Randy Newman, I thought I had a friend in you.

Who doesn't love this song?

Well, sad to say, Mr. Newman is not my friend.   Here is one of his recent pieces of satire: (Printed lyrics below.)

“I’m Dreaming” Lyrics

George Washington was a white man

Adams and Jefferson too

Abe Lincoln was a white man, probably

And William McKinley the whitest of them all

Was shot down by an immigrant in Buffalo

And a star fell out of heaven

I’m dreaming of a white President

Just like the ones we’ve always had

A real live white man

Who knows the score

How to handle money or start a war

Wouldn’t even have to tell me what we were fighting for

He’d be the right man

If he were a

I’m dreaming of a white President

Someone whom we can understand

Someone who knows where we’re coming from

And that the law of the jungle is not the law of this land

In deepest darkest Africa nineteen three

A little boy says, “Daddy, I just discovered relativity.

A big eclipse is coming

And I’ll prove it. Wait and see!”

“You better eclipse yourself outta here, son

And find yourself a tree

There’s a lion in the front yard

And he knows he won’t catch me.”

How many little Albert Einsteins

Cut down in their prime?

How many little Ronald Reagans

Gobbled up before their time?

I don’t believe in evolution

But it does occur to me,

What if little William Howard Taft had to face a lion

Or God forbid, climb a tree?

Where would this country be?

I’m dreaming of a white President

Buh buh buh buh

‘Cause things have never been this bad

So he won’t run the hundred in ten seconds flat

So he won’t have a pretty jump shot

Or be an Olympic acrobat

So he won’t know much about global warming

Is that really where you’re at?

He won’t be the brightest, perhaps

But he’ll be the whitest

And I’ll vote for that

Whiter than this?

Yes

Whiter than this?

Yes

Whiter than this?

Yes

Whiter than this?

Oh yeah

*****************************

If you disagree with a president with a failing record because of his policies of increasing socialistic government, who happens to be black .... well then it MUST be because of his skin color!  His record CAN'T be the problem!  

(Note:  You might notice, if you watch the video, that -- along with the pictures of Reagan, Bush, Ford, Nixon, etc. -- shots of Carter and Clinton, both white presidents, were not included.  I wonder why.)

Long post made short ....  Ask any conservative Republican this question:  

Which would you prefer -- nine conservative black Supreme Court justices, or nine liberal white justices?

Their overwhelming answer, which says it all, would be the bottom line.  

And Mr. Newman, along with Leftist America, doesn't get it ....  Or he doesn't want to get it.  I'm not sure which.  Either way, a tremendous talent is wasted on perpetuating a lie.

And that was MY bottom line.

The Speech They Think Won Them the Election

I watched as much of the Democratic National Convention as I could stand and in the process, nearly drove off all my facebook friends with my rants.  The potential blogging material that came from it, could fill volumes.  I don't really know how much of it I have time to address.  But I'll start with the speech of former president, Bill Clinton.

Note:  Although he smartly stayed away from the topic of women's rights, that theme was covered repeatedly by other speakers at the DNC.  Bill Clinton deeply hurt the two women closest to him.  And he hurt a much too young female White House aide.  And a number of other women have stepped forward with claims of his unwanted advances, one claiming rape.  Not all of these other claims were pursued legally, yet common sense says when there's smoke time after time after time, there generally is fire.  Add to that, he is a documented liar, and was impeached because of perjury.

Now to his speech, which is overly long, so I'll just draw out some quotes.  His words are in blue.

We Democrats, we think the country works better with a
strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to
work their way into it, with a relentless focus on the future,
with business and government actually working together to
promote growth and broadly shared prosperity.  You see, we
believe that ``We're all in this together'' is a far better
philosophy than ``You're on your own.''

Is he saying that Republicans don't care about others?  That we only care about ourselves?  It's well known that Republicans donate more money, time, and service to charities.  Look at Republican Representative Michelle Bachman, for example.  She and her husband cared for 23 foster children.  Read the speeches given at the RNC about Mitt Romney's selfless service to others.  Does that hold to what Mr. Clinton implies?

Now, there's something I've noticed lately.  You probably
have, too.  And it's this.  Maybe just because I grew up in a
different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I
actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that
now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot
of other Democrats.

Is he kidding??  Remember the hatred towards George Bush?  "Bush lied, people died!"  He was mocked, derided, scorned, and vilified by the Left.   

One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President
Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation.

Upon hearing those words, I can imagine the looks on the faces of the Republican members of Congress who submitted ideas and proposals which were never used.  Phone calls to the White House which were never returned.  Deals taking place late at night or behind closed doors.  The Health Care Bill, which is the biggest piece of legislation in recent history, happened with very little Republican input allowed.  It was ramrodded through while Democrats had control of both the White House and Congress.  Even the outraged voice of the people didn't deter them.  Remember the town hall meetings?  Congressmen were reluctant to go home and face the wrath of their constituents.

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's
re- election was actually pretty simple, pretty snappy.  It went
something like this:  ``We left him a total mess.  He hasn't
cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.''

Here's an interesting exercise:  Try googling "Bill Clinton and deregulation".  There is a lot of opinion out there that during the last part of his administration, he enacted some legislation that loosened up some banking laws (that were put in place after the crash of 1929) and the business of underwriting loans sprang to life.  This gave birth to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Sen. Barney Frank's assertions right before the collapse, that all was well.  Now I don't understand it all very well, so I recommend doing the google exercise and see what you find. 

Look at his (Obama's) record.  Look at his record.  Look at his
record.
 
Yes, let's.

They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans even more
than President Bush did.  They want to get rid of those pesky
financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and
prohibit federal bailouts. 

The truth:  Republicans want to simplify the tax code and lower taxes for everyone.  But obviously, for those who pay NO income taxes, their rate cannot go any lower.  And does he mean to get rid of pesky financial regulations, like HE did?

And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of budget,
especially programs that help the middle class and poor
children.

Classic Leftism:  Scare people with lies and exaggerations about the Right.  Look at what some Republican governors have done in their states.  They loosened the grip of public unions and reduced costly pensions and employee benefits --- allowing them to KEEP the services/programs.  Remember the cries of the teachers' unions when threatened with budget cuts?  "It'll hurt the children!!" they cried.  Instead, by making the changes I just mentioned, no teachers were fired, and the children were unaffected.  

Now -- but he has -- he has laid the foundations
for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity.  And
if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it.
You will feel it.
.
AKA ...... socialism.

I believe it because President Obama's approach embodies the
values, the ideas, and the direction America has to take to
build a 21st-century version of the American dream, a nation of
shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared
prosperity, a shared sense of community.

"Shared":  Code word for some people paying a higher (and continually rising) bill for those that pay nothing.  With the number of people paying the bill, shrinking --- and the number of people who pay nothing, growing.  It's simply not sustainable.

During this period -- during this period, more than 500,000
manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama.
That's the first time manufacturing jobs have increased sincethe 1990s.

"Obama has claimed an increase of some 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 29 months. But this is cherry picking by the president. From the beginning of Obama's term 3 1/2 years ago, manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturing jobs have been on a steady decline for nearly two decades."speech-article-1.1154028#ixzz25tfzAEz

First, individuals and businesses have already gotten more
than $1 billion in refunds from insurance companies because the
new law requires 80 percent to 85 percent of your premium to go
to your health care, not profits or promotion.

Have you seen a refund or a decrease in health insurance cost?  Me neither.  

Romney's plan is "going to end Medicare as we know it."  

Do you really believe this?  Do you really believe that Romney/Ryan plans to "push granny off the cliff", as the ads tells us?  That's absolutely insane!!  Again, the ONE thing that the Left does BRILLIANTLY, is to demonize the Right.  Everything else they touch becomes damaged.  Their message is:  Vote for us because the Right are MONSTERS WHO WANT TO HURT YOU!  It's so ridiculous it's almost funny!  Go here for the other side. 

Now let's talk about the debt.  Today, interest rates are
low, lower than the rate of inflation.  People are practically
paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them.  But it
will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest
rates start to rise. We've got to deal with this big long-term
debt problem or it will deal with us.  It'll gobble up a bigger
and bigger percentage of the federal budget we'd rather spend on
education and health care and science and technology.  It --
we've got to deal with it.
   Now, what has the president done?  He has offered a
reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade,
with $2.5 trillion coming from -- for every $2.5 trillion inspending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1.

Feb. 13, 2009, from the White House:  “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obamas-broken-deficit-promise/

Obama inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion.  As of 2011, it has remained about the same.  The deficit is the difference between what the government takes in, and what it spends.  It is what grows the debt.  And we all know that the national debt has doubled since he took office.  Therefore, if he failed to do as he promised when he was first elected, WHY should we elect him again?  

President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values,
brightens the future of our children, our families, and our nation. It's a heck of a lot better.  It passes the arithmetic
test and, far more important, it passes the values test.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

  

Abortion: What I would LOVE to ask a Democrat

If you are "pro-choice" and favor legal abortion on demand,  (meaning abortion in cases other than those that involve risk to the mother's health, or rape)  .......... or if you are both religious and a Democrat,  (the party that favors "pro-choice") ... PLEASE answer these questions:

1.  How does a woman's right to do as she wants with her own body, extend to the body of her child?  

2.  How is a living, yet unborn child, considered disposable?

3.  Why not exercise choice at conception?   Why must the innocent pay the price, if the parents failed to do so?

4.  Why not adoption?  It may be a difficult choice, but at least no one has to die.

5.  When is abortion NOT putting the mother's interests ahead of the child .... something society rightly frowns upon after birth.

6.  If my use of the terms "child", "disposable", and "die" seems too harsh, what terms would you suggest, and why?  Is it not a child?  Is it not being disposed of?  Does not abortion cause death?

7.  If you are Democrat and religious --- how, concerning abortion, do you blend the two?

8.  If you plan to vote for Barack Obama, who claims to be Christian, how do you deal with the following:

"In 2001, Illinois State Senator Patrick O'Malley discovered that a procedure was being performed at hospitals in Illinois where labor was induced on a mother for the purposes of an abortion. Children who survived this procedure were taken to another room and left unattended until passing. In response to this practice, he introduced three pieces of 
legislation dealing with born children.

The only member to oppose the legislation in committee and the only member to speak against them was State Senator Barack Obama. 

Obama said:  "Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term. ... I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/Abortion/  

Last question:   If, Mr. Obama, it is NOT a child ..... 

..... then what is it???

Wealth, prestige, and other such handicaps

A few more thoughts on a previous post in this blog.

President Obama says that in this country, one's roots can hinder one's success and that we all desperately need him to remain in office to end such discrimination once and for all.  In a way, he is right.  One's roots can be a problem .... but NOT how he wants you to believe.

Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democratic contender for the U.S. Senate, registered as part Indian at Harvard Law School, claiming minority status.  In reality, she is something like 1/32 Cherokee, and even that is questionable.  She insisted she "had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed minority status".  Do you see the point here?  She's saying that preferential treatment was suspected.  If minority groups NEVER received special consideration, then it would not have been an issue.   

Marco Rubio was a popular option for the Republican ticket, partly because of his tremendous personal appeal and talents, and partly because of his Cuban roots.  Being a Latino, he might bring in more votes.

Vice President Joe Biden often trots out his humble beginnings, inviting us all to figuratively join him around his parents' kitchen table in the Scranton burbs.  Can't you just see the gingham curtains in the windows?  Yeah, that Joe is a regular guy all right.

Apparently in the political world, the poorer and less privileged one's family is, the better.  And to toss a minority status into the mix, is better yet.

In contrast, we have Mitt Romney, who emerged from prestige and wealth.  His father was a governor of Michigan.  So of course, this dreadful heritage has been used against him by the "no-matter-who-you-are" Obama campaign.  Obviously he can't relate to the common citizen who deals with a mortgage and medical bills.  On top of that, he's white and male.  He cannot tout a childhood of discrimination, poverty, racism, or any of those other juicy hurdles of life that seem to delight the political community.

So, Mr. Obama is right ..... in a twisted sort of way.  One's roots CAN be a hindrance when running for office.  But I don't think another four years of his administration will fix the real problem.  What we need is to stop talking about skin color, race, gender ... OR NET WORTH ... in an election, or a college admission, or a job application, and instead focus on experience, integrity, ability ..... and other such boring things that actually matter.

Will the REAL man of honor, please stand up

In a popular Old Spice commercial, a handsome man commanded all of America to "look at him ... now look at me".   

In that theme, let's look at Barack Obama ... and then look at Mitt Romney.

I checked with snopes.com about the following story and found nothing.   This is my source.

George Obama, youngest brother of our president, lives in extreme poverty in Kenya.  In the making of the film, "2016--Obama's America", he was interviewed by co-director Dinesh D’Souza.  Later D'Souza received a phone call from George, pleading for $1000 to pay for a medical treatment for his son.  After verifying the story, D'Souza sent the money.  When asked why George called him, of all people, he said he “had no one else to call. He reached out to me in his time of need because he felt he couldn’t call on his real life sibling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Now, contrast that with the story about Mitt Romney shutting down his business and devoting his complete focus, time, and resources to help find a colleague's missing daughter.   I urge you to read about it.

One has to laugh at the pathetic accusations Barack Obama has made, or supported, about Romney.  Everything from the true, but silly story of transporting a dog on the roof of a car or the price of Ann Romney's blouse ..... to the outrageous lie that Romney is responsible for a woman dying of cancer, or that of unpaid or evaded taxes or when Romney actually left Bain.  Either the Obama campaign aggrandizes the mundane and unimportant, or he quietly nods as his supporters fill the headlines with unfounded accusations.  But then, what's a guy to do, when his opponent won't give him anything to smear?

Due to an apparently strained relationship, our president who is a multi-millionaire, has not helped his own impoverished family.  He daily touts how we should be helping the underprivileged,  the unemployed, the elderly and poor.   Then shifts that responsibility onto the backs of taxpayers.   He often speaks of giving our "fair share"; however, that "fairness" doesn't seem to apply to Barack and his own brother.

Consider Romney who gave away his entire inheritance from his father.  Who has donated many years of unpaid service to his church.  Who continues to give a large percentage of his income to worthy causes.  Who, when he took over managing the Olympics, agreed to receive payment only if it made money ... which it did ... and then he donated what he received to charity.   Who served without a salary, as governor of Massachusetts.  

What has Barack Obama personally done, on his own, to help others?  Even the Obama-adoring media hasn't come up with much, if any.  If there WAS anything, I am sure we would have all heard about it ... over and over.

And sometimes I wonder if Obama secretly wishes HIS only flaw was putting his dog on top of his car.

Another week, another lie

Sunday, August 12,2012, President Obama delivered a speech at a campaign fundraising event in Chicago.   He said:

"Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?" 

"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?" Obama asked. "Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?"

"I believe we have to go forward," Obama said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That's what's at stake in November. That's what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America."  (Emphasis, mine.)

Do any of you catch the irony here?  We have a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.   His absent Kenyan father was raised as a Muslim, and later converted to Christianity.   He was raised by a poor single mother.  He is black.   AND HE WAS ELECTED DURING THE LAST DAYS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ......  before .............. the Great Hope and Change took place!  

Did his skin color matter?

Did his heritage matter?

Did his name matter?

No.  No.  And NO.

How is it that none of this kept him from the HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE LAND?  Therefore what, exactly, is at stake in November???

Why cannot the LEFT in general, see that we, the Right, don't give a d*mn where someone comes from, nor do we care what their name is, or their race, or their nationality, or their income level, or who they love, or their favorite brand of breakfast cereal .....  

We care about their values.   Repeat ... VALUES.

His speech blatantly illustrates the ongoing RHETORIC by the Left to label the Right as racist, homophobic, selfish snobs.  Barack Obama HIMSELF, is living proof that the picture he paints of this country, is a lie.  

Mr. President, you are WRONG.   Your words are misleading, unfair, and confess YOUR NEED to keep racism, class envy, and prejudice ... alive.  

Stop it now.  

This Mormon's view on "Gays"

Core to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that we are all offspring of God.  And all deserve to be respected as such.   But there is a difference between respecting the person, and respecting that person's choices.

Getting right to the point ... is homosexuality a choice?  In my opinion, no.  I don't believe anyone makes a conscious decision to be attracted to their same sex.  Maybe there are exceptions.

In The Book of Mormon, Ether 12:27, we read: "And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble".

We all have weaknesses such as, for example ...... impatience, temper, addictions, laziness, physical problems, social disorders, mental illness ..... the list is endless.  Included in this list is homosexuality.  Does that mean it came from God?  I don't believe so.  But as part of this mortal experience in which we must learn to deal with trials, he allows it to be on that list.  None of us choose our weaknesses, but we do choose how we will respond to them.  The remainder of the scripture reads, "and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.."

Does this mean that homosexuality can be overcome?  Yes, but possibly not in this life.  Some have done it and have found happiness.  But most cannot.  Do these people, who struggle with this attraction during their earthly mortality, deserve our love and respect?  Yes.  Just as I hope others would respect me, with my own myriad of weaknesses.   Most importantly, we are not faulted for the attraction.  We are only judged on our behavior.  God would not, and does not, condemn us for that which we cannot choose.  Only for what we can.

So what about same-sex marriage and why does the LDS Church oppose it?  Because God forbids it.  That's the bottom line.  The Church could succumb to growing societal pressures and accept it, but to do so encourages or endorses a choice that could devastate souls.  We are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  And to truly love someone is to care about their welfare tomorrow, as well as today.  Embracing anything that God has forbidden, is not a show of love.  It is an endorsement of a path of personal destruction.

Does that mean the person with this affliction must forego some blessings in this life?  Very likely, yes.  Just as my autistic grandchildren must do so through no fault of their own.  We firmly believe that eventually everyone who does their best to honor God's commandments, will have ALL blessings possible, including marriage and family.  It's those delayed eternal blessings for which we hope.  We don't want anyone to be denied anything.  We want their long-term happiness.  That may translate to remaining single and celibate during mortality.  Is this fair?  Of course not.  Neither is much else in this life.  It's an issue I hope to better understand someday, for I cannot imagine anything to be much worse than this.   I, like everyone else, fall victim to seeing only the narrow slice of eternity around us, as opposed to the whole picture.

My heart goes out to them.  They deserve our support, love, and compassion.  They are entitled to all legal protections in employment, housing, and other areas of potential discrimination.  The Church welcomes all of us with our many weaknesses, and offers hope for the day when those weaknesses do indeed become our strengths through the power of the Lord's atonement.  But until then, we cannot honor a forbidden lifestyle, for God has clearly stated his position.  And his position applies to all of us equally.  God's love is not exclusive and he has set forth a path towards eternal happiness that is available to everyone who chooses it.

Sadly, it's all too easy for us to be judgemental.

"If you had enough faith, you could beat this!" 

But maybe all the faith they can summon, barely gets them through the day, without lapsing into despair.  Heterosexuals cannot possibly understand how difficult it can be.   So judgement is not ours to use.  Compassion, as we stand by them through their pain, IS ours to give.