Thursday, May 1, 2008

Notable Quote

"Politicians love a 'crisis.' John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all think that the government should bail out homeowners who can't pay their mortgages. When they say the government should do this, they mean the taxpayers, including those who are paying their mortgages. They also think the government should regulate the lending and investment industries further. Why? Because 'crisis' justifies making big government bigger. It's why we now have a global warming 'crisis' and in previous years we had 'crises' over avian flu, the Y2K threat to computers, imaginary cancer spikes caused by pesticides, killer bees flying up from Mexico, and uncontrolled population growth leading to a 'Population Bomb' that will bring 'riots and mass starvation' by the year 2000. This is not to say that lots of homebuyers aren't having a hard time. But the rapid rise and fall in housing values in some parts of the country-and the rippling consequences at each stage-do not justify scrapping what we know about economic success and turning to government control. Prosperity and stability come from people being free to innovate and produce-and yes, fail... The best regulator of economic activity and source of knowledge is free competition. Of course, government inhibits that in many ways. If we want to avoid disruptions like the current one, let's undertake a wholesale examination of government intervention in the economy. Freedom, not control, is the ticket to success."

-- John Stossel


Anonymous said...

Mortgage crisis = bailout/handout/free money to stupid, greedy people trying to make a quick buck or get a great house beyond their means that they know they could not afford. This problem is also caused by greedy bankers looking to suck in the ignorant buyer and make a quick buck, well sorry, it backfired, now I have to bail everyone out. Well I say, BULLSHIT. I work 7 days a week and pay my mortgage on time. If these poor stupid people get a check from the government to help pay their mortgage, or they get a break on their mortgage balance, then I DESERVE THE SAME BREAK AS THEY DO, even if I pay every month on time. Why should I be penalized or short changed for being responsible. I am sick and tired of taking care of the lazy, stupid people of this world.

Thank You, I feel better now.

Ohio Dad

Joe Chernicoff said...


May 8, 2008: It appears that in the current Democrat Primary climate, Senator Obama will be the party's presidential nominee, and there's a good chance, at this time, that Obama could win the election.

Until proven wrong, I have some strong fears about that occurrence, for a number of reasons. In no particular order,

inculcation by Pastor Wright of his views on American society, most notably expressed by Michelle Obama
Obama's continued speeches about uniting the country, including building and maintaining a bi-partisan cooperative existence in the halls of Congress (a corporatist action)
Michelle Obama's remarks about evening out the economic pie - spreading the wealth
Obama's early statements that show he would delegate much of the presidential management work
a lack of evidence proving Obama's professional capability to assume the office (other than making lofty speeches)
the weakness of both houses of Congress in carrying out their duty of "checks and balances"
It appears to me that what we have here is the OBAMA Acronym: "Obamas Believe America should be a Marxist America".

That doesn't change my previous opinions that Obama is a liberal fascist - Marxism and liberal fascism are shirts cut from the same cloth. What we have is the socialist call for corporatism (control of a state or organization by large interest groups; "individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism"; important - read this). This unity called for by Obama is a nationalist call - in itself a good thing - but as expressed in opinions by Michelle Obama, indicates a desire to denigrate capitalism and replace it with a more socialist economic approach.

Now this is not a new idea from those who would - and did - lead this country, except that in the end, because we really know that a strong capitalism is what has made us the great country weare, it has not worked. Of course, there's no guarantee that it won't, now, given the ideologies in which many of our recent crops of college graduates have been immersed.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there" - Anon


Joe Chernicoff said...

A follow-up to my previous comment:

The Danger Grows
May 9, 2008: The following excerpt is from a column posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left at 7:47 AM on May 8, 2008, in the Alter Net online publication, titled Obama's Consolidation of the Party:

"All I'll add is that it's time to think through the consequences of a party where there is a new chief with massive amounts of power. I've been in the wilderness all my political life, as have most of us. The Clintonistas haven't, and they know what it's like to be part of the inside crew. We have a leader, and he's not a partisan and he can now end fractious intraparty fights with a word and/or a nod. His opinion really matters in a way that even Nancy Pelosi's just did not. He has control of the party apparatus, the grassroots, the money, and the messaging environment. He is also, and this is fundamental, someone that millions of people believe in as a moral force. When you disagree with Obama, you are saying to these people 'your favorite band sucks'(emphasis added)

. Like many of us, I endorsed Obama, gave him money, and I intend to work to get him elected. He is attempting to completely rewrite the rules of politics, and we should try to figure out what that means for where we take our meager work. Obama is now the party leader. And he has ensured and we have given him the mandate that when he speaks, he speaks for all of us. I hope he's a vibrant progressive when he gets into office, and we should begin figuring out how to put ourselves in a position to help him take the country in a progressive direction."

The onward march to liberal fascism continues - the danger grows. Indicative of my contention is the line about disagreeing with Obama - a reaction that liberal fascists have had, about any disagreement with them, for the past 100 years. Progressivism, in reality, is only another description of socialism. This is exactly the kind of scenario I've been warning about in my previous blogs. As George Santanya wrote, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -30-

jchernic said...

May 20, 2008: Here's my current nightmare - Obama is elected president and there is a new sign hanging on the Statue of Liberty - "Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of America".

Just as I have written in past blogs (modesty keeps me from saying predicted), Obama's latest outrage against those who hold his wife accountable for her remarks is a continuing display of his liberal fascist leanings - always right, never wrong, and everyone else is held accountable for speaking out. Glen Beck, in his TV program of this date, actually came out and called Obama a fascist - finally we're getting someone on television with the moral strength to call a spade a spade.

How long the American public will stand for this is a good question. Members of his cult, when they discover they will be no better off than the rest of us scum, will probably decide to join the anti-obama revolution (lower case intended). Sooner, I hope, than later.


Skyboss said...

I couldn't agree more! Obama IS a fascist, plain and simple. He's a dangerous man and I hope America wakes up before it's too late!!

Joe Chernicoff said...

There's another important issue which has to be addressed - that of the family farm.

I remember when the problems with the family farm began to grow, way back at the end of the 40s and the early 50s. My experience was in the poultry industry, when major canning companies began buying out the small farmer on the East Coast. Competition became too strong, so those business owners had to sell out, or really lose their shirts. Look, we used to be called the "bread basket of the world". I'm not against big business, but when it affects our citizen' lives - the price and availability of food, then we should all realize that something has to be done.

There are a number of problems which affected the small farmer for the past fifty or sixty years. Land availability was, and is, one of the major factors. After all, why grow crops or raise chickens, with all the accompanying aggravations, when you can sell the land to developers and make more money immediately than you could over a few more years of farming? The only problem, is that with more population, we need more food. And without the family farm, less food is produced. Of course, technology provides higher yields per acre, heavier cattle, and more egg and milk production, but then the environmentalists force their religious ideology on the government, so we're told its better to "save the planet" than produce more food. And now we sell more to other countries, waste corn by concentrating on corn based ethanol (what a joke), and so on and so on.

We need to get back to the small farm philosophy - more agricultural tech high schools, more family farms which will provide more and better food to the public, more farm markets selling locally grown produce, poultry, beef, and pork products. The benefits of the small farme are numerous, including the savings on transportation costs. The only hitch is the restraints which would be put on by our federal government agencies. But after all, who are we, as individuals, to think we have the right to buy and eat the food products we want? Apparently, federal agencies don't believe we do.


Joe Chernicoff said...

June 17, 2008: I read an article in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal about these teen-age kids of the millenium generation who, when on their jobs in the retail industry, would rather talk or text on their cell phones than wait on customers. Kind of reminds me of the "good old days" of CB radio - people could communicate very well over the air, but when you met them in real life, you sometimes wondered if he or she was really the one you were accustomed to "breaker-breaker" with.

Anyhow, as part and parcel of what we're confronting these days, the era of personal responsibility seems to be rapidly going down the drain. I received an e-mail on this the other day and have reproduced the panels at, so take a look. and 'nuff said!

Skyboss said...

Thanks for your comments, Joe. As to the e-mail on your blog regarding personal responsibility, it's so very sad what society has become these days. Very sad, indeed.

Joe Chernicoff said...

June 18, 2008: Barack Obama said that drilling for new oil in ANWAR and other sites will only mean a saving of a penny or two per gallon of gasoline. John McCain has come around to drilling for all the oil we have is okay, except for drilling in ANWAR. Could it be that all of the past months on the campaign trail has destroyed the minds of these presumptive candidates?

Let's get ANWAR out of the way - extreme low temperatures in the winter and zillions of mosquitos and tons of muck does not a wilderness make - that is, one which is "pristine and of a high tourist and natural value".

But the main reason we should drill now is the lesson we learned, or should have learned, over three decades ago. Our postive interest in drilling in our own resources - working to become energy independent, will economically frighten OPEC nations. That happened in the latter half of the last century and will happen again. And the result of such action on our part is that the OPEC nations will drop the price of crude. After all, it worked last time, and then we stopped any movement we had towards energy independence, and it will happen again, except this time we should not be detoured in producing our own crude oil, and other energy sources, because of a drop in source price.

Of course, it now appears that our government - the Congress of the United States - and our probable president, are not really interested in such measures. Rather, it appears, certainly that under an Obama administration, there will be a desire to control the energy industry along with control of our people. Pure fascism - and in this case - liberal fascism.

Without the fortitude and the guts which have made this country the great nation it has been, we're going to end up like too many others - a weak citizenry with an overpowering government.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Skyboss- its sure is. The shame is, the non-acceptance of personal responsibility is nothing new, it is just that because of our increase in communication technology, we are discovering more and more people believe that is the natural way of things. Which, of course, does not bode well for this country and the world in general. But Mad Magazine first expressed that sentiment in the 50s, which wraps up the whole game - "What, me worry?"

Joe Chernicoff said...

June 23, 2008: just when I thought I wasn't going to have much to say about Obama, for a few weeks,at least, there he goes again, adding fuel to the fire.

In a speech he gave the other day, he went on the offensive against the Republicans, declaring that they were going to say he was young, inexperienced, and, lo and behold, he is a black man (well, that's not entirely true, but heck, he's at least one-half black, so I guess that qualifies him). So what's this sharpie Chicago politician doing? As Shelby Steele points out, Obama is a "bargainer". He's reminding all those 'ol white folks that when they vote for him, they will rid themselves of the racist label - they'll have put the burden of racism behind them. [Amazingly, as I went to post this blog, I heard that Ralph Nader stated that Obama's M.O. is to make the white man feel guilty!]

Ha! First of all, that theme is about as racist as you can get from the black man's perspective. Hey, all you crackers out there, throw away your mantle of racism and vote black! A true racist statement from the self acclaimed "great uniter".

Of course, I imagine that there are still plenty of moronic white folk across this great nation who believe they carry the burden of guilt for whatever is wrong with black people in this country, so they'll probably run out to make themselves feel better by voting for Obama to ascend to the presidency of this Republic.

It's funny, though - I think over the next few months all of this going to backfire on the Senator. When all you promote are national socialist liberal fascist programs which have never worked and never will, I reckon all that the best a candidate can do is promote guilt. Cheeeee.....


Joe Chernicoff said...

July 15, 2008: Between the dysfunctional Democrats running Congress, and their buddies, the "yield no ground" environmentalists, along with the many supports of each, this great country of ours is on the road to becoming a weak power. It is almost impossible to understand how saving the environment in this country, when not much is being done in other parts of the world, is going to help the planet in the next 100K years or so.

I sincerely believe that too many in this country have lost all sense of proportion when it comes to mankind or nature. I would imagine that to those people, polar bears, walruses, pup fish and their ilk are more important than humans. So drilling for oil is bad for those animals and for nature as a whole. It's better to let the Saudis, Venezualans, Canadians, Russianbs, and other oil producers gain power, use our money, and weaken this country. We have to once again be assertive in taking charge of our domestic needs.

We don't have to be nice to every country - only to ourselves. Some day alternative fuels will be cost efficient to produce. Look, I'm a conservative, which means I believe in conserving what we have - using it wisely and efficiently - not giving it up in the hope that some year we will be able to come up with those alternatives everyone would like to see.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - once we start real drilling for oil - really producing more from our abundant resources, barrel costs will drop as a modus to forestall our domestic production. In the meantime, we will have what we need, and the time to work on those alternative energy resources. More nuclear power plants should be built - they have been successful in the past and will be in the future. Running around yelling the sky is falling because some new nuclear energy producers are coming online is counterproductive to this country's welfare.

The morons - and I use that term in its fullest context - who are against anthing they believe will "hurt the bears, etc.", are as bad as the animal rights people are and have been in their fight against using animals in research. What kind of a convoluted mind do those people have when they put animals over humans. PETA, which was always a terrorist organization, has a commercial showing debeaking chickens making it into an animal cruelty situation. Not debeaking is cruel. I guess those animal rights morons have no idea of what has to be done in the poultry industry.

Causal effects of the work done by the environmentalists, animal rights people, and similar wrong thinking groups is obvious in the desire by some politicians and organizations to control thoughts - spoken, written, and drawn. Every utterance is subjected to a study of its political correctness. McCain apologizes for Gramm's remark, Jackson apologizes for his. What's with people? You make a comment. it's said, so don't apologize! If people don't like what you said, telle est la vie. But don't be wimp - if you can't walk the talk, don't talk...

Anyhow, this country has got to grow some brass balls - otherwise we're going to be every country's bitch! -30-

Joe Chernicoff said...

# July 27, 2008: It was difficult watching Senator Obama in Germany and France this past week. His body language and speech contents again helped prove a couple of points: he's still on his non-realty socialist kick, as shown through comments such as the need to quickly get off reliance on fossil fuels...
# shades of Wendelle Wilkie - another proponent of a one world government?
# his compadre attitude with the leaders of the nations visited - arms around their shoulders or backs, leading the press conference in France, etc.

I'm sure that the Senator is thrilled with himself (it certainly showed in the news video clips), and probably is totally enjoying the "adulation" shown him during his information seeking trip. I imagine that he now considers himself an expert on foreign relations!

There's only one problem - I don't know if I imagined it or not, but was there saliva drooling from the mouths of those nations leaders with whom he was conferring? It looked to me that they can't wait for him assume the Presidency...Yum! Yum! Man, that is scary!

The signs are all over the place; wont to happen when I write one of my blogs, as soon as I finish I come across editorial comment which backs up my contentions. After doing a spell check, I picked up a copy of today's Las Vegas Review-Journal and read Charles Krauthammer's column about the Iraqi leader throwing his support to Obama, re: a time table for troop removal. Let me quote part of Krauthammer's last paragraph: "Moreover he(Obama) not only agrees with Maliki on minimizing the U.S. role in postwar Iraq. He now owes him. That's why Maliki voted for Obama, casting the earliest and most ostentatious absentee ballot of this presidential election."

It's now time for the American electorate to begin getting real serious about their interest in national politics - it's only our future which is their hands.


Joe Chernicoff said...

July 30, 2008: Well, every day there's something else going on concerning "the anointed one's" campaign ("This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.")

That's bad enough - if he wins the presidency, I imagine his image will be staring down at everyone from buildings and poles nationwide - like the socialist/fascists he seemingly wants to emulate.

But the worst fact is that aside from Ludacris's rap number stating that the "white house will be painted black", we have Spike Lee's comments about a black city/nation, and the New Orleans mayor's past remarks about a "chocolate city". So far, very little has been said about these remarks. Are our news commentators, newspaper editors afraid to bring up the issue being generated here?

The Senator did not personally and immediately castigate Ludicris for the Obama support rap number (his campaign issued a soft statement) - something Obama never seems to have the ability to do (especially when it's someone supposedly a friend). All of which makes one tend to believe that Obama's election will be a black power play. But of course my comments and interpretations of those remarks will probably be considered racist by our liberal fascist friends. And since blacks are never racist (ha!), what else can be expected? Furthermore, are we seeing what Obama really meant when during the primary campaign he spoke of unifying the country?

Some of the above may be considered facetious, but when the crap hits the fan, we'll know better just how off the mark I may or may not be. This whole situation is definitley ludicrous!

Joe Chernicoff said...

August 5, 2008: As I've previously written, I enjoy watching GritTV, with Laura Flanders, but more often than not, her guest panelists make me wonder if they ever listen to themselves.

The other day the writer Steven Greenhouse was on the program, and, unless I'm mistaken, he made a comment about the Left's favorite whipping boy - namely Walmart. This time the company was taken to task for having locked and alarmed rear doors, and a notice reading that anyone opening the doors (unless it was a "real emergency", would be fired. Tsk, Tsk.

Of course, you would think that the fact that 65% of retail theft is committed by employees doesn't have anything to do with that policy - Walmart just wants to be a mean employer. If an employee had to use that door, all he or she would have to do is call the store office and ask permission, explaining why the need existed. So Walmarts' policy is one every store should follow.

Capitalism and bailouts

Capitalism is a wonderful economic policy. It allows those who have the ambition, desire, and fortitude to earn as much money as possible, while at the same time improve the life of everyone around them. Our technological, medical, sceintific, and standard of living gains have been, and will be, made possible by capitalism. Yet millions of people around the world bitch and moan that capitalism is unfair, there's too much of a discrepancy by those who have either been unsuccessful in their business atempts, or who believe that they deserve, for some unknown reason, to share in the cash rewards capitalism has bestowed upon those fortunate enough to have been involved with the right products at the right time.

The housing market is an excellent example of that condition. Home buyers lied to mortgage companies and banks - those organizations were anxious to buy into those lies. Now that the proverbial shit has hit the fan, everyone wants to be bailed out by those who weren't involved in those messy deals. Now that's called socialism. And when you listen to Obama talk about taking the so-called windfall profits from oil companies to be redistributed to "the people", we have a good example of liberal fascism at work.


There's talk here in Nevada about history being taught as a concept subject, without subjecting high school students to memorizing dates, et. al.. Now I rember how bored I was when in high school, having to memorize zillions of dates of battles, coronations, and similar historical events.

But as I grew older, and hopefully, wiser, I began to understand the relationship between when events occurred and the way history evolved around those occurrences.

Now I wonder how come the Bush administration did not recall the years between, say, 1774 and 1783, and how George Washington finally learned thast insurgent warfare was the only way to beat the world's mightiest army. Look, based upon information provided prior to the Iraq war, I was very much in favor of a preemptive strike, but I also warned my readers that without having a solid plan for after the military victory, there would be too many "broken windows" - too many windows of opportunity for continued attacks from those whom we militarily defeated.

Dare I suggest that since our political leaders ignored the lessons of history, that they really did not care about winning the so-called war against terrorism? That the only thing of importance was business for Haliburton and other friends of the administration? A terrible suggestion, indeed - and if true - one which needs rectification.

Look, Bush did some good things, particularly regarding our involvement in efforts against AIDS in Africa. But are we about to exchange one form of fascism for another? Now that's something about which we need to be concerned.


Joe Chernicoff said...

August 31, 2008: The last few days have made this election campaign probably one of the most interesting and fascinating in modern election history. Along with worldwide economic and political changes which have, and are, ocurring in this post-American world, it has become extremely important for voters to rid themselves of emotional choices and to begin educating themselves, as much as possible, as to what is really going on in this country and throughout the world, and why.

The American world leader position is shifting in form, and it is important for everyone to understand how the rising power of many European, Asian, and Latin American countries has to affect just how America continues its worldwide important role as the balancing hub around which the world's countries can grow in way beneficial to international political, economic, and human life.

There are numerous worthwhile books to be read readily available through your library or for sale at book stores. Only by having an idea of what some of those writers have to say, can you, as an intelligent and informed voter be able to separate the wheat from the chaff found in their as well as other authors' writings. One book I would highly recommend is Fareed Zarkaria's informative and valuable "The Post-American World". Other books of value for this election are Michael Rose's "Washingtons Wars", and Mark Krikorian's "The new Case Against Immigration - Both Legal and Illegal". These are all books that will make you THINK, and in these days, that's pretty important.

To mix metaphors, don't be a "yellow dog" voter - that is, don't vote for the dancing chicken just because it wears your party's label. Intelligent voting, not emotional voting, is the key to this country's success over the next decade.


Joe Chernicoff said...

September 2, 2008, 2008: the old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating has been exemplified by the current attacks against Governor Palin by the Obamaistas. And, as Glenn Beck might say. here's how I arrived at that conclusion:

The attacks against Palin have included all of the things she has done - mayor of a small town; governor of a small population state, is a hunter, loves guns, a Life Member of the NRA (as an NRA emeritus instructor and training counselor, I've got to give her props on that), a person with non-mainstream religious beliefs, and so forth.

Lo and behold, all of this matches Obama's snide remarks made in San Francisco about small town people, so I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Obama and his elitist cohorts are out of touch with the real folk of America. Those liberal fascist Democrats should wake up and realize the world, as well as this country, does not revolve around them - most of America's population really does believe in mom, apple pie, and our flag.


Joe Chernicoff said...

September 8, 2008: A few weeks ago I wrote to the Obama campaign asking the following questions: Would an Obama presidency put a halt to Mexican involvement in United States politics, laws, and courts; would a halt be put to Mexican-American jura in re aliena; would his admnistration examine the effects of dual citizenship held by naturalized citizens? If yes, how would the administration achieve these goals, and if not, why not? This afternoon, I received a reply, and what follows is a synopsis of the answer. To read the information in full, go over to (copy and paste this link into your browser).

The core issue of my inquiry is directed toward the use of Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) by the Mexican Government - essentially through their consuls and the various Mexican organizations in this country, such as LULAC and the National Council of La Laza - to effect political and judicial changes in the United States favoring Mexican and Latin American legal and illegal immigrants, and how would an Obama administration halt this "silent reconquista" via Mexico's actions.

The only reference to Mexico in the formatted reply is that Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration. Nothing in response (Obama's policy statement) provides any information on reducing the total number of immigrants entering the country - a problem, which, in this date and age, is one of extreme importance.

Most Americans are not aware of the effect that current immigration policies have on the country - the Obama statement does speak to the problem of fixing the federal immigration bureaucracy, but in such a way as to infer that once fixed, we can continue bringing in more immigrants. One should note that fixing the system is far from an easy task. Too many applications, too many fraudulent applications, too many technical problems.

For information on the immigration problem, read Mark Krikorian's book "The Case against Immigration - both Legal and Illegal", and search the many authoritive sites on the web.

It would be in every citizen's best interest to become familiar with this issue. So learn as much as you can about the current problems with how the United States handles the immigration problem. Whomever wins the presidency will have to face this problem, and it's up to the citizens of this country to make sure that both the executive and legislative branches of our government handle it in a way that is beneficial to the country, not to any particular political party. Our future is in the hands of an informed electorate.


Joe Chernicoff said...

September 13, 2008: Senators McCain and Obama were asked similar questions during their appearances at the Presidential Forum on September 11th. When asked if the United States was the best country, McCain answered that it was an exceptional country, while Obama answered that is was the greatest country. Interesting answers to an important question.

The world knows that the U.S.A. is an exceptional country - and the value of this country to the world lies in its exceptionalness. I was surprised to hear Obama's cheerleading answer that "...we are the greatest...", only because that answer, while true, is one which could annoy most countries which believe they are the "best". Since Obama professes to be a citizen of the world, his answer was, in my opinion, somewhat tactless, particularly in this post-American world.

Senator Obama also spoke about his background preparing him for the presidency, and that his three years working as a community organizer - work in which he was able to bring people to register and vote, some work in helping improve eductaion in the community, and possibly other tasks, was a credential for the office.

Now, in the early 50s, in my callow youth, I won a couple of elections as Democratic Committeeman in my ward located in the Germantown section of Philadlephia. I worked the neighborhood, constantly visiting registered and unregistered voters' homes, seeking ways to help those people with problems they may have had, and, of course, to get the unregistered voters registered (as Democrats, of course), help people get out of jail, find jobs, and other needs of the community. Hey, maybe I was a community organizer! Notwithstanding that, I really don't believe that that successful experience was a qualification for the presidency. Maybe City Counsel, but not the presidency.

Lastly, Obama repeated that he wants to provide a $4000 grant/deduction, tax credit(?)for or towards a college education, providing the recipient agrees (contracts?) to work in community service following graduation. Another thought - is college necessary for everyone? (No!)

That's is a great selling point, but one, I believe, without much merit. Why? because 1) the United States is currently saddled with a huge debt, which will grow larger with the FannyFred bailout, 2) because there's no guarantee that recipients will follow through with their agreement (see, for example, the results of communities paying for a medical education so that the doctors would return to the community - too often the stay was for less time that that which was agreed upon, or there were no-shows - profit motives besting community service).

McCain said it correctly - government can motivate community service, but private industry and faith-based organizations are the best conduits, and less tax-payer burdensome, than government control. In other words - socialism is not a choice for service work as socialism is not the workable choice for our continued economic growth. Granted that organizations and/or companies may receive tax credit for managing worthwhile community service programs (and there is an area which would be the source of great debate), and that neither candidate professes that they wouldn't want a federal bureaucracy administering such programs - but if tax credits would be a "reward", then federal oversight is necessary.

The best way for the nationwide community service to be run would be either through faith-based altruism, and/or the programs would be run by companies which would benefit from the program because the community service provided through their leadership would either promote the company, serve as a training program for employees ( a practicum), or both. Those approaches would eliminate the need for federal oversight, including the development of another "Washington bureaucracy". -30-

Joe Chernicoff said...

Robin Hood Economics

September 18, 2008: Joe Biden stated today that the wealthy (if a businessman, business, or individual who makes over $250K can be considered wealthy) should "contribute" more of his or her or the corporation's income to the governmnet as a patriotic gesture. Sounds like some mob guy taking to businesses about "contributing" protection money to the mob.

Paying taxes is not being patriotic - it's something that, if not done, can lead to serious consequences (sort of like the protection racket). And taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor sounds like we're living in Sherwood Forest. But even more than that, what we hear is confirmation of the socialist economic program Obama and cohorts have in mind for this country.

Biden's rant about being patriotic is an example of what these liberal fascist national socialists will do once in office. And that is to force redistribution of wealth, reduce economic and political liberties - all in the name of power.

An Obama administration, it certainly appears, would want to provide the poor and middle classes with what it would have if they were fortunate enough to be succesful on their own. The problem with that program, for our citizenry, is that, once you take from the government, the government will end up owning you. It is very easy for many folks to become dependent upon a nanny state government, to believe that what they are receiving is an entitlement which they deserve, but have not earned (an earned entitlement is, for example, social security, since the recipient has involuntarily paid into to the fund, and those payments are returned in the form of an ongoing annuity).

So I can just see Senator Biden, and the rest of his buddies in Congress, and Obama, lining up to happily contribute more of their income to the government, pay more capital gains taxes (about 50% as per Obama's desire), all as their "patriotic duty". Of course, they will probably attempt to have written into the new tax laws enough exemptions so that they won't have to pay one wooden nickel!

And the middle class? They will be paying more for products they need - like food, fuel, health care, and so forth. Investment incentives will disappear, as will funding for research, military needs, and the rest of the required essentials the country requires. So even though Obama states that 95% of the population will receive tax cuts, those dollars plus more will quickly leave the middle class's pockets, because that group of Americans will find themselves making less money, with the ensuing need to rely upon their federal government to take care of them.

Robin Hood economics - the path to socialist slavery, and the end of American world leadership.


Joe chernicoff said...

September 24, 2008: I watched Senator Biden's foreign policy speech today, and it made me wonder how in the heck a guy who is supposed to be a foreign policy wizard could sound so naive.

Biden promoted Obama's concept of negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Look, negotiating with the president of a country considering itself an enemy of the United States through various sources is not the worst idea in the world, but may be close to it. It's always good to negotiate, and then , if the negotiations fail, do what you have to do.

But let's face reality. Ahmadinejad has a driven hatred of the United States of America. I can see the guy welcoming negotiations with us. First of all, it would increase his political standing , both in Iran and the world. Secondly, he would flash his Cheshire cat smile, at the negotiators, while "licking his chops" at the opportunity being given to him. Thirdly, his opinion that Obama is a Muslim (Hussein literally means " ...from Muslim") would be reinforced, so he might believe he's negotiating with a kindred soul.

Fourthly, the idea that many Iranians want a peaceful existence with the West is a basis for an Obama US/Iran negotiation. The only problem here is that that idea has neither been totally proven, nor, over the last five years, has any effort been made to help Iranian dissidents overthrow the Ahmadinejad government, or if there has been (and we do not know about those possible attempts), they have not been successful.

Fifthly, Ahmadinejad would probably string out negotiations for a year or more by giving an Obama administration continuing hope that it would be successful, all the while building his nuclear arsenal and increasing Iran's threat potential until we end up with another Czechoslovakia (for those who don't know their history, research Neville Chamberlin's "peace in our time" fiasco). Unless our administration really understands the Muslim/Islam/Arab mindset, any negotiations will be to Iran's benefit - not ours.

John McCain announced today that he's suspending his campaign activities to go back to Washington to work on the financial crisis. Obama figures he can give speeches and have a debate, while thinking about the economic crisis. Which proves two points: 1) McCain decided his job is legislation, not running for president, and 2) Obama figures his job is running for president, the Senate and legislation be damned (as he has probably thought all of his career). One man puts the country first, the other himself first.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Beware the Bandersnatch

September 25, 2008: The current economic crisis has one very possible, and to some degree, probable, unintended consequence.

Chaotic (or chaotic appearing) economic conditions in an election year can very well lead to the election of a dictator. Sounds rediculous? Just take a look at Germany in the 1930s, whose economy to some extent was affected by the American depression. Now, I'm not saying that we will be pushing wheelbarows full of money to the market when we need to buy a loaf of bread, as occurred in Germany, but when the majority of the population feels downtrodden, it is very easy for them to select as their leader someone who sounds as though he has all the answers to make their life much better.

Hitler and the the National Socialist Party were able to feed of the general discontent. So I make this warning, beware the Bandersnatch (described by Lewis Carrol as a creature to be shunned). This November, vote with your intellect, examine the candidates, and leave emotion at home. And beware the Bandersnatch!

Joe Chernicoff said...

Another Look at Obama's Socialist Ideas

October 08, 2008: I often wonder about Obama's supporters - are they just unknowledgeable, unintelligent, or just yellow dog Democrats who just don't care if the United States of America changes from a democratic republic to a socialist republic.

Listening to the October 7 presidential debate, I heard Obama once again throw out significant code words which showed his liberal fascist socialist credentials. Notable amongst those was his statement that health care was a right of the people, as opposed to McCain's statement that it is the responsibility of individuals.

Saying that health care is a "right" is much like speaking of the "promise" of America rather than the "American dream". To say that health care is a "right" means that the government has the duty (from what source?) to provide health care, which means that the government would not only have a say in where individuals can go to receive that care, but that government can control the entire health care industry, including doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, et. al., and could even go as far as controlling which citizens can be patients. And, I might add, I 'm sure there is nothing in the Constitution/Bill of Rights about health care. Even FDR's "four freedoms" did not cover health care.

So the "right" to health care opens wide the door for liberal fascism/socialism.

There would be no individual responsibility on the part of our citizens - the responsibility to take care of their own health care needs as they see fit. There's no question that we need a healthy nation - that is a security issue. But the government has no place in being a health care provider; and should the government bring in a company to help it run such a program, why then there would be another example of fascism.

Health care isn't the only socialist issue emanating from the soul of Obama. Obama's Bill Ayer/ Sol Alynski associations have imbued the concept of class warfare into his politics. After all, according to Obama, it appears to be a terrible thing that there are a number of people who have become successful in business and have reaped the awards of that success - therefore they should be punished for having the wealth they earned. Besides which, a company doing $250K per year in business is at the low end of the small business spectrum. Companies earning several million dollars a year are also small businesses, but, according to Obama (and, apparently, his economic advisors), those businessmen should be treated as one of the privileged class, and there be subjected to higher taxes to help support the poor and unsuccessful (as interpreted from Obama's contentions).

And back to everyone having a college education, and the government making sure they receive one. Another entitlement program? Look, as I've written before, not everyone should attend a college. If we had an effective high school education program in this country, we would have many educated individuals who don't need a formal college education. There are enough online education and community college programs available, where people can enroll in specific courses which provides the academic training they deem necessary to become more proficient at their jobs. And, as a closing thought, why don't colleges, especially the major institutions, reduce their costs so that more people who really need a formal college education can afford it. Colleges are big businesses, and make a lot of money from their sports programs, especially football, so maybe instead of spending all of those profits on fancy buildings and huge salaries, some could be directed towards reducing tuition.

And last but not least - voting for the Democrats is not going to solve the current economic strife - that will only put back into office those who had a major hand in creating the current situation. Obama, a guy who was a organizer and attorney for ACORN, an operation allegedly running fraudulent voter registration drives, is not the kind of experienced person this country needs in its leader.

Beware the Bandersnatch - you may get more than you bargained for. -30-

Joe Chernicoff said...

12 Pieces of Silver

October 21, 2008: As anyone who has read most of my blogs knows, electing Obama to our presidency is the worst possible thing that would happen to our country, and here's why I say that: For many years I have harbored the fear that one day this country would find itself in an economic condition providing a breeding ground for a dictatorship. Obama has been planting the seed of discontent into the minds of the populace that times are now as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I guess that living in Las Vegas provides one with a sense of reality when it comes to gambling with your money, for that is exactly what everyone who has money invested in most funds, the stock market, and other financial growth opportunities are doing.

There never was time that those investments would provide a guaranteed income for everyone. What makes stocks and 401Ks interesting that they provide a mechanism for investors to earn long-term income, greatly increasing the value of the original dollar investment. But all of those investments carry risk - for investments without risk yield very low gains.

The housing problem clearly illustrates that scenario. For instance, here in Las Vegas, when the housing boom was in full force, and values climbed, house flippers from out of state piled into this territory, buying all the homes they could with as little money as possible, sometimes flipping a house in just days or a few weeks. At that time, those investors were making all kinds of money, until the bubble burst, and our government was forced to bail out the companies financing those mortgages.

Of course, when you win a lot of money in a casino, you feel that you're going to keep on winning in the long run. But when the cards or machines grow cold, and you begin losing at a rapid rate, you know for sure that the house isn't going to bail you out of your losses.

Both examples deal with looking to make money, both examples are risky. And risk entitles the bettor to possibly excellent ROI. That's the way capitalism works.

All of which brings me to the point of why I believe, if elected, Obama would be extremely to the health and welfare of this country. Aside from the fact that what we do know of the Senator is not encouraging - and, by the way - I wonder how many people have actually read his books, 'Dreams From My Father', in particular. I know he made some good money on royalties, but just because people bought the book, doesn't necessarily mean they read it.

The book gives a good feel for what Obama is. Read it and make up your mind about that. But what we have here is a guy who learned street politics as a young man in Chicago - a man who learned how black ministers played politics in those same streets. We have a man who's more Teflon than Ronald Reagan ever was. A man who can stare you in the eye (maybe) and deny he ever knew anything about Reverend wright, Bill Ayers, probably Rashid Colleti (a PLO fund raiser and sympathizer), ACORN, and whatever or whomever else he had close contact.

Obama's a smart politician. He knows that he's in a special place - and his background, which of course includes all people with whom he had close contact -business, social, or both - definitely imbued him with certain political and social concepts. To deny that is disingenuous.

So the polls show that people believe Obama would be the best bet in handling the economy! Aside from the fact that nothing he has ever done, except talk, has proven that point, maybe that belief is held because Obama promises to give people money... those 12 pieces of silver. Or maybe people just feel that capitalism is just too much work, has no real value except that of entrepreneurship, success, and all related items, and that it is just too much trouble to work hard, when there are so many other things to do, and, after all, the government can take care of us.

Governments love socialism - it provides them with real power over their people. After all, once the citizenry gets something for nothing, heck, why should they change that? My bet? Obama wins with a controlling interest of the legislature, and one of the early bills passed eliminates term limits for the president. Chew on that, for a while! America, as we have know it, may be entering a very troubled time - a time which will affect not only this country but will have world-wide repercussions. The world needs us as we have been - a strong, innovative, capitalist leader. Yes, we have had our touches of socialism, but they have been subservient to our general capitalist economy. A truly socialist United States of America, as will occur under an Obama administration, will be, to paraphrase an old line, an ill wind that blows no good.


Joe Chernicoff said...

"Spread the Wealth"=Failure

October 29, 2008: Senator Obama's strong belief that wealth should be spread amongst those who are in the middle and lower economic classes is poor economics if, and that's a big if, his interest if elected to the presidency would be to keep America a strong world power. Spreading the wealth seeks to level the playing field, and leveling the economic playing field leads to collectivism, an economic system which has been proven, time and time again, to be a failure. Collectivism has failed wherever it has been implemented - examples include Russia, China, India, and the kibbutz in Israel.

The concept of spreading the wealth may may seem appealing, especially to those earning less than the poverty level - even less than the average $50K/year wage recently reported. But several large problems arise from that kind of policy: 1)loss of incentive to follow the American dream of economic success; 2) loss of private industry jobs and an increase in government jobs, thus increasing the power of government over its citizens; 3) an increase in the feeling of entitlement (forget what you did for me yesterday, what are you doing for me today?); 3) the loss of world belief that the United States of America is or can be the one force in the world to keep the world on an even keel; 4) this country's relegation to a bana republic/third world country status.

For too many years too many of our citizens have believed that giving up our rights (protections against government) under the 4th and 5th ammendments of the Constituion are okay in the false belief that doing so would protect their liberty - beliefs of an insecure, lazy, and unknowledgeable people. It is that kind of thinking - the thinking of fear - that can and will lead this country to be taken over by those who are the antithesis of the reason for America's founding.

Regardless of who wins the upcoming election, this will keep after those in government who work against the best interests of the country. It is my fervent hope that I won't have much to do...


Joe Chernicoff said...

Congratulations on the Sale

November 5 2008: You have to hand it to the Democrats and Obama, they did a great selling job which was bought hook, line, and sinker. Of course, when the buyer is convinced they need something, they are usually willing to give it a try when they like the salesman.

So they bought Obama without preconditions, because it's a good bet that nobody knew/knows anything about the President Elects's political hisotry, except, of course, Reverend Wright. Obama's credo - and he wrote about this - is you have to win, you do what you have to do to win, and when you win, you do what you want to do. Now Obama divorced himself from the Reverend only after Wright stated that Obama is like any other politician, who will do and say anything to get elected. It looks like Wright knew Obama at least as well as Obama knows himself.

I have one major suggestion for all those who have pinned their hopes on the President Elect - sit down, and carefully read the following books: Obama's Dreams from my Father and the Audacity of Hope, and you should definitely read David Freddoso's well researched book 'The Case Against Obama - the unlikely rise and unexamined agenda of the media's favorite candidate'. In this book you will learn much about Obama's political and work history, particularly in his days in Chicago and the Ilinois Senate.

It's important to carefully read these books - you did not hear much about them during the campaign - and what you will learn will provide you with an understanding of what our government will more than likely be like under the so-called reformer and a heavy majority Democratic legislature. Hey, you made your purchase, now find out what you may have bought!

Now that the election is over, I'm starting a new run of comments; the previous entries are found at, if you are interested in comparing coments to reality.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Great Moments in Sport

November 5 2008: Watching the World Series the other day made me realize something important. For a number of years I was a fan of baseball and football, until I became somewhat bored with the classic national sport and turned my attention to the gridiron. This season, however, football has been a bit of a bore, both college and pro, which is my favorite form of the game.

But seeing Chase Utley of the Phillies make that masterful fake throw to first base, causing Tampa Bay's runner at third to sprint for home, then throwing him out, made me realize that it's not the game itself, but the individual plays that come up which makes the game enjoyable.

The same thing for football. Watching running backs juke their way around defensive linemen, watching lines open great holes for their running backs, watching strong defensive play by those who excell at the game - these are all the things which make football great. Two examples have to be taken from the Philadelphia Eagles, quarterback plays by Donavan McNabb being chased around the backfield for 14 seconds before throwing a completion, and by Randall Cunningham completing a 96 yard pass play after seemingly being trapped behind his goal line.

Rare moments such as those make sports a worthwhile diversion, since you never know who and when a great sports feat will be accomplished. That's one of the reasons I enjoy rodeo. Now I'm taliking about the full seven event rodeo, not just bull riding. When you see those moments of true beauty - when bare back, saddle bronc,and bullriding cowboys become one with the animal, when each of the two participants in those events work to outsmart the other and run an outstanding ride, when the calf roper and his horse work together to quickly rope and tie down the calf, when team ropers are able to quickly get out of the chute and make a clean catch, when the steer wrestler is able to make a quick catch and takedown of the steer, and when the barrel racer works with her horse to make fast and clean turns around each barrel - that's when you can say all the watching has been worth the time. And that's a reason I enjoy shooting rodeo photos (to see some of each event, visit my site at

All of these sports prove the point that although the athlete - human or animal - is extremely talented, it's that athlete's ability to understand how to use that talent, and that the training and coaching recived makes that talent come to the fore.

All of which not only makes for sports' great, and enjoyable, moments, but which are lessons for real life.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Some Concepts for Obama

November 9 2008: If President Elect Obama really wants this country regain it's former world position, here's a message for him:

Forget left-wing liberalism and embrace classical liberalism
Understand that every American has the right to economic, political, and personal liberty
As a constitutional lawyer, understand the real value and meaning of the Constitution, and how it is able to steer this country in its role as an exceptional Republic
Keep federal government in its real role as the protector of our borders, protector of our citizen's rights, and use your office as a real "bully pulpit" from which to "cajole" or encourage business organizations such as insurance copmanies, unions, and others having major effect upon individuals and institutions alike, to rethink their operations in a way which is beneficial to all of our citizens.
In the same vein, as our president, Obama should make everyone in congress act as real "citizen legislators"; that their task is for the good of the country, not for just their present and future pocketbooks/careers.
Nothwitstanding the above, I was disturbed by a report in today's - "CHICAGO -- Armed with millions of e-mail addresses and a political operation that harnessed the Internet like no campaign before it, Barack Obama will enter the White House with the opportunity to create the first truly "wired" presidency."

According to the story, "Obama aides and allies are preparing a major expansion of the White House communications operation, enabling them to reach out directly to the supporters they have collected over 21 months without having to go through the mainstream media."

"He's going to be the first president to be connected in this way, directly, with millions of Americans...(T)he nucleus of that effort is an e-mail database of more than 10 million supporters...(M)illions more made up the volunteer corps that organized his enormous rallies, registered millions of voters and held countless gatherings to plug the senator to friends and neighbors."

The idea here is to have a strong group of Obama supporters who will be able to be used to contact senators and congressmen to push for the support of Obama administration policies.

Fine, you may say, this is just using technology to do what television and newspapers have done in the past. But the danger in this is that there can be a constant bombardment, email brain washing, if you will, of millions upon millions of Americans, probably mostly young or who feel disenfranchised, to be at the beck and call of one political party and party leader.

Sounds pretty dictatorial to me. Just like the John Dewey educational system we have running K-8 (if not K-12), there's a very strong possiblity that, if implemented, that plan will be the keystone of a one-party, one-ideology America. Not good!


Joe Chernicoff said...

(strike out) Pacificism

November 17 2008: I find it quite interesting that, quite often when I intend to write about a specific topic, I receive a news report that is a perfect example of my intent.

A few minutes ago, I received a email, which included the following headlined story: "Obama Wants Israel Back to 1967 Borders". The lead text reads "A senior Obama adviser told the London Times that Obama will throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative that also has been endorsed by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the Arab League, and Israeli President Shimon Peres."

According to the story, the peace plan Israel would be able to veto the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948; would restore the Golan Heights to Syria, and Palestinians would be allowed to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

"According to the senior adviser, Obama has said privately that Israel would be "crazy" to reject such a plan, since it would 'give them peace with the Muslim world.'

That "senior advisor" has got to be out of his cotton-pickin' mind! It sems to me I heard past talk from Obama about foreign policy that could very well be considered appeasement, and the current foreign policy decision just seems to be more of the same.

Look, don't just listen to me - read the book this was to to consider. "Above Empyrean", subtitled 'a novel of the final days of the war on Islamic Terrorism', written by Bruce Herschensohn, who, among other credentials, served as deputy Special Assistant to President Nixon, has been a political commentator on KABC-TV and KABC-Radio, and who has taught at the School of Public Policy of Pepperdine University.

The important thing about this 208 page book is not so much the story - I don't think he's the greatest novelist around - but the message he delivers is extremely important and relevant. If you never wanted to know why pacificism is bad for the country, and why we. i.e., our government and our citizens, cannot afford the political correctness of pacificism, then you need to know, and really have to read this novel.

When you read what Herschensohn has to say, if you haven't already done so, you will begin to worry about Obama's Mid-East policy, as well as his total attitude re: political correctness when it comes to this nation's foreign and domestic policies re: terrorism. And why we have to strike out pacficism as an acceptable policy.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Public Education - Ignorance is Bliss

November 29 2008: From what I have seen over the past 30-40 years, although there are some exceptions, public school education's credo has to be "ignorance is bliss".

The question is, bliss for who? The answer, of course, is bliss for government.

In the late 70s, I posed the following question to a reporter friend of mine: "How come high school students do not have courses in their state's criminal codes?" His answer? "you don't really think the goverment wants that, do you?". Apparently, he was, and still is, correct in that assumption.

Now I haven't reviewed high school or middle school courses in civic or social studies, and history, for over a decade, not since my late wife taught history and was a middle school principal. But from what I've been reading and hearing, especially from the mouths of college "educated" folk, apparently they weren't taught American history or civics courses, or both. The current generation may be up-to-date on computer technology, but, as a group, has no idea about this country's past, nor the world's history - a very dangerous scenario for us.

Maybe it's because, as I remember history courses, they were pretty boring - strictly rote exercises in dates. It wasn't until many years later that I began to enjoy reading hisotry - specifically because I learned to understand the significance of past events, and how they applied to today's world. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that today's students don't have much interest in the subject, since, I imagine, it is still being taught the same as in the past, with, I am led to believe, a number of revisions to fact. And without understanding history, and civics, for that matter, how is anyone to know that the facts have been revised?

So government likes this condition of ignorance. Why, just think what would happen if everyone knew and understood the criminal codes of their state? I imagine it would make a number of people rather uncomfortable. I remember when I was training security officers, and told them they were to buy a copy of the state's criminal code - available at their local police department - a number of them told me that they were informed they couldn't purchase the books because they weren't law enforcment people. Now that comment really makes you think. Criminal codes were available from Gould publication, for every state in the Union.

Will things ever change? Probably not, since the public doesn't appear to be interested in such "dry" information. They would rather go along "fat and happy", wallowing in their blissful ignorance, until, of course, it's too late.


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Appeasement of Gun Control

December 04, 2008: It never ceases to agitate my mind whenever I read articles advocating gun control, such as the one written by free lance journalist Alexander Zaitchik in today's issue of AlterNet (December 4, 2008).

Individuals and groups, including those supposedly somewhat pro-gun ownership, advocating government control over our citizens' ownership of firearms is in stark contrast to what out founding fathers wanted. Those men knew that the firearm owning citizen was a powerful blockade against government usurping the liberties of its country's populace. Calls for even mild, if such a thing is possible, gun controls, opens the floodgates of full regulations against our right, and privilege, of firearm ownership.

A government's attempt to appease a hostile country in order to prevent an attack upon its borders dooms that country to failure. Advocates of the general concept of gun control hope to appease those who would harm us, from within our borders and from without, a stance which would eventually doom us all.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Fools and Rogues

December 16, 2008: You know, I do not find it unbelievable anymore that the world is made up of fools and rogues. As Mark Twain wrote, "Let us be thankful for fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed."

So I would have to imagine that those words are the credo of the legions of scam and bunko artists inhabiting the world of Internet.

If it weren't so damned dangerous, it would be quite funny. After all, IRS definitely sends e-mail to unnamed individuals informing them to write back so as to receive their tax refunds. And people are very soft-hearted, especially during the Christmas season, so why shouldn't it be expected that they will gladly give mucho dollars to somebody's (supposed) widow? And on and on ad infinitum.

It was bad enough in the '80s when all we had to be concerned about was the Nigeria scam letters being received via our fax machines, but today, it's a torrent of messages geared to depart one and all from their money. I wonder how many business people, feeling very depressed economically, might succumb to one or more of these (sometimes) very appealing and official appearing notices (Ponzi schemes are alive and well!)?

It's once again exercise time, folks. Time to exercise that finger which pushes the delete button. E-mail offers of these types do not hold the one winning combination. It's tough enough to win down here in Las Vegas, where the games are legitimate. Playing against a crooked wheel is a game only for fools (losers) and rogues (winners).


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Inauguration Speech

January 21, 2008: As I listened to Obama's inauguration speech, I felt as though it contained mixed messages. Later, when I read the text, I was sure it did.

Initially, I said to myself, "Joe, some of this makes him sound like a conservative" - a reaction to the President's references to war, entrepreneurialship, and markets. But when I took a good look at what he said, I realized that thought was way off the mark.

The one statement which showed me that the original thought was incorrect was the one about people coming to this country, working in sweat shops, etc., everyone working towards the common good, to kind of paraphrase Obama's statement. Now, I don't know about that.

People came to this country to have the ability to make a place for themselves in the Sun of humanity. Many came from countries where what they earned was not necessarily theirs to keep, but was to be part of the common good.

People came to this country to have the ability to make a place for themselves in the Sun of humanity. Many came from countries where what they earned was not necessarily theirs to keep, but was to be part of the common good.

Let me take you back to the 1930s. I was born in the waning year or so of the Hoover administration. Herbert Hoover, the "Great Engineer", was involved in developing national construction/infrastructure. But his politics were more Progressive than Republican. Following his election, FDR continued in the same vein.

Times were very difficult in the 1930s - the years of the "Great Depression". My parents were fortunate to have jobs - my father a department store salesman and my mother a Western Union telegraph operator. When my parents married and then brought me into this world, they lived with extended family, and the three of us had one room to share. My parents did not work to share the wealth with others - they worked, as probably everyone did, to improve their lives. It took about five or six years before they were able to afford to rent their own apartment, and a couple of more years until they could afford to rent a home (which many years later they bought for around $2000.00)

So our new president should be aware that most people who came to this country were really interested in gaining a good life for themselves and their children. What they earned by the "sweat of their brow" was not for the common good, but for their own. Of course, the fact that they were able to become productive affected the common good, and just about everyone believed thy owed a debt of gratitude to The United States of America for that opportunity. That feeling was expressed well when, in 1941, we were brought into the new world war.

What I realized President Obama was talking about were markets, entrepreneurial development, business growth that would all be part of a Mussolini style progressive corporatism. I, as probably millions of others, receive weekly, if not daily, email from Obama's people about getting out there and serving the community. Every time I receive one of those messages, in my mind's eye I see those black and white movies showing people in factories, on farms, and in schools, marching, working, and singing together for the good of the state.

Is this all in my imagination? Is this call for what could sound like a Conservative political system in actuality be a call to join the Progressive (Socialist) movement? I sure hope that it is all in my imagination, and should I be proved wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit the errors of my ways.

One other point. Reverend Lowery's final convocation line that white people should correct their ways with relationship to browns, yellows, and reds. What chutzpah! I realize that he was the core person in the civil rights movement, and was a founder of the SCLC (maybe this is a reason for the statement),but to state poetically that whites are the only racial group which needs to correct its ways smacks of Rev. Wright's Black Theology. Seeing Obama's face with a great big smile following that line was not very heartening.

So once the Obama euphoria ebbs, maybe we all should take a good look at what's going on. But then, as I said, maybe it's all in my imagination

Joe Chernicoff said...

Change, Maybe, but "Hope"?

January 29, 2008: You do not have to travel any further than your nearest TV, newspaper, or radio to find adventure. Unfortunately, the adventure we've been undergoing the past nine days under the Obama administration is a pretty scary one, especially for those of us who have been around long enough to have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Look, you can't call this a "liberal" administration - it's "progressive". But as the new Secretary of State advised, she's not a liberal - she's a progressive. Shades of Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between those two labels, especially when it comes to the desire to control the populace.

Rather than sit here and aggravate myself while writing this missive, I refer you to a couple of blogs I wrote last year, and this is why:

1) Obama is a pretty "amazing" guy, who had some goals and has so far accomplished them. One of those was to be taken seriously as a black man (April 28, 2008 blog "We're Losing Perspective") Well, I just finished reading Senator Barack (Barry) Obama's ode, "Dreams from my Father". So what did I learn? Well, the Senator discovered that he wanted to be a black man, he learned that political hustling in Chicago is a given in the black community, that whites are evil, that being black in Southern states was difficult, and that the Senator thinks he's pretty hot stuff."

2) Obama believes that he has now established his "street creds" with the Muslim world, as per his interview with Al-Arabiya. After all, he stated, he has Muslim family members. Was that statemtn supposed to ameliorate any contention the Muslim world had for this country? If so, then our President is somewhat naive.

3) The President is the first who is not just an American , but an African-American, and not because his father was a a black man, but because in reality he is of both African and American parents. I don't know, but I always thought that our president should be called an American.

Now we all know that President Obama really likes to give speeches, and I'm sure we'll get many more from him everytime some issue arises. But the problem is that too many of his ideas and directives "is just shooting from the hip". As a lawyer, Obama should know that you do not ask questions to which you do not know the answer. Unfortunately, that's preciseely what he has been doing. Closing Gitmo, the so-called stimulus package, creation of several million jobs - all of these ideas sound great, but none of them come with a well-thought-out idea of how to actually achieve results.

Not only is the above a problem for the administration, but Obama now has to face up to his extreme left-wing supporters, people who claim that already he is backing down on legalizing marijuana, that capitalism is dead (long live progressive socialism), for instance, the online publication AlterNet, which is available via e-mail, This publication is loaded with blogs containing extreme leftist rants from well-known writers and publications (e.g., Huffington Post). Although on rare occasions I read something that sort of agrees with my classical liberal ideologies, most of the rants expressed fall into the make nice with bad guys, hate Bush, nationalize banks school of belief. Anyhow, go over to and subscribe to the free publication. By the way, some of the better free greeting cards are found at Care2, but again, that organization's political stance if very left-leaning - today they call for the prosecution of Bush for crimes stemming from torture, etc. What was that chant during the cold war? Oh yeah, "better red than dead". Nothing ever changes, does it?

Anyhow, back to the President. Some may say he's only been in office for nine days. Well, if those nine days are an example of what the future will bring, conservatives and classic liberals in congress had better get their fighting dress on (as we may have seen in the Congress vote on the stimulus package).


Joe Chernicoff said...

Pig Wings

February 8, 2008: The oft-repeated verses from the Lewis Carroll poem 'The Walrus and the Carpenter' have been used to explain much political thinking, and, not to belabor the point, let us once again examine the following verse in the light of today's activities on our national scene, thusly:

'The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things:
of shoes...of ships...of sealing wax...
And why the sea is boiling hot,
and whether pigs have wings'

A timely verse? I think so.

The Walrus (Obama) has talked of many things - all put together by his Democratic cohorts in the House of Representatives, and which are, at this writing, being worked on by those in the Senate. This "prevent a crisis" bill which is supposed to create jobs and begin the curing of all our economic woes has contained much aside from the important items such as 'shoes, ships, and sealing wax' - things representing industry production which this country has been sorely lacking for a number of decades since we began our conversion into a technological society, away from a manufacturing one.

The question as to 'why the sea is boiling hot' is an easy one to answer. Even though the majority of voters hired Obama to lead the country, that does not mean that whatever he requests will be acccepted without reservation, After all, he was not hired as "dictator" although one might be expected to think so, following his remark that after all ..."we won the election"... . So much for bi-partisanship!.

The electorate is not at all happy with this so-called stimulus bill - and one of the consequences of Obama's election is that it may have created more intelligent thinking by our citizens in the wake of the very high bar he set for himself. So the 'boiling sea' is that of the discontent shown in these few days of the Obama administration - a discontent not only among Conservatives, but from those in the middle, and much discontent from the liberal left who expected Nirvana to descend upon them like, as the Spanish poet Lorca described, the dark sky falling upon the night like an anvil.

So, the chance of the so-called stimulus bill passing in its current outrageous form, or, if in the worse case scenario, that does happen, the chances of it creating jobs and improving the economy in a meaningful and long-term way, answers the question of whether pigs have wings - they don't, but if they did, they still won't fly.

As I see it, the only way we can get the country back onto the strong ecomonic trail - to create jobs and a strong GDP, is to get back into manufacturing. I know it sounds anachronistic, but if we are able to create more labor intensive private sector employment which will take away from our need to increase reliance on foreign manufacturing, we would be in a much stronger position. Look, a similar concept is the "drill here, drill now, pay less" concept promoted by American Solutions/Newt Gingrich. Once we begin producing oil for our manufacturing, heating, and transportation use, the less control foreign governments will have over what we do.

Yeah, I know we live in a post-Amercan world, but that does not mean we have to shrivel and become subservient to the growing world powers of China, India, and possibly South America. We should do whatever is necessary to rebuild our economic strength - and that means re-establishing and re-strengthening our private sector economy.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Lewis Carroll, Another Nostradamus?

February 13, 2008: After writing my last blog, Pig Wings, I figured it might be a good idea to re-read the entire Carroll poem 'The Walrus and the Carpenter'. And you know what? In all of its simplicity,the entire poem describes the way the Democrats' Obama campaign was able to succeed, with whom, and what the overall effect is and will be.

Don't look for me to explain the connection. Rather, whether you voted for Obama or not, carefully read the poem and you will see the references. If you don't have a copy on your desk, go over to, just one of the many sites where you can read the poem.


As I write this article, the "stimulus bill" is in the Senate, awaiting a vote. It's just a shame that all we have received from the Democrats so far is a lot of talk and writing, and very little action, on stimulating businesses, job opportunities, and American production which are what we need from a real stimulus bill. Now, I've attempted to find out from our federal legislators just how this bill will produce the economic advances the country needs now, but, so far, have only received some vague generalizations that we'll all be better off with its passage.

It doesn't take much intellect to understand that if our legislaators haven't had the opportunity to read the final version of this humongous spending bill, they wouldn't know what was contained therein. One of the biggest tricks Democrat leaders have pulled off (plus the three Replublicans who voted with their conscience(?)) is that since the bill contains so much which belongs in seprate appopriation measures, a lot of room is now left to really create bigger spending pork laden bills which in all probability will lead us down the rosy path of destruction over the next few years. Add to that thought that now that banks and auto businesses have accepted federal bail-out funds, can (liberal) fascism be far behind?

So the question is, how does it feel to be a buttered oyster, supporters of this administration's onward march to total control?


Joe Chernicoff said...

Read the Recovery Bill

February 18, 2008: When you go to, there's a link to the "full bill", which brings the visitor to, as the President signed it. However, what you want to read are the five documents listed further down, which, strangely enough, did not come up on the site the last time I linked to the bill page, although they were there earlier in the day. Perhaps I missed the information, or pewrhaps the wenb page was updated.

I don't believe what I'm describing is the full 1100 page or so bill. Certainly, the 1.4MB 'ARRA_public_review' is not the full working document, the the sections linked below do not appear to be the whole works, but they are of interest. I searched for "jobs" on those pages, and found that practically all are related to government connected employment, and I didn't count them all, when numbers were available, but there wan't a large total - not the 3.1 million or so promised by Obama.

Anyhow, go over to the pages - they are in pdf format, search them, and take your time reading the documents. And good luck!

Copy and paste the following links - the title is first, then the url

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H1511 bill/getdoc.cgi.pdf

H1358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 12, 2009 bill/getdoc2.cgi.pdf

February 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H1409 bill/getdoc3.cgi.pdf

H1460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE February 12, 2009 bill/getdoc4.cgi.pdf

February 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H1511 bill/getdoc5.cgi.pdf


Joe Chernicoff said...

Simplistic Cynicism

March 02, 2009: After 45 days on the job, President Obama appears to be well on the way to the goal of the liberal left. Leftist blogs I receive in my inbox shout with glee that "capitalism is dead". Obama tells us that we all have to sacrifice.

Well, it appears that the stock market has its feet in cement boots. Millions of Americans who have their retirement and savings invested in public companies, vis-a-vis their 401(K) plan, investment funds, and/or individual stock shares, bank CDs, etc., are subjected to non-voluntary sacrifice. Business owners, those who have achieved large earnings, and others who comprise what Obama and the rest of the liberal fascists call, with disdain, "the wealthy", are, and will, be sacrificed to the goal of a non-capiitalist America. Not socialist at this stage of the game, but not capitalist in the American economic sense.

And that 95% of Americans who now expect to have the Obama admistration " pay for their homes, their cars, and gasoline", may believe nirvana has come, but they will soon learn that what the nation becomes will be everything but that hopeful nirvana.

The Obama plan to make everyone equal will, in the end, create a third world class economy. After all, except for pride, why should anyone want to sacrifice their time and energy to become successful, and earn as much income as possible, if doing so only turns into capital used for redistribution of that wealth?

So what does the future hold if Obama and his cohorts successful? No longer will Obama be called president - it's more likely he'll be known as "Poppa Obama"! if the American people don't wake up, even though who profess their disdain for what has made this country as strong as it has been throughout its existence will live to regret their "success". (N.B.: as I write this, Obama's dissaproval rating has reached 40%, according to news reports).


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Coming Horror Show

March 05, 2009: Every day I'm becoming more and more worried, maybe scared, about the Obama administration and the left-wing liberal facist supporters of what is becoming the Obama regime. When you have to deal with people who refuse to listen to any viewpoint other than their own, who run and hide when their beliefs are questioned, who take statements out of context and use them as truth, well, then the 50+ million people who did not vote the Democrat ticket are facing geat problems - as will many of the original Obama supporters.

Rather than continue to rant about this growing problem, I advise you all to read James Delingpoe's new book, Welcome to Obamaland. You should find it a very worthwhile read.

There is one item which deserves my attention. H.R. 45, the Blair Holt's Firearm Act of 2009 Licensing and Record of Sale, was introduced by Illinois Democratic Representative Rush as bill that would "provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchase of certain firearms (...any handgun and any semi-auto firearm that can accept a detachable feeding device) and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

As I, and other writers have stated many times, a government which does not trust its citizenry is a government its citizenry cannot trust. Firearm owners have often called for a national right to carry license, so that everytime you travel from state to state you don't have to be concerned about violating some local firearm carry law. But this bill would set up a system in which the government would control just about every fiream you own, excepting antiques, and who knows about that at this time, and would have a registry of every gun owner in the country.

If you remember Great Britain during WWII, or know you recent history, you will understand how bad government's control over the ownership of firearms can be. Gun ownership in the U.K. was just about nil, and when the country was under threat of invasion from Germany, the British government had to begin purchasing fireams from the U.S.A.

Combining the proposed legislation with the current Obama attitude toward this country's defensive strength, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see that we could replicate the U.K.s WWII predicament sometime in the not to far distant future, as well as seeing that any defense our citizens may have against an overbearing federal government would have to be one of sub-rosa tactics.

Now's a good a time as any to contact your Senators and Congressmen advising then to vote against the propsed legislation. The 2010 elections may be too far in the future if laws such as Blair Holts's Firearm Licensing bill becomes law.


Joe Chernicoff said...

A Letter to Glenn Beck

April 5, 2009: I haven't written a blog over the last few weeks, because everytime I turn around, something new is happening, so I decided to just sit back and wait for the right opportunity.

Today I wrote the following to Glenn Beck. If you haven't watched his news and opinion program or listened to it on radiuo, you should. He's both provocative and entertaining. Formally on CNN, he's now with Fox News (the cable version) and the one hour program is, as I said, pretty interesting (well, mostly).

Anyhow, to make a lomg story short, here's a copy of the e-mail I sent him this morning:


As one of your (pretty) faithful audience television members, I've reached the point, where, as you are wont to say, "blood will come gushing out of my eyes". The reason for that? It is your frustrating practice of coitus interruptis when it comes to answering the question "...are you calling Obama a fascist...". You dance around the answer like you are afraid that you'll be attacked by his Acorn and/or Service to America cohorts [if you are, well just do the good old Western thing and 'blow those varmints away'].

Look, I know you are a young guy, and haven't lived through too many administrations, but as one who grew up through the 'Great Depression', and whose family listened to shortwave broadcasts by Hitler Mussolini, and their ilk, I have to be trite and state that 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it sure as shootin' is a duck', or as Gertrude Stein wrote, '...a rose is a rose, is a rose...".

You talk about administrations from Wilson on who have been leading us to fascism. But all governments would love to be fascist - it's the power, my friend, and all politicians and leaders want - are beguiled by -power, whether a government or private industry. It's just that Obama has taken it a step further, and is doing everything in his power to make this country a fascist state - maybe a 'severely benign' one, but, in the end, The United States of America will become a facist country, at best a Mussolini fascism, and at worst, a Chavez facism.

Go back and read Obama's "Dreams for my Father, Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism (although it seems to me that these days, Goldberg also speaks softer than he writes], Thomas Sowell's great recent opinion piece 'Rookie president fumbles foreign affairs'., Dick Morris's 'Fleeced', David Freddoso's 'The Case Against Barack Obamas', James Delingpole's 'Welcome to Obamaland', and the other knowledgeable and intelligent books available today.

Obama's long-time desire to be hold the office of President is evident, but his thinking was, and apparently still is, like that of the kid who says 'if I were president, I'd make sure the world would be peaceful and friendly, everyone would be happy and well cared for, etc., etc., etc.'. The reality of the responsibility of that office to the American people and to our nation as a constitutional entity has apparently not yet sunk into Obama's "brilliant" mind (and I use the word "brilliant" as a pejorative - he may be a smart street politician (in my younger days I was a street politician (twice elected as a ward committeeman) in the Democratic party in Philadelphia, but I came to my senses about 40 years ago) - so I can appreciate his street creds - but those credentials do not obliviate the fact that the guy is a great snake oil salesman - the results of the recent election bear that out. Unfortunately, history is a subject that is just about no longer taught in our public schools (it's called Social Studies - boy, what a dangerous term), so the youth of our country have no idea of what's going on - no way to establish a true perspective.

So do me, and everyone a favor - be honest...the next time you are asked if you think that that Obama is a fascist, say yes. If you cannot do that, then get off the subject.


Joe Chernicoff


Joe Chernicoff said...

A Nation of Lemmings?

April 13, 2009: I've oft times believed that most of this nation's populace was unable to think for itself, and now I have learned that Obama and his campaign people knew that to be the case.

Read the April 13, 2009 issue of 'Time', specifically the story "How Obama is Using the Science of Change". Then, if you have not yet seen the 1927 silent science fiction film directed by Fritz Lang, now is the time to do so.

I have to hand it to Obama's people - they certainly did a better job in learning to understand the American people than did the Republicans, if the Republicans even made an attempt to do so during the campaign and maybe even now.

Which all goes to prove that people haven't changed much over thast few millenia. The masses really do not like to think for themselves - too much work, and too much fear of not being accepted. Which brings us back to our president. Obama has been very transparent in showing that he has this great need for love, for affection. And one thing not wanted in a leader, a boss, a teacher, or anyone in that position, is someone whose actions are guided by the need for love. And if you do not understand that comment, then you should sit down and think about it for a while...


Joe Chernicoff said...

Nil Illegitmi Carborundum

April 14, 2009: Rush Limbaugh recently said something like 'conservatives think and act with their minds, liberals with their hearts and emotions, and so liberals always win'. The antidote to that child-like response to intellectual questions and discussions (since there really isn't any) is Nil Illegitmi Carborundum - Don't let the Bastards Wear You Down.

But whether or not you approve of Limbaugh, especially since the recent dust-up about "Obama should fail...", there is an important message here.

Without a doubt, the inmates are actually running the institution. The institution is the world, and the inmates are all of those people who are self-destructive, and want to see everyone else destroyed.

The United States of America should be on a course re-establishing itself as the world power. We cannot continue on the path, as described by China a number of years ago, of becoming a "paper tiger". Ever since this country's founding, we have been the world's leader. Our political philosophy, the desire and entrepreneurship of our people, our military strength, our interest and desire to do what is right, both socially and politically worldwide, is our hallmark.

Despite some governmental screwups when the Iraq war began, our military has achieved great success in aiding the Iraqis to achieve a free and workable government. Now that our government's attention is directed towards Afghanistan, lt's hope that its (government) actions do not creat a Viet Nam situation there. But, as we have seen in the last couple of days, at least, the United States of America is not as feared militarily as it once was. Iran and North Korea do not appear to be put off by our might, and the Somalia pirates struck again today - four more ships taken by pirates. The necessary and successful killing of three pirates, and the capture of one, yesterday, has not, so far, had impact on those pirates sailing the seas near Somalia. Perhaps all of the above is because our current government is presenting more of a 'flower-power' face than a mighty military one.

We do not need to be loved; our greatest power exists (existed) when we were respected,and, yes, feared. We have once again to become a country that is strong militarily - in actual physical content and in the minds of our people. We cannot be a "politically correct" nation, all things to all people, We have to symbolize the historical strength of the United States of America. Our allies need to be strong and unequivical, as we must be.

The United States is not a community organization. It is extremely important to the rest of the world that this country is looked upon as a strong and connected country, one in which each individual has the ability and strength to depend upon him or herself and who value the ability to help their neighbor.

We must return to the times of educating our children in the American ideal - the ideal in which this nation was founded and the one in which millions of immigants believed. This country was not perfect in its past, is not perfect today, and more than likely will not be perfect in the future.

But one thing we are is predictable - predictable in that we will stand up for what is right, encourage other countries to become successful, to reach those classical liberal ideals of political, economic, and personal liberties, so that every person can be proud of who they are, and proud of the successes they achieve, and their ability to respond to failures which may beset them, without having to become chattel of government.

Whether or not the Obama administration, or many of the European country administrations, have the ability to rise to that goal, if we are to remain a free nation, a nation strong in the face of physical and ideological threats from nations and groups seeking to destroy us, then we must return to our original strengths.

Everyone want success, the problem is how do you define what success is. When Limbaugh said he hopes that Obama fails, he spoke of the failure of an idea of a system which would weaken and destroy the greatest nation ever developed on this planet. We all want the United States of America to succeed, fifty million or more of us want changes to this country, which we believe will destroy the basics of this country as it has been since its founding, to fail.

Nil Illegitmi Carborundum - we have to keep the bastards from grinding us down into the dust of a country, and a world, which would waste the last 230 years of our existence.


Joe Chernicoff said...

A Couple of Quick Observations

April 16, 2009: Over the past couple of days, my wife and I received notice from the Social Security Administration that in late May of this year, each of us will receive a payment of $250.00, as a result of Obama's recent rcovery bill. Now we didn't ask for the money, can't return it, and according to the form letter, it has to be spent within nine months (though how the government will ever know is beyond my ken). Anyhow, this is a bit scary - the Social Security funeral benefit is $255 - is there a hidden message here?

I watched a few of the Fox News broadcasts yesterday - the ones with the Tea Party broadcasts - and was a bit annoyed by what I observed, or didn't see. Unless I am wrong, in scanning the crowd, which was done a number of times, although census figures from 2007 show that 30% of the population of Atlanta, where the Sean Hannity broadcast was from, is black, the entire crowd at that gathering appeared to be composed of only white people. Now either the cameras did not scan the entire gathering or I missed something [and if I did, let me know], but if that was truly the case, does that signify that a significant portion of the Atlanta community favors bigger government, higher taxes, and the redistribution of wealth, which were part of the attendees' complaints, or just plain indifference?


Joe Chernicoff said...

A Message from our Founding Fathers

April 22, 2009: Nothing is new under the sun, and President Obama's recent activities has demonstrated taht not knowing our history is a dangerous thing.

The following quote excerpts are taken from Richard Brookhiser's excellent biography 'Alexander Hamilton - American'. Hamilton found Thomas Jefferson's attachment to France disturbing: "Hamilton on more than one occasion used sexual imagery to condemn his opponents...he deplored Jefferson's "womanish attachment to France", and "womanish resentment against Great Britain...he wrote that , while, a "virtuous Citizen ...will regard his own country as a wife", there were Americans who "have a passion for a foreign mistress; as violent as it is irregular; and who, in the paroxisms of their love" are "too ready to sacrifice the real welfare of the to their partiality for the object of their tenderness." [page 187].

In addition, Brookhiser relates, passion itself was a problem: "A passion that all the founders looked on with mistrust was ambition. They distrusted it even though they all, by definition, felt it...Yet they believed that any one among them, if he loved his own glory too much, could bring the republic down"[italics supplied].

The insight, the astuteness, that those men had, continues to amaze. If they were alive today, Obama would be snowed under by a deluge of "invitations to a duel". Look, Obama is supposed to be a constitutional lawyer, but he probably never studied American history, or, if he did, he's chosen to ignore the subject. Obama is claimed to be brilliant, and he brilliantly understands that the average person in this country has no knowledge of our history. Thanks to our public school education, secondary school students, for the most part, have been turned off by the subject.

It's time our younger generations, you know, those still in school up to those of our citizenry who are in, or approaching, middle age, who must begin reading the available histories, biographies, and related American history texts available. Of course, too many people can't concentrate on reading anything over 144 characters in length (or is it 114?). So much to this nation's chagrin, history will remain what's listed in their browser records, and this great nation will be subject to the whims and follies of our so-called leaders.


Joe Chernicoff said...


June 9, 2009: It is as clear as 1+2=3. Obama, in his inauguration speech, stated that he was going to make a new America. Hillary Clinton said that she's an early 1900s progressive. Obama professes to admire Roosevelt progressivism. The progressives of those days were admirers of Musslini and Hitler and Stalin. Mussolini was a fascist, Hitler was a socialist, Stalin a Marxist (communist).

Regardless of how they were all labled, they were all the same. Apparently (most) Democrats now in power are desirous of returning to their progressive roots. One of their main agendas to is return to the days of banning firearms. So now we not only have a party in power which is rapidly steering this country into early 20th century progressivism, but is acknowledging that it also fears its citizenry. Governments which fear its citizens - which wants to ban firearms - is a government its citizens should fear.

Look wahat happened in the 1930s - the groundwork for WWII, the growth of the Nazi (National Socialism) party with its formulated horror, Stalinism, which was equally bad, and the fascism of Mussolini, which, although not considered as bad as the others, was still, in the final outcome, a Nazi partner.

Is this what our federal legislators want for the United States of America? The actions being taken now by Obama and the Democrat majority could very possibly lead this country into a political state which none of us who know better would want.

The current plan for the automotive union to own Chrysler is a "third way" approach to economics - wherein workers own and run the business - a collective or cooperative. This is also part of the increased centralization of government.

Yellow Dog Democrats, young people, and Blacks all voted for Obama - apparently they were either fools, ignorant of issues, or both. The elections of 2010 and 2012 will be peaceful ways to return this country back on its true course. Hopefully, that will be the approach used.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Are We Still Here?

July 5, 2009: Yesterday we celebrated our 233rd birthday, and I wonder just how long the United States of America will continue as the country originally founded. From major issues such as the administration's desire to be in charge of everything, to some calls for changing the inscription on the Statute of Liberty to one more in tune with the times, there appears to be no question that this country is undergoing some might dramatic changes.

Now everyone understands that, like it or not, changes do take place. Changes in technology, fo good or bad, develop like kudzu in the South. And like kudzu, once that's in place, changes now made or planned will sweep forward quicker than they can be stopped. Once political and economic changes have been made, we're going to be stuck with them for quite a while - for enough time that the younger generations (including those persons born now and in the future) will accept them until they, too, feel that their life could be better, and a new revolution takes place.

Unfortunately, it appears that, while we're finding more people - especially Democrats, are unhappy with our economic and political conditions, the only action being taken is verbal, when what is needed is physical movement.

Again, I ask, where, oh where, is today's George Washington - a true and honest leader in whom we can all believe and follow? Do we have to wait until the guacomole hits the fan, or what? Maybe I have been spoiled by having lived so long in a society that has been the envy of the world, regardless of whatever warts it may have. I know that the growing number of our citizens who have not truly experienced the greatness of this country cannot appreciate what is being lost, buit perhaps if they would listen to those of us who have actually experienced life in the United States, they might begin to gain an appreciation of what it is the current administration, including our legislature, will cause them to miss.


Joe Chernicoff said...

It's Time

July 22, 2009: A few days ago, when Obama addressed the NAACP, he stated that rather than have tubes stuck in them, our older citizens should go off to a hospice...", where, of course, people go to die. Sounds like an SF story I read a number of years ago, as well as something Professor Peter Singer would recommend. Singer, who advocates aborting children up to two years of age, since they supposedly do not have the ability to reason, is a mentor of the new soon to be Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, who. like Singer, believes in the PETA position that animals are more important than people, and should have the right to sue their owners in a court of law.

Okay..., the Obama administration now wants to take control over student loans, and, based upon a new law, will forgive for a period of ten years student loans, with the caveat that those students must chose community service work for the government. Great! Along with control over the banking industry, the automotive industry, and some form of future control over health care and who knows what else, there's no question that we will all be characters in the Nazi filmmaker Fritz Lang's movie "Metropolis".

My friends, it is without question that it is now time for revolution - using all "reasonable force necessary". Our very existence is in jeopardy. Obama promised a new government, his followers cheered, and now we are seeing their results. No wonder he wants all his programs rushed through Congress! Because once those American citizens who support this guy who is bent on the destruction of this country which has stood strong for 233 years take off their blinders, all hell will break loose.

A revolution in defense of out country, its laws, its constitution, its persona, is an exercise in morality and righteousness. We cannot wait until all of Obama's dreams are cemented into place. Now, when the mortar is still damp, we the people must rise up against this destructive force. This is not a movie, folks - it is real life, and for the sake of this country's future, we the people must halt Obama's ongoing destruction.


Joe Chernicoff said...

1933 Redux

August 8,2009: The other night, at a town hall meeting, a black man giving out material contrary to what the Obama administration wants, was attacked and beaten by four SEIU union thugs. At the same time, according to eyewitness reports, SEIU members were provided easy access to the meeting, while other persons were denied access. This was all a part of the increaseing control Obama and his cohorts are taking over our freedom of expression and freedom to protest against Obama's policies.

Scary stuff - Obama's "black shirt" union supporters, his desire for an American youth corp, all smell of 1933 Germany in which we saw the beginning of the Nazi strength under Adolph Hitler.

Either too many Americans do not remember what happened as a result of Hitler's activities, or do not want to. No matter what form oppression takes, this incipient Nazi fascist conduct, allowed and promoted by this administration, should be a clarion warning to every citizen of this country who values his or her freedom. If we, as citizens of this great country, do not stop this, then it's 1933 redux - deja vu all over again....


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Real Liberals

August 18,2009: I consider myself a pretty reasonable person - which I have to be in my work proving expert consulting services to trial attorneys. That means I have to be willing to listen to and examine all sides of the argument(s) which arise in both civil and criminal matters. I know that if I am predjudiced to my client's case, there's no question that I will miss some important information which could hurt the client.

So these days, when I speak with some of my liberal family members or friends, I am pretty much annoyed at the insular attitude those people have re: the Obama administration's programs, policies, and Obama himself. From statements such as "..don't tell me, don't ask me, I don't want to hear" to "...Oh, Obama's wonderful...", I realize that what's happening is an example of a bad case of political Stockholm Syndrome.

Harry Stein's great book "I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican" is one which should be read by all Americans - progressive liberals may have a tough time with it, but they've always been afraid of opinions other than their own.

The real liberals of today are those people who believe in our constitution - who believe in personal, economic, and political liberties, who believe in the rights of man in the search for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, who believe that man does not require government to show him the way, but whose job it is to secure our borders and maintain peace and tranquility at home which allows us the free exercise of that pursuit. As a classical liberal constitutionalist, I am totally disturbed by the "new liberal" (progressive) usurption of that label, which, I reckon, makes a neocon.

The only true liberals are conservatives...


Joe Chernicoff said...

It's Here Now

August 27,2009: I've written over the past couple of years about the strong possibility of an Obama dictatorship; well, it appears that such an event is in its final preparatory days, because:

if you want to have your medical choices dictated by the government
if you want your life style dictated by the government
if you want your speech dicated by the government
if you want your earnings dictated by the government
if you want an African/Latin American/East European style government then you will be happy with the new American dictatorship lying just around the corner under the current administration.
Look, Obama is a smart political cookie, in the style of Chicago and other hustling politicians. Remember that he stated in his election campaign that as a president, he would not be a CEO, but would delegate responsibility to others, which in effect would CYA him from taking direct responsibility for our citizenry's anger at administration policies. Since Obama has no ability, or interest, in apologizing for any of his mistakes or errors, this contention is fact.

In addition, the administration's ignoring of and/or demeaning citizen complaints against policies is a typical tool used by those who believe they are above the law and society, which works in dictatorships.

Obama's appointment of 30+ "czars" denegrates our Constitution as well as our legislative bodies, since those so-called czars, who run everything from what you can say to the automotive business to health care, ad on infinitum, were "secret" appointees, not confirmed by the Senate nor Congress, nor by the people, and have received unconstitutional powers - all of which is symbolic of dictators in the style all past and present dicatators.

Another fact I wrote about not too long ago was that a country can be taken over by just a handful of people, and I described some SWAT training programs I ran over twenty years ago wherein a couple of of terrorists took over a university; we have seen in a number of world-wide scenarios where terrorists have taken over ships, countries, et. al. with a relatively small amount of people.

So now is the time to stop what's going on. We are seeing the anger of our people rise up against health care and economic policies, and now we must all organize to stop this deadly attack against the United States of America. If you want to keep this country the symbol of greatness it is to the rest of the world (whether they love us or hate us), leave your comment.


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Ascension of Earwigs and Other Notes

September 7,2009: From where I stand, it appears that there is a great deal of similarity between a growing number of people and our insect world.

In particular, let's look at an insect found to be quite active here in Southern Nevada - the Earwig. The Earwig seems to enjoy people's homes, and can be found strolling around the floor, or maybe running somewhere, perhaps to an appointment with some lesser insect. Adult Earwigs, baby Earwigs, it makes no difference, they all seem to be pretty busy. There is one characteristic the insect has, however, which I find not only intereting, but relevant to some human adult behavior.

When the Earwig senses something isn't right, or senses a present danger, most of the time it stops and remains motionless, making it easy to pick it off the floor or the wall. Which is a strange defensive mechanism, kind of a built in "surrender" mode. I reckon that standing still would work okay out doors, where the Earwig's black body color would provide some camouflage.

Recently, a number of people with whom I have conversed, have said they are tired of hearing about our economy, health care bills, et. al, and they just don't want to talk about them anymore. Now these folks are not liberals, but tend towards the conservative side of things. So when they begin to sound like the liberals I know who refuse to listen to any facts surrounding Obama and his administration, I have begun calling those people "Earwigs", since, they stop, stand still, hope nobody sees nor finds them, and try to ignore what is going on around them.

And that could be part of the Obama plan. When citizens lose the interest/dedication/gumption to keep after those who could be of great harm to not only them but everyone, they will be picked up and tossed away, just like their insect counterparts. And that would be a disgrace.

The Van Jones Affair

Obama's "Green Czar" has now resigned his position with the Obama administration. It sure took him a while to do that, but after all, Barack "I'm Not A CEO" Obama (he stated in an early primary debate) certainly proved he isn't. Apparently, the job of president is another task "above his pay grade". Jones should have been fired immeditley following his stupid and racial comments; in fact, Obama should never had brought him on board as an advisor, or whatever he was. The fact that he did bring him on can only lead one to believe that Jones' past and his beliefs were of no concern to the President. And the fact that Obama did not fire the man can only lead to the belief that he didn't do so out of fear of his base and that our President doesn't have the guts to do what has to be done.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Impeach Obama!

September 24,2009: Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama must be impeached from the office of President of the United States. Why? Because the final straw in his ongoing effort to apologize for this country came in his speech to the United Nations. Obama's Mea Culpa on behalf of the United States of America - something he has done too many times - is an act against this country, one which he swore an allegiance to defend as President.

Obama has a habit of denigrating this country - and in doing so holds its citizens, its military, and its basic political structure up for censure by the country's enemies.

This has been a recurring theme of Obama's addresses to foreign nations, one which we cannot allow to continue. Obama cannot be allowed to continue to grovel at the feet of our enemies. In doing so he chases away our friends and encourages the world to perceive the U.S.A. as a weak and floundering nation. By allowing Obama to get away with this anti- American action, Congress is abetting the destruction of our power and the loss of world respect for our leadership ability, as well as the contributions we have made to the world's nations.

If the Democratic controlled Congress cannot accept its responsibility to remove this apparent enemy of the United States, they have to be considered as co-conspirators in what appears to be an organized effort to destroy this nation. Prof. David Horowitz recently called Obama the Manchurian Candidate - In my blog of September 7, 2008, titled "The Manchurian Candidiate?", I expressed my opinions why this was likely.

Lastly, in the way Obama is using the Presidency, he is showing utter disregard for that most important, and possibly, sacred, office. And that situation must cease, and cease now!


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Taliban and Flu Shots

October 19,2009: I have a couple of short comments to make at this time. When I hear commentators, or read columnists, rant about getting out of Afghanistan, since, as one such person put it today, "the Taliban is not our problem", I am firmly convinced that these people are either stupid or just don't give a damn - probably both.

The Taliban IS our prolem - because once they are given the opportunity to regain control in Afghanistan, poppy cultivation will once again become the major money crop, allowing for the production of heroin, et. al, thus enabling the continuing funding of Al Queda. And anyone who states that is not a problem, is either stupid, doesn't give a damn, or sympathizes with the terroists.

As far as flu shots are concerned, there is a better, safer way to prevent flu infection. Vitamin D in the form of D3, is the best thing anyone can take. Did you ever ask yourself how come the flu season is during the colder time of the year? When there is less sunshine? That is because most people have a Vitamin D deficiency, and when the Ultra Violet B is not available for absorption into the body through the skin, then we become more susceptible to disease. Older people also have a more difficult time absorbing/converting sunshine into cholecalciforal - the naturally occurring form of vitamin D. So make sure that the next time your doctor ordrs a blood test, the test includes checking on the amount of Vitamin D is in your system. Depending upon your age, you want reading up to 50 ng/ml.

Not to be cynical, but a major reason the CD advises people to take flu shots may be a tie in with the vaccine manufacturers. Do your research - there's plenty of research information online on this subject.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Why the Obama Administration Does What it Does

November 16,2009: I have yet to hear a good explanation concerning the causation issues surrounding Obama's apparent weakness in foreign policy, particularly in his continued obeisance to foreign royalty. Other than an obsession with that position - one which in his heart he yearns - it is apparent that Obama believes that it is more important to be liked/loved than to be strong. Sort of like the "bully in the schoolyard" response - make nice with everyone and everyone will be nice to you.

Unfortunately, as wrong-headed as this concept is, too many of Obama's generation, along with many younger folk, believe in not showing real strength; that it is easier and better to avoid conflict as opposed to showing real strength of mind, body, and action. The softness of those generations is brought to the forefront of today's real- world scenarios on a daily basis.

Too many of our leaders subscribe to "let's not be straight-forward with those who oppose us, but let us sugar-coat the problems arising from their actions. This form of action is what gave rise to political correctness, which has become so bad that we cannot tell the truth about anyone lest we be labeled racist, etc. With that kind of demonization, perhaps we should procalim "I'm a racist, and proud of it".

I have to laugh everytime I hear conservative commentators, when speaking about Muslim terrorism, state that Islam is not an evil religion. Now I understand that even the most vocifeous of those people have some worry about going too far and worry about the reprecussions which would follow if their comments were not clothed in some portective garment. Hey, Lou Dobbs, who correctly opinionated against illegal immigrants, was the target of a shooter at his home.

What good does it do to not be honest? An example: if Islam is such a "kind" religion, and only the most extreme radical groups create terroristic activities, how come there is not an ongoing condemnation of such terror? Is it because Muslims are too afraid to say anything which would be considerd anti-Islam? Or is it because Islamic jihad and hate speech is really part of their beliefs? And why do federal and local governments cave in to Islamic demands for a separate Islam commumity when requested (i.e.; Sharia law, schools promoting terroristic jihad/beliefs, and so forth)? Why does the government and its fauning media fear stating that the terrist major Nidal is a Islamic terrorist? Why dosen't not our government crack down on all connections with this ant-western/American teaching? Does this administration really believe that being nice is fair to the American people? Or is the government actually anti-American; is the administrtaion's leader really a Manchurian Candidate?

Conspiracy theories aside, birther questions aside (yes, Obama is a U.S. citizen, born of an American mother meeting residencey requirements even though the birth was in Kenya, based upon the Kenyan birth certificate), the actions of this president speaks for itself. Obama's clearly stated intent to change the country is the one campaign promise he is keeping. Unfortunately, his followers never asked what kind of changes were in store for us, and even today, blindly follow their cult leader. To paraphrase Geoge Wilson, the former head of GM, "what's good for Obama is not good for the U.S.A.)


Joe Chernicoff said...

Healthcare Noir

November 25,2009: Well, Harry Reid's boys have okayed the debate on the current healthcare bill, all 2000 plus pages or so. And to listen the the Senator, one would believe that it has already been finalized and is ready for the President's signature. The only problem is that when a Senate bill is completed, it will most likely bear no resemblance to what was approved for debate.

Since there is so much wrong with the measure, let's look at just a couple of horror scenarios.

Government approved payment for abortion will probably be included, although supposedly it will not be in the final version. The problem with government paying for abortion is manifold; in the early years of the twentieth century Margaret Sanger, a leading exponent of the false science of Eugenics, was a leader in promoting women's right to abortion. Now, this is not a religious issue when the government steps in to pay for the procedure under a health care bill. Why? Because the original intent of the Eugenicists was social and racial engineering. The idea was to totally reduce the number of poor - mostly Southerners, and negros, mostly Southerners, all in the quest for promtoting a strong Nordic population.

Sound familiar? Well, it should. The Eugenics idea was adopted by the Nazis in Germany under Adolf Hitler, and was a leading factor in the extermination of Jews, Gypsys, homosexuals, the handicapped, blacks, and other groups deemed non-Aryan, as well as the concept to develop (breed) the so-called pure Aryan race.

Now, let's assume that a government sponsored health care bill is passed, and contains a section in which payments for abortion are included. Once payments begin to be made for the procedure, what is going to stop the federal government from deciding who shall be born and who shall not? Medicare, and particularly Medicare Advantage, is an excellent program, and is in high favor amongst our senior citizens. Under a new health care bill, this program will more than likely be denied, and along with the news about changes in when women can havemammograms, paid for by insurance, the government would hope to save billions of dollars to help finance government run health care.

Of course, since those two programs will be greatly reduced, there may very likely be a reduction in the population numbers of the elderly and middle-aged women. The Jewish holy days of Rosh Hashana (New Year) is when the names of those who shall live or die are inscribed in the Book of Life. Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which follows Rosh Hashana, is the day when God seals the Book of Life for another year. Apprently, the false messiahs of Obama, Reid and Polsi are playing the god game, because if the health care bill is passed in the fom they wish, we may all be doomed doomed in that healthcare noir.

Navy SEALs, who were hailed as heroes for capturing one of Iraq's most wanted alleged terrorists, are now being court martialed for punching him. Another piece of evidentiary material re: this administration's pro-Islam tendancies. I reckon that now it will be open season on convoy security people, and others, to be mutilated and killed like those in Fallujah. Our situation is now past disgusting - it is now in the "red zone".

Joe Chernicoff said...

The Importance of Being Intuitive

November 25,2009: Intuitive: Spontaneously derived from or prompted by a natural tendency; Obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation. Intuition: Instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes),an impression that something might be the

It was two years ago this month that I began writing this series of blogs, a project brought on by the intuitive understanding that Barack Hussein Obama would be running for the office of President, and that, if elected, he would not be good for the country.

Now, I don't consider my self a political sage - I've only had a few active years in politics, elected to a garss-roots office as a Democrat more than 50 years ago - but I, like many people, have a strong intuitive sense about a number of things. I didn't realize the importance of that natural ability until several years into my work as a security litigation consultant working for both defense and plaintiff attorneys. I was provided a copy of a letter of request to an insurance company to bring me into a case the defense attorney was handling; the letter of recommendation stated that I had a strong intuitive sense.

We all have had, at one time or another, a sense of what was going to happen based upon our perception of the scene. This could have occurred while travelling, gambling, accepting employment, agreeing to ridiculous mortgage terms, and so forth. The stronger our intution advised each of us, the more experience we probably had. And that perceived "feeling" was not a conscious one, but colored our expectations nevertheless.

Over time, our experience and knowledge helps us to formulate opinions intuitively. The more involved we become in certain areas, the greater our intuitive skills can be honed. So, as in my specialty, one can have a pretty good idea of what may have occurred, and why, without having studied the facts. That has been an important ability for me as a security consultant and a private detective, and is a capability law enforcement investigtors have.

So what does all of this have to do with these Gospel of the New Truth Blogs? The answer is everything, because when you put together years of experience working with people, understanding what has happened in the past, and being able to compare current situations with previous scenarios in which specific individuals and/or organizations have made decisions affecting other individuals, groups, or societies as a whole, offering opinions about similar situations becomes a viable and important task.

We should all pay attention to our intuition. Rather than, for instance, voting or agreeing with a candidate or public official just because we are a member of his or her political party is, without question, wrong. Wrong to act as a "yellow dog" Democrat or Republican (...would vote for a yellow dog is it were a Democrat/Republican). Of course, in doing that, there is no need for the individual to pay attention to what the candidate says or does, to analyze what was said or done, to understand or try to understand the cause and effect results of a candidate's ideas, and therefore be or remain a lazy, disinterested voter. The current administration is a good example of the last statement.

Too often, blog writers, commentators, editorialists, tv and radio commentators all preach to the choir. Once everyone becomes in charge of their own thought process, this country will, more than likely, be better off.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Warning - Do Not Exhale!

December 8,2009: It turns out that after millions of years, C02 is bad for this planet, according to the EPA, which now plans to enforce "greenhouse emission" rules. So now it's my turn to be facetious(?)

I have two suggestions: 1) learn to hold your breath so that you exhale one-half as often, and 2) plant billions of trees, which, as we all should know, use the process of photosynthesis to clean the carbon from the CO2 and release oxygen back into the atmosphere.



Joe Chernicoff said...

Cap and Trade - Less Food, Higher Costs

December 11, 2009: I don't know how many of you remember when United States agriculture made us the "bread basket of the world". The family farm was able to produce enough food for themselves, and huge numbers of other families.

Well, for the past 50-60 years, the family farm has been disappearing. The image of large canning companies buying out the samll producer, notably Eastern poultry producers, still remins in my sometimes faltering recall system. Today, more than ever, small farmers have to love what they're doing, because they sure as heck ain't going to get rich in agribusiness.

Well, now we have to worry about another hit it looks like agriculture is going to take. Cap & Trade will definitley raise the cost of production for all agriclutural entities, and that includes beef production, for all you meat lovers out there. Farmming is a energy-intense business, and Cap & Trade is just going to make life miserable for the nation's farmers. Which means, that to stay alive and in business, consumers will find their regular food shopping costs going up, up, and up.

For all of you who think food is produced in grocery stores, this make come as a big shock. Don't be surprised when you look at the food package labels and find everything marked as a product of Mexico, Chile, Jordan, or whatever country we will be forced to buy what we should be growing here.

You should take the time to read what Congressman Frank Lucas (OK 3rd District), the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee has to say about this ( - [also check the latest story at on this topic]. But what the heck, we'll be saving the environment, right??


Joe Chernicoff said...

The New Puppet Masters; Manufacturing

December 24, 2009: Every day it becomes more apparent that we now have a new invasion of puppet masters in this country. Robert Heinlein's great novella is coming to life. We're no longer going to have to get "the monkey off our backs" - it's the puppet master slugs vividly described by Heinlein and the Puppet Master movie from the end of the '70s. Except in this case the slugs are BHO and his gang of Democrat senators and Democrat congressmen.

Although Obama was supposedly a constitutional professor, he sure doesn't have great belief in that most wonderful of documents, nor do the leaders and apparently slug controlled members of the United States Senate. The current version of the health care bill promulgated by the Senate, now heading to the House for review and acceptance, is just of the many steps taken by this government to control the population. No thanks to the fact that the know-nothing youth of this country, attracted by the "rock star" quality of Obama, those voters who have no sense of history nor reality, and who are now unhappy with their leader, and who will probably stay away from voting in the 2010 and 2012 elections, played a large role in the current downslide of this country.

Look, a week or so ago Fidel Castro, that great humanitarian and lover of the free market system, stated that he admired Obama! Some recommendation!. And one may ask how come our senators and congressional leaders like Pelosi and Reid really want this new health care legislation knowing that many of their Democrat legislative followers will be in real trouble come the 2010 elections. In my opinion, they don't give a fiddlers string about the "people". Their interest is power, and by creating these new bills - unconstitutional in many parts at best - they will be able to be the slugs on the peoples' backs - the puppet masters who will be able to remain in power as long as they wish. I reckon Obama, Reid, and Polsi have a rewrite on the old Admiral Farragut cry - shouting "Damn the people - full speed ahead". No wonder Castro is a fan of Obama.

So we have to get these slugs off our backs - one way or another. The cognitive dissonance suffered by Democrat Senators and Representatives, as well as their loyal voters - you know, the yellow dog Democrats (would vote for a yellow dog if it were a Democrat - and it now appears that many Democrats in their acquiessance of Reid and Obama leadership re: the health bill, may actually be real "yellow dogs").

I just hope that the next eleven months won't be too long of a wait before we regain control of our country and constitution.


Joe Chernicoff said...

We need Manufacturing

One of the television programs I regularly review is Amy Goodman's 'Democracy Now' on Free Speech TV. The program is interesting because it provides a good insight into much of the left-wing liberal thinking. The othr day, I happened to catch a few minutes of Senator Bernie Sanders (I), Vermont, who I guess is an unabashed socialist. Anyhow, the Senator made a good point when he stated that what we need is a way to once again develop manufacturing in this country. Although he believes that the government should play a role in achieving that goal, the main concept is correct, Along with probably many others in America, I have always advocated that we need to return to the days when the country had a very strong manufacturing base, not only in producing hard goods, but in the production of all goods people needed and/or desired. Unfortunately, regaining our old manufacturing sector may be a task too difficult.

To be able to have local manufacturing of everything we need - clothing, appliances,automobiles, etc., we would have to compete with too many countries - not on quality, but on cost. One of the big factors in closing down manufacturing in the States was the high cost of labor, notably union contracts. Once manufacturers began moving out of the heavy union organization states, finaly going off-shore, a door was opened which may never be able to be shut.

Where we used to make a suit or dress, for instance, in one factory, now everything from piece goods (fabrics) to cutting, sewing and trimming, and selling, go through numerous locations - maybe each one in a different country, until everyhting ends up here. When countries such as China can manufacture a decent men's or ladies coat for cold weather use, and that garment is sold for as low as $7 at Walmart, then how is it ever going to possible to have that garment made here, and still enablle the manufacturer to pay what is considered a fair/decent wage? Add in the possibility of a new health care, and the costs to business that will entail, any chance to regain overall manufacturing strength is just about destroyed.

Manufacturing would, of course, help increase real employment opportunities, and contribute to strong growth in GDP. And that can only be done through private enterprise. To have the government finance and control - which happens when government finances business - would lead to either shoddy goods or an unsustainable tax burden upon each of our citizens.

Sadly, the USA is now, and has been for too many years, a service economy, which really puts in a bind. The federal government can do a great deal to help us regain a manufacturing economy - beginning with cutting taxes on all businesses and creating an environment promoting capitalism, free trade, and, most of all, a belief in all our people that we once again have the freedom to develop our own future.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Kevin's Got it Right

December 30, 2009: If you haven't had the opportunity to read Maureen Dowd's column of the 28th, then here is your chance to do so. If this column is unable to be shown here, then drop me a note at, and I'll e-mail you a copy of the article, or you can go over to to read same.

The column is written by her brother, and I can't think of anything to add to his comments. He writes facts with humor, so I believe you will enjoy the reading. If you happen to be one of those dysfunctional persons suffering from cognitive dissonance based on your political fundamentalism, lighten up for a little bit - you'll probably enjoy Kevin's writing.

2009 was quite an interesting year, particularly if you find chaos stimulating. I don't know what's going to be in 2010 - but I don't see the coming year any less interesting and dynamic than the past 365 days.

So, all I can say at this time is for all of you to have a healthy, exciting, enjoyable, and, above all, profitable 2010. and just remember what Roy Holmes said: 'You can't fight a horse and work cows at the same time'. Think about that... from the Book of Cowboy Wisdom, compiled and edited by Criswell Freeman



Joe Chernicoff said...

Obama Dithering's Bad Effects

January 5, 2010: I have written about why Obama shouldn't be our president since 2007, and every day, events bear out that contention. This week's announcement that the attempted completion of a terrorist attack aboard a commercial aircraft merits a criminal trial, rather than a military judgement, just adds to the list of weaknesses the Obama administration has shown re: defense of this country. If this had taken place during WWII, the terrorist would have answered importrant questions and would have been executed - quickly. But, I guess that since Obama claims we are not in a war, that kind of action was not even considered.

Anyhow, there's a very good book you all should read, regardless of your political or religious leanings/beliefs. You should find Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld's "In Praise of Doubt" in your local library, or buy it online from one of the discount book sellers.

The following two excerpts from this text are important - 1) the first example (pp: 122) describes the effects of Obama's dithering,
and the second (pp:143)is a good description of what results can be expected when one country tries to make the other a political image of itself:

As far as the second quote is concerned, in my opinion, our goal should be to make sure that the forces in countries which are determined to harm us are controlled, so that by maintaining our safety and integrity, a by-product of those actions would be that all other countries subject to the same kind of harm would also remain safe. Of course, this would probably entail actions which would be abhorred by leftist liberals, so under the current administration, I just do not see this being done.


Joe Chernicoff said...

I Don't Like Senator Reid, But...

January 11, 2010: And it's a big but. For Harry Reid to have to apologize for the comment he made about then Senator Obama being a candidate who could win the election, because he's a light-skinned black man and doesn't speak with as Negro dialect, was wrong. Saying your sorry is stupid, it only makes it appear that you are wrong when you make that apologetic statement, regardless of a person's position, Just goes to show you the weakness of most people who should know better, when they bow to pressures from groups which shouldn't be putting those pressures on.

After all, what did Reid say? There's no question that Obama is light-skinned, since he's a product of a white mother and black father. And there's no question he speaks well, whether or not he has Negro ancestry. But for those ravers and ranters saying that what Reid said was racist - that's going too far.

I don't think anyone out there, except fort some die-hard blacks and left-wing liberals, would have voted for Obama if he didn't speak intelligently and clearly. And when blacks start saying there isn't a black dialect, then I reckon it's time to call Bill Cosby to the fore. What happened, did everyone forget about the so-called "ebonics" that was promoted several decades ago, using black speech and chracteristics to make it easier for black school students. and why did we hear Obama, when speaking in front of black organizations, go into a black speech pattern?

So guys like Steve Smith, a great sports guy, and the Civil Rights Guy Michael Meyer (on tonight's Hannity program), rant against Reid, and state there is no black dialect?

As far as voting for that "nice, light-skinned Negro, who speaks very well", why it certainly attracted practically all black votes, and many whites , including about 75% of Jewish voters, who, seeing Obama, and listening to him, felt that he was a nice person who should be given a chance - we should, they said (or thought), give the black man this opportunity (the affirmative action candidate?).

So it has definitley come down to the point that no one wants to hear the truth. The current uproar over Reid's remarks from 2008 is uncalled for. His remark wasn't racist, it was fact. What would have been racist is if we didn't have all of the black dialects in music, speech, etc. - then the remark would have been out of hand. But to say that blacks do not speak with an identifiable dialect, is like saying New Yorkers do not, folks from Eastern North Carolina do not, Texans do not, and so on. Hey people, it's a fact of life - we're not all the same, and sometimes , in certain job situations, like that of the President of the United States, appearance and perception is important.


Joe Chernicoff said...

An Important History Lesson

January 26, 2010: After the Scott Brown Senate seat victory Massachusetts, it is now a good idea to revisit - or maybe visit for the first time - the disasters various forms of Socialist governments wreaked upon not only their own people but on millions of individuals and their specific countries, beginning with Marxism up through Maoist China. It is important to do this little trip, because what happened then, could happen now, and here, and, in fact, to some degree, is a reality in other countries today.

I believe that most of you are now familiar with Obama's philosophy of government and his infatuation with Socialist countries. So if you missed Glenn Beck's special presentation on January 23 of this year, then watching this excerpt should be quite educational, especially if you are a member of the "baby boomer generation". Those of us old enough to have lived during the time that a good bit of this video portrays, will have their memories refreshed, if they have been forgotten.

So click on, and watch and learn from this 20 minute presentation - and if the Glenn Beck program repeats the show, then be sure to watch the entire production.

Joe Chernicoff said...

Stolen Art and Terrorists

February 6, 2010: In a blog I wrote on October 19, 2009, I mentioned that Afghanistan is important because we must destroy the Taliban - particularly because of their control of poppy plants and the profits made from heroin, which helps support Al Queda as well as their own operations.

This past week, the February 4, 2010 issue of Art Newspaper included the following article:

LONDON. The German secret service has testimony that relates to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta’s attempted sale in Germany of looted Afghan artefacts, according to Giuseppe Proietti, secretary general of Italy’s ministry of culture. Proietti has made repeated references to this testimony in public speeches delivered since 2005. His remarks have not been widely reported but are mentioned in the autumn issue of the Journal of Art Crime. According to Proietti, in 1999 Atta contacted an archaeologist at the German university of Göttingen with an offer to sell Afghan artefacts. An unidentified archaeologist, who declined the offer, told the German secret service that Atta had said he needed the money to pay for flying lessons in the US. Atta moved to Germany from his native Cairo in 1992 to study at the Hamburg University of Technology. It was there that he became increasingly radicalised, eventually forming the so-called Hamburg Cell of terrorists who organ­ised the 2001 attacks on the US. Atta spent several months in Afghanistan in late 1999 when he met Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders and trained to be a terrorist; it is possible that he also made arrangements to sell looted antiquities in Germany. In 2000 he started learning to fly in Florida. Atta was the hijacker in control of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to strike the World Trade Center. The market for Afghan antiquities is so strong that the government has issued a list of the most significant missing museum pieces for border police.
Today, on Link TV, I watched an excellent one hour film titled 'Blood Antiquities" shown in its 'SpotLight" international investigative series. This investigative report confirms the Art Newspaper report, as well as showing just how pervasive the Taliban and other terrorist organizations are, and how they are able to earn hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Euros through marketing stolen antiquities taken from Afghanistan.

This report only adds to the necessity of destroying the Taliban. To view a video clip (app; four minutes) from the SpotLight production, which will provide you with a good idea of what is going on, visit

Joe Chernicoff said...

Liberal v. Progressive

February 8, 2010: As a classical liberal constitutionalist. I 've been looking for a good way to illustrate the diference between true liberals and progressives. The recent hoo-ha over the Tebow family life ad has provided the mechanism, to wit:

a (true) liberal recognizes that as a human, women have the same dignity of life as does a man, therfore a woman has the right to make choices which affects her personal life, as does every man
Tebow's mother made a choice not to have an abortion following her doctor's opinion that an abortion might be the safest thing for her to do based upn her physical condition
people who are pro-abortion believe that a commercial about the choice not to have an abortion but to give birth is wrong, which is ridiculous, since it portrayed a woman making her choice
those who are fanatically "pro-choice" are as bad as those who are fanatically anti-abortion - both are anti-female human dignity
therefore those who call persons who are against women making a choice not to have an abortion wrong, are believers in only a 'one-way to think' paradigm
true liberals believe in personal liberties, as well as economic and political liberty
Isn't that what this country is built upon? Not the control over a person's life by government , non-government organizations, or others who wish to control the individual's belief system, but in providing the freedom and liberty for our population to decide for itself that which is best for themselves.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Secret Intelligence for TSA Workers?

February 12, 2010: "10,000 TSA workers to be given secret intelligence data...", so reports today's news. What, are the TSA administrators nuts - they have got to be kidding?!

First of all, how are they vetting those who will receive that information, and secondly, what kind of training in intelligence work, and how to handle intelligence, wil those 10,000 receive? It's difficult enough for the CIA, at times, to maintain secrecy, and that's a big part of their job, so how is an agency, which has a history of screwing up, going to maintain a secure intelligence presence?

Given TSA's history - for example:

Nation & World story by Alex Kingsbury, Posted December 7, 2009: TSA launches leak investigation": TSA questions former air marshal about e-mail encouraging him to talk to CNN In March, CNN reported that armed air marshals are on fewer than 1 percent of flights TSA denied findings, says it is investigating possible release of classified info Employee says he sent e-mail because he wanted to expose problems in TSA
CNN Special Investigation Unit, By Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston:
"(CNN) -- Federal officers charged with keeping terrorists off planes are now searching their own ranks for staff who told CNN that few flights were protected by air marshals. The leaked TSA information jarred some recent memories. Remembering the complete TSA operations manual for procedures at airport security checkpoints was published on the Internet back in December of 2009, while refreshing my memory I noticed the story seemed related to an earlier article from CNN (of all sources) written in July of 2008 that mentioned TSA leaks of sensitive information. But now the terror threat has been recognized alert TSA screeners are diligently doing their job well, correct?"
Now understand that I am not privy to TSA security procedures, but since I have a bit of experience in the security field, I sense a feeling of a "chicken without a head" syndrome existing in the agency. I truly believe that because this country believes it should treat everyone fairly (and what is meant by "fair"?), it subjects itself to confusion.

TSA should be instructed to do its job efficiently, not fairly. Look, if a store is going to protect its merchandise,, and reduce losses, profiling customers and employees is important; when you pay for goods with a credit card in this day and age, the cashier asking for ID is important; so there are many steps we take in our attempts to prevent wrongdoing from taking place. When we have the mssion of protecting people, sometimes draconian steps are required.

But the people who are charged with that protection have to know what they are doing, and have to be dedicated workers - they have to know their mission, and have to practice that mission with a balance of expertise and understanding of the perception that mission exudes.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Termination Interviews Could Prevent Problems

February 16, 2010: Unfortunately, the recent homicides committed by the University of Alabama professor who was denied tenure, is just one of a series of similar incidents committed by employees who have been fired, laid-off, or who lost their jobs due to a company going out of business.

Motorola Teleprograms, about 25 years ago, produced a law enforcement training film (disclosure: this writer provided some technical assistance to two of the company's movies) concerning a worker who was laid off due to a company closing, who could not handle losing his job after many years at the site, went back to the (mostly) empty work premises where he shot and killed people closing the plant, just because he couldn't handle the job loss.

Which brings up an important topic - termination interviews.

Just as an aplicant for a position would be expected to go through the pre-employment process to determine whether he or she is the right person for the position, employees who are discharged or who leave the company for whatever other reason, should go through a termination of employment interview. That process could be very helpful in learning of any problems the company may have, about which it was not aware; criminal activity by the employee may be discovered, and other important information to the well-being of the organization is possible to be learned.

The termination interview can also determine whether additional processes may be required - such as the MMPI Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) examination, a good pre-employment screening test for work in areas where dealing with the public is involved, such as armed security personnel. Given the highly emotional situation of a professor being denied tenure, and being told that the current teaching term is the end of that person's current career, it would behoove a college/university human resource department to make sure (as much as possible) that the break would be clean, without harmful recrimination.

Maybe in this age of "political correctness", such termination interviews are not acceptable. If so, then institutions have to re-educate themselves about their security responsibilities.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Can't Handle the Stress

You can listen to this column - just press the arrow

February 18, 2010: During a commercial break in the "The Herd" sports show I was watching while eating breakfast this morning, I switched over to watch Fox News, which was in the middle of the story concerning the small plane which crashed into an office building in Austin, TX.

Such happy news wasn't what I wanted at that time and went back to Cowherd's show, but of course, at the next commercial break, I returned to Fox, and heard that the NTSB believed that an earlier house fire in Austin was set by the pilot of the small plane which crashed into the office building containing IRS offices. The feeling was that the pilot had IRS problems.

Not too many weeks ago, a similar kind of incident occurred here in Las Vegas. A man who was unhappy with a court ruling concerning his Social Security benefits allegedly set his apartment unit on fire, then went to the federal courthouse, where he pulled out a long gun from under his coat and got into a gun battle, which led to his death.

I guess that you could call the latter incident a "suicide by cop" scenario. Regardless of what names you use to describe these incidents, apparently they were made to forcibly point out the perpetrators' aggravation with conditions too huge to be handled through sane and reasonable methods. Spreading blame through violence didn't make life better for those two men - and they sure as heck weren't "martyrs for the cause".

We all live under stress at one time or another. Very good things happening to us are stressful, as are bad things. But we have to learn to make adjustments to balance those events affecting our lives.

Look, I know that just about everyday of the week something new occurs in this country, caused by our government, which can drive you right off the wall, so to speak; so seeing increased bad stress levels rising amongst our population is not unexpected.

That's why I enjoy watching this year's Olympics. With all the problems Canada is having running the show, with all the injuries suffered by the athletes, seeing how they overcome their physical injuries, as well as ground and weather conditions, and working through them to become medalists, we find actual examples of the possibility of gaining success even though defeat appears to be staring us in the face. Corny? Maybe, but there's no need to complicate life which may be complicated no matter what; as has been said, KISS!

[You may want to check an anhancement(?) to these blogs - kisten to the audio at]

Joe Chernicoff said...

Yemen v Al-Queda

February 21, 2010: I never gave much thought to the country of Yemen. On the rare occasions I noticed the name, I thought is was one of the dessert countries you saw in old movies - barren, and roamed over by nomadic Arab tribes. I found out there were real people living there, when during my freshman year in college I met a guy who was from Yemen. He came to the college following his family's move to Israel - this was in 1949, and he was here to study agriculture. Anyhow, to make a long story short, Yemen still wasn't uppermost in my thoughts, as was probably the case for most people. At least not until the last decade or so, when Yemen, considered as "moderate state" by the U.S., was acknowledged as a source of Islamic terrorists, notably Al-Queda.

In her seminal book "Funding Evil", published in 2002, Rachel Ehrenfeld states that the totalitarian regime of Yemen, one of a number of Arab states, was well documented as supporting Al-Queda and other Islamic terrorist organizations (201:), and, like its neighboring terrorist supporting states, "traffic in arms, abuse human rights, and promote incitement in the media against Jews, the U.S., and the West - all while understandably attempting to stem terrorism at home."(64:).

Now the last quoted statement is quite interesting in light of a documentary produced, after the 2009 "Christmas Day bomber" incident, by A brief clip from that short film is shown at http://jcsl2s,com/gont/itt470888.htm You can see the at entire documentary - Yemen - Fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen -at the website.

Joe Chernicoff said...

Philosophical Differences

February 25, 2010: Well, it was quite an interesting day. I watched Obama's invitational healthcare and budget "debate" on Fox News and YouTube's Citizen Vue channel, and found it to be quite enjoyable. Not for the meeting's great political/intellectual content, but because I leaned a few new things.

I learned that the new key phrase is "philosophical differences". I mean, if forgot the term when I first heard it, I reckon I was reminded of the term almost endlessly. Translated into common English, I would have to 'assume' the phrase means 'I'm smart and you're dumb', or to put it succinctly , 'you don't know crap'. Sheesh!

"Philosophical differences" is quite a good term for these politicians. It goes real well with "plausible deniability", another important political working phrase. Of course. After all, if you have a philosophical difference with the other party, and things get screwed up, you can make a claim of "plausible deniability". Fantastic.

One of the more interesting parts of this exhibit was listening to New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, who spoke of the problems women have had, healthcare-wise. She also went on to speak about poor people being turned away from hospitals, and so forth - comments which probably (should have) sent a cold chill through President Obama and especially his wife.

During her Chicago days, and after Barak Obama became a U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama was named the Executor Director of Community Affairs of the University of Chicago Medical, where she was singled out for her "special relationship with - and her 'new level of compassion' for the city's poor. The hospital's general counsel gushed that Michelle Obama "just has a way about her, a real kindness"....Unfortunately, for many of Chicago's poor, before Mrs. Obama left her post, she helped engineer a rather un-progressive and unkind plan to dump low-income patients with non-urgent complaints from the medical center...this was part of Michelle' Obama's Orwellian banner of an "Urban Health Initiative", a scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to "dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents". [I have taken some editing liberty quoting from Michelle Malkin's excellent book, (pages 52, 53-4, under the section 'Mrs. O. Screws the Poor') Culture of Corruption, sub-headed Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies.]

If this is an example of what we can expect from Obama's expression of empathy with those he claims needs his health care bill, I guess there really is a "philosophical difference" in play, but whether he will be able to claim 'plausible deniability', I'm not sure.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Grab the Bull by the Horns

March 4, 2010: Just for a change, let's take a gander at something more upifting to our souls than the continuing aggravation we now label "Washington Politics".

So here's a little video I put together a year or so ago, for my cowboy photography and art website, and have linked it to
for your enjoyment. This musical video of scenes from a National Finals Rodeo, held every December here in Las Vegas, NV shows you that you can kind's 'take the bull by the horns" and hope for the best . So take a gander, and enjoy, and if you want to copy it to your computer, well go ahead.

Joe Chernicoff said...

It's Time to Act with Strength

March 15, 2010: There is no question that much of this country's current foreign policies are totally aggravating. Probably the only exception is Obama's sending additional troops to Afghanistan, but even that wasn't done in the spirit of strength (after all, he couldn't just stop the Bush policy cold).

Now it looks like "things" are coming to a head, with the new television series produced by Tom Hanks - a series which purportedly states that treatment of our enemies during WWII was "racist". This guy has either been smoking too much bad stuff, is ignorant, or has been exposed to too much left-wing b.s..

I'll forgive him on one point, however; he is too young to have lived through WWII and the years proceeding that most chaotic event. Racist? How about, during the 1930s and 1940s, talk of the "yellow peril", krauts, japs, ad on infinitum? Sure, when that liberal president, FDR, moved Japanese Americans living on the West Coast into camps, (some called them "concentration camps", but they sure didn't compare to those in Nazi Germany and the countries they occupied), most Americans weren't happy about that, but it was understood that Japan did attack us, and preemptive security measures were necessary.

When Truman okayed the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, that was also called a "racist" move. But that use of extreme force saved probably hundreds of thousands of American lives.

What we are doing now is punishing our allies and rewarding our enemies. We have to be fair, according to this administration. As Buddha stated, life is not fair. What's "fair", is the destruction of our enemies - total and absolute destruction. Our enemies are not like those we had during WWII, where when we defeated the Allied Forces's enemies, we were then able to assist them in development of societies beneficial to themselves and all other countries - Japan and Germany are two prime examples.

Today, we have no such enemies. We are not at war with specific countries, but with specific ideologies - ideologies which are totally antithetic to we in the West. Just look at what is happening in Europe, notably Great Britain and France, and you see what happens when you attempt to accommodate those forces.

To save this constitutional republic in which we live and (hopefully) prosper, the destruction of our enemies is imperative. It's time for the United States of America, and it's allies in political thinking, to stop believing in negotiations and "fairness", and to take care of what's most important - US!

Does our government have the strength to do that? Right now, I have serious doubts, because we really do not know what is in the minds of our "leaders". So, since we are a republic, and not a democracy (where everyone is equal - communism, anyone?) the people will have to speak, and speak loudly.


Joe Chernicoff said...

Slavery and Other Chaotic Elements

March 16, 2010: The other day I was watching a segment of the "After Words" program on Book TV, where I heard a black woman who sounded as though she were castigating rich, white corporate people for ignoring the plight of the poor. I'm not sure if I heard her say "poor blacks", but, nevertheless, he remarks made think about some of the complaints we've been hearing over the past decade or so.

Now, to the best of my knowledge, that woman, and I imagine, many others who have made the same complaints, with reference to slavery, have never had to endure slavery. In fact, I would bet that she, like so many others who voice complaints about the mistreatment of blacks and others, whatever their ethnic or racial backgrounds, have never been in the same kinds of situations as their probable ancestors.

It seems to me, that with all the rants about the evil corporations, evil white folk who have kept blacks, and possibly other minorities down in this country, those complainers all seem to be doing pretty good. With radio and television programs, books, education, law degrees, professorships, businesses, and so on in which they are engaged professionally, it seems to me that if they are, in truth, descendants of this country's slave population, then they are very fortunate.

Look, most of our ancestors have been, at one time or another, slaves or peoples held down by dictatorial governments. Captured countries resulted in people shackled into slavery. In modern times, dictators like Stalin and Hitler murdered and enslaved millions of people. All of those historical events created chaos.

But like the chaos which formed the universe, historical political chaos gave birth to great opportunities. Descendants of slaves held in this country are making advances no one would have thought possible 150 years ago; with no slavery, a common economic enterprise of the time, there more than likely would not be the population of black Africans in this country we have today, and today's descendants of those slaves would more than likely be in a rough situations in their countries of Ghana, Sierra Leona, Kenya, and so forth.

In the same vent, if it it had not been for the holocaust created by Nazi Germany, Israel would probably not have been created (although there were movements to create a Jewish state, it's a good bet that the country would never have been formed if there was no chaotic event to enhance the creation of that state). Japan would probably have never become the dynamic country it is without its violent overthrow, and General MacArthur's work towards reestablishing the country. And we could go on and on with illustrations of chaotic events which were precursors to great moments in history and civilizations.

So whining and complaining about what happened in the past, attacking corporations, asking for reparations, is uncalled for - except as a money making opportunity for organizations, politicians, and the like who refuse to admit that they are extremely fortunate to be a citizen of this one-of-a-kind republic. Our 1st Amendment provides the freedom to complain, but the wise will then think, and then go on to do those tasks which benefit all of our people.


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Obamacrats - The Wrong Moves for America

March 21, 2010: I am writing this blog/lament while listening to Speaker Pelosi congratulate herself and the Obamacrats for the new health care bill, which has passed 216-205. Pelosi had the guts to equate this new monstrosity with Social Security and Medicare. Unlike the current legislation, Social Security is nothing like this legislation. When Social Security was created, and through the six-plus decades following its establishment, nobody expected our government to be in a state of bankruptcy, a condition which we now just about find ourselves.

Medicare has been a pretty good system, and it is one under which the individual can purchase the best available supplement which covers pharmaceuticals, doctors, and hospitals. It provides a relatively inexpensive health care program, without anyone being forced into specific purchases, etc. There are many other items in this bill - too many to go into here, including the ability of the government to 'practice the art of the so-called science of eugenics' - government covering abortion payments.

What we now have is pretty disgusting. Although no one has been able to read the entire bill, and, at present, it is not complete, what will be signed into law for the time being is the first step into total government intrusion in the lives of our citizens - from enforced purchasing of insurance to opening the way for all other Obama desired legislation to be enacted without going through constitutional procedures.

Call this action what you wish, but it is the first step on the road to a liberal/progressive/fascist takeover of this great country. I am totally disgusted by those in Congress who put themselves and their party over the people. What do they think they are - union members?

So now I wish to salute those Obamacrats who should all be thrown out of office - from the president on down. Here are two good ol' cowboy songs dedicated to those lawmakers, which express my feelings. WARNING - if you are a child or sensitive adult, you may not want to listen....
Go over to to hear
George Jones sing the 'The Ass Hole Song', followed by
Chris LeDoux, singing 'The Rodeo Song' which definitely expresses my feelings about those clowns...


Joe Chernicoff said...

Politics Imitating Fiction

March 25, 2010: Today we heard reports concerning attacks against Democrat politicians who supported the health care bill. Not to be outdone, Virginia's Congressman Cantor's (R) was shot up by an unknown person(s).

It doesn't take long, does it for a putsch to begin in this country following the first of probably many unpopular pieces of legislation coming from the Obama administration. Like a lot of other people in this country, I would like to see our president and the rest of his party, as well as members of the opposition, leave office. The frustration levels are brewing quickly in the minds and bodies of the American people, and those hundreds of thousands who have been participating, and will continue to do so, in organized public events, such as the Tea Party protests, want to have real changes made in this nation's political body.

There is one major problem - even though 99.99% of the people opposing the Obama administration's plans to drastically change the political landscape, it only takes a few impatient, non-thinking morons - on both sides of the political spectrum - to create chaos, a chaos which provides feed to the government's agenda of full control of American life and business.

A simple example: it does not take an army of thousands to take over a company or government, it only takes a handful of determined individuals who understand the way that scenario is played out. Al-Queda, in effect, took over various operations of this country, and, as time went on, of the world. It controlled the actions of all of us who were/are considered the enemy by committing a few major acts of terrorism. So by extending that concept, the violence perpetrated against some of our political figures could be the premise the Obama administration needs to declare civil unrest is taking place, and therefore the president would do what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War - declare martial law.

And thus the putsch.

The problem is, once that would occur, getting rid of it would be extremely difficult. Other than an armed rebellion, which would probably be difficult since private ownership of firearms would no longer exist), we would be in a long and dangerous fight to regain those freedoms from government control our founding fathers so correctly undertsood and promulgated.

A fictional situation? I sincerely hope so. But you know, it is rapidly being proven that in reality, we really cannot believe in, not trust, those who are hired by the voter to work on behalf of the people. That is probably because once our representatives are elected, the people forget about them, or are just not particularly interested in the governing process, at least not until a scenario such as the current health care bill comes along.

We the people have a duty to run our own "checks and balances" We have to act like bosses or supervisors, and watch - complain when our representatives are falling down on the job, and give credit when they do a good job. We also have to act responsibly - complain when necessary, protest when necessary, but do so in a way which does not provide excuses for the creation of a dictatorship.


Joe Chernicoff said...

The Blitzkrieg and Zeitgeist

March 30, 2010: The Obama blitzkrieg appears to be in full force. After his partisan one-sided victory in the health care battle (and what will probably turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory - the losses incurred will more than likely be that of the Democrat majorities in both houses), the so-called leader of our citizens has decided that the world definitely revolved around himself, thereby making recess appointments which will further assist him in remodeling this country into one which he believes it should be.

'The people be damned - full speed ahead' seems to be the mantra of this president and his flock of sheep, including not only the Democrat congress and Senate, but too many ordinary citizens who do not have the ability to see the forest for the trees. For some reason those die-hard Democrats (and there are die-hard Republicans as well) still do not understand that the new health cafe bill is the "camel's nose under the tent). Yesterday we heard that Senator Waxman (D-CA) insists that AT&T turns over to the Congress all financial records and e-mail correspondence, so that AT&T's complaint that the new health care bill will lead to a loss of at least $1B for the company can be examined/investigated. Impossible, believes Waxman, AT&T must be doing something wrong. Well, what's the next step in the governments's drive to deny truth and create a Obama administration painted scenario?

Foreign policy? Obama rushed to make a surprise visit to our troops in Afghanistan. A good PR move, but probably one without much meaning. After all, when the administration "disses" the only western government in the Middle-East, probably due to fear that the Israelis are not paper-tigers vis-a-vis the possible/probable Iranian nuclear threat, what can we really expect so far as our president's interest in protecting this country - keeping it as it was formed and as we have known it to be.

I have to give this administration good grades on creating chaos - everyday brings another scenario. It appears that they are getting that skill down pat!

Anyhow, it's all zeitgeist: the spirit of the time; the spirit characteristic of an age or generation. Wikipedia defines zeitgeist as the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambience, morals, and sociocultural direction or mood of an era (similar to the English word mainstream or trend). The term zeitgeist is from German Zeit- 'time' (cognate with English tide and "time") and Geist- 'spirit' (cognate with English ghost).

So pay attention to the current zeitgeist, of which there are two...that of the government and that of the people (mostly). Which brings me to this next point - I heartily recommend your reading this Naomi Wolf column appearing in today's issue of AlterNet.

As a last note, I came across two cartoons which, I believe, demonstrate the Obama administration's true feelings about we the people. These are from Charles Barsotti's 2005 book "From the Very Big Desk Of...":

..for our senior citizens - see

...the next step in the government's takeover? - see -30-

Joe Chernicoff said...

Obama - Build our Strength, Not Our Weakness

April 7, 2010: I don't know if our government is just trying to wear down all of us who believe in this Republic, but sometimes I just have to wonder if that isn't the underlying goal of everything the Obama people want to do. Again, take for example, our foreign and national security policies.

To paraphrase Professor Higgins from "My Fair Lady", why can't we just be more like the ancient Greeks and Romans? Probably because that takes more guts than this administration has, and although countries like Iran just laugh at Obama's attempts to use diplomacy to get what (I think) we want, Obama and his cohorts just keep shushing ahead on the road toward oblivion.

It's time this country just stands up, and says to hell with everybody else, we're the most powerful country on this planet, and we're goimg to stay that way. That means we forget about what other countries want us to do, and do what's right for us. When illegal immigrants defiantly tresspass into this country - refuse to use legal means of entry - then maybe we should just shoot them and toss their bodies back over the fence, as warning to others who would attempt to infiltrate this land of ours.

Maybe this government should stop blaming everything on the previous administration and accept responsibility for its policies. After all, Obama and the Obamacrats are currently in charge, so let then do what we the people need them to do - keep the country great and powerful rather than to downgrade it to level the international playing field. The problem is that when politicians are elected to office, their most important task appears to be that of keeping their jobs when the next election rolls around, so they really don't accomplish much, if anything, of what's good for the country, instead they concentrate on what will make them look good in the eyes of our enemies.

And speaking of our enemies, rather than attempting to sit down and negotiate with them, we should eliminate them. We should stay in Iraq, for example, for at least another decade. Modern Iraq is a young country, and it will take probably another 100 years for their government to get to the point where a republic or democracy can be established - a country in which real stability can be created. Our presence in Iraq can accomplish much, if we do it the right way, similar to what we did in Japan and Germany after WWII.

FDR is known for having said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and it appears that what this administration has not overcome is the fear of being strong, the fear of not being loved by other countries. Our now and future enemies don't respect love, they respect strength, they respect the countries which do not fear them. Unfortunately, the current administration, more so that those in the past, shows more fear than strength.

The United States of America has been in existence for close to a quarter of a millenia. If we want, and expect, to remain this great country for another quarter of a millenia, now is the time to retake charge of our future...

See this cartoon -, from
Charles Barsotti's 2005 book "From The Very Big Desk Of..." - it seems as though he had messages for a lot of future events!]


Joe Chernicoff said...

Maybe We Should Do Away With Political Parties

April 12, 2010: This country may be much better off- politically -if we do away with political parties, and allow voters to select the best people running for office, rather than electing a political party to run the country.

This, of course, is not a new idea, to wit, the following discourse from Wikipedia re: The Dangers of Political Parties - in George Washington's warnings to the American People. It is very possible that the Tea Party movement may be a precursor to just such a political process change.

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents. He argues that these parties' efforts to seize power and exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities and will ultimately end in despotism as people throw their support behind the most powerful faction and the faction focuses on increasing their own power instead of promoting the public liberty.

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies amongst groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Also recommended for reference is the book "Alexander Hamilton, American", pp.71, by Richard Brookhiser, and "Virtue, Valor, & Vanity", pp.113, by Eric Burns, for more comments of our country's founders. What these men worried about 220 years ago is no different than our current concerns, except that it appears we have actualized their prescience.


Joe Chernicoff said...

A CM Fan's Lament

April 19, 2010: Last night, my wife and I once again watched the annual Academy of Country Music Awards. Now, I've been a fan of country music for more years than I reckon I would care to remember, but lately it seems that the music, and musicians, have become increasingly interchangeable. Looking at all the female singers, for instance, my wife and I had the same thing to say - "they all look and sound alike".

Whatever happened to country music? I know that new locales are opening here in Las Vegas, where, until not to long ago, we had a good choice of venues to do some two-steppin', but now it appears that most of the music provided gets more into cross-over and/or dance.

At least thee's a fair amount of good old style country to be found on Internet radio, which I happily download and record for one of my grand-daughters at the University of Maryland, who, over the past five years or so, has developed a taste for all kinds of country music. And at least there's Midwest Country Music (out of Sandstone, MN) on RDF TV with some of the real "old-time" country/western musicians - a real pleasure to hear.

The old story tellin' is what's missing these days. After all, "All my Ex's Live in Texas", so "Don't Fence Me In", cause I'm "off to the rodeo...". Now, I'm not what you would, by any means of your imagination, be called a religious person, but the old-time cowboys were always independent fellows (well, mostly), and as Tom T. Hall sang, "Me and Jesus have our own thing workin'", and if that's not an expression of individualism, I don't know what is.

So, happy trails, and away we go. -30-

Joe Chernicoff said...

Mexico's Conquest

May 19, 2010: I have to wonder in amazement at the lack of interest there apparently seems to be in maintaining the United States of America as a country with its current state count of 50.

I'm not referring to the once-again attempt to bring Puerto Rico into the Union as the 51st state, something Puerto Ricans have been opposed to everytime the attempt is made. Rather, I'm referring to the ongoing conquest of the Southwest by the Mexican/Central American army of illegal, and in some cases, legal, immigrants.

Just examine some of the facts: 1) there are over 12 million illegal immigrants in the country at this time, most of whom are Mexicans and/or Central Americans; 2) it is common practice to have automatic dialing and responses in both English and Spanish; 3) the number of births of Mexican/Latin American children is higher, and will be higher, than existing American citizens; and 4) voting information is in both English and Spanish.

In a article by by Art Moore, he wrote the following: "A radical Hispanic movement's dream to retake the southwestern United States is becoming a reality with the aid of Mexican and U.S. policies, according to some immigration watchers.

A massive influx of illegal immigrants is "importing poverty" and growing an ethnic community with greater loyalty to Mexico than the U.S., maintains Glenn Spencer, president of Voices of Citizens Together, a California-based non-profit group."

"Unless this is shut down within two years, I believe that it will be irreversible, A breakaway of U.S. states is a distinct possibility, according to prominent Chicano activist and University of California at Riverside professor Armando Navarro. In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Navarro would not answer directly whether he shared separatist aspirations, but said that if demographic and social trends continue, secession is inevitable.[editorial emphasis]

"If in 50 years most of our people are subordinated, powerless, exploited and impoverished, then I will say to you that there are all kinds of possibilities for movements to develop like the ones that we've witnessed in the last few years all over the world, from Yugoslavia to Chechnya," Navarro said. "A secessionist movement is not something that you can put away and say it is never going to happen in the United States," he continued. "Time and history change." In a 1995 speech to Chicano activists, Navarro said demographic trends are leading to "a transfer of power" to the ethnic Mexican community in the Southwest. He notes that most studies show that within the next 20 to 30 years Latinos will comprise more than 50 percent of the population of California. This fact, and other cultural and social developments, are opening the door for "self-determination" and even "the idea of an Aztlan," he said in his speech. "

Organizations such a La Raza (The Race) - the National Council for Las Raza - pushes for laws such as those allowing undocumented immigrants to have driver's licenses. I don't know, why doesn't the NCLR heavily promote legal immigration and real USA citizenship ( you know, where dual citizenship is not part of the deal (Mexicans with US citizenship can vote in Mexican elections), rather than making it easier for illegals to enjoy life here. Or, is the real goal that of Aztlán, that the Southwest is the ancestral home of various Mexican peoples.

So maybe, just maybe, this is part of a long-term plan to recapture the Southwest. If it is, it sure seems to be working, with an assist from too many USA politicians and liberal-minded folk.