Obama On Our Flag

The Obama flag isn't exactly new news but there's something about it I noticed this weekend that has not been in the news.

First, to recap, the Obama campaign was selling prints of an artist-designed American flag that had been desecrated with the Obama symbol.

This was being sold at the Obama campaign web store for $35.  Keyword - was.  I noticed this weekend that the item is no longer available.  Could it be the furor over the item prompted it's removal?  I'm sure the Obama campaign would never admit it, if that's what happened.

Around the country a different Obama flag has been used by Democrats; this one also being a desecration of the American flag.  It's been available for a couple of years now and it still sickens me that people fly this flag.

Both of these flags are in violation of the Flag Code.  Section 8g reads, "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

This flag has even been flying at Democrat campaign locations, as this news story from Florida describes. 

There have been a few other people in the last century who also had their image on a flag.  I find their identities to be no small coincidence.

 

The Obama flag is infuriating, but it should not be that surprising.  The leftist history with the American flag is ripe with scenes such as this one from an Occupy Wall Street event.  I wonder if they would object to a conservative burning an Obama flag.

 

 

Michelle Obama, at a ceremony on September 11, 2011, while bagpipers played and an honor guard folded the American flag, leaned over to Barack and said, "All this for a flag."

 

And who can forget this image?

 

 

For years, leftists have shown a complete lack of respect for our flag.  That Barack Obama should have his image placed on the American flag is no surprise, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.



This Is the 47%

 

Does anyone really think Romney should waste one second of his time going after this woman's vote?  Obama already has it; bought and paid for. 

Obama Alienates Black Christians

Barack Obama cannot be reelected without the black vote and it appears there is some doubt that voting bloc will come through for him as they did in 2008.  In 2008, for the first time in history the percentage of black citizens who voted was higher than that of the general population, outpacing all Americans by 2.6%  There can be no doubt the reason for this was the presence of a black nominee on the ballot.  Being black is what got him elected, with 96% of the black vote going to Obama.

Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976.  Four years later, he is polling in around 40 percent of white voters, which would be a historic low for a winning candidate if he's reelected.  No Democrat has won the white vote since 1964.  With such a huge drop off in white support Obama will need to have the black vote deliver another high turnout with almost 100% going to him.  Will that happen?  It's not looking good for Obama.

There is one major issue that is driving a wedge of doubt into the black vote.  Specifically, the black Christian vote.  That issue is Obama's support for gay marriage. 

An Associated Press article outlines the wavering of black Christians.

"When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he's taking the nation," said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. Bernard, whose endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, voted for Obama in 2008. He said he's unsure how he'll vote this year.

The Rev. George Nelson Jr., senior pastor of Grace Fellowship Baptist Church in Brenham, Texas, participated in a conference call with other African-American pastors the day after Obama's announcement during which the ministers resolved to oppose gay marriage. Nelson said Obama's statement had caused a "storm" in the African-American community.

CNSNews.com also had an article showing black Christian support for Obama is in trouble.

The Coalition of African American Pastors announced at the National Press Club on Tuesday that the grassroots group - comprised of the more than 3,000 members - is launching a national campaign to support marriage between one man and one woman and to oppose the Obama administration’s efforts to advance same-sex marriage.

“The time has come for a broad-based assault against the power that be that wants to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women,” CAAP President William Owens said at the press conference, held to announce the Marriage Mandate campaign, which includes a petition seeking 100,000 signatures pledging support for traditional marriage.

“Mr. President, I’m not going to stand with you, and there are thousands of others across this country that are not going to stand with you with this foolishness,” Owens said.

In a press release announcing the campaign, Owens encouraged black pastors and the black community to “withdraw their support for Obama.”

“Today we will be launching a nationwide campaign rallying black pastors and African Americans to voice their opposition to the president’s position on same-sex marriage, and withdraw their support from him,” said Owens, who told reporters he voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

“We will see that the black community is informed that the president is taking them for granted while pandering to the gay community,” Owens said.

“The Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) consists of 3,742 African American pastors, and he has totally ignored us,” Owens said.

He said Obama is ignoring the black community “because he feels that he has us in his pocket.”

“Well, we are not in his pocket,” Owens said.

It appears that Republican nominee Mitt Romney is not writing off the black vote as George W. Bush did.  Bush declined invitations to speak to the NAACP convention during most of his presidency, but Romney accepted, speaking to the group in July this year.  Perhaps Romney sees the gay marriage issue as an opportunity to court just enough of the black vote to boot Obama from the White House.  Romney was booed when saying he'd repeal Obamacare, but I've read that he did gain some respect for showing up to speak and not referring to blacks as "you people" as Ross Perot did when addressing the convention in 1992.

There can be no doubt that Obama will get the vast majority of the black vote. But, even if he gets the same percentage of the black vote, the turnout is the key.  Without the same or higher turnout of black voters, his reelection chances are greatly diminished.  He is taking the black vote for granted, assuming he can ignore their values and still get their support because of his skin color.  Some of the black community are wise to his attitude and don't like it.  If they vote for Romney instead, or simply stay away from the polls, Obama will be calling the movers next January.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/22/3715878/blacks-must-not-cede-vital-role.html#storylink=cpy

Obama the Murderer

Much has been made of the recent attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans.  The Obama administration initially claimed the attacks were 'spontaneous protests' and scoffed at those who said these were planned attacks. 

Last week the White House spokesman Jay Carney was finally admitting the truth, saying, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Meanwhile, Obama was on Univision and responded to a question about whether the attacks were planned by saying, “We don’t know yet. We’re going to continue to investigate this.”

Why the difference of opinion on what happened?  Why can't Obama and his staff get their story straight?  Before that can be answered there are two more reports that need to be examined.

First, in spite of the initial denials of the Obama administration, there are multiple reports of the US State Department having 48 to 72 hours advance warning of the attacks.  So much for spontaneous.  But, the State Department issued no warnings and made no attempts to insure our diplomats had the protection they needed.

Second is a report from Howard Kurtz detailing the political boost that Obama's campaign strategists see for him as a result of the attacks.

The truth from all this is likely that the Obama administration knew of the planned attacks but did nothing and hoped they would happen so Obama could somehow get some political gain for his reelection campaign.  After the death of Chris Stevens and the horror of Americans as they watched his body being paraded around the street, some backpedaling had to be done.

Having advance knowledge of these 'spontaneous' attacks but doing nothing to protect our diplomats is reprehensible.  Leaving our diplomats to be cannon fodder in the hopes of getting a boost in the polls is the same as turning them over to the attackers to be killed. 

Did Obama know of the advance warning?  Of course he did.  Did he choose to do nothing, probably on the advice of his strategists?  Of course he did.  Did Chris Stevens and three other Americans die because of this?  Yes, they did. 

The terrorists who attacked our embassies were the ones who actually killed our countrymen.  But Obama gave his tantamount permission with his inaction.  Stevens' blood is on Obama's hands.  And he knows this, which is why he is still denying the attacks were planned, even when his staff admit the truth. 

Taking Aim at Clarence Dupnik

Remember Clarence Dupnik, the Democratic Sheriff in Pima County, Arizona?  He was the Sheriff when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in his county on January 8, 2011.  He practically ran people over trying to get in front of the cameras so he could blame everyone on the right from Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh for the shooting.  Everyone except the shooter, who ended up being a leftist.  In a press meeting hours after the shooting, Dupnik turned the issues political by declaring Arizona a “mecca for racism and bigotry,” and blaming the shooting on the “vitriolic” political rhetoric in today’s society.  He also made outrageous statements on Arizona's immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, calling it "racist, disgusting and unnecessary" and insinuated he would not enforce the law.  With all the shooting off at the mouth he has done, he has made himself an excellent target for replacement by a Republican challenger.

 

Enter Mark Napier.  He received 43% of the vote to defeat four other Republicans in the August 28 primary and will go up against Dupnik this November.  Napier is a career law enforcement officer, conservative Republican and has the record needed to send Dupnik into retirement. 

 

“I feel wonderful about the win,” said Napier. “I have a great team that worked to deliver a simple message- it’s time for a new sheriff.  It’s time we had an engaged, dynamic and professional sheriff that engages the citizens, and I think that message resonated with voters.  We will keep up with our positive message to people that new leadership is needed.  I think people are ready for a change.”

 

From Napier's website:

• 28 Years of Law Enforcement Experience
• Senior and Executive Level Command Experience
• Retired Captain with Tucson Police Department
• Assistant Director Glendale, AZ Police Department
• Extensive Budget Management Experience
• Highly Experienced in Field Operations, Tactical Operations, Investigations and Administration
• Recipient of Many Awards and Commendations
• Master's Degree in Criminal Justice from Boston University
• Graduate of Senior Management Institute for Police
• Mark will be a visible and professional Sheriff engaging neighborhoods and nonprofits, and ensuring effective crime control through the most modern enforcement strategies.
• Mark will enforce our laws, not interpret them.  He will not engage in political rhetoric!

Every election year there are always a few elections around the country that are interesting to watch.  I cannot think of a more interesting one this year than the Pima County Sheriff.

Note: Yes, I know there is a Green Party candidate for Sheriff.  I think they're putting up Kermit the Frog.

Bomb Threats - A Disturbing Trend

There have been a disturbing number of bomb threats this month, mostly at college campuses.  After doing a quick news search I found a larger number of bomb threats than I had known about. There are probably others I am not aware of.  There may or may not be suspects for these incidents. I did not look up the status of each incident.  I can't help but wonder if this is leading up to something.  Targeting educational institutions, medical centers and the largest retail chain in the nation cannot be a coincidence.  This bears watching.


6/28 - Two Wal Mart stores - Tulsa
6/28 - Two Wal Mart stores - Georgia
7/25 - Wal Mart store - Oklahoma
7/27 - Eight Wal Mart stores - Missouri
7/29 - Two Wal Mart stores - Kansas
7/29 - Lawrence Medical Center - Kansas
8/8 - Walter Reed Medical Center
8/17 - Carmike Cinema Movie Theatre - Muskogee
9/14 - University of Texas at Austin
9/14 - North Dakota State University
9/14 - Hiram College (Ohio)
9/14 - OU Medical Center (Oklahoma City) - unspecified "hoax"
9/15 - Wal Mart stores - Rexburg, Idaho
9/16 - University of Texas at Brownsville
9/17 - Louisiana State University
9/17 - JFK Airport - New York City

Oklahoma 2012 State Questions

Oklahomans will be voting on six state questions this November and none appear to be rising to the level of controversy that past questions have generated.  Here is a brief look at the questions, summary from the Secretary of State's website and my take on each.

State Question 758 - "The measure deals with real property taxes also called ad valorem taxes. These taxes are based on several factors. One factor is the fair cash value of the property.

The measure changes the limits on increases in fair cash value. Now, increases are limited to 5% of fair cash value in any taxable year.

The measure changes the cap on increases to 3% for some property. The 3% cap would apply to homestead exempted property. The cap would also apply to agricultural land.

The measure also removes obsolete language."

Reducing the maximum increase in property taxes from 5% to 3% is taxpayer friendly and should absolutely be passed.  Since almost 60% of Oklahoma property taxes go to schools I expect the teachers union and the education lobby to oppose passage of this measure. They'd vote for an increase if they could.


State Question 759 - "The measure deals with three areas of government action. These areas are employment, education and contracting.

In these areas, the measure does not allow affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs give preferred treatment based on race, color or gender. They also give preferred treatment based on ethnicity or national origin. Discrimination on these bases is also not permitted.

The measure permits affirmative action in three instances. 1. When gender is a bonafide qualification, it is allowed. 2. Existing court orders and consent decrees that require preferred treatment will continue and can be followed. 3. Affirmative action is allowed when needed to keep or obtain federal funds.

The measure applies to the State and its agencies. It applies to counties, cities and towns. It applies to school districts. It applies to other State subdivisions.

The measure applies only to actions taken after its approval by the people."

Removing affirmative action programs is long overdue.  There is no legitimate reason for keeping them.  Some minorities will, no doubt, oppose passage of this measure.  To them, I will just say - "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr."


State Question 762 - "This measure amends Section 10 of Article 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It changes current law, decreasing the power and authority of the Governor by removing the Governor from the parole process for persons convicted of certain offenses defined as nonviolent offenses. It enlarges the power and authority of the Pardon and Parole Board by authorizing that Board, in place of the Governor, to grant parole to persons convicted of certain offenses defined as nonviolent offenses.

The Legislature defines what offenses are nonviolent offenses and the Legislature may change that definition.

The measure authorizes the Pardon and Parole Board to recommend to the Governor, but not to itself grant, parole for persons convicted of certain offenses, specifically those offenses identified by law as crimes for which persons are required to serve not less than eighty-five percent of their sentence prior to being considered for parole and those designated by the Legislature as exceptions to nonviolent offenses. For those offenses for which persons are required to serve a minimum mandatory period of confinement prior to being eligible to be considered for parole, the Pardon and Parole Board may not recommend parole until that period of confinement has been served."

Oklahoma is the last state to require the Governor's approval for all paroles.  I could not be more opposed to changing this.  Unelected board members have proven earlier this year that they are unwilling to follow state law and require offenders to serve 85% of their sentence.  Personally, I believe offenders should serve 100% of their sentence.  Voters have no recourse against board members but do have recourse against an elected Governor who is required to put pen to paper and approve a release.


State Question 764 - "This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new Section 39A to Article 10. It would allow the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to issue bonds. Any bonds issued would be used to provide a reserve fund for the Board. The fund would be a reserve fund for certain water resource and sewage treatment funding programs. The fund could only be used to pay other bonds and obligations for the funding programs. The bonds could only be issued after other monies and sources are used for repayment. The bonds would be general obligation bonds. Not more than Three Hundred Million Dollars worth of bonds could be issued. The Legislature would provide the monies to pay for the bonds. The Legislature would provide for methods for issuing the bonds. The Legislature would provide for how the fund is administered."

Absolutely not.  Oklahoma already has enough debt and adding more is not fiscally responsible.  Whether the water resource and sewage treatment programs are needed or not, there will always be worthwhile projects that could be done if we are willing to add to our debt to pay for them.  Do we really want to keep adding to our debt to pay for program after program?  No!


State Question 765 - "The measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It abolishes the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Commission of Human Services and the position of Director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. These entities were created under different names by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Article 25 of the Oklahoma Constitution and given duties and responsibilities related to the care of the aged and needy. The measure repeals these sections of the Constitution and consequently, removes the power of the Commission of Human Services to establish policy and adopt rules and regulations. Under the measure, the Legislature and the people by initiative petition retain the power to adopt legislation for these purposes.

The measure adds a provision to the Constitution authorizing the Legislature to create a department or departments to administer and carry out laws to provide for the care of the aged and the needy. The measure also authorizes the Legislature to enact laws requiring the newly-created department or departments to perform other duties."

This measure will fix an accountability problem with DHS.  Currently, the Commission consists of unelected, uncompensated volunteers who make decisions based on the information provided by DHS staff.  Since 1936 this Commission has provided cover for legislators and governors seeking to avoid oversight accountability.  Passage of this measure will make the DHS director appointed by and accountable directly to the Governor and, by extension, the voters.


State Question 766 - "This measure amends Section 6A of Article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. At present that section exempts some intangible personal property from ad valorem property taxation. This measure would exempt all intangible personal property from ad valorem property taxation.

An ad valorem property tax is a tax imposed upon the value of property.

Intangible Personal Property is property whose value is not derived from its physical attributes, but rather from what it represents or evidences.

Intangible Personal Property which is still currently taxed but would not be taxed if the measure is adopted, includes items such as:

o patents, inventions, formulas, designs, and trade secrets;
o licenses, franchise, and contracts;
o land leases, mineral interests, and insurance policies;
o custom computer software; and
o trademarks, trade names and brand names.

If adopted, the measure would apply to property taxation starting with the tax year that begins on January 1, 2013"

Taxing intangibles is very subjective and likely to vary from county to county. How do you quantify the value of a client list or a professional license?  The business community in Oklahoma largely supports passing this measure.  Public schools and other recipients of ad valorem taxes oppose passage.  Unless Oklahomans want to add to the tax burdens on local businesses and further strangle our economy, this measure should be passed.

Constitution Day

 

Hollywood and Obamacare Propaganda

I do not watch much television and almost no network television.  Among the many reasons are the themes and quality of the shows that are broadcast these days.  The immorality, homosexual glorification, nudity and language have intensified in recent years.  I believe we are fast approaching the day when the licentiousness of society will cause the Standards and Practices departments for networks to allow virtually anything to be broadcast.

And now another reason to not watch network television is looming.  Abby Goodnough of the New York Times has a piece on the California Benefits Exchange in which some of their propaganda plans are mentioned.  The California Benefits Exchange is the exchange set up by the California state government to implement Obamacare.

The board of directors of the exchange sees their mission as an example for the nation, believing a successful rollout in California could convince other states with high numbers of uninsured residents that Obamacare can work for them.  Toward that end, plans are being made to use Hollywood and network television shows as propaganda tools for the exchange and Obamacare.

A reality show about "the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage" is being planned.  Naturally, such a show would be designed to be a weekly tearjerker and would probably paint the right wing as evil people who want those without health coverage to die.

The exchange also wants to have network television shows like "Modern Family", "Grey's Anatomy", "The Biggest Loser" and others to include plots dealing with Obamacare.

“I’d like to see 10 of the major TV shows, or telenovelas, have people talking about ‘that health insurance thing,’ ” said Peter V. Lee, the exchange’s executive director. “There are good story lines here.”

 

If the Left really wants to convince people Obamacare is a great thing, their first step should be to stop giving Congress, unions and other leftist organizations an exemption from the law.  If the law isn't good enough for them, no television show would ever convince me it's good enough for me.  If I watched it.  Which I won't.