AN ORWELLIAN TRIFECTA OF OPPRESSION
boblonsberry.com ^ | 05/15/13 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:21:36 AM by shortstop
The government lied to us.
The government targeted its political opponents and people who taught about the Constitution.
The government secretly scoured the phone records of America’s biggest news agency.
Is that the change you were hoping for?
Is that the country you want to live in?
Without regard to party or philosophy, this is not acceptable. Put more pointedly, this is not America.
WHEN WERE WE WRONG — THEN OR NOW?
boblonsberry.com ^ | 03/26/13 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:34:25 AM by shortstop
In one regard, it will be a momentous decision.
In another, it will be completely meaningless.
WHY DO THEY NEED SO MANY BULLETS?… (“Why do we automatically presume our government and its operators are benign, and those who warn of oppression are insane?”)
WHY DO THEY NEED SO MANY BULLETS?
boblonsberry.com ^ | 02/11/13 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 8:50:34 AM by shortstop
Why is the government disarming us at the same time it is arming itself?
Not wanting to sound paranoid, or like a conspiracy theorist, I think it is nonetheless fair to ask: What foe is the federal government arming itself against?
And should the American people be concerned about a federal government that takes away their guns while simultaneously stockpiling hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for its own domestic security use?
WE LET THEM DIE
boblonsberry.com ^ | 10/26/12 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:47:10 AM by shortstop
American life must be cheap.
Must be the men and women sent overseas mean nothing. We’ll meet your coffin at Andrews, if there are TV cameras, but damned if we’ll come to your rescue.
That’s what we learned at Benghazi.
As details have come out in dribs and drabs, each new revelation has illustrated the uncomfortable fact that we left those men to fight and die alone.
We did not defend them, we did not relieve them, we just watched them. Our drone circled overhead, providing a real-time video feed, but it did not fire its missiles, it was not used to guide in a relief force, it just took pictures.
Grisly souvenirs of a gutless administration.
For most of a year, our Libyan ambassador and various members of his security detachment warned of danger and pleaded for assistance. Time and time again the people on the ground said it wasn’t safe and they needed protection. Time and time again people in Washington declined the requests. Instead of increasing our security forces there, the administration cut them.
And then the attack came.
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH
boblonsberry.com ^ | 01/22/13 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:30:27 AM by shortstop
It was a speech liberals will love, conservatives will hate and history will forget.
It was 18 minutes of paying off the base and rewarding the coalition. It was a president who won 52 percent of the vote thumbing his nose at the other 48 percent.
There was pomp and circumstance, a torturous poem and some good singing. The family looked good, the crowd seemed large, the Capitol was stunning. As inaugurations go, it was a good, solid medium. It upheld tradition, it showcased the president, it followed tradition and law.
READER RESPONSE: Gunny G……
(See Full Article, Reader Responses, Etc…)
THIS ISN’T ABOUT TRAYVON
boblonsberry.com ^ | 03/26/12 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2012 8:02:45 PM by shortstop
I didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin.
And neither did the nation, the police or the criminal justice system.
It wasn’t his hoodie or the gun law or what it means to be black in America.
It was two guys in a Florida subdivision. One of them was a 17-year-old who seems to have been innocent. The other was a 28-year-old who seems to have been belligerent.
How it went down, we don’t yet know. One guy had a bloody head, the other guy had a bullet hole. One was a mostly model citizen, the other was a mostly model student.
And now the president says we need national soul searching. Al Sharpton says we need justice. Any number of protests say we need dialogue. The Million Hoodie marchers say we need racial respect.
What I think we need is less exploitation.
We need less twisting of tragedy into political advantage. We need less grandstanding and fewer crocodile tears.
Because this is about a dead young man. It’s about grieving a life needlessly lost. And it’s about justice in that matter. It’s about finding out whether or not the law was broken and if it was, if the lawbreaker is going to be held accountable.
That’s what it’s about.
It’s not about anything else.
No matter what the president says, no matter what the protestors chant, no matter what the race baiters wish.
Unfortunately, this tragedy has been co-opted by people with political axes to grind. The death of this young man has been twisted to advance the agendas of politicians, civil-rights activists, occupiers, and cop haters.
And that is all illegitimate.
That is all an exploitation.
It is completely illogical to extrapolate the events of that night to make statements about either American law enforcement or race relations. To project the supposed actions of one man onto an entire nation is to abandon common sense and fairness.
Similarly, to designate Trayvon Martin as a representative of all young black men, or of all young black men who wear hoodies, is unfair to his memory and a fundamental distortion.
Some of what is being said is simply inane. The platitudes of political correctness, looked at with the light of honesty, become manipulations and pretentions.
Like the president’s statement that his son would look like Trayvon Martin.
That was intended to be a coded statement about race, an identification with a racial upset that is, possibly not coincidentally, beneficial to the president’s re-election prospects. It essentially translates to, “I am black, too.”
Otherwise, the assertion that his son would look like Trayvon Martin is the equivalent of the old racist claim that all black people look alike. Because, actually, if the Obamas had a son, it is unlikely that he truly would look very much like Trayvon Martin. The Obamas are taller and their daughters are thinner, with facial features nothing like those of Trayvon Martin.
In point of fact, if the first family did have a son, he would probably look nothing like Trayvon Martin.
The only similarity between the young men would be their approximate skin color.
And it is unfortunate when the president of the United States makes skin color a significant identifier or issue.
Some activists have turned this into an attack on the police. They have talked about arrest rates for black people, racial profiling, alleged sentencing differences, supposed disrespect for minority youth by the police. It has been a long and angry litany. And those arguments, pressed by anti-police activists for decades, may or may not have validity.
(Gunny G: Reader Response) CFP: The Messiah can’t walk on water but can improve the image of the Christmas Tree
OK, color me…suspicious:
And…Happy Birthday (Nov 10), Marines!
In 2001, Barack Obama said he saw aspects of Nazi Germany in American society and government.
He also said the U.S. Constitution was fundamentally flawed.
And that he was disappointed that the Supreme Court had not ordered federally administered financial equality as part of the civil rights movement.
He also called for a political coalition to be formed that would force “redistributive” policies on the American people – using the power of government to equalize wealth across the society.
In 2008, that political coalition is about to take power.
It’s called Obama ’08.
Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:43:06 AM by shortstop
Less than two months ago, on the day after the 10th anniversary of September 11th, the Obama Administration suspended the most successful alien-interdiction program on the northern border.
GUNNY G: WHO COINED “FUBO” ? Bob Lonsberry, That’s Who!
No doubt there will be numerous idiots claiming to have invented FUBO, and/or with dozens of bs stories as to its origin, etc.
Myself, I recall when the first e-mail on FUBO by Bob Lonsberry came across my PC one morning, so I started to search for my posting of it on my sites;
I’m sure it’s there but my search came up with the following first, so here it is!
Hey, See the Reader Responses on each article,
they are gems in themselves!
Gunny G: BLOGGER 1984 +
boblonsberry.com ^ | 10/06/11 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:14:29 AM by shortstop
Should we use ethanol for fuel?
Should we use corn to make that ethanol?
Sure, we want to get over our need for foreign oil. Sure, we want to find a renewable fuel for our vehicles. Sure, ethanol could work just fine.
But don’t make it from corn.
Here’s what I’m talking about. The president and a bunch of powerful people in Congress have been working over recent years to hold up corn-based ethanol as the answer to our future energy-supply needs.
When he talks about it, the president says corn-based ethanol is our only hope of escaping the evils of OPEC. He says the only way we can ever become energy independent is through ethanol made from corn.
First of all, if energy independence is truly the objective – if our number one priority is freeing ourselves of foreign oil – the best and easiest option is to drill for our own. We have plenty of oil in Alaska and off the American coast. Environmentalists have that oil tied up and it sits now, wasted and unused beneath a mountain of fear and threatened lawsuits.
But about ethanol.
It is a biofuel created by fermentation. Essentially, you take something with some sort of sugar in it and you let yeast do it’s magic and – voila – you have something that can be coaxed into being a pretty good fuel.
That’s because Brazil has lots of sugar cane and the United States has lots of lobbyists.
Seriously. America makes its ethanol out of corn because corn farmers and corn-state politicians have lots of pull. If ethanol is made out of corn, the demand for and price of corn goes up dramatically and corn farmers – and giant corn-processing companies – make lots and lots of money.
The downside is that that lots and lots of money comes right out of the family budgets of lots and lots of people.
That’s because people eat corn.
And because some of the most productive farmland in America – and, consequently, in the world – is growing corn.
Right now, corn is an elemental staple of the American diet. We eat it processed in myriad ways. It is all through our food supply. And it is all through the food supply of the animals we eat.
So if the price of corn goes up – because the ethanol-driven demand for corn goes up – then the price of a large portion of the American diet will go up. Everything from corn flakes to soda pop to ground chuck will cost more.
And that will hurt.
But that won’t be the end of it.
As demand for corn increases, farmers will move increased acreage into corn production. You grow on your land the crop that will bring you the highest rate of return. Excluding marijuana. With ethanol demand, corn will pay better than most anything else a farmer can plant.
So fields that might otherwise be in other vegetables, grains and fodders will be pushed into corn production. The impact of that on the family food budget is that with fewer acres being planted into those other vegetables, grains and fodders, their supply will be decreased and their price will be increased.
That means corn-based ethanol bites your family’s budget in two ways.
And that’s exactly why great political pressure is being brought against our government to get it to continue to emphasize corn-based ethanol. That’s too bad because it is diverting attention away from alternative sources of ethanol.
Instead of using a prime food commodity for fuel, we should explore ways to generate ethanol from lower-value sugar and cellulose sources. Certain types of seemingly valueless grasses can be processed into ethanol. Advancing the technology to do that makes more sense than tapping into our food and food-producing topsoil.
Brazil uses sugar cane to make ethanol, and Brazilian biofuel is considered better than American biofuel. And while we may not want to put too many eggs in the sugar cane basket, its success is proof that there’s more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to grow fuel for our cars.
So, ethanol is a great idea.
But corn-based ethanol is a terrible idea.
I love farmers, and appreciate what they do. But making farmers rich can’t be the priority of our national policy – that policy should be focused on making fuel and keeping family food budgets in line.
Until 80 years ago, most of our transportation was fueled by the soil – it came in the form of grass and hay that fed our horses. In the future we may go back to the soil again for our fuel.
But we will be better off if that is from low-value grasses instead of high-value corn.
ELIMINATE MILITARY PENSIONS?
boblonsberry.com ^ | 08/17 11 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 8:43:05 AM by shortstop
They want to cut military pensions.
The Obama Administration’s panel of smart guys has decided military retirement has to go.
Welfare can stay, free pills for Grama can stay, bogus SSI checks for life can stay, Food Stamps for soda and steak can stay, cushy federal civilian benefits stay, congressional compensation packages remain the same, but pensions for guys on their fourth tour, well, we can’t afford them.
You now what this means?
It means the military is a small and Republican-leaning voting bloc that the Democrats don’t care about alienating. It means that veterans have no political pull – on either the support or the consciences of the politicians.
To balance the budget, in the Obama world, we target millionaires and the military. And not just weapons systems, but the men and women who use them.
We pull the rug out from under them.
Lonsberry: “The loudest repudiation of this assault would be for members of the House of Representatives from across the country to be in their districts next Saturday, in front of their own supermarkets, holding their own Congress on the Corner.”
Browse · Search
|Pings · Mail||News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 8:45:01 AM by shortstop
They died in the service of our country.
The judge, the little girl, the congressional staffer. The three people in their 70s.
They all died in the name of American liberty. Just as assuredly as if they were casualties on a foreign battlefield.
They were killed by the evil which is the sworn enemy of our freedom and this Republic. In the guise of the terrorists on September 11th, or the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, or a monster with a gun at a Tucson supermarket, it is all the same. Different faces of the same beast. All attacks on us and what we hold dear.
The Speaker almost had it right.
An attack on one who serves is not just an attack on all who serve – it is an attack on all who are served.
A member of Congress is called a representative, and on Saturday morning Gabrielle Giffords was not just a representative of the 8th District of Arizona, she was a representative of us all and of our nation. She was engaged in her duties as an officer of our Constitution, she was there representing the United States of America.
And that is what was attacked.
In those duties, on that errand, fulfilling those responsibilities, violence born of evil or insanity was rained down upon her. It was not about her, it was about us, all of us, and the Republic which for more than two centuries our ancestors have jealously defended.
America was attacked, and in the wounding of Gabrielle Giffords, its defender was felled. Just as assuredly as if she had been in our uniform, in our military, on our bidding. Because she, like those in our military, swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
And that is what she was doing Saturday morning at the Safeway.
She was making certain that the people of Arizona had face-to-face access to their federal government. She was keeping open the doors of communication by opening them herself. She was not a politician, she was an officeholder, and she was there in her official capacity.
And she stood shoulder to shoulder with 300 million other Americans as she did so.
She was literally wounded in our service. Just like Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley and James A. Garfield. Lincoln was shot by a man who resented his successes as commander in chief, McKinley was shot by an anarchist who hated all government, and Garfield was shot by a man who supported his political opponents. These were political shootings, and so was the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
Posted on Friday, February 20, 2009 8:40:19 AM by shortstop
I probably should have just listened to Paul Harvey.
Though it wasn’t actually Paul Harvey. It was Ron Chapman. And that’s probably the problem. I understand Ron Chapman is a radio legend somewhere, but I don’t live there. So, to me, he’s just an insufferable bore.
But I should have been listening anyway.
Instead I got an idea.
An idea that had been kind of simmering in my head for a week or so.