Read it here!
http://rollingsisyphus.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
By the people, for the people?
From the time I took my first history class in grade school I was taught that America, the land of the free, was a country built by the people, for the people. Our government, so the text books said, was responsible for to the people they served; that each elected representative, including the executive (the President) were all employees of the United States citizens. And there is a document in D.C., our nations capital, which preamble states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And it is this document, The Constitution, that each and every one of our elected officials takes an oath to uphold when being sworn into office. It is a contract that binds them to serve the populace of the United States. So how are we doing? If you take a look at the actions of our current President, we're not doing too hot. President Bush has made the statement that he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side. And gallop polls show that this is the case, has indeed been the case for some time. Yet Bush persists, and ignoring his generals; an independent Iraq study group; congress; the Senate; and the people of the United States, and is planning to send even more troops into a conflict that we think we should not be in. It sounds like this is more of a government by Bush, and For Bush, and not the People, unless you count his wife and dog.
If you owned a business and one of your employees said that he was going to punch 80% of your customers in the face, no matter what you, or any of his superiors said, what would you do? Chances are, he wouldn't have a job for much longer. Yet we continue to give him whatever funding he asks for to continue disregarding the People. Does this make since to you?
Impeachment. It's that time.
In November, the electorate sent a clear message to Congress; that it's time for change. It seems the people just got tiered of the status quo of being ignored when it came to where their tax dollars were spent. So they went to the polls, and elected a new congress, shifting the balance of power in both branches to the Democrats. And our Commander in Chief has promised not to listen. He has vowed to veto a medicare reform requiring the government to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. And the Iraq war, the issue the GOP lost big on last fall, Bush only has plans to escalate the conflict by raising troop levels. I guess you don't rank as high as his dog when it comes to the decisions he makes running the country.
I think we can all agree that impeachment isn't something that should be taken lightly. But when our commander in chief out right refuses to listen, and says that he will continue to refuse to listen, then it's time, not to send him a "message", but to get rid of him. Write your congressman, and demand justice!
~Cody Hobbs
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And it is this document, The Constitution, that each and every one of our elected officials takes an oath to uphold when being sworn into office. It is a contract that binds them to serve the populace of the United States. So how are we doing? If you take a look at the actions of our current President, we're not doing too hot. President Bush has made the statement that he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side. And gallop polls show that this is the case, has indeed been the case for some time. Yet Bush persists, and ignoring his generals; an independent Iraq study group; congress; the Senate; and the people of the United States, and is planning to send even more troops into a conflict that we think we should not be in. It sounds like this is more of a government by Bush, and For Bush, and not the People, unless you count his wife and dog.
If you owned a business and one of your employees said that he was going to punch 80% of your customers in the face, no matter what you, or any of his superiors said, what would you do? Chances are, he wouldn't have a job for much longer. Yet we continue to give him whatever funding he asks for to continue disregarding the People. Does this make since to you?
Impeachment. It's that time.
In November, the electorate sent a clear message to Congress; that it's time for change. It seems the people just got tiered of the status quo of being ignored when it came to where their tax dollars were spent. So they went to the polls, and elected a new congress, shifting the balance of power in both branches to the Democrats. And our Commander in Chief has promised not to listen. He has vowed to veto a medicare reform requiring the government to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. And the Iraq war, the issue the GOP lost big on last fall, Bush only has plans to escalate the conflict by raising troop levels. I guess you don't rank as high as his dog when it comes to the decisions he makes running the country.
I think we can all agree that impeachment isn't something that should be taken lightly. But when our commander in chief out right refuses to listen, and says that he will continue to refuse to listen, then it's time, not to send him a "message", but to get rid of him. Write your congressman, and demand justice!
~Cody Hobbs
Friday, October 27, 2006
The AFA is at it again. It's time to let the vewier decide!
The AFA is at it again. They are asking Betty Crocker/General Mills to stop advertising on the ABC show "Brothers And Sisters, because one of the episodes offended them. Here was their complaint in full:
Homosexual lip locks worthy of advertising support says General Mills/Betty Crocker
General Mills sponsored the October 22 episode of ABC's Brothers & Sisters. Brothers & Sisters suggested illicit sex and championed gay sex during the episode. In the October 22 episode, titled "Date Night," the focus is on sexual relationships and the family's failing business empire. There are countless references to illicit sex, and Jonathan and Kitty treat viewers to a graphic phone-sex segment in which Jonathan instructs Kitty to disrobe. (They are former sex partners, and Jonathan moves back in with Kitty and her mother.) In the same episode, Kevin, the gay lawyer, forges a relationship with a new man, and viewers get to witness a couple of the men's passionate kisses, one of them pretty graphic. Send an email to General Mills, asking them to stop sponsoring ABC's Brothers & Sisters due to the explicit sex and homosexual scenes. Click Here to see a full review of the show, or,
Click Here to Email General Mills Now!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, ChairmanOneMillionDads.com
P.S. Please forward this to your family and friends!
_________________________________________________
The viewers, however, have spoken otherwise:
"Brothers & Sisters (13.1 million, 5.3/13) remained strong at 10 p.m., beating CBS's Without a Trace (15 million, 4.4/11) in the demo but not viewership"
If you yourself do not agree with the content of this program the strongest thing you can do is not to watch it. Block it from your television. But please, leave that decision up to the viewer. Send your e-mails now to General Mills and let them know that the AFA does not speak for everyone!
Primary Phone: 1-800-775-4777
Secondary Phone: 763-764-7600
Fax: 763-764-7384
E-Mail: Stephen W. Sanger, General Mills (stephen.sanger@genmills.com)
Thank you
~Cody Hobbs
Homosexual lip locks worthy of advertising support says General Mills/Betty Crocker
General Mills sponsored the October 22 episode of ABC's Brothers & Sisters. Brothers & Sisters suggested illicit sex and championed gay sex during the episode. In the October 22 episode, titled "Date Night," the focus is on sexual relationships and the family's failing business empire. There are countless references to illicit sex, and Jonathan and Kitty treat viewers to a graphic phone-sex segment in which Jonathan instructs Kitty to disrobe. (They are former sex partners, and Jonathan moves back in with Kitty and her mother.) In the same episode, Kevin, the gay lawyer, forges a relationship with a new man, and viewers get to witness a couple of the men's passionate kisses, one of them pretty graphic. Send an email to General Mills, asking them to stop sponsoring ABC's Brothers & Sisters due to the explicit sex and homosexual scenes. Click Here to see a full review of the show, or,
Click Here to Email General Mills Now!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, ChairmanOneMillionDads.com
P.S. Please forward this to your family and friends!
_________________________________________________
The viewers, however, have spoken otherwise:
"Brothers & Sisters (13.1 million, 5.3/13) remained strong at 10 p.m., beating CBS's Without a Trace (15 million, 4.4/11) in the demo but not viewership"
If you yourself do not agree with the content of this program the strongest thing you can do is not to watch it. Block it from your television. But please, leave that decision up to the viewer. Send your e-mails now to General Mills and let them know that the AFA does not speak for everyone!
Primary Phone: 1-800-775-4777
Secondary Phone: 763-764-7600
Fax: 763-764-7384
E-Mail: Stephen W. Sanger, General Mills (stephen.sanger@genmills.com)
Thank you
~Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Where were you when Alan Jackson made fools of us all?
Turning on the television can be scary these days; what with Terror threats, North Korea, Iran; you might think it's dangerous just to step outside of your own front door. Since September 11, 2001, we've seen N.Korea test a nuclear bomb, and it sounds like Iran might be close to getting one for themselves. But thank goodness for our president who's promised to be tough on terror! He defied UN advisement and marched a U.S. lead coalition into Iraq to dispose of a despot leader who we knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, had nuclear weapons. In fact, the entire world new that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction; or according to Presedent Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condiliza Rice. And we were days from them using those weapons here on U.S. soil. But wait a sec, where are the weapons of mass distruction? And didn't the UN advise us NOT to invade Iraq, stating that there just wasn't enough evidence to support their claim?
I think we all felt a little closer to our neighbors after 9/11. It showed us just how precious life is. so enter the hero of our story: Alan Jackson, with a little song titled: Where were you (when the world stopped turning). It was a beautiful and heartfelt tribute to those who died that day, and to those who continue to die daily for our protection, right? In the song, Jackson repeats the line:
"I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran"
Three times. Well, I think we can all tell you the difference between Iraq and Iran now.
Why pick on Alan Jackson? 9/11 wasn't his fault
Alan Jackson is a roll model for the southern American. As a public figure, people naturally look up to you. This song touched me the first time I heard it, but then the thought came to me that maybe, it was just trying to cash in on the sentiments of 9/11.
Our President lied to us about Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Not one of the hijackers were from Iraq; Saddam Husein saw the Taliban as a threat to his control over Iraq; and there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iraq was a mistake. It had nothing to do with 9/11. That's why it makes me so angry when I hear songs like this one that has a disregard, not only for true information, but perpetuates naive, and irrational fears. It was "the difference between Iraq and Iran" that got us into the mess we're currently in. Instead of using our military to combat the actual threat, we've wasted our troops, money, time and energy fighting a country that posed no threat to us; meanwhile two countries that did have the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction has gone unchecked. This song, weather it was intended to or not, has lent itself to be used as a powerful piece of propaganda by the presidents administration, who cant admit when they're wrong.
Mr. Jackson, next time you try cashing in on a national tragedy, make sure you get your facts strait next time.
Cody Hobbs
I think we all felt a little closer to our neighbors after 9/11. It showed us just how precious life is. so enter the hero of our story: Alan Jackson, with a little song titled: Where were you (when the world stopped turning). It was a beautiful and heartfelt tribute to those who died that day, and to those who continue to die daily for our protection, right? In the song, Jackson repeats the line:
"I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran"
Three times. Well, I think we can all tell you the difference between Iraq and Iran now.
Why pick on Alan Jackson? 9/11 wasn't his fault
Alan Jackson is a roll model for the southern American. As a public figure, people naturally look up to you. This song touched me the first time I heard it, but then the thought came to me that maybe, it was just trying to cash in on the sentiments of 9/11.
Our President lied to us about Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Not one of the hijackers were from Iraq; Saddam Husein saw the Taliban as a threat to his control over Iraq; and there were no weapons of mass distruction. Iraq was a mistake. It had nothing to do with 9/11. That's why it makes me so angry when I hear songs like this one that has a disregard, not only for true information, but perpetuates naive, and irrational fears. It was "the difference between Iraq and Iran" that got us into the mess we're currently in. Instead of using our military to combat the actual threat, we've wasted our troops, money, time and energy fighting a country that posed no threat to us; meanwhile two countries that did have the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction has gone unchecked. This song, weather it was intended to or not, has lent itself to be used as a powerful piece of propaganda by the presidents administration, who cant admit when they're wrong.
Mr. Jackson, next time you try cashing in on a national tragedy, make sure you get your facts strait next time.
Cody Hobbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)