up on the same page with Cuomo concerning rights because I agree with his leftist views. I do so because it’s my right. Ha!

*After writing this post, I see that Mark Levin has weighed in. I’m a big fan of Mark Levin.

Rights are not about laws,” said Levin. “Rights are not about power. Where do these unalienable rights come from – these involatile rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

Levin then answered saying, “They don’t come from man. They don’t come from a collection of men that we call government. These are rights. You are born with these rights. They don’t come from reason. They don’t come from logic. They are. Period.”

“The right to live,” remarked Levin, “is not a right conferred by man. Birth, supposed to not be a right conferred by man.”

“You see ladies and gentlemen, we have certain rights outside of government,” said Levin. “We have certain rights that belong to us as individual human beings – not because some Congress says so, not because some president says or Supreme Court says so, or the EPA says so, not because Chris Cuomo says so; it’s because it is so.”

“This is a fundamental, if not the fundamental issue, around which this nation was founded – that our rights do not come from man, that our rights come from God,” said Levin.

“Now many of you out there may not believe in God,” said Levin. “You may not be sure if you believe in God. I talked about this at some length the other day; I’ve written about it in ‘Liberty and Tyranny.’ That’s perfectly fine. Believe or don’t believe, whatever you want.”

“But that’s not how the nation was founded,” declared Levin. “And the fact that we are a tolerant society, the fact that we are at tolerant society is because of this insistence we have in the Declaration of Independence that each and every one of you, each and every one of us, have unalienable rights. And Barack Obama can’t take them away, John Boehner, McConnell, Harry Reid, no justice, no group of justices, no judge, nobody. Nobody can take them away.”

“They’re outside of government,” repeated Levin. “They’re bigger than mankind!”

“No, you don’t have to believe me,” said Levin. “You don’t have to believe me. No I’m not talking about passing statutes or codes or ordinances and that sort of thing, obviously that involves politics and government. I am talking about fundamental human rights.”

“And the left does not believe in fundamental human rights,” Levin said. “They believe in fundamental quote, unquote rights dispensed by government, and this is where the problem rests!”

Nobody can take them away? Mark, it happens every single day. If they were truly fundamental as you say, this could not happen. I rest my case.

Bloodshed is just a cost of doing business

I saw this headline at Fox News.

Secret Iranian unit fueling Mideast bloodshed with illicit arms shipments

I thought to myself, couldn’t it just as easily have been this.

Secret Iranian CIA unit fueling Mideast bloodshed with illicit arms shipments

Why? Because the CIA has been playing both sides of the fence going back to Vietnam. That is business as usual in the military-industrial-corporate complex. The CIA played a large part in the creation of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In subsequent years, we have periodically supported them and attacked them depending upon the extenuating circumstances.

That’s not to say that the secret Iranian Unit 190 hasn’t done exactly as the headline suggests. Rather it means that conducting proxy wars as a matter of foreign policy is dirty business and the U.S. participates every day just as its opponents do.

U.S. policy throughout the Bush Administration had been to support Fatah in Palestine to throw out Hamas by any means necessary. That included attempts through the democratic process and holding elections, which backfired. Hamas has been backed by Iran for many years and Fatah was seen as the best means to achieve a Israeli-Palestine settlement.

The failure of the process is recounted in an article in Vanity Fair by David Rose.

How could the U.S. have played Gaza so wrong? Neocon critics of the administration—who until last year were inside it—blame an old State Department vice: the rush to anoint a strongman instead of solving problems directly. This ploy has failed in places as diverse as Vietnam, the Philippines, Central America, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, during its war against Iran. To rely on proxies such as Muhammad Dahlan, says former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, is “an institutional failure, a failure of strategy.” Its author, he says, was Rice, “who, like others in the dying days of this administration, is looking for legacy.

It was Iran-Contra all over again. Just as it was in Libya. The U.S, played both sides in Libya resulting in the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi. The U.A.E. financed funneling arms through Qatar into Libya to topple Qaddafi. That was conducted primarily by an al-Qaeda affiliates including the Muslim Brotherhood. Once accomplished, the U.S. switched sides and began funneling arms from Libya via Turkey to Syria to enable a take down attempt of Bassad, again by al-Qaeda affiliates.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the strategy in an interview in 2012.

Sometimes overturning brutal regimes takes time and costs lives.

Yes, it is a dirty business, is it not?

Clinton: Well, I think Wyatt, if you take just a moment to imagine all the terrible conflicts that go on in the world, we have seen in the last 15 years millions of people killed in the Eastern Congo, in the most brutal terrible despicable ways. It wasn’t on TV. There were no Skyping of the jungles that were the killing fields. And I could point to many other places where governments oppress people, where governments are turning against their own people. And you have to be very clear-eyed about what is possible and what the consequences of anything you might wish to do could be.

I am incredibly sympathetic to the calls that somebody do something. But it is also important to stop and ask what that is and who is going to do it and how capable anybody is of doing it. And I like to get to the second-, third- and fourth-order questions, and those are very difficult ones.

She never details just what those questions are when it comes to overthrowing dictators. She does point out that conducting ops was much easier since we had a base established there.

This is not Libya where you had a base of operations in Benghazi, where you had people who were representing the entire opposition to Libya, who were on the road meeting with me, rather, constantly meeting with others. You could get your arms around what it is you were being asked to do, and with whom. We don’t have any clarity on that.

The base and the others refers to Ambassador Chris Stevens and the CIA compound in Benghazi. When asked about arming the Syrian rebels, she said this.

Well, first of all as I just said, what are we going to arm them with and against what? We’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. That’s not going to happen. So maybe at best you can smuggle in, you know, automatic weapons. Maybe some other weapons that you could get in. To whom? Where do you go? You can’t get into Homs. Where do you go? And to whom are you delivering them?

We know al Qaeda – Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al Qaeda in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?

Yes Mrs. Clinton, in fact, we are. We get into bed with any and all players if it fits our objectives. Turkey was utilized as the transfer agent for funneling arms into Syria and they have directly funded Hamas. On the other hand, we assisted Israel in bombing a Sudanese weapons factory that served to store Iranian supplied weapons bound for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Such is the business of foreign policy in the Middle East. Sometimes you turn a blind eye and support your enemy if it fits the overall objective. This may cost lives as Clinton alluded to. This may mean you’re writing checks to someone you’ll take out with a drone strike next week.

Those are the stark realities, yet we can’t openly embrace them. Ambassador Stevens was ‘allowed’ to die in Benghazi along with 3 others and despite a multitude of investigations, the truth hasn’t come to light. It never will as treason isn’t any place either political party wishes to go.

Iran is secretly fueling bloodshed by exporting its religious ideology? Big deal. If we aren’t in bed with the same players today, we just might be tomorrow.

Deflategate solved! How is NBC’s Brian Williams involved?

Spellchek has solved another of life’s great mysteries. We’ve got a couple of high profile events in the news cycle which are actually tied together.

The first is deflategate. Now that the New England Patriots have won the Super Bowl, it’s likely that the NFL will take O.J. Simpson off the case of trying to find the ‘real’ criminal.

Now we have a new scandal. NBC lead news anchor Brian Williams has been busted lying about his personal experience of being shot down on a helicopter in Iraq – http://www.stripes.com/news/us/nbc-s-brian-williams-recants-iraq-story-after-soldiers-protest-1.327792.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, the apology is a non-apology and just makes things worse. No Brian, you didn’t get confused or not remember after 12 years. As the Daily Caller points out, Williams claimed this.

“And I’ve done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner like being in a helicopter I had no business being in in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe,” Williams said.

Yes Brian, we know you are still lying. I’ll now officially term your scandal ‘Brian’s Song’ as this song and dance you’re trying to peddle is clearly bull.

So it occurred to me that there had to be a source for all this hot air that NBC is now trying to promote to cover up ‘Brian’s Song’. Ta-da! The hot air that is missing from the Patriot’s footballs! Yes, Brian Williams is responsible for deflategate.

You’re welcome NFL and the fan base wondering who could have conducted such a heinous crime.

The Obama White House enemies list has a new entrant

Jim Clifton is a racist, anti-American, right-wing extremist who should be put on the DHS watch list and have the NSA monitor his every move. Why? He tells the truth. Barry doesn’t like the truth. Here is his column from Gallup in its entirety.

Here’s something that many Americans — including some of the smartest and most educated among us — don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity — it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.

I hear all the time that “unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren’t feeling it.” When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth — the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real —then we will quit wondering why Americans aren’t “feeling” something that doesn’t remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

Poor guy. As Chairman and CEO at Gallup, he probably had quite a promising career.

Measlegate

Ebola is just so yesterday, isn’t it? Ebola, a dangerous, infectious and communicable disease, was treated as a political issue rather than strictly on the merits of risk. We weren’t going to incorporate a monitoring period before travelers were allowed into the country because of politics. So is the problem of illegal aliens streaming across our open borders. If we were truly concerned about preventing the transmission of communicable diseases, wouldn’t it be prudent to 100% seal our borders to maintain control over what is brought into the country?

By the way, I am not a libertarian either. But, the measles outbreak we are currently experiencing is looked upon as a parental rights issue. Parents wish to reserve their right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children. If you’re one of those who choose not to, you are labeled an extremist.

Bear in mind this is not an issue about autism. It makes no difference what your reasoning is for not vaccinating your children. The debate is whether or not you should be forced to. And according to politicians like Chris Christie, you don’t get to decide.

Christie, who spoke Monday after making a tour of a biomedical research lab in Cambridge, England, said that he and his wife had vaccinated their children. However, the governor added, “I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

The government has to decide? Lest you think that Christie is alone on his stance, how about that of a libertarian, Rand Paul?

Later Monday, Paul said in a radio interview that he believed most vaccines should be voluntary.

“I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” Paul, an eye doctor, said in a subsequent interview while suggesting vaccines were “a good thing.” ”But I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children.”

The parents should have some input? Now we get to the crux of the issue. Who gets to decide the red line? Christie and Paul both allude to the idea that parents only get to make parental decisions about their children over and above some level that is decided upon by others. Read the government. Maybe you have no problem with that. After all, who else would be qualified to set standards?

Should that be the case? Are there some issues in a civilized society in which the greater good outweighs any personal choice? Should the bar be set at a point in which a decision you make has the potential to harm others? Now there’s a can of worms. We could compile quite a list of things that one person may do that may adversely impact others.

This gets to a point I have made in other posts concerning rights. I contend that you don’t have any. You only have privileges extended to you by others, generally the government. Measles is the perfect example. If vaccination becomes involuntary, you have no ‘right’ to do otherwise. Which means you never had it because a ‘right’ is theoretically inherently yours and cannot be taken by others. Yet clearly, this happens everyday. It doesn’t matter if you agree that it’s a good thing and a wise decision, the fact is that the choice was taken from you.

I suppose it’s all semantics. If the country as a whole were to just come to the realization that we don’t live in a free country and accept the fact that there are always going to be certain tradeoffs in exchange for citizenship, it would neuter many of these debates. A slippery slope to be sure. Once you go there, you’ve given the green light to the powers that be to make more and more of those decisions for you. On your behalf of course. For the greater good.

So, measlegate 2015 is just another chapter in the age old struggle between liberty and collectivism. How many people who are now scared out of their wits about their children contacting measles will agree to make vaccinations mandatory? You know, because they are the good, responsible parents who did the right thing and got their kids vaccinated. Even though we’ve already seen a vaccinated child contact measles, but that’s a another story, isn’t it?

Is that a parental ‘right’ we should just give up because it’s the right thing to do? And where does it stop after that? This post isn’t trying to tell you what you should do. It’s only to point out the obvious. You may not have any ‘right’ to decide here. If your neighbors empower their elected officials to pass a law requiring immunization by all (once again, illegal aliens don’t count), they have taken away your privilege and made your parental decision for you.

Maybe you don’t have kids and couldn’t care less. Maybe you were always immunized and have no problem with your kids being immunized. The point is, every American has skin in the game here. Deciding what privileges we allow ourselves affect us all. Hillary Clinton is jumping in on the politics of it all by Tweeting that grandmothers know best.

“The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest.”

Let’s protect all our kids? Hillary, why do you allow fluoride in the public water supply? It’s an industrial waste byproduct that is a carcinogen and transporter of lead and arsenic poisons. Don’t you know best? Why would you do this to your kids? Ah, I see. That makes me an extremist because the government says it’s safe. We could do this tit-for-tat all day long.

Do I hope you get your kids immunized? Yes. I was. My kids are. But I don’t believe I have the authority to force you to. And I have no intention of giving our government any more authority to do so.