Category Archives: Obama’s America

And Today We Bring You The Latest On Kim Jong-Un

Yup, Gonna Nuke The White House he says. And in other news…..

download

Go ahead. I don't care.  :)

Go ahead. I don’t care. :)

Seoul (AFP) – A top-ranking North Korean military official has threatened a nuclear strike on the White House and Pentagon after accusing Washington of raising military tensions on the Korean peninsula.

The threat came from Hwang Pyong-So, director of the military’s General Political Bureau, during a speech to a large military rally in Pyongyang Sunday on the anniversary of the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

Hwang, who holds the rank of vice marshal in the Korean People’s Army, said a recent series of South Korea-US military drills, one of which included the deployment of a nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier, had ramped up tensions.

“If the US imperialists threaten our sovereignty and survival… our troops will fire our nuclear-armed rockets at the White House and the Pentagon — the sources of all evil,” Hwang said in his speech broadcast Monday on state television.

It is not the first time that North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric has included threats of nuclear strikes on the continental United States and US bases in the Pacific.

But most experts believe it is still a long way from developing a viable intercontinental ballistic missile with the required range.

Rest Here!!!

~Steve~

Welcome to Obama’s Amerika!

Obama picks nose• Our Phones – Wireless
• Cooking – Fireless
• Cars – Keyless
• Food – Fatless
• Clothing – Shameless
• Youth – Jobless
• Relationships – Meaningless
• Attitudes – Careless
• Babies – Fatherless
• Children – Mannerless
• Feelings – Heartless
• Education – Valueless
• Media – Truthless
• Congress – Gutless
• President – Worthless
• Country – Borderless
• America – Godless

I’m scared – shitless

GOD HELP US!

H/t FOTM’s Wild Bill Alaska

~Eowyn

America’s Dark Thread – Part One

Apotheosis_of_washington_sm

America is not simply good or simply evil – it is a bit of both

Our country has, from its beginning, been a battleground in the war between good and evil. Which side wins is decided in each generation, and in many small battles. Even within each individual we see a war being waged. We have the Christian George Washington, but also the Freemason George Washington, and the good and bad version of me and you.

Right when we want to proclaim the righteous nature of our society, our eyes fall onto a thread of darkness contradicting our praise. This is one strand of that dark thread.

This mural is not a conspiracy that has been kept secret through the years. If this has been hiding at all, it was hiding in plain sight. The following image and text are from a government website called AOC.gov.


 APOTHEOSIS OF WASHINGTON

apotheosis_of_washingtom_01

Overview: Painted in 1865 by Constantino Brumidi, the Apotheosis of Washington in the eye of the U.S. Capitol Building’s Rotunda depicts George Washington rising to the heavens in glory, flanked by female figures representing Liberty and Victory/Fame and surrounded by six groups of figures. The fresco is suspended 180 feet above the Rotunda floor and covers an area of 4,664 square feet.

The Apotheosis of Washington in the eye of the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitolwas painted in the true fresco technique by Constantino Brumidi in 1865. Brumidi (1805-1880) was born and trained in Rome and had painted in the Vatican and Roman palaces before emigrating to the United States in 1852. A master of creating the illusion of three-dimensional forms and figures on flat walls, Brumidi painted frescoes and murals throughout the Capitol from 1855 until his death.

The Apotheosis of Washington, his most ambitious work at the Capitol Building, was painted in 11 months at the end of the Civil War, soon after thenew dome was completed, for $40,000. The figures, up to 15 feet tall, were painted to be intelligible from close up as well as from 180 feet below. Some of the groups and figures were inspired by classical and Renaissance images, especially by those of the Italian master Raphael.

In the central group of the fresco, Brumidi depicted George Washington rising to the heavens in glory, flanked by female figures representing Liberty and Victory/Fame. A rainbow arches at his feet, and thirteen maidens symbolizing the original states flank the three central figures. (The word “apotheosis” in the title means literally the raising of a person to the rank of a god, or the glorification of a person as an ideal; George Washington was honored as a national icon in the nineteenth century.)

Read more at  http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/other-paintings-and-murals/apotheosis-washington


barack-obama-haloIf you are not a Christian, you may not see this painting with any sense of alarm. But seeing it from a Judeo-Christian world view, the blasphemy is unmistakable. The painting was made more than 50 years after George Washington’s death, so we can’t blame it on him, but on a line of philosophy that has continued to this day.

Seeking to portray an American president as being equal with God, is not something that began with Barack Obama. We see it clearly in this mural of our first president.

This qualifies as one strand of the thread of spiritual darkness that is woven into the story of America.

Mystery of Brooklyn Bridge white flag solved!

Last Tuesday (July 22, 2014) morning, it was discovered that someone had removed the American flags atop the Brooklyn Bridge in New York and replaced them with white flags. (See Trail Dust’s post on this here.)

The white flag is an internationally recognized symbol of military surrender. The first mention of the usage of white flags to surrender was made during ancient China’s Eastern Han dynasty (A.D 25–220).

Finally, the identity of the perpetrator of this heinous act has been uncovered by @RudyHavenstein! LOL

Putin_brooklyn_bridgeH/t Activist Post

See also “Did Putin really say that about Obama?

~Eowyn

Fast fooder McDonald’s is biggest sponsor of lewd TV shows

Evil Ronald McDonaldJunk food purveyer McDonald’s is also the biggest purveyor of junk TV.

Thaddeus Bablinski reports for LifeSiteNews, July 21, 2014, that the McDonalds mega-chain tops the list of companies most apt to sponsor sexually-graphic television shows, according to the pro-family TV watchdog, Parents Television Council (PTC).

PTC’s Research Department evaluates and reviews TV shows for their sexual content (depictions of or implied sexual content) and suggestive dialogue about sexual content. By “sexually graphic shows,” PTC means shows with “jokes about incest, rape, pedophilia; [glorifications of] adultery; barrages of bleeped and partially-bleeped F-words; and intense, brutal violence, including cannibalism and fetishized butchery.”

The Parents Television Council’s Top Ten TV sponsors of programs with sexual content, suggestive dialogue, foul language, and violence are:

Sexual Content:

  1. McDonalds Corporation
  2. YUM! Brands
  3. Mars Inc.
  4. Colgate Palmolive Company
  5. Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited
  6. Time Warner Inc.
  7. Sony Corp. of America
  8. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  9. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  10. Red Bull North America, Inc.

Suggestive Dialogue:

  1. McDonalds Corporation
  2. Subway Restaurants
  3. Target Corp.
  4. Kohl’s Corporation
  5. Sears, Roebuck and Co
  6. Unilever United States
  7. AT&T Corp.
  8. Verizon Communications
  9. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  10. Microsoft

Foul Language:

  1. McDonalds Corporation
  2. YUM! Brands
  3. L’Oreal USA, Inc.
  4. Verizon Communications
  5. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  6. Cablevision Systems Corporation
  7. Signet Group plc (Kay Jewelers)
  8. Capital One Financial Corporation
  9. H & R Block
  10. Hyundai

Violence:

  1. Subway Restaurants
  2. YUM! Brands
  3. Verizon Communications
  4. AT&T Corp.
  5. Sprint Corporation
  6. Burlington Industries, Inc.
  7. Daimler Chrysler Corporation
  8. Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
  9. General Motors Corp.
  10. Signet Group plc (Kay Jewelers)

PTC president Tim Winter said in a press release: “The companies on our lists are the worst offenders in each category, and McDonalds, YUM! Brands, and Toyota Motor Sales Inc., in particular have been the top contributors to the most explicit broadcast TV shows. Particularly jarring is the direction that McDonalds’ advertising has taken in recent years, given its history as a family – and child-centric – brand. We’ve recently reached out to McDonalds to encourage the company to change course, as it used to be one of our ‘best’ advertisers. And perhaps not coincidentally, data shows the company to have had better earnings when it eschewed explicit TV programming.

Today we call for greater responsibility by the corporations whose media dollars underwrite some of the most harmful material on broadcast television. Family quality programming doesn’t just benefit families. It is also more profitable for the corporate sponsors who advertise on the broadcast networks. We hope that companies will choose wisely where to put their ad dollars for the benefit of families across this country.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Breaking! ObamaCare Just Slammed By D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

BREAKING: Obamacare dealt massive setback by federal appeals court.

By Tom Howell Jr.    The Washington Times Updated: 11:26 a.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Millions of Americans are not entitled to government health insurance subsidies under Obamacare because of the way the law is written, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

In a decision that could blow a massive hold in President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the court held that people living in states that relied on the federal government to set up their insurance market exchanges cannot offer the subsidies considered critical to making coverage affordable.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the administration used an IRS rule to stretch the meaning of the Affordable Care Act, which said financial aid to to low- and middle-income people should only flow to exchanges “established by the State.” If that means only state-run exchanges, it would cut off subsidies to two-thirds of the nation.

The Obama administration is sure to appeal the circuit’s decision in the case, Halbig v. Sebelius, because the subsidies are a huge draw for Obamacare customers. Without that selling point, the reforms would effectively collapse under the weight of premiums that are no longer affordable.

Under the court’s ruling, only the 14 states and the District that have taken on the responsibility for their exchanges would be able to dole out premium tax credits to their resident.

~Steve~

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/obamacare-dealt-serious-setback/#ixzz38DLi9K6U

Thomas Jefferson. He Tried To Warn Us.

Too Many to hide from.

Too Many to hide from.

There are two parts. Be
sure to read the 2nd part (in RED).

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary. Also could write in Greek with one hand while writing the same in Latin with the other.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America ? And retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental
Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia ‘s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation’s size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello .

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the
University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

 

“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
— Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on
the continent their fathers conquered.”

~Steve~                                                        H/T I-Man

 

Are you up for another Caption Contest?

This is the 78th world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic:

O is my copilot

You know the drill:

  • Enter the contest by submitting your caption as a comment on FOTM, not via email or on Facebook.
  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM! :D
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

This is what happens when a nation no longer cling to their guns or their bibles or their “anti-immigrant sentiment.” *

*Obama at a San Francisco campaign fundraiser, April 6, 2008:

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, July 29, 2014.

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, click here.

Seen any good pic that you think will be perfect for our caption contest? Send it to us at:

fellowshipminds@gmailcom

~Eowyn

University of Wisconsin adopts racial/sexual “diversity” in grading students

W. Lee Hansen, a professor emeritus of economics at UW-Madison, wrote the following op-ed piece for the John William Hope Pope Center for Higher Education, a North Carolina-based think tank, about the latest “diversity” plan for the UW-System’s flagship school.

Madness in Madison

Professor W. Lee HansenThe University of Wisconsin’s latest diversity plan calls for “equity” in high-demand majors and the distribution of grades.

By W. Lee Hansen

July 16, 2014

Many American colleges and universities are in the thrall of “diversity,” but none more so than my institution, the University of Wisconsin. This spring, the university adopted a new plan that, according to Board of Regents policy, “[p]laces the mission of diversity at the center of institutional life so that it becomes a core organizing principle.

That is, promoting diversity appears to be more important than teaching students. 

This Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence sailed through our Faculty Senate without the least bit of attention, much less the “sifting and winnowing” on which it prides itself.

Although much of the language is a thicket of clichés, no one dared challenge it. Moreover, there was no probing of the ramifications of the plan. Apparently, “diversity” has become such a sacred cow that even tenured professors are afraid to question it in any way.  

To begin, the university’s justification for the new policy is difficult to understand: “Our commitment is to create an environment that engages the whole person in the service of learning, recognizing that individual differences should be considered foundational to our strength as a community.”

That language is mere education babble, but the Faculty Senate swallowed it whole. So did the academic staff and the students.

The plan’s definition of diversity focuses on a wide array of differences that can be found in every enrolled student. Here’s what it includes:

Individual differences in personality, learning styles, and life experiences, and group or social differences that may manifest through personality, learning styles, life experiences, and group or social differences. Our definition of diversity also incorporates differences of race and ethnicity; sex; gender; and gender identity or expression; sexual orientation; age; country of origin; language; physical and intellectual ability; emotional health; socio-economic status; and affiliations that are based on cultural, political, religious, or other identities.

[Question from Eowyn: Does "diversity in intellectual ability" means certified morons and idiots, since they are under-represented in America's colleges and universities, should get an "A" or minimally a "P" (passing) grade?]

The list is so expansive that it leads one to conclude that every student is “diverse.” And I believe that is correct. Every student is different in so many ways that it makes no sense to say that some students “increase diversity” while others don’t.

The new plan provides no information on how the addition of these “individual and group/social differences” can create an environment that “engages the whole person,” whatever that means. Based on my experience, I would have no idea how to incorporate these “differences” into my economics teaching.

I wish someone had asked what bearing these particular “individual and group or social differences” have on student learning. Most people believe that individual differences in intelligence, aptitude, motivation, commitment, high school class rank, ACT/SAT scores, and academic preparation are far more important in contributing to student learning.

Those latter differences, what most people view as indicators of academic excellence, indeed are appropriate considerations at an institution priding itself as being a world-class teaching and research university.

How will the university assemble information on these supposedly crucial “differences”? Most applicants will not be able to describe their “learning styles,” or how to characterize their “personalities,” or how to assess their “emotional health.” Moreover, many students would hesitate to disclose personal information about their “cultural, political, religious, or other identities.” Without that information, it won’t be possible to use them “in the service of learning,” assuming that this notion is something other than empty rhetoric.

To achieve the plan’s vague aims, the Ad Hoc Diversity Planning Committee formulated five goals and thirty detailed recommendations. Unbeknownst to faculty senators, these goals and recommendations are based on the “Inclusive Excellence” framework adopted earlier by the Board of Regents. (See Agenda Item II.6 for the March 5, 2009, meeting of the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents; in the PDF file: Madness in Madison)

That framework includes eight essential “working definitions,” among them the already-discussed diversity, as well as others: “compositional diversity,” “critical mass,” “inclusion,” “equity mindedness,” “deficit-mindedness,” “representational equity,” and “excellence.”

Let us take a closer look at one of these working definitions included, namely “representational equity.”

It calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.” 

We are not told exactly what adherence to this will entail. It appears to mean that directors of programs and departmental chairs will have to somehow ensure that they have a mix of students with just the right percentages of individuals who embody the various “differences” included in the definition of diversity. I cannot see how that is possible and even if it were, how it improves any student’s education.

Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the “equity” policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their “difference” group.

Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.  

At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.

Is there any reason to believe that the UW system’s Inclusive Excellence plan implemented at UW-Madison is going to improve the education of its students? I can see no reason to think so. Actually, the contrary seems more likely.

One problem is that the obsession with all those non-academic details about students comes with a cost—the cost of good students who are not admitted because they don’t seem “diverse” enough. Also, some of the preferred, “diverse” students will be admitted with significantly weaker academic capabilities than their classmates.

Although campus officials regularly fail to publicize detailed results of their diversity programs, my investigations show that roughly a quarter of its “diverse” targeted minority students do not meet the competitive admission standard applied to other applicants. This means that the students UW-Madison is trying to help instead find themselves at an immediate academic disadvantage.

Moreover, the obsession with groups distracts everyone from what truly matters—whether or not each student makes the best academic progress.

The campus climate has worsened by constantly referring to minority students as “targeted” minority students, and in the process stigmatizing them. It has also led to an unseemly “us versus them” mindset among many of those students.

That manifested itself several years ago when Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Washington-based Center for Equal Opportunity came to Madison to report on his research showing that the university’s racial preference policy meant severe discrimination against white and Asian applicants. Two senior UW officials orchestrated a disgraceful pro-diversity mob-like student demonstration at the hotel near campus where Clegg was making his presentation.

The demonstrators burst in and shouted Clegg down until he left the building. (Peter Wood has a good account of the entire matter in this Chronicle piece.)

It is impossible for me to imagine anything less consistent with the values of any educational institution than organizing a mob to protest a talk. It is also impossible for me to think that such a thing could have happened at Madison but for the obsession with diversity that has been building for years.

The University of Wisconsin adopted its first diversity plan back in 1966 and every few years it launches a much-touted new one. During my 30-year teaching career at Madison, followed by more than a decade of retirement, I have seen not the slightest bit of evidence that the fixation on “diversity” has made the campus better in any respect.

I predict this new Inclusive Excellence plan will fail to produce its hoped-for utopian outcomes. In a few years, the university will hear demands for yet another diversity plan.

Achieving “diversity” is like sailing toward the horizon.

You never get there.

H/t EAGnews

~Eowyn

Non-pilot to be new commander of US Air Force in Pacific

Dr. Eowyn:

The POS’s destruction of the U.S. military continues, and Congress will not do a thing to stop it. Why? Because the new commander-nominee is a woman.

If a woman wants to be Commander of USAF Pacific, all she has to do is to be a career combat pilot. But Lori Robinson is not. Her nomination is rank politics — the Left’s ideology of Affirmative Action over competence and training.

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

Instead of achievement or performance criteria, the U. S. military under Obama is making personnel decisions based on political criteria of “diversity.”

The latest case in point:

Although all previous Air Force combatant commanders in active large theaters of operation — the Pacific, Europe and Central Command — have been combat pilots, for the first time, a non-career pilot has been nominated to be Commander of the U. S. Air Force in the Pacific.

She is Lt. Gen. Lori J. Robinson who, although she’s had more than 900 flight hours, is not a career or combat pilot.

Lt. Gen. Lori RobinsonLt. Gen. Lori J. Robinson

Rowan Scarborough reports for The Washington Times, July 17, 2014:

The White House has picked the first female general to head the Air Force in the Pacific, which will make her the first non-pilot to command air power in such a large theater of operation.

View original 865 more words