On the memorial of the Normandy Invasion; Bing had a beautiful picture of Normandy Beach. There were clickable regions over the picture indicating information about what happened that day June 6, 1944. Google had the name Google spelled out using Tetris type characters. To me this is a disservice to the soldiers who died that day.

On this day September 11, 2009, Google's home page lists nothing of 9/11. Bing on the other hand has a beautiful picture showing the memorial at the site of where The World Trade Center once stood.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I will have full coverage of the speech soon. For now I will cover one part towards the end of the speech, because it was very telling.

Obama, speaking of a letter that senator Kennedy wrote;

"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

The character of our country is at stake. What worries me is the part about "the fundamental principles of social justice." The president wouldn't have mentioned the "social justice" part of the Kennedy letter if he didn't believe in it, or find it purposeful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

The term "social justice" is often employed as a euphemism by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Obama, describing Kennedy's beliefs;

That large-heartedness — that concern and regard for the plight of others — is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

There are three things here I would like to point out.

1. The reward for responsibility is FREEDOM, not security, or fair play. Is freedom not the basis of the U.S. Constitution?

2. Obama says, "when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand." I've never heard of government "lending a helping hand." There is no constitutional obligation to "lend a helping hand", only to "provide for the general welfare." I have a hard time believing that providing for the general welfare in involves hand holding. General welfare is meant to be just that -- general -- not specific. If the government begins to itemize welfare; the general aspect is lost. The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid a welfare state, not create one!

3. Obama says, "sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise." Where is it said that there is a "promise" that government will "make things fair"? Just like Obama has not read the health care bill; Obama seems to have missed The Constitution of The United States somewhere along the way.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Picture of Ron Bloom:

Van Jones, the former "Green Jobs Czar" is now out of the picture. For anyone following the story, this was no surprise. Jones was an admitted Communist, and a Truther.

Now Obama is moving on to appoint the next Czar, Ron Bloom. His position will be called "senior counselor for manufacturing policy", or "manufacturing czar".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/07/obama-manufacturing-adviser-labor-day-picnic/

Obama chose a Labor Day union picnic on Monday as the backdrop to announce his selection of Ron Bloom, a member of his auto industry task force, as senior counselor for manufacturing policy. Bloom planned to travel to Cincinnati with Obama for an afternoon announcement at the AFL-CIO event.

Since when does the United States incorporate "manufacturing policy"? I thought that manufacturing was a private venture, not requiring policy. Sounds strange to me.

Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman for the Bush administration, told FOX News that presidents like to appoint czars because it can be hard to get political appointees confirmed by an increasingly partisan Congress.

"They have skirted around that process so there is no accountability for the czars," she said Monday. "Nobody has to go up and testify in front of Congress. They don't have to go through the process."

This raises more than a few flags. There have been a few stories recently, pointing out how that majority of cabinet positions in Obama's administration have not been filled. Normally by this time the president has filled most of his cabinet positions.

Why would the president have such a hard time having his appointees approved? Is it because of partisan politics, or is that because the majority of people Obama wishes to appoint are just like Van Jones? People with activist pasts, who have no chance of making it through a confirmation hearing.

To answer the question, perhaps we should look at this most recent czar appointment Ron Bloom.

http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/article/ron_bloom_car_czar_in_the_labor_zionist_tradition/

By now Ron Bloom’s professional road to becoming the Obama administration’s car czar has been widely reported. Missing from the coverage, however, has been any mention of those formative years at Jewish summer camp.

Born in New York City and raised in Swarthmore, a suburb of Philadelphia, much of Bloom’s early life revolved around Habonim (now known as Habonim Dror), a progressive Labor Zionist youth movement that emphasizes cultural Judaism, socialism and social justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

The term "social justice" is often employed as a euphemism by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Bloom’s parents met at a Habonim summer camp in the 1940s and moved to Israel, intending to make aliyah. Though they changed their minds and moved back to the United States, Habonim remained an integral part of their lives.

“My parents had always been supportive of doing something that we found meaningful,” Bloom said. “There was always a view that what’s going on in the world matters. We talked politics at the dinner table. Life was about engagement in the world.”

At age 10, Bloom was sent with his two siblings to Camp Galil, a movement-run summer camp near Doylestown, Pa. He returned each season for the next four years and later became a camp counselor.

Bloom recalled camp as “a fun experience” that afforded him the opportunity to “meet people from different places.” He said he never intended to go into the Labor Zionist movement professionally.

Addressing the question of how the experience influenced him, Bloom said, “It’s all a tapestry, and it’s hard to figure out what fits where.”

He says Habonim infused him with values that influenced the way he views public service. “We sang the songs, but it wasn’t about that,” Bloom said. “It was a broader sense of identifying with the underdog, and of observing the world through a lens, through people who don’t have as much and aren’t as lucky.”

The Labor Zionist movement prides itself in its direct connection with union work and its ability to inspire leadership, said Kenneth Bob, the president of Ameinu, the Labor Zionist organization that provides funding to the Habonim Dror youth movement.

The new "manufacturing czar" Ron Bloom, spent the majority of his youth in a socialist summer camp. The most important part of the interview was this statement, “It was a broader sense of identifying with the underdog, and of observing the world through a lens, through people who don’t have as much and aren’t as lucky.”

To most people this means little, but to me it tells a great deal about who Ron Bloom is. Ron Bloom shows that he holds one of the most important beliefs, when it comes to socialism. Socialists teach us that those who have more, acquire more by chance, or exploitation, not by their own independent actions. Ron Bloom exemplifies his socialist upbringing with the use of the word "lucky". He talks of "underdogs" and those who are "lucky".

Considering Ron Bloom is not very ambiguous about his upbringing or his political beliefs it's plain to see; our new "manufacturing czar" is a socialist. I wonder if this is why Obama keeps circumventing The United States Constitution?

Apparently Obama did accidentally reveal his true beliefs when Joe The Plumber asked him a simple question about taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber

Obama: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Obama is not talking about a free market economy randomly "spreading the wealth around". Obama is referring to central planning. Socialism.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html

Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan by the U.S. Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/white-house-withdraws-students-help-obama/

Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what "the president wants us to do."

I try to imagine what I would have written when I was in school. I would have started the essay with, "Uhh... Uhh... Umm... Uhh..." When I was young there was a fishing show that my dad watched; it came on the local channel. The guy on the show would say "Uhh" before just about every word. One day my sister and I noticed this, and said something to my dad. He was trying to watch the show, and was telling us to keep it down. Then after a little while he noticed it too. "Uhh... you Uhh... take the Uhh... hook, and Uhh..." Then my dad started laughing and changed the channel. It was so bad he couldn't watch it anymore. I think we ruined it for him! It went down kind of like the SNL skit "More Cowbell" and the Blue Oyster Cult song "(Don't Fear) The Reaper."

The president addressing school children is not in and of itself strange, but I can understand why people are upset about this. IT'S CREEPY! The president wants children to find ways to "help the president", and "discuss what the president wants them to do"? This sounds more like something that a Third-World dictator would say.

Why is everything so personal with this president? I think that worries people. Why not ask of the children, "What can you do for your community or country"? It is very strange that the president wants to inject himself into a classroom scenario, where he demands that children "help him", and understand what he is "doing for them". That is strange, at least in America.

I think it's going to go down like this... Obama is going to give a normal pep-talk speech to school children. Don't drop out, stay away from drugs, brush your teeth, the usual. Then democrats on the left are going to point at anyone who expressed misgivings about the speech and try and paint them as fools. By that time, the news about what the initial speech entailed will have been forgotten.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The gay marriage debate has been going on for years. I find it interesting that both sides of the argument are discussing two completely unassociated points.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112513826

Supporters of gay marriage:

"It's really about civil rights, about having the same things that every other loving couple has," Ryan says. "I have full confidence that the people of Maine will do the right thing and honor our commitments and honor civil rights for all Mainers."

Those against gay marriage:

"It isn't about anything other than the definition of marriage, what it's going to mean to us and how it's going to be defined in society," says Marc Mutty, the executive chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine.

I find it interesting that one argument is that of "rights", while the other argument is simply over the definition of the word. Of course these are just two examples, but they seem to encompass the heart of the debate.

Consider, what if there were a movement just to redefine a word. Let's take murder for example. Just ponder for a moment, what would happen if one state adopted a law in which murder was redefined. What if murder no longer explicitly involved death. What if the scope of the word murder were expanded to include slander, and even embarrassment -- character assassination if you will. The legal ramifications would be unimaginable. There would be people jailed on murder charges without any "traditional" murder having taken place. Of course redefining the word murder would never happen; that would be absurd. How then is redefining marriage any less absurd?

From what I have seen the "real" reason behind the gay marriage movement has nothing to do with rights. It seems to have more to do with benefits. There are certain advantages to marriage which gays are not privy to. The gay marriage movement is an attempt to "jump ahead". If the word marriage is redefined, gays will automatically assume all of the benefits of opposite sex married couples overnight. If those behind the gay marriage movement were more honest about their concerns, perhaps things would go differently.

There is no movement to keep gays from having benefits. There is no movement to keep those couples who are of the opposite sex, and are not married from having benefits. If the argument from the gay marriage supporters were indeed a rights issue, and not a benefits issue, could single people also claim civil rights violations?

The problem for those in support of gay marriage is simple. The majority of people are not in support of gay marriage.

Those in support of gay marriage are not just "pissing in the wind". They are pissing at a tornado, spawned by an approaching hurricane.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.