Yes, millions of people could die under the rule of Barack Obama! This morning I read a headline in a lefty newspaper that read, “As many as 1,000 wolves could be killed!” This all because it was decided to remove federal protection of the wolf.

This morning, I’m claiming that millions of people, worldwide, could die while Barack Obama is in office. My reasoning is that he is a fascist dictator and like Hitler, millions of people died.

And speaking of Hitler. I have been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism. I highly recommend it but unfortunately too few will read it because they will automatically reach conclusions just by the title. While the title grabs your attention, the book isn’t quite what you might think it is. It is very historical. In it you will discover America’s birth of fascism, the journey of the metamorphosis of fascism through the years and what role it plays in our lives today.

Toward the end of the book I was reading about how Hitler transformed Germany into what it became. Here’s what Goldberg said.

“Under the progressives, the Christian God had been transformed into the God of lower food prices. Under the Nazis, the Christian God would be transformed into an Aryan SS officer with Hitler his right hand. The so-called German Christian pastors preached that “just as Jesus liberated mankind from sin and hell, so Hitler saves the German Volk from decay.” In April 1933 the Nazi Congress of German Christians pronounced that all churches should catechize that “God has created me a German; Germanism is a gift of God. God wills that I fight for Germany. War service in no way injures the Christian conscience, but is obedience to God.”

“In 1935 mandatory prayer in school was abolished, and in 1938 carols and Nativity plays were banned entirely. By 1941 religious instruction for children fourteen years and up had been abolished altogether, and Jacobinism reigned supreme. A Hitler Youth song rang out from the campfires”

What I opted to do with the Hitler Youth song was to replace two names that appear in it. You’ll catch on.

We are the happy Obama Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Barack Obama is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Obama’s children.
No Christ do we follow, but Rahm Emanuel!
Away with the incense and holy water pots.

The orphans in Germany were given a song to sing at Christmas time, a song once familiar here in America but with each passing year, as our society continues it’s bent on ridding this country of any reference to God, this carol too will be banned. Hitler changed the lyrics to the song as I will change them again to fit the moment.

Silent night! Holy night! All is calm, all is bright,
Only Obama steadfast in fight,
Watches o’er America by day and night,
Always caring for us.

Before you call me a wing nut, or one of Napolitano’s feared right wing extremists, review your history and then be honest with yourself and compare this all to the direction this country is headed. Some of us don’t like it and fear for our future. On the other hand, you might just like it. Many Germans did.

Tom Remington

Like with most similar tragedies in this country, for some strange reason, of which probably shrinks can’t understand, Americans seem to want to avoid the real root of a problem and attack a symptom. Why did our focus, at least a good part of it, become centered on guns, even 10 years later? TIME Magazine wants to know why we haven’t done more to restrict guns since Columbine.

My question is why are TIME and others still focused on guns and why aren’t they asking what has been done to get into the minds of kids like Harris and Klebod or Cho Seung-Hui who mass murdered students at Virginia Tech? What has been done about that? After all, it is mental illness that brings people like this to the point of killing someone.

TIME went to the trouble to interview John Woods, a University of Texas graduate student, about his take on guns and in particular guns on college campuses. Woods opposes a bill that would allow college students in Texas to carry guns to school.

According to TIME, Woods even thinks addressing the “psychotic” aspect of acts like at Columbine and VT would be a better way to go.

Woods concedes that getting help to the psychotic, would-be killers of the world would probably be an even better fix.

But Woods reasons that because he knew some of the students at VT who got killed that for some reason banning guns will help. He uses the same poor reasoning as I’ve heard before attempting to relate gun control to banning peanuts.

I think if this was peanuts or pistachios causing all these deaths, then we’d be all over it. But there is no amendment about peanuts or pistachios in the Bill of Rights. People on both sides just simply won’t compromise.

As I have said many times before in this debate, we recalled peanuts because they were tainted. If a gun was found to be made with a fault in it we would do the same. But the real problem with peanuts that made people sick was salmonella not peanuts. A poorly run place of business allowed for the growth of a bacteria that made people sick. We didn’t ban peanuts because of poor business practices.

And what does compromise do? If there ever existed factual evidence that allowing law abiding citizens to own a gun caused them to murder, then something should be done. This just isn’t the truth. It solves nothing and helps no one. Agreeing to a compromise only seeks to resolve an argument. Once that happens all focus is taken away from the real problem that existed in the first place.

People refuse to accept the fact that the United States of America did not grant you and me the right to defend and protect ourselves. If you read the Constitution, and this was clearly pointed out and explained in the District of Columbia v. Heller case by Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment infers that our right to self defense existed before the U.S. Constitution was written. The Amendment only restated the obvious. It was not granted.

But TIME keeps questioning why we aren’t working harder to ban guns and why is it that people are insisting on easing the restrictions that already exist. The answer is simple. Currently people must be feeling more in need of self defense. It’s also very clear that when you disarm lawful citizens, crime goes up. People are learning over again what made this country great – independence, which comes from liberty, freedom of oppression brought on by those bent on taking away our freedoms. They have discovered that all these laws and restrictions aren’t working. They’ve learned that the police show up after the crime. They’ve been witness to the state, during time of natural disasters, systematically going about confiscating their guns. They’ve had enough.

Anti gun groups have been allowed to go unchecked and unrestrained for too long. Now people are speaking out against those who insist on stealing our God-given rights from us. Surely if TIME was interested in getting to the bottom of that they could.

Again I ask. Why isn’t TIME asking what’s being done about dealing with the mental illness that causes people to kill others? Mentally ill people who want to kill can creatively find numerous ways and select readily available weapons to get the job done. It does nobody any good to select from all those weapons guns and blame senseless killings on them while infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

Isn’t it time to move on? Isn’t it time to do the right thing and put our efforts into the real root of the problem instead of thinking that if we can attack a symptom, somehow the rest will magically disappear?

If we made it harder to buy peanuts, would salmonella go away?

Tom Remington

The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.

The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car — another major cause of carbon emissions.

Now I can easily see fat people eating more food. But to say fat people drive more is ludicrous. Where do these stats fall out of the sky from? First off, many healthy people drive to and from the gym don’t they? Fat people are lazier and tend to do more sitting on their fat butts right?? All this, while healthy people are more active and pack up the SUV to go on a camping trip, or some outing. I would think the exact opposite, that fat people watched too much TV while the healthy folks were planning trips and outings. And they have to get there some how. Healthy people don’t just conveniently live right next to a mountain or biking trails. A lot of them need to pack up that car and drive to where they want to be.

But even if it were true that fat people drove more…. then what??

Isn’t there a tax on gas? Isn’t there a tax on food? The more you eat and the more you drive, the more in tax you pay. Therefore the fatties will be paying more since naturally they purchase more of these items, right? Well it goes beyond that. It is now our goal to get fat people to eat less and to drive less or polar bears will lose their homes, and there will be more destruction across the globe in the form of natural disasters, overwhelming organizations who provide aide.

The impact of more storms, floods and droughts could overwhelm aid organizations.

But remember not to antagonize fat folks because it may cause adverse results due to a guilty conscience…

“A few obese people have a hormone problem, although most simply don’t use enough calories and eat too many. But making them feel guilty antagonises them and may not help.”

I know this sounds like a joke but it’s not. Scientists use tax payer dollars to fund their programs to come up with this sort of content. Of course they are going to find more ways to tax the Americans, through all means possible, fat or not fat, to keep their income flowing. People will believe in this but you mention there is a God and you are insane. See how that works??

The gold “IHS” monogram inscribed on a pediment in the hall was covered over by a piece of black-painted plywood, and remained covered over the next day, CNSNews.com reported.

From a Biblical perspective this is saddening news. God has always judged the nations. Those nations that turned away and removed God from their society were always met with harsh judgment. Some were given second, third, fourth, chances. Those nations that feared God and worshiped His name were blessed and would prosper. Are we to be judged lightly?

According to Michelle Malkin, there have been reports from DHS on leftwing extremism.

I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

I tend to agree with Malkin but it certainly depends on who you talk to as to whether this report, being called a direct attack on conservatives and military veterans, is all that unusual.

Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News and World Report doesn’t think this report is anything that should upset conservatives. He actually asks why conservatives would put themselves in the same company of those being pointed out in the report.

Here’s my question: Why are prominent conservatives so quick to lump themselves in with genuine nuts and terrorists? Seriously.

Schlesinger also points out from a footnote in the report what he wants to use as a definition of who the report is targeting.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

It is disingenuous to try to convince anybody that this is a definitive representation of what rightwing extremism is and is talked about in this report. It is all subjective and left up to the judgment of who? Janet Napolitano? Barack Obama? Or maybe the CNN reporter who yesterday, covering the Tea Party event in Chicago, called the event anti government, anti CNN and not fit for family viewing.

It needs also to be pointed out that nothing in this report addresses radical Islamic terrorists or any other terror organizations outside the U.S.

And this report follows in the footsteps of the Missouri Information and Analysis Center’s Strategic Report, “Modern Militia Movement“. Almost immediately after that report was made public a member of the Campaign for Liberty group was detained at length at a Missouri airport because he was carrying cash and brochures about his organization.

Yesterday on a local talk radio station here in the Tampa Bay area, I heard one host say that the DHS report on rightwing extremism wasn’t targeted at Tea Parties or conservatives because these reports were sanctioned under the Bush administration. Well, of course they were. It was under the Bush administration that the Department of Homeland Security was founded. The problem with that argument is that George Bush and his Secretary of Homeland Security didn’t write this report dated April 7, 2009. It was Janet Napolitano under the direction of her boss, Barack Obama. These two either knew exactly what they were doing or they need some remedial work on writing reports on national security.

We can argue forever on whether or not this report was directed at conservatives and any or all conservative movements. What we can agree on is that the document is a piece of poorly crafted bunk. It is non specific, it is written such that it will incite anger and does not define what they deem to be “extremism”. To read the report any honest person will come away believing that those who don’t espouse to the principles of abortion, bailouts, socialism, gun control, essentially all of Obama’s programs, you are a rightwing extremist. Not only that, about the only specific group pointed out is from our own military personnel. Shouldn’t we expect our military personnel to be angry and hurt?

This report went out to law enforcement agencies as an alert. It is so poorly crafted that it appears as an obvious target of anyone not in agreement with the president and his policies.

I don’t consider myself an extremist but after reading this report and being witness to the events taking place in this country today, I am left thinking I am on the DHS watch list.

Tom Remington

Thanks to the Internet, it has made organizing such a mass event a lot easier and lot quicker. This idea was mainly started by bloggers who felt the need to reach out. Protests actually began with bloggers in Seattle, Washington who rallied back in February. Word spread and it has caught on like wildfire. So what does the left-wingers and those who support the Obama Administration think of all this?

I can’t imagine they are too keen on the idea of angry protesters stomping through American cities with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other. They would feel more comfortable if we just put the guns and Bibles down and started murdering innocent children in the womb. Or better yet pass around a bong and have gay sex. OK I digress.

Well, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a 9 page report (pdf) warning officials of right-wing radicals. This all comes just hours prior to Tea Party Day.

(U) Key Findings

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.

— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

For those who read Bible prophecy understand that there are many people out there that believe America will not play a major role in the last days. Some scholars believe America will exist, but will play a small role in end time events. Of course there are many theories. Some believe America will simply lose their role as the #1 super power of the world. Many believe there could be civil unrest and war in America. People like Joel Rosenberg, who mentions in his book Dead Heat, a massive nuclear attack on American cities, believe this to be a possible reality. Some believe not just one event could happen but many of the events. Take a worse case scenario where civil unrest breaks out due to an economic downturn and high unemployment, leading to more bailouts and more tea parties. Unrest leads to civil war, and while America is fighting amongst itself to find its identity we are attacked from the outside by an evil force.

Again, much speculation here, but could this be the beginning of something bigger to come? Many evangelicals today believe we are living in the last days. Seeing through the third lens of Scripture doesn’t this help you more easily project which road the economic and political stage is headed?

Last weekend I happened to watch the McLaughlin Group, a mainstay of Sunday morning political programs, which included a discussion that typified the lack of economic common sense that is so pervasive in our country. The program’s anchor John McLaughlin, undoubtedly an expert in political maneuvering and Washington horse-trading, offered viewers his assessment of the global economic landscape. McLaughlin identified China, Germany, and Japan as being prime offenders in the global economic meltdown. Their “offense” was that they ran persistent trade surpluses, had savings rates that were “far too high” and consumption rates that were “far too low”. McLaughlin identified these sins as responsible for the global economic imbalances. He urged the governments of those countries to adopt policies that would encourage their consumers to borrow and spend more. Exactly which school of economic thought informed his assessment is not entirely clear.

In the first place, if the creditor nations of the world actually follow Mr. McLaughlin’s advice and become borrowers themselves, from just where does Mr. McLaughlin believe the money will come? These countries already lend to America. Does he think that they also have enough leftover to lend to themselves? Does he believe that America, which is tens of trillions of dollars in debt, has enough excess savings to lend? Perhaps he’s eyeing the Martians’ accumulated savings? The point is: the entire world cannot borrow at the same time. Someone has to do the lending. The only reason Americans are able to borrow so much is that those “offending nations” are loaning us the money.

Mr. McLaughlin apparently believes that if those countries simply adopted policies to encourage more consumption, America would then be able to export more products. Just what American-made products does he expect the Chinese to buy? If China did spend more, which they ultimately will, they would simply buy more of their own products that they currently ship to us. After all, if Americans are not buying American-made products, why would the Chinese? In most cases, it’s not that consumers do not want to buy American products it’s just that there are so few American-made products that are competitive in the global marketplace.

One guest on the panel did try to correct Mr. McLaughlin by suggesting that Americans needed to save more and spend less, but he was quickly shot down. Why should we spend less, McLaughlin snapped, when they could shoulder some of the burden by spending more? The inference here is that we are doing our part by lugging home shopping carts full of consumer goods, while they are getting off easy by spending their days in muggy factories making the goods!

What he fails to understand is that nothing can be bought that is not first produced. We cannot all just decide to spend our troubles away. It is only because the “offending nations” are producing surplus goods (meaning more goods than they are themselves consuming) that those goods are available to Americans. In McLaughlin’s America, and indeed Obama’s, we would all be standing around empty shelves with wheelbarrows full of worthless cash.

If the creditor countries are indeed the offenders, it is only in the sense that they have enabled us to live beyond our means and have facilitated the growth of our phony economy. However if they do as Mr. McLaughlin suggests, the immediate impact on the American economy will be much different than what he expects: the dollar will collapse, both consumer prices and interest rates will rise sharply, and the current recession will deepen. Rather than holding us back, foreign creditors have actually been propping us up. As for Mr. McLaughlin, he should stick to his strong suit: the dissection of political posturing. To presume a level of economic understanding by listening to self-interested politicians and academics is to invite catastrophe.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff’s book “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse”.

By Peter Schiff

Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga said the College of Alameda accused them of “disruptive behavior” after they had prayed with an ailing teacher in a faculty office in December of 2007, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Although public colleges are prohibited from endorsing religion, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the women can proceed with a lawsuit against Peralta Community College District.

Illston said college students have the right to pray in private outside the classroom, according to the Chronicle.

The lawsuit seeks an acknowledgment of that right and an apology, and wants all disciplinary action be rescinded, said one of the pair’s lawyers, Steven Wood.

I’m old enough to remember the days when people of this world predicted that computers, among other things, were going to make us all lazy slobs. We may have become lazy slobs but I’m not sure how much can be attributed to computers, at least directly. I will also date myself to say that one of my favorite classes in high school was called, “Computer Math”. That’s where I began learning Fortran (It’s a computer programming language most people have never heard of.) and logic. I’m anal enough to have enjoyed logic. What was cool about it was that I learned how to write a program that would give me desired results based on certain input. Yes, if I wanted I could skew the program to give me the results I wanted. (I knew you were going to ask.)

We use this same sort of thing today to predict our future or the future. We predict the weather. How good do you think that is? I’ve always heard tell that if you and I were as wrong at our jobs as weathermen were, we’d be fired.

We seem to think we can predict climate changes and weather patterns (global warming), 10, 20, 50 years into the future. Hmmm. We can’t seem to foretell the weather an hour from now, even by looking out the window, I’m not sure how smart we are at guessing beyond that.

And let’s not forget that we believe we can predict our economic future too by using these sophisticated programs. And how’s that working out for us right now?

Modeling it’s called. Our biologists and wildlife scientists are learning to use modeling to predict what’s going to happen to polar bear, wolves, sheep, mosquitoes and even the ruby-throated croople poop!

For whatever this is all worth, it’s interesting and more. In a recent email discussion I had with a few scientists, scholars and concerned sportsmen, we all began examining a study that was done on modeling to estimate the success of breeding pairs of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Most of us know that the new Obama administration is going to butt heads with the enviros in an attempt to remove federal protection of the gray wolf and turn management over to the states. It was discussed as to whether this study would be referred to. Perhaps, but one has to wonder which side might use it.

Aside from all that and how much authority you want to give modeling to determine the success of breeding, a bit of a comical moment came out when Dr. Valerius Geist wrote the following in an email exchange.

After the collapse of econometrics [The application of statistical techniques to economics in the study of problems, the analysis of data, and the development of theory], the disappointing results of post-hoc analysis of their powers to predict, the admitted cluelessness of experts interviewed, and what you wrote some time ago about Caughley’s models, the severe criticism of global warming predictions based on modeling, etc, I am becoming very skeptical as well as confused. If econometric modeling contributed to current economic collapse, although such was done extensively with the use of supercomputers, just what hope do we have in biological modeling which is dealing with matters even more complex than the economy? I quit modeling a very long time ago, even though it was entertaining, precisely because it’s results were so hilarious. Maybe others were better at it! Now I doubt that they were! In the wolf debate, I am missing a fact I have to live with: the absence of a predictable steady state. Wolf packs arrive, total wildlife devastation follows, and off they go with a lagging, agonizing recovery of wildlife. If wolves come, eat themselves out of house and home, then move on to repeat the same, You do not have steady state predictability except over huge contiguous areas of wilderness, not in mosaic of settled landscapes and wild lands. Local devastation of wildlife – and I mean devastation! – deer, waterfowl, grouse, rabbits….the lot goes, etc. Local devastation will have political consequences. The chief lesson from North American experience is to keep wolves way low – then they are beloved darlings!

Snicker! Chuckle!

Tom Remington