Timothy Lawton

Archive for September, 2009

Has Obama Ever Heard Of Neville Chamberlain Or Karl Marx?

by on Sep.26, 2009, under Political

Is President Obama naive, an ideologue. or worse? Does he really believe that we can use diplomacy to solve all of the problems of the world? Does he think that his eloquence can move even the most hardened dictators to come to an understanding? Does he not realize that there are some people that we cannot negotiate with? Does he know the lessons of history? Has Obama ever heard of Neville Chamberlain or Karl Marx?

Prime Minister Chamberlain was the British leader who believed that Hitler could be dealt with diplomatically. In 1938 he, his French counterpart, Mussolini, and Hitler all met at the Munich conference. Mr. Chamberlain, ever so dreadful of another conflict, basically handed over large portions of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. His thinkng was that this would satisfy Hitler and prevent another cataclysmic war like The Great War. The Prime Minister was so sure his diplomacy had succeeded that upon his return home he declared, “There will be peace in our time!”. Within one year Germany would provoke a war that would make WWI look minor in comparison. Are we on the same path with Mr. Obama as President?

Obama has unilaterally discarded plans for a missile defense shield to be placed in the Czech Republic and Poland. This without a single concession from the Russians who for some reason found this objectionable. He has also thrown Israel to the wolves by essentially stating that all Palestinian desires in negotiations to a two state solution will be met. This before talks have even begun. This in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly which is largely a collection of thugs, dictators, and anti-semites. He continually makes calls for the U.S. to cooperate with the world with no expectation that this be reciprocated. He refused to give even verbal support to the Iranian democracy protesters. And he has supported deposed President Zelaya in Honduras despite his violations of that country’s laws and Constitution. Not to mention his subservience and silence in the face of Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez. On top of this he has snubbed Great Britan’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown the leader of one of our closest allies. What is it that this man is trying to accomplish? He has already said he wants to fundamentally transform the United States. What are his intentions with the world?

By Obama’s own account he was attracted to “Marxist” professors. He has been associated with the most extreme radicals from the far left and has even appointed those who hold communist, socialist, and anti-American ideologies to positions of power in his administration. Van Jones had to step down as adviser to the President on green jobs because he was not only a communist, but had signed a petition implicating that the government had a role in 9/11. His policies at home seem to have been crafted by the most extreme liberalism. Whenever these extremist views are pointed out all we get from the left are cries of racism and accusations of how ludicrous it is to question whether Obama is a socialist. Yet, we never see a refutation of the veracity of these associates radical ties. So, what does this man really believe?

The President talked in an interview at the beginning of the decade about the “redistributive” property in the U.S. Constitution. He also seems to be bought into the idea that redistribution should be part of global policies. Cap and Trade and the Climate Change agreements will accomplish this if they become a reality. Both of these concepts will be devastating to the U.S. economy and that of the western nations as a whole. He talks again and again about a “green” economy, but never addresses the realities of getting there. The energy we need is decades away from being produced from alternative sources. Does the President think we can save enough by turning off light switches and “tuning” up our cars? If he does he needs another science advisor.

With each passing day the radicalism of this President seems to be more apparent. This is why so many have so quickly become vehemently opposed to his policies. They are creating a debt for our children that will be insurmountable. They have attempted to takeover 16% of our economy without even reading the Bills and then have had the audacity to be upset that people are getting angry and taking to the streets. The only segment of the Federal budget that they seem willing to cut is the military and this is when we are at war and under the constant threat of terror. Yet, the administration refuses to even use that word. He seems more worried about going on David Letterman and avoiding Fox News than he does about the well being of the nation. When will the mainstream media wake up and actually start to ask this man some serious questions? How about them Sox? And he wouldn’t even reply to that with a straight answer!!!!

7 Comments more...

Why I Hate Cell Phones

by on Sep.25, 2009, under General

Today, in one of my classes, I finally had it. While I was teaching at least three students (and that’s out of eight) were on their cell phones either texting or looking at messages. In truth this is really not unusual, but for some reason it struck a chord with me. I snapped into a tirade about why I hate cell phones. To anyone who knows me this is no surprise. Yet, the succinctness of my reasoning caught my own attention. This was not a planned, or well thought out, diatrabe on the evils of cell phones, but a gutteral reaction.

Leaving behind all the ecological reasons for hating cell phones I centered in on the sociological reasons that I detest these pieces of technology. Yes, they have their purposes, but their distractions, over use, potential to give an entire generation carpal tunal syndrome, diminishment of social skills and the general rules of courtesy far out weigh any good that comes from them. Simply put cell phones cause those who use them to never be where they are. Much like Luke Skywalker being scolded by Yoda for always thinking about the future this hand held technology causes people to never really be able to live in the moment.

When I asked my students what they were texting about all three said that they were making plans for the weekend. It was bad enough that they weren’t listening to my lesson (and awesome it was), but this translates to all social situations as well. I pointed out to them that when they are actually hanging out with their friends this weekend that at that time they would be so attatched to these gadgets that they would then be missing out on what was going on around them at that time. This does not only apply to our youth, but also to the adults in our culture. How many times are we at parties, social engagements, meetings, or any other function and someone’s phone goes off? Or, they are sitting eyes fixated on their dopey little screen trying to discern whatever inanity that may currently be presenting itself. How many times are conversations cut short, forgotten, or interrupted because someone sent some meaningless transmission via the cell phone?

Do those who own these contraptions ever get a moments peace? Is there ever a time when they actually look out onto the world undisturbed? Can they ever enjoy nature, or other people, when they have these things on them? The contented feeling I have of not owning a cell phone is reinforced every time I hear a “ring tone” shouting out that more useless information is being conveyed by invisible light waves through our atmosphere. Mankind had survived without these monstrosities for over 5 millenia don’t tell me we “need” them now!!

PS  Just as I was closing this blog I received a phone call from a cell phone. Ironically I sat there repeating hello about a dozen times getting occasional sounds from my landline, but to no avail. Finally I hung up and waited for the inevitable call back. Shortly there after the phone rang again and I was treated to the now infamous line, “Can yo hear me?” a number of times. This reminded me of the countless dropped calls where I have either droned on for a while into a dead phone unbenounced to myself or have been cut off at the most important part of a phone call whether it be a political debate or a significant matter. All these technical problems considered and I still have to mention the constant missed word or phrase and the general choppieness and background noise that comes with cell phones. Alexander Grahm Bell would probably be impressed with the cell phone’s portability, but distressed with it’s massive steps backward in quality. All in all I’m glad I don’t own one and hope I never do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Comment more...

The Ever Growing Divide Between Liberals And Conservatives

by on Sep.16, 2009, under Political, Uncategorized

On the commemeration of September 11th I wanted to write a blog about what makes us all Americans, but as I started to try to sort out my thoughts I did’t think I could honestly write such a piece. Instead I found myself pondering how far the extreme left has departed from the ideals that made this country great. Let me be clear here. I am not talking about ALL liberals. I am referring to the fringe of the ideology that has become anti-capitalist, socialistic, willing to use the power of the government to silence their opponents, and generally blames all the problems of the world on the United States and/or Israel. The use of epithets and hyperbole characterize every debate that they have. Recently we have seen any one who oppoes the policies of Obama called racist and even some have been likened to Nazis.

So, let us look at what the far left has been asserting in these last several weeks. We have had Nancy Pelosi say that the people against government run health care at the Townhall meetings were carrying swastikas. Jimmy Carter has said that many people opposed to Obama are upset because a black man is President. And countless columnists and pundits have claimed that any one opposed to the President is doing so because of his race. I’m sure their are some who hold these thoughts in their head, but it is possible to disagree with the liberal assault on our Constitution and way of life based on the merits. Last year I voted for myself for President, because it was the first time that I was over 35 years old and that is one of the requirements for that office. Prior to that I have voted for Jesus and I still don’t know what race he was. Maybe the left should spend more time trying to convince those who are against their policies why they have the best plan for this country instead of resorting to name calling. I, and virtually everyone else I know, base our opinions on which policies will move this nation and the world in the right direction. The liberal cry of racism is at best a distraction and at worst a deliberate attempt to scare people from voicing their opinions.

The true racists are those who incorporate race into their every thought. The ones who can never simply be people. The ones who not only voted against Obama because of his race, but those who voted FOR him because of his race as well. This applies to sex in an equally valid manner. These Tea Parties and anger at the Townhalls would have been just as vociferous had Hillary Clinton been elected and proposed the same policies. This would have had the left playing the sexist card instead of the race card had she won the office of President. Had John Edwards, or some other white male won, it would be interesting to see what arguments they would have had to come up with. Possibly they would have had to actually debate the issues.

How far the left is willing to go is truly becoming scary. Their opposition to the war in Iraq has actually had Senators and Congressmen publicly state that the war was lost while our troops were still engaged in combat, that our men were “cold blooded” killers of innocent women and children, and the consistent broadcasting of the message that we are ready to turn and run at a moments notice. Couple this with the Obama apology tour and we are headed back to a pre-9/11 mindset. We can disagree, but we should never hinder the ability of the men and women on the ground to do the jobs that their survival deems necessary. Americans will NEVER tolerate undue brutality in war, but we cannot have our troops constantly looking over their shoulders. Remember, one of the worst attrocities in the Vietnam war perpetrated by our forces was My Lai, but it was our very own men who put a stop to it.

As for freedom of speech who is it that is trying to prevent it? Were hundreds of thousands prevented from marching in the streets protesting the Iraq war during President Bush’s time in office? Was Cindy Sheehan and her supporters taken away in the middle of the night when they set up camp outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas? No, it is the liberals who are trying to curb the first amendment. They know they can’t overtly shut down talk radio with the fairness doctrine, so they are planning to do it with “localism” and “diversity”. Liberal talk radio can’t survive on its own even with the millions that the likes of George Soros have poured into it. The left hates that it is actually being held to account for its distortions and half-truths. They hate that millions are abandoning their newspapers, network news, and left-leaning cable stations and turning to talk radio, FOX news, and the web. So, when competing has failed they are now trying to craft another method to silence their opposition. Watch closely over the next several months and see what types of proposals will come from the FCC’s new “diversity” Czar. They will attempt to impose fines or fees that will make it economically unviable for affiliates to carry national radio hosts. They will do it in the name of local representation, but its real purpose is to silence those who oppose their culture changing agenda.

America we are at a crossroads. We are witnessing the insidious rise of a radical attempt to alter our society. It is being done deliberately and incrementally. Those who wish for this brave new world know that they cannot allow their plans to be aired in the open. They have been working their way into the mind of our world for about a century. The divide between the right and the left grows because the liberals are abandoning the values that have made this country strong. Hard work, self-determination, and freedom are merely abstracts that obtrude into their vision of a society governed by the control of an ”enlightened” bureaucracy. The radical liberals do not believe in the things that have made America great. In fact they are opposed to them and have a different set of values that they want to see guide the world. To them America is not to be admired it is to be subdued.

Leave a Comment more...


Use the form below to search the site: