About Me

Name: NancyVidedo
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

How many attended the Glenn Beck rally?

Posted by NancyVidedo on Sunday, August 29, 2010 6:34:22 AM
The question on the minds of millions of Americans this morning: How many people attended Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' rally yesterday in our nations' capitol?
 
The answer to this question has ramifications far beyond mere crowd size. It is one of the few concrete indicators of the popularity and viability of the Tea Party and their message of traditional values, less government and a return to our Founders' vision of America.
 
The New York Times described the crowd merely as "enormous and impassioned." ABC was more specific, estimating the attendance at Beck's Restoring Honor Rally in the "hundreds of thousands." AP chimed in at "tens of thousands."
 
Whether the attendance was 300,000 or one million, (you decide) the huge crowd gathered to hear conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and other notables, offered a compelling contrast to another rally being held across town held by Al Sharpton.
 
An estimated 3,000, most of whom were African-Americans, attended a rally/march hosted by Al Sharpton to commemorate the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech. Sharpton railed against the Tea Party as he informed the crowd that MLK's dream "has not been achieved."
 
The fact that America has elected a black president didn't seem to faze Sharpton as he trotted out his familiar message of black oppression. Sharpton's solution? Support Obama's latest money grab, appealingly entitled a "jobs bill.' Yawn.
 
Jesse Jackson, who arbitrarily claimed the sole right to speak for Dr. Martin Luther King, was aghast that Glenn Beck dared to infringe on his territory. Jackson told CNN that Beck was mimicking King and "humiliating the tradition."
 
NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous followed up, castigating the message of the Glenn Beck rally across town. "For a year and a half, we've been subjected to small hearts and small minds on our small screens," he said, referring to conservative ideas.  
 
Meanwhile, Martin Luther King's niece, Dr. Alveda King, offered a different message at the Glenn Beck rally. A message of hope and an appeal to honor.
 
The message of the Restoring Honor rally was more religious than political, with many speakers openly professing their Christian faith, including Beck. Obama's name wasn't mentioned once in the 200 minutes of speeches. And the Mall was left spic and span.

Sharpton's "Reclaim the Dream" rally offered a telling contrast. Both in terms of size and in terms of the message. This contrast is good news for America. A portent that the much abused race card may, finally, be losing its potency. An indication that millions of Americans value character, honor and God over racial politics.
 
The times, they are a changin'. For years, race hustlers have tried to keep the race card alive. After all, white guilt has proved very lucrative for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the segment of the black population that seek to divide Americans by race.
 
What does it say about Sharpton's message when one contrasts the 3,000 attendees to the hundreds of thousands of people across town at the Beck rally who were focused on honor as opposed to the color of one's skin?
 
This is good news, America. Good news that may signal a death knell for racial and grievance politics and, hopefully, a return to basic American values that are shared by all Americans, regardless of their color.

Who knows, maybe one day soon Al Sharpton may have to go out and get a real job. And maybe one day soon, our elected officials will recognize that America is still a Christian nation. Hope springs eternal.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Real Men

Posted by NancyVidedo on Monday, August 16, 2010 10:32:18 AM
Rush Limbaugh stated emphatically last week that "Real men aren't liberal. And real men, real men, don't vote for liberals." Rush, once again, hits the nail on the head. And here's why.
 
Real men have an innate sense of self that is not dependent on group approval. They have not succumbed to the sanitized, homogenized, and feminized version of manhood that the academic, media, and political elite have adopted. Instead, they have the courage to form their own opinions, relying on independent thinking instead of political correctness. 
 
Liberal males, on the other hand, have taken the much easier path of allowing a group identity to define who they are. They have willingly adopted the leftists' focus on feelings and emotions when confronted with immutable facts, thus allowing them the ability to retain the all-important moral high ground when those facts prove inconvenient. 

Liberal males allow the left to define the issues and set the rules. These rules allow them to claim morality, compassion, and virtue the easy way - by voting to spend someone else's money on whomever the left designates as the latest "victim" group.
 
As an added bonus, liberal males are allowed to define their own reality, under the guise of "empowerment." They are not held accountable when the policies they vote for fail. They are judged on intentions instead of outcomes. 
 
Real men have chosen the harder path of relying on themselves to provide for themselves and their families. They have learned through experience that relying on government is a losing proposition. They know what liberal males don't - that government is the source of their problems, not the solution. And they vote accordingly.
 
Liberal males have chosen to follow the rule of man instead of the rule of God because, as Russian novelist Feodor Dostoyevsky once said: "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Real men choose to follow the rule of God. Guess which path is easier?


Liberal males have adopted the leftist notion that they are more "evolved" than Joe-Six Pack and Susy Homemaker. They have been told that they have a lock on moral superiority and compassion. They are free to focus on rights while ignoring responsibilities. After all, that is what Uncle Sam is for. Right?
 
Real men know that their role is to provide for their families and protect their country. If they fail, they take responsibility. Liberal males, however, have succumbed to comforting group-think that assigns no blame (except to conservatives) for failure. Whew! They have bought into the liberal fantasy that men and women are equal and alike, that all cultures are equal, and that nothing is ever their fault. And they will consistently vote for any politician who validates this concept for them.
 
Real men don't vote for liberals. Real men, when facing a problem, solve it. They don't form a commission to investigate. Real men accept reality and work to improve it. Liberal males seek to merely redefine it.
 
Try this simple exercise: Picture President Obama as a grunt on the front lines of a battle in Afghanistan, shooting at the enemy, and fighting for America. That image doesn't compute, does it? In a nutshell, this is the difference between liberal males and real men.
 
Real men know that terrorists threaten our very existence. Liberal males choose to believe they are merely misunderstood victims of America's excesses. Real men know that feelings count for zilch when faced with evil. Liberal males have bought into the notion that real evil exists only on the right.
 
Real men have actually earned the self-esteem the left believes is their exclusive right to bestow. By their very actions, real men expose the fallacy of liberalism.  
 
Throughout history, real men like Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill and George Patton have come to the rescue when liberal's touchy feeley "Can't we all just get along?" policies have failed. For this, they have been roundly denounced by the left. What was their sin? They were right. 
 
Just as Rush Limbaugh was right when he claimed that real men aren't liberal.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Choosing Homosexuality

Posted by NancyVidedo on Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:25:55 AM
Neal Boortz claimed last week that a person's sexuality is "ordained in the womb." Meaning homosexuality, as Boortz sees it, is not a choice. Though I usually agree with Boortz, I beg to differ. In today's culture, homosexuality is increasingly being presented as a lifestyle option.
 
Science has yet to determine if there is such a thing as a "gay gene" which predetermines sexual orientation. Lacking definitive proof of hard-wired homosexuality, the left does what it usually does in situations where the facts don't coincide with their ideology. - they "deem" it is so. Just as they did with the "man-made global warming crisis" and the canard that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
 
Many Americans would be shocked to know that, to date, no scientific link has been proven between man and global warming, or between second-hand smokers and cancer. And no-one has found the elusive "gay gene." The left has merely deemed that it is so, despite the lack of hard evidence. Pretty much the way they passed this years' budget. Dems didn't want to go on record voting for yet more pork, so the powers that be decided to forego the vote and "deem" the budget passed. Cool stuff.
 
Dan Rather crystallized this leftist tactic when he was caught relying on falsified documents regarding George Bush's war record. Rather declared that the documents were "fake, but accurate." This mind set of believing whatever comports with one's ideology despite facts to the contrary has spread throughout the culture and has become an accepted practice on the left. Hey, even if there is no proof, it's true. So there. And if you don't agree, you're a racist homophobe. End of discussion.
 
Twenty years of promoting homosexuality, under the guise of "tolerance" has resulted in legitimizing what used to be officially labeled an aberrant lifestyle. To today's children, being gay is a choice. An extension of the cult of "empowerment" that teaches kids that they have the right to define their own reality. And the right to sleep with whomever they choose, regardless of gender.
 
The celebration of homosexuality by the political and media elite is a constant. Popular shows like Law and Order routinely have well-known characters parrot the unproven "gay-gene" theory as fact. CBS, in order to maintain their politically correct credentials, has just agreed to include more gay characters on their shows.
 
Being gay is now considered "cutting edge." Young girls routinely swap spit as a way to show how with it they are. Young boys are being encouraged to not only tolerate the gay lifestyle, but to accept it as a legitimate lifestyle option.
 
For celebrities and celebrity wannabes, coming out of the closet is a great way to achieve a quick 15 minutes of fame. And gain instant cachet.
 
So to you, Neal Boortz, I say that being homosexual in America today is most definitely a choice. A choice that has dire ramifications for the future of America. And for the poor kids who are being used as pawns in the progressive's war on tradition, marriage, God and family.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

bin Laden is laughing

Posted by NancyVidedo on Monday, July 19, 2010 6:33:50 AM
Terrorists the world over are laughing into their turbans and praising Allah five times a day for the naive Americans who were responsible for electing Barack Hussein Obama as president of the U.S. And they're giving a special thanks to the American media, specifically, the Washington Post, for giving them all the information they need to target the security agencies created in response to 9-11.
 
bin Laden is laughing because America's political and media elites are doing his job for him. The Washington Post just gave bin Laden all the intelligence he needs to effectively counter any remaining efforts to combat Islamic terrorism. 
 
Of course, the media and the Obama administration don't identify it as such. Islam has been removed from official documents so as not to offend Muslims adherents of "the religion of peace." Instead, the war on terror has been dubbed an "overseas contingency operation." Hey, that even makes me laugh. 
 
The Washington Post article detailing the number and locations of the government organizations and private companies whose business it is to defeat terrorism is merely a blatant continuation of terrorist-friendly policies the Obama administration and a complaisant media have put in place since Obama's ascension to the highest office in the world.
 
Increasingly bizarre policies are being implemented that favor the rights of terrorists over the security of American citizens and the lives of our brave soldiers. Case in point: The recent proposal to award medals to American soldiers for "courageous restraint."
 
This proposed medal send the clear message not to kill terrorists. Exercise restraint - even if it kills you. And by the way, make sure you don't have a round in the chamber when you're patrolling in Afghanistan. You just might end up shooting someone.
 
Ignoring reality, history and common sense, Obama and friends have decided that world peace is a possibility, if we can just convince those Islamic jihadists that we Americans are sensitive guys with good intentions. Feelings have replaced military might as the foundation of the war on terror. Oops, I meant the "overseas contingency plan." 
 
Politicians are busy bestowing civil rights, including access to America's court system, for enemy combatants (terrorists) - while at the same time, pushing for investigations into atrocities allegedly perpetrated by American soldiers. Meanwhile in Iraq, a suicide bomber targeting army soldiers and members of a government-backed militia lining up to receive their paychecks just yesterday killed at least 43 people and wounded 46.
 
In Afghanistan, Taliban guerrillas are outright ignoring America's moral posturing and Obama's sensitive outreach. They just staged a series of raids in western Afghanistan Sunday, blowing up the gate of a jail and freeing 23 insurgent prisoners. I bet that really hurt Obama's feelings. Those jihadists must not have gotten the word that there is no more war on terror.
 
Another plank in our "overseas contingency plan" is a push to build the self esteem of terrorists. If only we can convince these murderers that they have worth, well, they'll lay down their arms and join Obama in a rousing chorus of kumbaya. Once they're done laughing.
 
 NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said last month NASA's new priority is "to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
 
Here's a newsflash. Arabs haven't contributed anything of worth to the field of science since the seventh century. In fact, many devout Muslims view science and reason as diametrically at odds with their faith.  
 
And in case you missed it, the self-esteem movement practiced for the last couple decades in America has bred two generations of idiots who think the world owes them a living. But Obama apparently believes that we can win the "overseas contingency plan" by bestowing self-esteem on our sworn enemies. 
 
As Islamists breed generations of child warriors, versed in hatred, jihad and the killing of infidels, Americans raise their boys to be sensitive metrosexuals. As terrorists successfully recruit in our prisons, our officials are busy implementing bingo and "life-style" classes for the terrorists confined to Club Gitmo.
 
Now that our enemy has a roadmap, thank-you, Washington Post, to the locations of the main American infidels, all that remains is safe conduct to the target site. Not to worry, Obama and friends are busy making it easy for them. After tapping a supporter of "sanctuary cities" as immigration chief, Obama further enabled terrorists by deciding to sue Arizona for daring to enforce the law against illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants that include among their ranks un-politically correct killing machines, formerly known as Islamic terrorists.
 
Our current administration continues to believe that terrorists can be swayed by the word soup and mushy sentiments emanating from D.C. - completely ignoring the fact that Islamists, throughout history, view kindness, appeasement or "reaching out" as a sign of weakness.
 
Winston Churchill understood the true nature of Islam. "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." America, led by Obama, is ignoring the reality of Islamic terrorism, replacing it with an unrealistic version of how it should be. If only the world were a perfect place.
 
Writer Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review, "In the U.S., political correctness has stifled inquiry into Muslim doctrine, we've conjured up a trendy, modern Islam: one fit for seamless assimilation into  Western society." This wishful thinking has now become official policy.
 
Official American policy and a traitorous media have given bin Laden and friends free rein to continue and accelerate the war on terror. Inquiring minds are starting to ask "Just whose side are they on?"
 
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Discriminate

Posted by NancyVidedo on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:26:31 AM
I discriminate. All the time. When I see black teenagers with gang tats coming towards me, I'll move to the other side of the street. Now if they were carrying Bibles, I might not be as worried.
 
If I play backgammon with an Asian, I use different tactics than I would with say, an Irishman. Experience has taught me that Asians excel in math and I adopt my tactics accordingly.
 
If I am going to pick a winner on Dancing With Stars, I'll pick the black couple, hands down. As a rule, blacks just dance better than whites. (Can I say that?)
 
If I need to hire someone to do yard work, I'll choose a Mexican laborer over a welfare recipient any day. Experience has taught me that Mexicans, both legal and illegal, have a better work ethic than do those who rely on welfare. 
 
Not a day goes by that I don't discriminate. The left calls this racism. I call it survival.

To ignore years of life experience in favor of government mandated political correctness is the height of folly. No-one has the right to legislate morality. And no-one has the right to demand that I believe the leftists' mantra that all cultures and people are equal. That's just plain stupid.
 
People in the U.S. are born equal. The decisions they make throughout their lives, however, result in far different outcomes. Some decide to spend their lives pursuing a free lunch, while some decide to become productive members of society. In my book, that means the one who contributes to society has more value than the one that doesn't. They are not equal.
 
The American culture beats the Arab culture hands down. At least for females. And the culture in my little neighborhood in Murrells Inlet most assuredly trumps the culture in most inner cities. By any measure. That's just reality.

I personally don't care for deadbeats. I choose not to associate with them. I also don't care to associate with radical feminists, global warming idiots or race baiters. Experience has taught me that I just don't do well when confronted with useful idiots. It's a choice I choose to make. It's discrimination.
 
For leftists to insist that I ignore cultural and personal differences, to insist that I adhere to their ever-changing version of reality, is akin to asking me to believe that white is black. America is still based on individual freedom. That includes the freedom to decide for myself. It's called "having an opinion."

Why should I agree to suspend my own judgement in favor of a mealy-mouthed platitude whose main purpose is to confer faux moral superiority on any useful idiot who opts to parrott the politically correct soundbite of the day?
 
Discrimination is a survival tool. It's wisdom, not discrimination, to learn from past experiences. And to apply that knowledge in everyday choices.
 
Since I acknowledge that there are differences between different races, I guess I'm also a racist. Believe it or not, we all are. Hey, I wouldn't put an Asian with a mathematics degree on the basketball court. But according to the left, that means I am "profiling." Color me guilty.
 
I admit it. I profile people based on their race and appearance.

Somehow, it just doesn't sink in that a young skinhead sporting a Nazi tattoo is the equal of say, Thomas Sowell. Based on the skinhead's appearance, I form conclusions about him. The conclusions may be wrong, but I'm not going to bet on it. And I'm not going to invite to dinner the black guy I saw on TV dressed in military gear telling everyone to kill white babies. Life experience has taught me that he is an ignorant racist who banks on our new "culture of equality" to shield him from being held accountable for his hateful rhetoric. In my opinion, he's just trash.
 
When I see an obese 29 year-old mother of six living on welfare, I make assumptions. When I see a Christian man with two jobs and six children, I also make assumptions. I choose not to believe that the obese mother is a victim of a male dominated patriarchal society. I choose to, gasp, judge her.

She was born with the same rights as I, and she, like everyone else past the age of 20, is a product of the choices they have made. Choices that all of us are picking up the tab for. (How equal is that?)
 
The mantra that all people and cultures are equal is a dangerous fallacy. Throughout history, countries that are free are not equal, and countries that are equal are not free. Again, it comes down to choice. I choose to live in a country where I am free to discriminate and judge people myself instead of being forced to adhere to the leftist illusion that we're all equal. That's just plain stupid. And dangerous.


Nancy Morgan is a clumnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hating Jews

Posted by NancyVidedo on Monday, July 05, 2010 7:55:50 AM
Last month, students at a Southern California high school were caught playing a late-night on-campus game of tag called "Beat the Jew." On the popular social networking site Facebook, a user named Alex Cookson launched an open invitation to an event called “Kill a Jew Day.” It was the fourth time that a call to murder Jews had been put on Facebook within recent days.

In D.C., White House press doyen Helen Thomas was captured on tape nonchalantly opining that all Jews should go back to Germany. Implicit in her statement was her assumption that everyone felt the same way, so what's the big deal? 
 
Also last month: Egypt decided to revoke the citizenship of any Egyptians married to Israelis. In Amsterdam, anti-Semitism has become so commonplace that Dutch police are now using "decoy Jews" in an effort to to cut the number of verbal and physical attacks on Jews, amid fears that anti-Semitic "hate crime" is on the rise. And in Germany, a Jewish dance group was attacked with stones by a group of children and teenagers during a performance at a street festival in Hannover. The teenagers also used a megaphone to shout anti-Semitic slurs.
 
European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor last week gave a bleak evaluation of European Jewry. "Jews are afraid to walk the streets in Europe with Jewish symbols," Kantor said. "Synagogues, Jewish schools and kindergartens require barbed-wire fences and security, and Jewish men, women and children are beaten up in broad daylight." 
 
Jews worldwide are again under attack. The Holocaust and 6 million slaughtered Jews have been forgotten. It now appears that history is on the way to repeating itself, aided and abetted by the world press.
 
During the much publicized clash between supposed peace activists and Israeli soldiers last month, Israel was roundly condemned when forced to board a ship that was trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza under the guise of delivering "humanitarian aid" to Palestinians. Reuters was caught, once again, photo shopping a knife out of the hand of a supposed "peace activist" in a blatant attempt to portray Israel as the aggressor. 
 
The London Telegraph was also caught using a two-year-old photo in their quest to portray Palestinians as victims. A photo that was purposefully misleading, as is shown here. 

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas launched 6,500 unprovoked rocket strikes on towns and schoolyards in Israel. The Israeli blockade of Gaza was a necessary self-defense measure to keep these bombs from reaching Gaza. But world opinion as expressed in the media, sees it differently. Palestinians are the victims and Israel should atone. Period.

The communications firm best known for shaping the liberal Moveon.org into a national movement has tackled a new project: orchestrating an international anti-Israel campaign. And it appears to be working.
 
Even Israel's good friend, the United States, is throwing it under the bus. According to Israel's ambassador to Washington, relations between Israel and its staunchest ally, the U.S., have suffered a "tectonic rift."
 
Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with automatic support at the United Nations where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation. American sentiment now increasingly favors the supposed Palestinian "victims."

As Thomas Sowell says, "Just as the American left has adopted blacks as mascots, so the international left has adopted Palestinians as mascots. In both cases, the actual well-being of the mascots is not the point. Mascots exist to be symbols for others. In all the years when the Arab states controlled the area that Israel took over after the 1967 war, nobody cared what happened to the Palestinians, much less offered them a homeland."
 
If you are one of the unsuspecting Americans who have bought into the "Palestinians as victims" hoax, I urge you, in the interest of fairness, to watch this short video. It is a must-see history lesson from David Horowitz, laying out the true history of Palestine. The facts are incontrovertible.
 
No matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. If we allow the terrorist's propaganda machine and the world press to continue presenting a false version of Israel and Palestine, it is possible that history could indeed, repeat itself. And we will become allies with murderous Islamic terrorists whose sole goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For YourOwn Good

Posted by NancyVidedo on Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:38:43 PM
Since I've been otherwise occupied making a living, it's reassuring to know that my government is looking out for me. In just the last month, our tireless public servants have proposed numerous measures that will make my life better and more worry free.
 
No longer will I have to worry about drug addicts being able to rig a urine test. The Senate is set to vote on a measure that would make it illegal to sell fake urine for the purpose of falsifying a drug test. Whew.
 
While they're at it, Congress is also working on banning smokeless tobacco in Major League Baseball. Not only that, but Obama just signed legislation that bans the Post Office from shipping cigarettes, and the CDC is preparing to launch a co-ordinated 50-state anti-smoking campaign. This is just in case you didn't know that smoking may contribute to lung cancer.
 
Meanwhile, the bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration are planning an unprecedented effort to reduce the salt in my diet. Of course, this is for my own good. The FDA is also developing a new regulation that would require food manufacturers to display the nutritional content of food on the front of packages. Finally!
 
Going a step further, a county supervisor in California has proposed a ban on the inclusion of toys in restaurant meals that contain high amounts of sugar, salt or certain fats. Whoa. Now my kids are protected too - for their own good.
 
The new fuel mandates Obama recently instituted will keep the earth from melting. Who knew? I figure the additional $1,100 cost they add to every new car is a small price to pay. And in a further effort to save the earth, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to announce that the new "green" light fixtures in the House cafeteria will recoup their $140,000 cost in only 10 years. You won't find any waste of tax dollars on her watch. You betcha.
 
Speaking of going green, our eco-conscious legislators are also considering enacting the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act. For only $32.9 billion bucks, this act will create a "healthier, safer and more energy-efficient teaching environment by requiring schools to use green materials."   This is a small price to pay to save the earth and educate future generations, right?
 
Our government has been working overtime on our behalf. In just the last month it has cracked down on profiling Muslim terrorists, made it easier for gays to sue their employers and
threatened to sue Arizona for requiring citizens to actually prove they are U.S., citizens.
 
I figure the $670 billion in gross tax increases since January of 2009 are well worth the price for the excellent work being done on my behalf. Hey, that's only $2,100 dollars for every man, woman and child. And Obama assures me that rich fat cats will be paying the freight for all these new safety measures that will benefit us all. How cool is that?
 
With Obama in charge, I no longer have to worry about terrorists attacking us. And if Obama is OK with rogue state Iran having the ability to make nuclear bombs, then its OK with me, too. After all, he's the expert. And after seeing him on American Idol, I'm reassured that our president will be able to charm all our enemies into laying down their arms and joining Obama in his quest for world peace. Kumbaya.
 
Just knowing that the government is looking out for me makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Even though 80% of Americans say they can't trust Washington and have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve America's problems, I know they're wrong. Just look at what the government has done for us lately.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My liberal friend

Posted by NancyVidedo on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 7:31:43 AM
My liberal friend Pam and I are a perfect example of the class warfare currently being waged in America between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.' Also known as 'the war against the rich,' or, in a nutshell, socialism.
 
Though Pam and I are lifelong friends, we couldn't be more different. Pam is the quintessential liberal, quick to espouse views that show America in a bad light. Sarah Palin is evil, Bush is bad and anyone (like myself) that doesn't base their decisions on feelings is, well, just plain uncompassionate. End of story. I, on the other hand, am a traditional, conservative Christian.
 
Though conservatives have yet to be included under the leftist's much vaunted 'tolerance' and 'multicultural' umbrellas, Pam has decided that she will tolerate her renegade friend, as long as that friend doesn't publicly air any conservative views. Which is becoming a problem for our friendship.
 
Pam is the product of government schools and a culture that ignores merit in favor of any perceived underdog or victim. She is the proud owner of a Masters Degree, which, according to her, validates all of her leftist views - regardless of any facts to the contrary. And its not her fault that, at the ripe age of 57, she has yet to pay off the student loans that paid for her education. 
 
Both Pam and I are the end result of the decisions we have made over the course of our lives. Pam's choices have resulted in her absolute refusal to participate in capitalism, or our free market system. Instead, she survives on a government check, feeling it is her due. And like most who receive something for nothing, she hates the one whose largesse she has chosen to accept. Kinda like all those countries who get aid from America and hate us for it. Hey, no one likes to be acknowledged as being subservient.
 
Fortunately for Pam, her leftists illusions allow her to maintain the moral high ground. Unlike her capitalist friend, who has never asked for or received dime one from the government. I am considered one of the evil 'rich.' Pam graciously ignores this fact, at least until she needs another loan.
 
Pam maintains the romantic illusion of being a struggling, misunderstood artist. She exists on a higher plane than Joe Six pack and Susy Homemaker. She is 'sensitive' and totally in tune with Mother Earth, victims of capitalism, and all creature great and small. That my tax dollars allow her this freedom is one of those inconvenient facts that Pam has learned to compartmentalize. Meaning she has chosen to ignore (or demonize) any facts that don't align with her vision of herself. 
 
Like most leftists, Pam believes that life is a zero sum game. If someone has a big slice of the pie, that automatically  means that some poor unfortunate has to do with a smaller slice. And all rich people are only rich because they made their money off the backs of those less fortunate. 
 
This mind set, while comforting, is not conducive to material success. Which is OK with Pam, as she has spent her whole life eschewing the almighty dollar, choosing instead to allow others, like her 'rich' friend and financially stable family members the favor of periodically bailing her out financially. Her only concession to reality.
 
Ever since Obama was elected president, my friendship with Pam has become strained. Though politics was never a part of our friendship in the past, it has now become a factor. Pam apparently feels that Obama's socialist agenda is the best thing that ever happened to the Oppressive State of America. And since she knows that everyone feels this way, she has no qualms parroting the Dem's sound bite of the day as fact.
 
Since I know Obama didn't really cut taxes by $800 billion, it rankles somewhat that Pam believes it. Pam also believes that the government take over of the private sector is long overdue. And that Obama's take over of the health care system is the only way to ensure social justice. 
 
I don't blame Pam for her desire for social justice. After all, she just had both hips replaced, courtesy Uncle Sam. And she sees no reason why other misunderstood victims shouldn't have access to the same free lunch. But her attitude is starting to rankle.
 
Though I am aware of the politically viable yet destructive effect of pitting one class of Americans against another class, I find I am becoming an active participant. I'm starting to resent my friend. I resent her cavalier, tax-payer funded attitude. I am starting to take umbrage at her assumption that her liberal views are the only valid views and any dissent or challenge to her world view is either racist and/or lacking in compassion.
 
I'm starting to resent the fact that people like myself, dirty little capitalists, are required to support deadbeats who have decided to live off the system. All the while, spitting in the eye of those that provide the means. (Sorry, Pam.)
 
Having been allowed the luxury of basing her life on feelings instead of being forced to make a living, Pam now takes great offense should I dare mention any of these inconvenient realities. She will allow no dissent. Our friendship has become political. 

Pam wastes no time analyzing my weekly articles as being motivated solely by hate and 'lacking in compassion.' She has adopted the proven tactic of continually forcing me to proving a negative. And I just don't want to do that anymore, especially since I have lost respect for her.
 
With great regret, I realize Pam has become like so many of her fellow leftists. Willing to defend to the death leftists opinions (that are formed by others) and dismissing out of hand any facts to the contrary. If I don't agree with her, why, there must be something wrong with me. This attitude is not conducive to friendship.
 
Lifelong friendships that have weathered the test of time are rare and should be cherished. That our current political climate has ended this friendship is regrettable. But this case is not unique. Across the nation, friends are pitted against friends, families are dividing along partisan lines and Americans are being encouraged to resent anyone percieved as having more than their (fair)share of the pie.
 
I fear this will continue and become more pervasive under our current president. Raising the distinct possibility of America's downfall coming from within. The 'have nots' and victims are consolidating their premier position at the public trough, forcing others to pay for their ever evolving version of social justice. And considering that fully half of Americans now pay no federal income taxes yet still vote, the chances of changing this through the ballot box are becoming slimmer.
 
I already miss Pam. Our friendship was very important to me and I am saddened that today's political climate makes it impossible for good friends to agree to disagree. But if the choice is between actively enabling her views by keeping silent or fighting to keep America from turning into a nation of useful idiots, I'll choose the latter. Without regret.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Destructive Generation

Posted by NancyVidedo on Monday, March 29, 2010 6:25:49 AM
My generation could well be the first generation in American history to leave our country worse off than we found it.
 
I am a member of the baby boomer generation. The generation that came of age in the late sixties during the turbulent times of Woodstock, Watergate and Vietnam. The generation that is now holding the reins of power in most American institutions, from politics to media, to education and culture. The generation that will likely be responsible for squandering America's hard won freedoms and changing America into a third world country, all in the name of 'equality' and 'social justice.' 
 
A defining hallmark of baby boomers on the left is hubris and an absolute refusal to learn or acknowledge the lessons of history. They know best. 

Moral relativism is the cornerstone of most baby boomers. Their theories rest on subjective, personal values instead of concrete scientific definitions. And they acknowledge no other authority or moral code larger than one's choice. They have adopted the Rousseauian strategy of emphasis on passion instead of reason.* And despite the utter failure of the social policies they have instituted, they persist in believing that they can define their own reality.

Author Shelby Steele, in his book White Guilt, comes closest to explaining how and why the baby boomer generation believes as it does. Steele makes the excellent point that every generation, when it comes of age, seeks to challenge authority and tradition. Like most adolescent rebels, they are quickly humbled because they overestimate their own truth and underestimate the truth of their elders. They learn a valuable life lesson when they are smacked down by their elders and reality. 
 
My generation never learned this lesson. As Steele writes, "The sixties generation of youth is very likely the first generation in American history to have won its adolescent rebellion against its elders."
 
The reason for this: As baby boomers came of age, America had just taken the giant step of acknowledging and apologizing for its history of slavery and racism. At that moment in time, America had lost its moral authority, hence the progressive assaults on campuses resulted in defeating the traditional hierarchy. Heady stuff.
 
With this victory, my fellow boomers adopted the notion that they were invincible. "Their rite of passage to maturity was cut short and they were falsely inflated instead of humbled. Uninitiated, they devalue history rather than find direction in it, and feel entitled to break sharply and recklessly with the past."
 
The boomer's adolescent rebellion was validated. They then proceeded to infect every segment of American society with their own, unproven theories.
 
The media that had historically acted as a watchdog became an enabler for the boomers. The media encouraged and validated the politically correct, utopian theories that were a result of hubris rather than sound policy. And convinced millions of unsuspecting Americans along the way.
 
Our universities not only succumbed, they incorporated and taught as fact the baby boomers' notion of America as an oppressor and capitalism as evil. Courses in Western Civilization were replaced with women's studies, black studies and q**** theory. Indoctrination replaced debate and group identity quietly started trumping individual accomplishment as the road to success. 
 
Fast forward to today. President Obama and our Democrat Congress are the end result of a generation steeped in successful rebellion. They are the quintessential perpetual adolescents that define the baby boomer generation. Never having had to pay the price for our freedoms, they are oblivious to its worth. To Obama and most of his fellow boomers on the left, the Constitution is a roadblock to their more perfect vision. Instead, they take their cue from Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
 
My generation is now in a position to radically alter America. There is a very good chance that boomers will prevail in their efforts to defeat capitalism, God and traditional values and instill their own version of 'social justice.' Despite socialism having failed abjectly in every country it has been tried, baby boomers like Obama have the arrogance to believe that with them in charge, it will finally work.
 
Under the leadership of my fellow baby boomers, there is a very good chance that the America that we all know and love could end up on the ash heap of history. James Madison gave clear warning in 1788. "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations..." 
 
America is in the process of being conquered from within. By an arrogant and elitist generation more concerned with their own status and power than with the good of the country. This is my generation. And I'm ashamed to be one of them.
 
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Obama trying to bankrupt America?

Posted by NancyVidedo on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:22:55 AM
Inquiring minds want to know: Is Obama trying to bankrupt America? One short year ago, asking this this question would have guaranteed my inclusion among the ranks of right-wing nuts and/or conspiracy theorists. Today, it is a serious question being asked by Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh and many other leading conservatives. Here's why.
 
In the summer of 2008, as John McCain and Barack Obama were campaigning for president, a series of economic events (started by Sen. Schumer) resulted in shifting the focus of the presidential campaign off the Iraq war, and on to the economy. These events ultimately resulted in Barack Obama's election as President.
 
June 26, 2008: Democrat Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. "The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York."

This event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the ammunition for massive government intervention in the private market.

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.
 
Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US  within 24 hours.

This seminal event marked the ascendancy of Obama's candidacy, and eventually resulted in his election as president.
 
Its no secret that Obama is a member of the far left. And he has staffed his administration with fellow ideologues. Leftists, like former Green Czar Van Jones, who states he is an "advocate for a socialist utopia." Who believes that capitalism is "oppression and exploitation."
 
People like Ron Blume, who was appointed to reinvigorate the manufacturing base, who states, "We know the free market is nonsense."
 
Any economist can tell you that raising taxes, increasing debt, printing money and unbridled spending is not the way to handle a recession. So either Obama is ignorant of this, or he willfully chooses to ignore the lessons of history. Or he is adopting a strategy outlined by Cloward-Pivens: Overwhelm the system until it fails, and then replace it.
 
Based on Obama's actions to date, reasonable people must allow for the possibility that the change Obama promised may include destroying the free market economic system in order to replace it with an economy regulated by government entities.  
 
Spending America into bankruptcy might just be our president's way of leveling the global playing field. By bringing Americas to its knees. Based on Obama's actions, and the actions of his appointees, its time to seriously consider if destroying our economy is Obama's goal.

*Portions of this article were taken from A Contrived Crisis? Feb. 23, 2009

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Was A 'Useful Idiot'

Posted by NancyVidedo on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:19:54 PM
For the first 39 years of my life, I was a walking, talking useful idiot. I believed without question what I saw on TV, and adopted as fact whatever I saw in the newspaper headlines. 
 
Armed with this information, I figured I knew it all. There were no questions I couldn't answer and no opinions I wouldn't espouse. Especially when they were formed by others.
 
In my younger days, I still had respect for authority and institutions. I believed the 'experts.'  I took their pronouncements as fact and defended them with fervor. I never doubted the premises. I truly believed that since everyone else believed that way, why, that was the correct way to think. If it was on TV or in the newspapers, it was true. That was the way things were. Absolutely.
 
I had the certainty of youth. Where all issues are black or white, where people were good or bad. Where no gray areas intruded to cast doubt on my wisdom. Things were ever so much clearer then.
 
Until age 39, I was too busy being the center of my own universe to give deep thought to any issue that didn't affect me directly. I lived in a magical place where no analytical thinking was required. I kept abreast of other's opinions and considered myself not only informed, but pretty darn smart.
 
Imagine my surprise when reality eventually intruded. When I found out that, gasp, Che was a mass-murderer, not a freedom fighter. That Kinsey was a sexual pervert and pedophile, not a scientist. That the earth wasn't melting and that Obama wasn't the answer to all the world's problems. When I found out that 'is' doesn't necessarily mean 'is.'

To my chagrin, I finally realized that no matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. And I had only been exposed to one. I was the quintessential 'useful idiot.'
 
The term 'useful idiot' was originally coined by Russian mass-murder Lenin, referring to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies. 
 
The most famous of these useful idiots was New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty. Duranty got a Pulitzer prize for his [non] reporting on Stalin's man-made famine in the Soviet Union in the 1930's. Duranty reported to the American people and the world that things were peachy keen in the Soviet Union, totally ignoring the fact that Stalin was starving millions of his own people. Stalin eventually killed more people than Hitler did in the Holocaust. 
 
By proxy, Duranty turned millions of Americans into useful idiots. By reporting on what people wanted to hear instead of what was actually happening, America's policies continued to enable Stalin's killing spree. 
 
Fast forward to 2010 and we see history once again repeating itself. Agenda driven, ideological reporting by the mainstream media is being accepted as fact by millions of Americans. And the powers that be are counting on increasing numbers of useful idiots to accept their premises without question. Like lemmings, blindly following their fellows into the sea.  
 
All I feel now when I think of those days is acute embarrassment. The innocence, the naivety, the absolute certainty. Those happy days before I realized that I had been manipulated into accepting and promoting someone else's agenda.
 
I had been treated as fodder in a war I wasn't even aware was being waged. A war for the hearts and minds of American citizens. And because I had blindly parroted and regurgitated every popular consensus without question, I deserved the label of useful idiot.
 
Fortunately, this is not a life long condition. I am now a recovering idiot. I keep my mouth shut unless I am sure of my facts. I rely on common sense instead of the experts. And if I want to spout opinions, I make sure they are based on my own research instead of talking heads and soundbites. I also try to keep in mind that there are always two sides to every issue.

This doesn't make me wise, but at least I am no longer an unwitting pawn in someone else's agenda. Or a useful idiot.

Nancy Morgan is a clumnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gender: Optiona;

Posted by NancyVidedo on Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:35:24 AM
Joseph Romero, a 6 year-old Arizona boy, was diagnosed as transgender last October and is beginning his/her transition to becoming a female. When he/she reaches the age of 12, he will be given female hormones containing estrogen and plans to undergo surgery when she is an adult in order to become a full woman.
 
In the UK last September, a 12 year-old boy turned up at school as a girl. Over the summer holidays his parents changed his name to a female one and allowed him to don female garb and wear his hair in pigtails. The youngster is now preparing to undergo hormone treatment and surgery - and could become the world's youngest sex-swap patient in the coming years. His school has graciously provided him/her a separate toilet and changing room.

Here in the U.S., the IRS ruled earlier this month that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation. And in Portland, Oregon, there is a move afoot to have the city pay for the sex-change operations of any employees that decide they are unhappy with their gender. 

Hollywood is firmly on board, as they plan a new film about the world's first post-operative transsexual, starring heavyweights Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow.
 
Over in Italy, the first prison for transsexuals is now open for business.
 
These cases represent the tip of the iceburg in the growing movement to make gender optional. When coupled with increasingly successful campaign to legitimize same sex unions via gay marriage, the result is an all out assault on the centuries old concepts of family and marriage.
 
Consider: On September 4, 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the nation's first no-fault divorce law. California legislators made the case for no-fault divorce with the valid argument that no-fault divorce would remedy some very desperate situations. A woman who desired a family married to a man in an insane asylum, for example. Who wouldn't want to make her case an exception? Who wouldn't allow this woman legal divorce from a marriage that had ceased functioning? No-fault divorce was enacted to address these untenable situations. It was intended to address the exception, but instead, quickly became the rule.
 
No-fault divorce quickly spread across the United States. By 1985, all states had enacted no-fault divorce legislation except for New York. This policy, enacted in good faith, weakened the concept of family to the point where divorce is now the norm, not the exception.
 
A case can be made that the push to redefine gender roles and broaden marriage to include gays also has the potential of becoming the new norm. And while the very few legitimate cases of genuine gender confusion are indeed heart wrenching, the re-structuring of our society to accommodate them will very likely result in the destruction of traditional family and marriage.
 
Traditional families are the bedrock upon which our culture and society are based. And marriage is the glue that binds these families together. With twin assaults from the left on these institutions, America is facing the very real possibility of a radical reformation. A reformation that is based on the needs of a few at the expense of the majority. A reformation that has the potential to destroy two of America's most basic and trusted institutions.
 
The left is unrelenting in its desire to redefine society. Billing themselves as champions of the oppressed, the left has made significant progress in labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda as being motivated by hate and ignorance. Genuine objections based on faith, history, common sense and morality are ignored as the left focuses the debate on the plight of the 'victim.' It is a successful, proven political strategy. After all, as David Horowitz points out, "The appeal to help the underdog and defend the victims resonates with all Americans."
 
The left has attained the moral high ground in this cultural battle. And they will continue to maintain it as long as the focus is on the supposed 'victims' and not on some very basic questions that are being left out of the equation. Namely: At what cost?
 
Do the feelings of the minority of gays and transsexuals trump the rights of the majority of heterosexuals? Do the feelings of 6 year-old Joseph Romero, oops, Josie Romero warrant blurring the gender roles of all citizens? Do the desires of gay couples to attain social legitimacy warrant the destruction through redefinition of the centuries old tradition of marriage? And finally, who will pay the very real costs when these social experiments fail?
 
These are questions that need to be addressed before the left succeeds in fashioning their brave new world. A world that caters to the feelings of the few at the expense of everyone else. A world where fealty to God and family would be replaced by political correctness and transient social experiments. A world where traditional family and marriage are considered moot and America turns into one country under men instead of God. 
 
Pandora's Box has been opened. It remains to be seen if we can close it. Drip, drip, drip.
 

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hey Obama - You're Not My Daddy

Posted by NancyVidedo on Monday, February 01, 2010 2:17:01 PM
When I left home at age 18, I breathed a sigh of relief. Free at last. I was legally of an age where I assumed the right to make my own decisions. No longer could my mother tell me to eat my vegetables, to quit smoking, to clean my room or to modify my behavior to someone else's standards. Heady stuff.
 
As I threw off the shackles of parental supervision, I willingly assumed the responsibilities of a grown-up. I got a job, I paid my bills, I planned for the future. I worked hard and focused on being the best I could be. After the requisite 'teachable moments,' I succeeded. I achieved the American dream, on my own. Without any government handouts. Like most Americans.
 
Enter Obama and the change he promised. Obama and his buddies seem intent on treating me as if I am still a child. Not a day goes by that I don't see the image of our dear leader on television imploring me to wash my hands, urging dads to be good dads, and lecturing me on what I can and cannot say.
 
Even first lady Michelle is getting in on the act, solemnly advising one and all to donate to the victims of the Haiti earthquake. As if she has a lock on moral virtue. Color me offended.
 
Hey Obama, you're not my daddy. I don't need or want your advice on how to live my life. In fact, I quite resent your blatant patronization and condescension. I'm not a child any more. And I don't need you to lecture me. Most especially when you yourself don't walk the walk.
 
Being elected President did not give you the right to assume a parental role. I have a family for that. And I don't need your wife to lecture me on the virtues of compassion. I have a church for that. And I most assuredly don't need your minions appropriating my hard earned money under false pretenses, and spending it faster than I earn it. I had a husband for that.
 
Here's a thought: How about you concentrate on your responsibilities and let me take care of my own. Your responsibility includes keeping America safe, not arbitrating football rules. Your responsibilities include waging a war against murdering Islamists who would see America ruined. Maybe you should point that wagging finger at them instead of SUV drivers and fellow smokers.
 
I'm not an expert on community organizing, nor am I an intellectual. I'm just an ordinary citizen living in fly-over country, trying to be the best I can be. And frankly, Obama, I think there are pressing world problems you should address, instead of lecturing me on what I eat, what I drive, what I say and the life decisions I have made.
 
You may be President, but you are not a role model I aspire to. I, gasp, judge people by their actions, not their words. And though I have respect for the office you hold, I don't respect you. Your actions have been shrouded in secrecy and double dealing. Your [successful] attempts to manipulate people through poll tested buzz words and high sounding rhetoric are wearing thin.
 
Here's a heads-up: no-where in the Constitution that you swore to uphold, is there anything that entitles you to assume the role of parent. You're not my daddy. So please.... tend to your own garden and get off my back. I quit needing parental supervision decades ago. And I am thoroughly offended by your self-righteous patronization.
 
I'll make you a deal. When you start living by the same rules you are imposing on the rest of us, then I might take time from my busy schedule to listen to your advice. Until then, I sure wish you'd start living up to your own responsibilities and quit telling me what mine are.
 
Here's a clue: Quit campaigning and start leading - and make sure your own house is clean before you start inspecting mine. Most of all, quit with the lies. Most Americans see through them by now and all they do is offend us. Step up to the plate Obama. Stop with the townhalls, public service announcements and staged photo ops. This country needs a leader, not a lecturer. Its time for you to grow up. Please.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Tags: daddy   obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Color Me Happy

Posted by NancyVidedo on Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:19:15 AM
I'm smiling. A grin that just won't quit is plastered on my face because of the stunning upset last night when a, gasp, Republican won the bluest of all Senate seats, thus throwing sand in the gears of the Obama machine's march towards socialism. 
 
Republican Scott Brown whipping the pants off Coakley last night is cause for rejoice. As is the delicious schadenfreude of seeing the left in disarray, pointing fingers and laying blame for the historic repudiation of leftists, Obama and everything they have been trying to force down our throats for the last year. It appears America may survive Obama after all. And what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
 
As Rush Limbaugh noted, many Democrats are headed for the tall grass. If a vote was held today on Obama's health care bill, at least 5 formerly sure votes wouldn't materialize. Last night's wake-up call has the 'less elite' Democrats being brought face to face with the stark reality that they are accountable to 'we the people' instead of the Obama machine. And a vote for Obama could very well mean they will be enjoying their lucrative pensions much sooner than they thought.
 
Scott Brown's historic upset doesn't mean America is home free. I predict the Democrat leadership will continue ignoring the will of the American people and probably enact an unconstitutional health care bill. And I expect they will also continue taxing us to death as they redistribute our wealth to their union buddies and politically connected rent seekers. The good news is, the American people have shown that they will not stand for it.
 
Nancy, Harry and other political 'elites' have a terminal case of inside the beltway syndrome- also known as cognitive dissonance. They have bought into their own version of reality. A reality that doesn't allow for the possibility that their own narrow world view isn't the universally accepted view they believe it is. And any version that doesn't comport with theirs is, well, invalid. And one election in Massachusetts isn't going to change their minds.
 
Case in point: Noticeably absent from all talking points today, is any serious discussion by leftists of the fact that this election was a referendum on Obama. A stunning rebuke. A warning bell that Americans don't want what he is selling.
 
Leftists, instead of learning from their mistakes, will continue doing what they do so well. They will ignore unpleasant realities in hopes they will go away. If that doesn't work, they will re-define them, spin them, repackage them and trot out a new improved version of the same old same old. But their tactics are wearing thin, as is Obama's charisma and ability to influence. As is the old media's ability to control the discussion.
 
I know what Obama and crew still don't know. That the American people have finally seen the light and they don't like it one bit. And they are not going to sit back and let Obama turn this country into another failed socialist state. The people have spoken, but the Democrats still have waxy yellow build-up.
 
The left will continue their path towards assisted suicide due to their complete inability to allow for the possibility that the American people know better than than political elites what is best for America. And when Demoicrats are thoroughly repudiated again in the next election cycle, they'll continue to blame Bush or race or sexism. They will not change. And they will lose again.
 
I must admit to a certain satisfaction in the fact that one of my truisms is coming true. I've always said 'Give the left enough rope and they'll end up hanging themselves.' Nice to know some things never change.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Public Servants Gone Wild

Posted by NancyVidedo on Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:19:31 AM
The employees I originally hired to handle certain aspects of my life are out of control. Drunk with the power I have given them, they have decided that they know better than I how to arrange my life. And there's not much I can do.
 
While I was busy living my life, my employees seem to have put certain rules in place which make it almost impossible for me to fire them. I wasn't aware of most of these new rules. My fault. I had just assumed the media would inform me if they crossed the line. They didn't. Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

My employees grandly refer to themselves as public servants, giving one and all the false impression that they are sacrificing everything in order to work on my behalf. Cushy jobs, access to power and money, enjoying unearned respect and complete lack of accountability are just some of the sacrifices they must endure.  
 
Now, my employees are on a massive spending spree with my credit card, piling up charges that I have no way of paying. ($38,000 to date that I'm liable for.) Not only that, but they just got the limit on my credit card increased! I take small solace from the fact that all my neighbors are undergoing a similar experience.
 
In essence, my employees have become my boss. 

My 'public servants' are insisting that I now play by their rules. Somehow they managed to put mechanisms in place (without my knowledge or agreement) that virtually force me to pay my hard earned money to hire more employees, whose sole purpose is to take ever more control and wealth away from me.
 
When I first hired these guys, I gave them very clear guidelines as to what they could and could not do. (For leftists, its called the Constitution.) I did this so I could be free to focus on building a business, raising a family and utilizing my God given gifts in a way I saw fit.
 
To that end, I engaged these guys to keep me safe and provide certain essential services, like security, fire, water, utilities and such. At no time did I ever agree to let them decide the rules under which they now operate. In fact, under my original agreement with them, certain things that they are doing now, were expressly denied to them. (Leftist readers, please refer to the Tenth Amendment.)
 
Just last week, I saw one of my employees on the evening news. He was getting an award. I found out the award was for a donation he made with my money, and adding insult to injury, it was for a cause I actively oppose. When I asked him about it, he sneered down from the moral perch my money bought him and called me, get this, selfish! Aargh...
 
I don't know what I've done that makes my employees treat me in this disrespectful fashion. After all, I made sure they were very well paid. Hey, I even gave them a better health plan and much more generous pension than I have. I gave them my hard earned money to travel the world in private jets and dine at fine restaurants. On my tab. Meanwhile, I make do with a 7 year-old SUV which, by the way, they're now telling me is immoral for me to drive.

Using my name, my employees have fashioned a brave new world. They claim it is based on what they call our 'living constitution,' which means whatever they want it to mean. (For leftists, that means it means nothing.) It allows them to purchase morality, virtue and media accolades by appropriating and spending someone else's money.

It allows them to use my money in furtherance of a ludicrous and illogical quest to remake reality to their specifications. It allows them to redefine words, change rules, ignore tradition, and totally restructure our whole system of governance. Without my permission.
 
With 20/20 hindsight, I now understand some lessons from history I was never taught in government schools: When you endow someone with unearned wealth, it will soon become their 'right.' When you appease tyrants, you only get more tyranny. And the only power tyrants have is that relinquished by their victims.

And finally, that voting for power-hungry and amoral charlatans based on spin instead of substance means we all have a very good chance of losing the liberty and freedoms so many Americans fought and died for. Happy New Year.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567Next »