There have been a number of "trial ballons" released by Democrat "movers & shakers" in regard to a Democrat "Dream Ticket." According to these political thinkers, a Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket comprised of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., would be unbeatable. All the weaknesses of Hillary in the perceptions of voters are more than covered by Barack Obama.
These political thinkers believe that, if Obama were to head the ticket, rather than Hillary, then Obama's weaknesses in terms of experience would be successfully exploited by the McCain team. Whoever joins McCain is likely to be a "meat ax" pro. (He may choose a Black to off-set charges of racism.) Therefore, a ticket headed by Obama (with Hillary in the Vice Presidential slot) would be more vulnerable. Even the "Junior" at the end of Obama's name suggests that maybe Obama has not really "grown" enough to be President of the United States.
More ominously, according to political realists, is the fact that a Presidential ticket headed by Obama invites assassination. Given the heavy support among the Black population of America for Barack Obama, such an assassination would result in social strife.
According to this line of thought, Hillary Clinton might be willing to play "second fiddle" for a while for the sake of William Clinton's candidacy, but would she be willing to wait out Barack Obama?
The long string of suspicious deaths in the wake of the Clintons' political rise cannot be a source of comfort to Obama supporters. The fact that Gerald Ford was shot at, while Nelson Rockefeller was Vice President, and the fact that Ronald Reagan was shot at, while George H.W. Bush was Vice President, point to the inherent danger to the President and to the care that must be taken in choosing a Vice Presidential running-mate.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
FISH? OR ABOMINATIONS?
I had reason to glance at the Metropolitan section of The Washington Times today (03/06/08), as I planned a short break from toil. I headed for a small "library" nearby, where I hoped to get myself grounded in local doings. Immediately, I was struck by a color picture of various fish (sole on ice?), lined enticingly at a counter display at some seafood vendors or other.
The article which accompanied the photograph (by Joseph Silverman) was entitled: "SEAFOOD: HOW SAFE?" It was the project of one Karen Goldberg Goff, and was a consumer-oriented piece. The specific area of concern was mercury contamination of seafood. It began: "Information in the seafood world has become as muddy as the water during a thunderstorm..."
I thought that this was an inauspicious beginning, as it seemed to suggest that the writer was not going to be too plain herself, regarding the warning which presumably was to follow. However, I'm all in favor of public information being presented on issues affecting health. The article proceeded forward, touching on consumers, science, law and public policy. Hence, one does not feel "cheated," having spent a bit of time glancing through it.
The article does not offend me so much as a sort of statistical chart that adjoined it. This chart is fairly large (almost as large as the photograph, previously cited, under which it rested). The title of this chart was: "FISH FACTS." This seemed to me to be perfectly straight-forward and germane. In fact it even seemed to be a tad more specific than Ms. Goff's "seafood world."
Bitter was my disappointment! Under the title for the chart were three subtitles: "HIGH MERCURY," "MODERATE MERCURY," and "LOW MERCURY." Beneath the "MODERATE MERCURY" subtitle, one spies the caveat: "These fish contain moderate amounts of mercury:". Thereafter, one observes among the list of "fish" such specimens as: "Lobster" (crustacean) and "Mahi-mahi" (dolphin: mammal). Under the subtitle of "LOW MERCURY" one finds the caveat: "These types of fish contain the lowest amounts of mercury:". Beneath it are listed such "fish" specimen, as: "Clams," "Crawfish," Oyster," "Shrimp," and "Squid."
Really? Although few people today pay heed to ANYTHING Biblical, and, therefore, the fact that most of these singled out items are, in fact, dubbed "abominations" by Holy Scripture eludes the typical newspaper reader. Nevertheless, has zoology changed that much since I was a young student? Do modern teachers (or textbook writers) view inequality with such abhorence that they cannot teach any form of observable categorical distinction? Will some form of marine life be "offended" if excluded from the category of "fish?" Indeed! (Some modern "dictionaries" even list as secondary definitions of "fish" nearly anything one could "bring in" in a net (plastic bottles included).
Although, no doubt, the pedagogery has evolved from distinctions among observable life-forms to "almost sameness" in life-forms, this is not based on Charles Darwin's observations and theory of a natural selection at work, but rather a fine madness, which replaces materialism with abstractionism. This abstractionism is proclaimed "more essential" by these "con men" than the old observable criteria for establishing categories. One example of this that comes to mind, being the proclamation, ipse dixit, that we are all emanations from the "sea of being." In such a "sea" there cannot be any distinction between fish and crustacean, nor, indeed, fish and fowl. And so it goes with modern "schooling."
Folks, we've encountered this before. Hans Christian Anderson's tale of the "King Who Wore No Clothes" touches upon the ongoing duping of the world by these "tailors."
Well, if they win, and we are all eventually proclaimed to be fish, my only advice is: Stay low and keep your fins moving.
The article which accompanied the photograph (by Joseph Silverman) was entitled: "SEAFOOD: HOW SAFE?" It was the project of one Karen Goldberg Goff, and was a consumer-oriented piece. The specific area of concern was mercury contamination of seafood. It began: "Information in the seafood world has become as muddy as the water during a thunderstorm..."
I thought that this was an inauspicious beginning, as it seemed to suggest that the writer was not going to be too plain herself, regarding the warning which presumably was to follow. However, I'm all in favor of public information being presented on issues affecting health. The article proceeded forward, touching on consumers, science, law and public policy. Hence, one does not feel "cheated," having spent a bit of time glancing through it.
The article does not offend me so much as a sort of statistical chart that adjoined it. This chart is fairly large (almost as large as the photograph, previously cited, under which it rested). The title of this chart was: "FISH FACTS." This seemed to me to be perfectly straight-forward and germane. In fact it even seemed to be a tad more specific than Ms. Goff's "seafood world."
Bitter was my disappointment! Under the title for the chart were three subtitles: "HIGH MERCURY," "MODERATE MERCURY," and "LOW MERCURY." Beneath the "MODERATE MERCURY" subtitle, one spies the caveat: "These fish contain moderate amounts of mercury:". Thereafter, one observes among the list of "fish" such specimens as: "Lobster" (crustacean) and "Mahi-mahi" (dolphin: mammal). Under the subtitle of "LOW MERCURY" one finds the caveat: "These types of fish contain the lowest amounts of mercury:". Beneath it are listed such "fish" specimen, as: "Clams," "Crawfish," Oyster," "Shrimp," and "Squid."
Really? Although few people today pay heed to ANYTHING Biblical, and, therefore, the fact that most of these singled out items are, in fact, dubbed "abominations" by Holy Scripture eludes the typical newspaper reader. Nevertheless, has zoology changed that much since I was a young student? Do modern teachers (or textbook writers) view inequality with such abhorence that they cannot teach any form of observable categorical distinction? Will some form of marine life be "offended" if excluded from the category of "fish?" Indeed! (Some modern "dictionaries" even list as secondary definitions of "fish" nearly anything one could "bring in" in a net (plastic bottles included).
Although, no doubt, the pedagogery has evolved from distinctions among observable life-forms to "almost sameness" in life-forms, this is not based on Charles Darwin's observations and theory of a natural selection at work, but rather a fine madness, which replaces materialism with abstractionism. This abstractionism is proclaimed "more essential" by these "con men" than the old observable criteria for establishing categories. One example of this that comes to mind, being the proclamation, ipse dixit, that we are all emanations from the "sea of being." In such a "sea" there cannot be any distinction between fish and crustacean, nor, indeed, fish and fowl. And so it goes with modern "schooling."
Folks, we've encountered this before. Hans Christian Anderson's tale of the "King Who Wore No Clothes" touches upon the ongoing duping of the world by these "tailors."
Well, if they win, and we are all eventually proclaimed to be fish, my only advice is: Stay low and keep your fins moving.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
DODGING BULLETS: WHO'S IN DANGER?
The election year 2008 is one that may be looked at from many points of view. There are many ways to build statistical curiosities in regard to the electoral process and in regard to individual candidates for President. I thought that it might be interesting, given the track record in the United States, to consider the candidates most likely to be shot at and possibly killed.
The odds on favorite, if he had any chance at all of getting the nomination, would be Mr. Ron Paul.
Huge amounts of money have been spent to "shape" America, so that it will fit comfortably into the Pan American Super State, or Region. Judges and Legislators have been bought. Preachers and pedagogs have been enlisted. Big Business has its eyes "whirling and leaping" at the thought of "economy of scale" achieved by the Pan American Union (proposed currency: the "Pani").
With the Rockefeller condominium fully behind the "PAU" there seemed to be no reason to suppose that this union would not occur reasonably soon. Sure, there may be a few "rogue" leaders--such as Chavez--to "rub out" first. But the Bilderberger-Panglossian dream seemed at hand.
Then came Ron. Ron Paul. He comes talking about the Constitution, talking about eliminating the IRS, talking about defending OUR borders , rather than other countries' borders half a globe away from us, and talking about limited government. He warns of debt and the flaws in our money-creation system. This guy is clearly a danger to megalomania in our time! All debtmongerers are implacable foes. What does Ron Paul know about The New World Order? What does he know about The Global Syndicate? What does he know about Tikkun Olam? NOTHING!
He doesn't understand the "big picture" (the masses of people are incapable of ruling themselves and, hence, must be ruled with an iron hand). It is the burden of the rich and brainy murderers to save the world from itself. The tribute the people will pay for this service is a modest infinity of servitude.
Therefore, all talk about limited government is treason. The wage of treason is death. Therefore the rich and brainy murderers have a perfect right to kill Ron Paul. It's the only responsible thing to do. He has already earned it.
It is predicted, here, that if Ron Paul were able to mount a campaign as successful and threatening as Gov. George Wallace's campaign was, he would be gunned down.
Now, another potential presidential contender who might be gunned down is Barack Obama. The problem with him is that he may actually have some ideals hidden within that no one noticed. If he seemed to be a threat to the State of Israel, due to an even-handed approach to all countries (forgeting that some countries are more equal than others), then the wheels of change (assassination) may be set in motion. What if he tried to cut funds to the wealthy Israeli State, so as to have more money available to assist the pitifully poor nations in Africa? Such actions would immediately gain him the title of "rogue head of state," and he might well be assassinated by the Secret Service itself.
Parenthetically, rumor has it that the Rockefeller family security apparatus is staffed by the cream of the Secret Service. Once a Secret Service agent has proven that he is skillful in protecting the President, then he is ready to move up to the "big time" position of protectiing the Rockefellers.
Now, certainly no one expects Obama to be much more than an "absentee President," enjoying trips and fun. The inside view is that Obama will be somewhat like former mayor of Washington, D.C., Mr. Anthony Williams. Therefore, it is expected that he'll probably attend a lot of Nats games and catch some Wizard b-ball, visit brother masons in lodges around the world, while leaving the boring day-to-day White House work to his Vice President and White House staff.
These latter will most likely be selected by a Rockefeller "think tank" for their solid credentials, experience, global respect, etc. They will be good, patriotic men who can be trusted to fulfill the Bilderberger vision of a world community, controlled by people who had "the right stuff" (vast sums of money, tolerance toward the Enlightened, and an understanding that the world had limited resources, which could not be wasted on "idiotic useless eaters").
Naturally, then, if Obama proved to be Lincolnesque, his fate would likely be the same.
Now, there is one other caveat for Obama's candidacy. The long list of untimely dead that bob in the aether of the Clinton duo's political wake. For the Clintons "problems" often "go away" forever.
The odds on favorite, if he had any chance at all of getting the nomination, would be Mr. Ron Paul.
Huge amounts of money have been spent to "shape" America, so that it will fit comfortably into the Pan American Super State, or Region. Judges and Legislators have been bought. Preachers and pedagogs have been enlisted. Big Business has its eyes "whirling and leaping" at the thought of "economy of scale" achieved by the Pan American Union (proposed currency: the "Pani").
With the Rockefeller condominium fully behind the "PAU" there seemed to be no reason to suppose that this union would not occur reasonably soon. Sure, there may be a few "rogue" leaders--such as Chavez--to "rub out" first. But the Bilderberger-Panglossian dream seemed at hand.
Then came Ron. Ron Paul. He comes talking about the Constitution, talking about eliminating the IRS, talking about defending OUR borders , rather than other countries' borders half a globe away from us, and talking about limited government. He warns of debt and the flaws in our money-creation system. This guy is clearly a danger to megalomania in our time! All debtmongerers are implacable foes. What does Ron Paul know about The New World Order? What does he know about The Global Syndicate? What does he know about Tikkun Olam? NOTHING!
He doesn't understand the "big picture" (the masses of people are incapable of ruling themselves and, hence, must be ruled with an iron hand). It is the burden of the rich and brainy murderers to save the world from itself. The tribute the people will pay for this service is a modest infinity of servitude.
Therefore, all talk about limited government is treason. The wage of treason is death. Therefore the rich and brainy murderers have a perfect right to kill Ron Paul. It's the only responsible thing to do. He has already earned it.
It is predicted, here, that if Ron Paul were able to mount a campaign as successful and threatening as Gov. George Wallace's campaign was, he would be gunned down.
Now, another potential presidential contender who might be gunned down is Barack Obama. The problem with him is that he may actually have some ideals hidden within that no one noticed. If he seemed to be a threat to the State of Israel, due to an even-handed approach to all countries (forgeting that some countries are more equal than others), then the wheels of change (assassination) may be set in motion. What if he tried to cut funds to the wealthy Israeli State, so as to have more money available to assist the pitifully poor nations in Africa? Such actions would immediately gain him the title of "rogue head of state," and he might well be assassinated by the Secret Service itself.
Parenthetically, rumor has it that the Rockefeller family security apparatus is staffed by the cream of the Secret Service. Once a Secret Service agent has proven that he is skillful in protecting the President, then he is ready to move up to the "big time" position of protectiing the Rockefellers.
Now, certainly no one expects Obama to be much more than an "absentee President," enjoying trips and fun. The inside view is that Obama will be somewhat like former mayor of Washington, D.C., Mr. Anthony Williams. Therefore, it is expected that he'll probably attend a lot of Nats games and catch some Wizard b-ball, visit brother masons in lodges around the world, while leaving the boring day-to-day White House work to his Vice President and White House staff.
These latter will most likely be selected by a Rockefeller "think tank" for their solid credentials, experience, global respect, etc. They will be good, patriotic men who can be trusted to fulfill the Bilderberger vision of a world community, controlled by people who had "the right stuff" (vast sums of money, tolerance toward the Enlightened, and an understanding that the world had limited resources, which could not be wasted on "idiotic useless eaters").
Naturally, then, if Obama proved to be Lincolnesque, his fate would likely be the same.
Now, there is one other caveat for Obama's candidacy. The long list of untimely dead that bob in the aether of the Clinton duo's political wake. For the Clintons "problems" often "go away" forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
