19 Or 1984?

Not Sure If It's COVID-19 Or COVID-1984
Not Sure If It’s COVID-19 Or COVID-1984

Yep! With all the Lamestream Media’s erratic fear-mongering and the Democrats’ constant attempts to use this outbreak as a means of attacking our President, I’m not sure if this is COVID-19 or COVID-1984.

Really! What does all of their hate- and fear-filled jabbering boil down to other than, “Coronavirus is ungood and anything President Trump does or doesn’t do is doubleplusungood!”

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

Big Brutha Will Speak

Orwell's Big Brother - Or is that Big Brutha in Obama's case?
B-B! …. B-B! …. B-B! Mmm, Mmm, Mmm! B-B! …. B-B! …. B-B!

Yes. I can easily picture Obama wanting to take over the airwaves and leading his faithful cultists in “Two Minutes Hate.” The boy does bear a resemblance to George Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984, though I suppose, in Obama’s case, we’d have to call him Big Brutha. What I couldn’t picture was his being able to do so…until now.

Now, Obama’s appointees in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to overhaul the Emergency Alert System so the POTUS can speak to the country at a mere flip of a switch if he feels it’s a national emergency. And, as this is regulation not law, in approximately 30 days this overhaul will happen since the Obama Regime is not known for its bowing to public pressure or comments.

At first glance this seems to be an innocuous addition to Presidential powers. It even, if one doesn’t think too much about it, seems wise and practical to set things up so that, with a push of a button, the POTUS can takeover all of the nations broadcast media in order to speak to the people in the event of any emergency. But what possible emergency could develop that necessitated the POTUS addressing the entirety of the nation with such urgency that he couldn’t abide by- and stay within the normal channels and procedures for doing so? We have successfully navigated two world wars, numerous other armed conflicts, Muslim terrorist attacks, and countless natural disasters and disruptions without any POTUS having to coop the airways by fiat.

And just what would Obama consider a national emergency? As is always the case with any regulations put forth by his appointees in the Executive, it’s left to his discretion. Does the RNC qualify? The Tea Party? Rush Limbaugh? Yet another SCOTUS ruling on Obama’s criminality? Too many States opting out of ObamaCare? Something that Fox News broadcast that Obama doesn’t like and wants to rebut? Will it just be a “comforting” message that he and his are OK in the event of some disaster?

And, what would some future POTUS consider such an emergency to be? Even if Obama doesn’t abuse and misuse this privilege that he’s claiming for himself, it seems far too likely that a future POTUS, possibly as soon as 2016 depending upon who is elected or installed, will do exactly that. Do we, the People really want Big Brother or Big Sister on every TV and radio in the land?

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

Orwell v. Huxley

George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World. Both were dire, dystopian works that speculated upon a horrid future. The two great authors were, however, wildly divergent in their fears and warnings.

Aldous Huxley v. George Orwell - Divergent Distopian Predictions
George Orwell v. Aldous Huxley – Divergent Distopian Predictions

Both Orwell and Huxley feared a future when we would be a captive culture. Orwell feared captivity by the State but Huxley feared captivity by own venality and pleasure seeking.

Orwell depicted a future society where books were banned and where the State would deprive us of information. Huxley posited a future society where would be no reason to ban a book, because there would be no one who would want to read one, but where so much data would be provided that we would be sunk into egoistic pacifism.

Orwell feared that the State would conceal the truth from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned out by the constant nattering stream of irrelevancies.

Simply put, Orwell feared hate and pain whereas Huxley feared love and pleasure. There is grim sense in both men’s fears; both the “carrot” and the “stick” are used to gain and maintain control.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

Islam Is Submission

Islam is submission; that is even the transliteration of the Arabic word, “Islam,” which is a verbal noun that is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means “to accept, surrender or submit.” Of course the levels of submission required are not the same for all people under Muslim rule.

Islam is Submission - of course what women must submit to is a bit different
Some Must Submit To More Than Others Under Islam’s Rule

Subjugation, humiliation, enslavement, physical abuse, rape, genital mutilation, and pedophilia (child brides), and brutal murder – both by individuals and by the “state” – are all part and parcel of the lives of girls and women under the misogynist rule of the foul cult of Islam. This is true irregardless of the underlying ethnic culture wherever Islam has been allowed to spread.

How prevalent and how extreme the atrocities are is solely dependent upon- and directly proportional to how much of an infection a nation suffers from and how much of voice Muslims have been stupidly allowed to have within each nation.

Islam does supposedly preach that all Muslims are equal in their submission to their God, Allah At least according to their holy book it does.

O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.

— Qur’an, Sura 49 (Al Hujurât)

It just seems that in common, almost universal, practice some Muslims are more equal than others.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Obama’s NewSpeak

The Obama Regime and the Liberals in Congress are masters of Orwellian Newspeak – what would be called bald-faced lying among Americans. Nowhere is this more evident than in attempts to foist ObamaCare onto an unwilling American people.

Misdirection after misdirection, re-branding of terms after re-branding of terms, half-truth after half-truth – and outright lie after outright lie were the orders of business for President Obama and his Socialist myrmidons in getting ObamaCare through – though never actually passed by – Congress.

And the lies and/or Newspeak just come drooling out of jabbering maws the soldiers of Obama’s Regime, namely the thugs in the Justice Department who report to Obama’s boy, Attorney General  Eric Holder.

First Obama and his Liberals claimed that the Individual Mandate included in ObamaCare wasn’t a tax; now, faced with court challenges by over 20 states and several private organizations and being worried that SCOTUS would rightly rule that forcing Americans to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, they’re defending their position as being an exercise of the federal government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

Shockingly, this is even being reported by the New York Times:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Obviously President Obama has a lot of bellyfeel that the SCOTUS’s potential scuttling of his planned government takeover of the health insurance industry is ungood because it interferes with his doublethink regarding the individual mandate in ObamaCare being a tax or not.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |