Tag Archives: Obama

February 26, 2013

Sequestration: Say Goodbye to Our First Line of Defense

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

Between Leon Panetta’s unconstitutional order that combat units be opened to women and impending Sequestration this week, America can kiss goodbye its military superiority and ability to fight wars effectively.  As readiness goes, so goes our security both at home and abroad.

Under Sequestration, equipment isn’t the only thing on the chopping block.  Personnel will be as well, and all will have to prove their value in the positions they hold or want to hold.  With the conflicting directives of cutting fat vs. compliance with female quotas in the combat units, it is qualified and experienced men who will be purged first.  Combined with the inevitably lowered standards in these units to accommodate women, it is combat readiness that will suffer the most.

The top military brass is already under pressure to show diversity and prove it doesn’t discriminate.  Indeed, that is now its foremost mandate, not military readiness.  With the repeal of laws barring women from combat units and special forces, they will now be forced to prove they’re giving women a “fair” shake by discriminating against more qualified men, since no comprehensive testing was done to prove women can make it through their training, and the only two we know of who attempted such, two in the Marine Infantry Officer course, failed in the first day and the first week of training respectively.  It won’t matter that the women can’t make those standards that most of the top men in every branch can’t achieve.

It will go something like this at the officer level:  “Suzy-Q failed the training?  You’re up for promotion, aren’t you?  Take another look at Suzy-Q.”  And from DOD to the top brass:  “We expect X% pass rate for females.  Anything less will be seen as discrimination.  Next year’s budget will reflect the success of this program.  Understood?”  The military will have to lower the standards of its toughest units in order to fill quotas of women to show they’re not discriminating.

Cutting spending is vital for every department of government, including the military.  The Marines have always been in the lead when it comes to working with the least, then cutting even more.  With so many other ways to cut the excess – from non-vital programs like the National Endowment for the Arts to stopping the fraud and waste so pervasive in government programs from Social Security to Medicare – Sequestration is totally unnecessary.  But this was Obama’s idea, and it put the military in the cross-hairs from the start.  It’s easy to see why.  This administration thinks the military is too masculine, too white, too conservative, too straight.  They’ve repealed DADT, opened the toughest units to women who can’t make it through one week of their training and sold our equipment to our enemies.  This is just the next phase in destroying the last bastion of merit and strength our country has against enemies both foreign and domestic.

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in According to Jude

February 18, 2013

No Toddler Left Behind Means Younger Government-Controlled Children

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

“Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road.”  Obama said this in last Tuesday’s State of the Union address, arguing that the federal government should provide preschool education.  Among his multitudinous straw man arguments and big-government strategies, this is just another plan for more government control of our children at the taxpayers’ expense.

While early learning is a benefit to children, this doesn’t mean that earlier formal school will benefit them. Why should we subject toddlers to the same education system that is failing our kindergarten through twelfth graders?   American students are currently at the bottom when it comes to test scores in subjects like math and science.  A quarter of our kids are dropping out of high school, and many of those who do graduate can’t read at grade level.  Despite failing our children, the government’s constant answer is that the schools need more money.  Yet the more money they get, the worse our students do every year. This is just another pitch to gain influence over younger and younger children, continue to erode parental rights, and to gain more jobs for teachers and their unions who vote for big government.

The same problems we see for day-care kids vs. children who are cared for at home will pervade this new proposed school system.  Daycare kids are twelve times more likely to get the flu than those cared for at home.  Research from the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that toddlers in daycare are more insecure, anxious, aggressive, hyperactive, defiant and disobedient.  What kind of teenagers and adults do they become with this as their foundation?  Just as the constant change in personnel negatively affects daycare children’s sense of trust and security, so will this be the case for younger children going through government run public school systems.

Licensed and “trained professionals” are already forming the value systems of our children as they have them for thousands of hours away from their parents’ care.  Obama will put children who are at a critical and vulnerable stage in their psychological and behavioral development under the care of people who are not accountable for any mistakes or false teaching.  It will not help children, poor or otherwise.  What it will do is create a division in the authority figures in children’s lives.

Estimates are that this will cost taxpayers $98 billion over ten years.  Families who are already struggling will bear the burden of even more money taken out of their pockets to be used not only to indoctrinate their children but also to undermine their parental guidance and authority.

What really sets children up for success at every stage of development is a strong nuclear family unit, not government-run education.  But strong families are less likely to teach their children victim-hood and government dependence.  That’s a problem for an administration that wants ever more government control over the lives of its citizens.

10 comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in According to Jude

January 16, 2013

The Mental Pretzel of Gun Control

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

I wonder if Obama would respond with executive action to arm teachers in school if the kids wrote and said they’d feel safer knowing their teachers could defend them against vicious murderers.  Or would he throw out Michelle’s healthy school meals plan if a bunch of kids wrote to tell him they want fruit loops and fried chicken at every meal?  As for the parents, maybe we can start background checks on those who shamelessly manipulate their children for their own political ends.  With his backdrop of child props Obama announced his gun control plans today:

“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive level.”

Really?  Since almost every mass-shooter so far has acquired their guns illegally, how will imposing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens stop law-breakers?  It won’t.  Nor will banning high-capacity magazines stop a mass murderer from shooting lots of people – the next will just do what Jared Holmes and Sandy Hook shooter (an many a Hollywood character) did – bring lots of guns.  When you’re out of rounds, just grab the next gun.  Meanwhile, the Atlanta mother who shot a home invader could have certainly used more than seven rounds – she shot him five times and he was still able to flee.  What if there had been more than one intruder?  What if she hadn’t been a good shot?

Although the anti-gun cabal always wants to jump to act in the wake of a mass shooting, they rarely look at the real solutions: concealed-carry laws and medications checks.

Jared Holmes had a choice of seven movie theaters within thirty minutes of his apartment.  He chose the one that was a gun-free zone.  Schools are easy targets for predators because they are gun-free zones.  Most all of the mass-shooters of recent memory have been on or withdrawing from one or more anti-depressant or mood stabilizer such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, and suicidal thoughts are just one of many negative side-effects of these drugs.  Others are mania, abnormal thinking, hallucinations, amnesia, agitation, psychosis, confusion, paranoid reactions, and more.  But this is a society that loves its psychiatrists and prescriptions and refuses to shed the light on their ill effects even though these effects are published by the FDA.  For many these drugs can be mental life-savers, but they shouldn’t be allowed weapons.  One must already have a clean record to purchase a gun and it wouldn’t be hard to put the question of the medications one is taking on the permit application.  This would not involve doctors and avoid the prospect of having the government consulting with one’s doctor or vice versa.

We don’t need $10 million for gun violence research, we need common sense.  Democrats want to reinstate the 1994 assault weapon ban that did nothing to stop the Columbine shooting.  And pray tell me, what good will gun-trafficking laws do when the administration itself gave us the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal?

Obama’s new gun control proposals will take law enforcement resources away from fighting crime and criminals and misplace it onto law-abiding citizens who simply don’t want to have to wait until the cops arrive when someone breaks into their house to steal, rape and murder, or tries to murder their children in school.  Fortunately most of his proposals require congressional approval, but with Obama’s record of ignoring the separation of powers and trampling the Constitution, we can expect that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he’ll impose it like he always does – by tyrannical fiat.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in According to Jude

October 5, 2012

Wanted: A New Tailor for the Emperor

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

Victory is sweet, and the first presidential debate of 2012 was wonderfully instructive for so many reasons, most of all for showcasing Obama’s utter lack of talent and intelligence.

If Obama was as charismatic and brilliant as his followers and the media have hammered into us that he is, shouldn’t he have been able to master that debate and turned it to his favor with ease?  Without the media’s protection, both their refusal to ask him difficult questions or call him on his dismal record, and their gushing praise over his every syllable without criticism, Obama can’t perform.  He isn’t even as adept as Slick Willy himself on the stage.

Those poor Obama believers.  They thought he was brilliant, that he could save the world, lower the sea levels, conquer enemy Republicans with one hand tied behind his back.  They thought nothing could ruffle him, that he was just so talented all he had to do was exist and he would triumph.  But The Force, alas, is not with Barry after all.

Rose-colored glasses are shattering and it’s like watching a religious cult realize their leader is a fraud, or watching the shock of realizing what your favorite model looks like in sweats without makeup.  He sold them dreams from his father…or not.

Genius, like un-airbrushed beauty, is rare.  Watching the man who proclaimed himself a genius melt into a puddle of frothy indignation and embarrassment?  Oooohhh so satisfying.   The debate was a reveal for many wearing those glasses, but it just exposed the obvious to those of us who’ve been paying attention.  We’ve been opposing his terrible policies and unconstitutional power-grabs.  I personally have thought his speeches are vacuous, not awe-inspiring.  We’ve always known Obama was a puppet propped up and made over by a pampering, super-indulgent media and supporters.  Now a few more people realize it too.

Though his helpers in the news rooms are already working to change the story, they can’t take back the utter coming-apart-at-the-seams that occurred post-debate, where even the likes of Chris Matthews admitted Obama was an utter flop.  Even the race-card can’t be played here – will they try to say that anyone who saw what a complete failure Obama was is a racist?  They can make up all sorts of excuses, but the people saw Obama for what he is: a fake.

Obama and his ilk have been fooling some of the people most of the time, but all of the people can watch the debates!

aristotle_000

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Uncategorized

October 4, 2012

Contrasts: Liars Ramble, the Truth is Simple

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

Let’s hear it for the most entertaining event in the political season so far!  And a long-awaited comeuppance for our dictator-in-chief!

Romney handled Obama soundly, with a smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye.  He deftly combated BO’s constant lies and mischaracterizations about his economic plans, and you would see that twinkle every time Obama launched one, as if he was thinking “You’re making this too easy!”  Meanwhile Obama rambled on ad nauseum with “explanations” that made no sense, fumed as Romney trounced him, and whined for help to the pathetic sputtering Jim Lehrer.

Romney kept bringing it back to simple points that make sense to regular folks, and that’s the key to getting the votes – giving the people information that rings true and is verifiable.

As I watched I couldn’t help but be reminded of the contrast between Whitaker Chambers and Alger Hiss during the 1948 Chambers-Hiss trial in which Hiss, who had been working in the State department, was found to be a working member of the Communist underground in America.  Chambers, having worked closely with Hiss during his own time working for the Communist underground, was trying to stop the Communist apparatus by exposing it.

The beginning of the case hinged on something simple: Chambers accused Hiss, Hiss pretended not to recognize Chambers.  While Chambers’ answers to the committee’s questions were simple and direct, rarely more than a line as one reads the transcripts, Hiss went on for paragraph after paragraph creating as much subterfuge as possible.

Take this example from when the committee was ascertaining whether or not Hiss knew Chambers.  They showed him a photograph which he’d seen many times before.  He knew it was Chambers but he postponed “recognizing” him for as long as he could get away with it:

“Mr. Hiss: It looks like the very same man I had seen in the other pictures, and I see Mr. Mundt and him in the same picture.  The face is definitely not an unfamiliar face. Whether I am imagining it, whether it is because he looks like a lot of other people, I don’t know, but I have never known anyone who had the relationship with me that this man has testified to and that, I think, is the important thing here, gentlemen.  This man may have known me, he may have been in my house.  I have had literally hundreds of people in my house in the course of the time I lived in Washington.  The issue is not whether this man knew me and I don’t remember him.  The issue is whether he had a particular conversation that he has said he had with me and which I have denied and whether I am a member of the Communist Party or ever was…” (emphasis mine).*

This is one of the shorter examples.  All this mind-numbing discourse rather than a simple “No, I don’t know this man.”

It was the same runaround with every piece of evidence brought against Hiss proving he was working for the Communist underground.  In the end, he was proved to have been lying about the whole thing, everything Chambers had said was the truth.  When one reads the account, Hiss’ tactic is obvious.  Someone who is telling the truth doesn’t have to go round-about.

I have a hunch about American voters.  I think things reach people on a visceral level.  Obama’s negative ads are transparent, he has to lie to make his point while Romney just has to put what Obama says today next to what he said yesterday.  Obama has to concoct a crazy story about a guy who’s wife died of cancer many years after he worked at one of Romney’s companies, while Romney just has to point at what Obama did yesterday.

Despite the media’s coddling and protection of Obama against any hard questions or responsibility for his policies, words and actions, I think a majority of the people are seeing through him.  At a certain point, people can see how negative Obama is, and how positive Romney is by contrast.  Despite what many would like to believe about Obama as successful, at some point no matter what the television says, we look at our own bottom line.  We see that our food, medical, gas and other costs continue to rise, our savings and home values continue to plummet, our freedoms of speech and conscience are disintegrating, and nothing is improving.

After a while, people can instinctually see the contrast of a rambling liar against simple clarity.

This first debate certainly didn’t disappoint, and I for one and thoroughly looking forward to laughing at Joe Biden during next week’s vice-presidential debate!  Bring it on!

*Chambers, Whitaker. Witness. Illinois: Regnery Gateway Inc., 1952

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in According to Jude

September 17, 2012

Stolen Lives

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

As I listened to Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama give eulogies for the men killed in the embassy attacks last week I grew more sick to my stomach with each word.  The first thing out of her mouth was that it was a “difficult week for the state department…”  Really?  That’s the first entity for which the heinous attacks were *ahem* difficult?!  She went on to say that the countries in which these attacks took place “did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob.”  Maybe you thought so, Hil, when you were over there orchestrating the Arab “spring,” but so many of us in the real world noted that while Mubarak was a relative moderate and long-time ally of both the United States and Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood was a ferocious band of radical Islamists who care neither for peace nor human rights, let alone diplomatic relations.  Ditto for Qaddafi in Libya.

The words that followed from Obama ring hollow, as do all his words, as he talked about bringing to justice those who perpetrated this violence.  Really?  You’ll “stand fast” will you, Barry?  It was your flimsy policies that brought us here as you sidled up to every tyrant on the Middle-Eastern block and turned your back on our allies from Poland to Israel.  You’re pulling out, not standing fast let alone going in to show that we won’t tolerate such violence.  Have fun at your campaign fundraising events while Eurasia burns and our borders are wide open.

Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Christopher Stevens, did not “give” their lives.  Their lives were forcefully ripped away, execution style by a bunch of medieval rabble who hate us because we stand for freedom and against the oppression that they inflict – from honor killings to throwing acid in women’s faces to pedophilia to denying women their G-d-given rights.  Stevens was a champion for the Libyans who gave them everything they wanted.  What did that achieve?  And you say violence never solved anything?  What has diplomacy solved  that violence didn’t have to rectify later?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , | posted in According to Jude

June 22, 2012

Out-Pandering the Panderer-in-Chief

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

It was bad enough when Emperor Obama announced his June 15 decree to bypass Congress and grant legal status and work permits to 800,000 illegal immigrants.  Even worse, however, was that Romney and the Republicans have completely ignored that this is an unconstitutional, impeachable act.  Where is the outcry against this Tyrant in Chief?  The silence is deafening.

Romney doesn’t care that Obama has acted unconstitutionally, he’s fine with it.  He’ll have that power for himself if his spinelessness doesn’t cost him the election.  And as Obama made his move pandering to Hispanics for their votes, Romney is doing exactly the same.  He’ll staple green cards to diplomas?  He wouldn’t have the constitutional right to do so.  He won’t repeal Obama’s executive order?  Of course not.  Both parties are the same, neither acting according to the Constitution and varying only by slight degrees.

This is no alternative to Obama and it gives the lie to Romney’s campaign slogan, “Believe in America.”  If he did he would be talking about those principles that make America great and that foster the desire to become American through legal immigration.  He would be talking about how thwarting and undermining the Constitution hurts the citizens, including legal immigrants, whose rights are guaranteed and protected by it.

As Romney dangles green cards and other incentives in exchange for Hispanic support, so will he lose the support of mainstream America – you know, the ones affected by illegal immigration.  He should be campaigning on American Conservative values – fiscal responsibility, strong national security, smaller government and the like – because these are good for all citizens regardless of race, religion or creed.  Instead, he feints left to out-pander the panderer-in-chief.

Posing as an opponent to big government, Romney’s declarations would expand the bureaucracy of the already overwhelmed legal immigration system.  Legal immigrants currently going through the process will be shoved aside just as they will be because of Obama’s June 15 pronouncement.  Focusing on a tiny group at the expense of the rest, he makes clear his disregard for the rule of law, the suffering economy and the lack of employment.  Romney shows that he, too, will say whatever he wants in order to get elected.  This is our alternative to Obama?

Maybe it’s time for a Scott Walker write-in.

2 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in According to Jude

March 16, 2012

Are You Free?

By Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

If the government can take your private property, are you free?

If the government can dictate to you what you can and can’t eat, are you free?

If government agents can come into your public school and examine & replace your child’s lunch, are you free?

If your health care is in the control of the government and they can dictate your medical choices, are you free?

If you are a working tax payer, you pay for the entitlements of one fifth of the nation. Are you free?

If law enforcement can’t ask for a Hispanic person’s driver’s license because it could be considered discriminatory, are you free?

If the illegal and the dead can vote, are you free?

If your votes are rendered meaningless through sudden redistricting, are you free?

If energy is controlled by the government, are you free?

If you can be prosecuted for telling the truth about violent Muslim extremists, are you free?

If “right wing extremism” can be defined by Homeland Security but Muslim extremism cannot, are we free?

If opposition to abortion can be considered extremist, are you free?

If you can’t teach your children what you think is right without fear of imprisonment, are you free?

If teachers are being paid but our children are 70th in the world in reading, 95th in science, are our children going to grow up to be free?

If the government can force your child to learn about sex starting at age 5, are you free?

If someone can strip search you every time you want to travel by air, are you free?

When elected officials don’t have to abide by the laws of the land but you do, are you free?

If you can’t oppose a government policy without being ridiculed and called racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, are you free?

If the peaceful is called violent and the violent peaceful, are you free?

If the military can arrest and imprison you indefinitely for any reason without a trial, ARE YOU FREE?

And what is at stake if you’re not free?

What is at stake if you can’t teach your children what you think is right?

What is at stake if our children can’t read?

What is at stake if they can take your property?

What is at stake if we can’t practice our religion freely?

What is at stake if you can’t rely on the rule of law?

What is at stake if we can’t voice our ideas on government?

What is at stake if we can’t name the greatest violence that threatens our freedom and peace?

Our property can be taken for any “public purpose.”  We cannot criticize the government.  We can now be jailed indefinitely for any reason by the military.  We are not allowed to call terrorists, terrorists.  The government and the criminals will always be armed.  The cops won’t be there until after the fact and they’ll be trying to avoid litigation.

Who protects your home from being seized?

Who protects you from the next Nadal Hassan?

Who protects your polling places from thugs with batons?

Just when we need strong men to fight thugs like these our men have been so emasculated that there’s practically no one left to protect the weak and defenseless.  If they dare to fight they are cut down in an instant over a little pee, the weak and defenseless left to fend for themselves.

What do you have that’s worth protecting?  What do you want for your children?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in According to Jude

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 395 other followers