C_Fox's Blog

Today we honor the men and women who have sacrificed so much to answer the call of their Country.  I don't know if there is any compensation great enough to show our appreciation, but we recognize them as they should be, and set aside This Day for reflection on each and every one that has given in so many ways to help strengthen Our Country against those who would seek our downfall.

They are the Patriots, the Strength, the Valor, the Shield, and the Selfless.  The best of the best most assuredly,  and we gladly give our utmost gratitude to have had them always there, by our side,  to protect this Great Nation at all cost.

God bless them One and All.

C-Fox

Freedom of speech no longer applies to white America.

In the news lately, we see a picture showing Gov. Palin being hanged in effigy and Sen. McCain burning in fire.  The homeowner who adorned his/her house with these images claims it is a joke for Halloween.  How he makes that connection, is anybody's guess.  But! he is allowed to do it under the protection of "Freedom of Speech".

Had this been Obama hanging there, it would have been called 'racism, not freedom of speech and it likely would have initiated some protest by the Black community.

There was no protest by the white community, since they preferred to just label it a 'political expression'. 

My question is, would the Black community dismiss it as 'political expression' had it been Obama hanging there?  I somehow doubt it.

The Republicans have had to walk on thin ice during this whole Election being cautious not to say anything that might be construed to be racist; in fact, they don't even have to say anything racist to have it attacked as being racist by the Obama campaign.  Anything the Obama campaign doesn't want to deal with will be labeled "racist".  So the Reps have to walk on eggshells constantly so as not to offend.

White people are not allowed to have freedom of speech if it is offensive to Blacks. They are not allowed to use certain words, or phrases, or even give any racial ID to any criminals in the news because it might be "racist".

But, on the other hand, whites can be called 'white trash', they can denounce Whites in the Community ala Rev. Wright, scrawl graffiti anywhere they want to express their hatred for Whites, and nothing happens.  No riots, no rallies, no vocal outrage by the media, just acceptance and weak comments such as, "That's terrible."  "That isn't right." or even given the excuse of "Its freedom of speech".

I am sure this homeowner that put up that "Halloween" display isn't even Black, but the reaction to it, speaks volumes, and that is my point here; it doesn't matter who did it, Black or White, but how it was reacted to because of the race that was being used in the display. 

The White community has been silenced; they no longer have "freedom of speech"...it only applies to Blacks apparently. Tell me that homeowner would have dared to hang Obama's image in the front of his/her house and have it be accepted by everyone.  I'd bet a month's  pay it wouldn't have been accepted, nor would he/she have dared; Jesse Jackson would be organizing a protest the next morning and the police would have to be there to protect the homeowner.  Not so, when you hang a white person's image to express your opinions for any reason; sexist, racist, political, whatever.  That's okay.

Suddenly, the media is all abuzz about Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but guess what?  I'm not buying into the feeding frenzy, and why?  I'll tell you why.

The New York Times ran a front page article in their paper with a big picture of Sarah Palin in one of her outfits.  The article was all about how much was spent and where she bought it and how much it cost, etc., etc..

This was a carefully planned tactic by the liberal media to distract you....and it worked; the web is loaded with people arguing back and forth about Sarah's clothing.  Its exactly what the Obama liberals wanted.

Since when does a world renowned newspaper put a story like this on their front page?  Do you know how coveted that front page is for jouranlists?  They don't put frivolity on that page, and yet, this is what that article  boiled down to!  Gossip!  (Shouldn't it have been in the Society section where all the other high-society news is?)

No, there was a method to their madness, and what it was, was to distract you.

From what, you may ask?  From something their friend Biden said just before the Sarah story was published.  And that was the Biden "gaffe"...one of many he's made in just a few short months.

Biden was over-heard talking about what would happen if Obama were to win the election, telling his listeners that "this guy" (Obama) would be tested for his "mettle" within six months of his election and asking them to "support" Obama.  He predicted some pretty serious stuff, and went so far as to say, "Mark my words".  Does he know something that we don't?  Did he let the cat half-way out of the bag?  Very puzzling, and much more news-worthy, wouldn't you say?

Obama, quickly got on the mike and triled to downplay Biden's words saying "anyone who becomes President will be tested".  But, he forgot Biden didn't say, "anyone" he specifically was talking about Obama.

Now, see, if that had been something the Republican's had done, it would have been front page news!  The New York Times would have given it the whole page in bold letters.  Yet, they chose to put Palin on the front page.

Too bad so many of the time honored newspapers and TV stations have forgotten their role,  and will stoop at nothing to see that their favorite Candidate gets elected.

So, when you see something like this,  that doesn't seem to make sense, ask yourself why.  There's usually something behind it.  This one was just a little bit too obvious...at least to me.

Biden got a pass, but Palin was targeted...once again.

Let me begin with who will be voting for Obama:

Those who are afraid of getting another President Bush.

Those who want revenge on President Bush.

Those who are  poor and believe Obama will magically change their status.

Those who vote Party no matter what.

Those who are minorities.

Women who hate Palin  and suffer from 'Catty Syndrome'.

Socialists, and, lastly....

People who are just plain ignorant.

Factor into that, Obama has accrued $600,000,000.00 to work with, which is 8 times what McCain has.  (I should mention here, that McCain was leading in the polls in the beginning until Obama suddenly became the recipient of mega-millions.)  Obama will be launching his half-hour series during Prime Time with his 'In Your Face' ads, while McCain will have to stick to 15-30 sec. ads. 

Where Obama's money is coming from is beginning to be questioned and its not too good, imho.  I have done my homework on this subject, and I've been able to draw a direct link to where I think the money is coming from...and its not all within the U.S., but it is all organizations and people that support 'social change', 'community organizing' and 'reform'; all words that thinly veil Socialism...a nice word for Communism, or Marxism.  Take your pick...there isn't much difference, but they are quite different from Capitalism.

This issue alone, is pretty bad, when it is very possible that Countries outside our own are influencing and having a direct effect on the outcome of our Election.  It is strictly against our Laws.

Add to that, the fact that just about every segment of the Media, besides FOX, is liberal and not allowing balanced coverage for both Candidates.  They are also publicly endorcing Obama and contributing to his Campaign.

You can also throw in the recent endorcement of Colin Powell.  How much that will change things is debatable, but nevertheless,  is a kind of a slap in the face to the Republicans.  But, a lot of people saw it coming.

It's a sad commentary, to realize that people will sell out  our basic principles to satisfy their own selfish agendas.  But, if Obama becomes President, I predict they will curse the day they did, because I also believe Obama's idea of "CHANGE" is not going to be what they expected...far from it.

Here's a small sampling of who is voting for Obama.  Note the girl that nods her head when asked about Socialism. It's pretty funny if it wasn't so sad!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgtij3dE10A

Happy voting All!

There is a news story today about a baby being killed at a daycare center.  The baby was 9-months old and the person held responsible was another child that was 7-years old.

Investigation revealed that the 7-year old had dropped the baby on a carpeted cement floor in the basement that was being used as the center's location.  She not only dropped her, but dropped her twice after taking her out of her baby carrier or seat she was in!

The caregiver said she had gone upstairs to change a diaper and heard a noise, then went down to find the baby on a couch bleeding from her ears.  She then called 911.

Officials said there would be no arrest of the 7-year old, but that she would be "evaluated" and it would be determined as to who would take custody of her.  The report also said the care center would remain open.

Now, here's my question.  Why has no responsibility been put on the person who ran this daycare center?  Why did she have to go "upstairs" to change a diaper?  Shouldn't there have been a changing station located in the same room?  Doesn['t it stand to reason that you don't leave an infant alone with other older, but still young children?

That, to me, is not good care or acting responsibly.  To my way of thinking this was negligence on the part of the daycare provider.  It never would have happened had she been where she should have been.  I'm beginning to think childcare workers/owners should be required to take some classes in child psychology.  Any adult that is not aware that an older child can quickly and easily hurt a baby has no right taking care of children....and they certainly should not be allowed to have their daycare center stay open after such an incident!

What do you think? 

Its about time they banned David Achuleta's father from backstage!  It should have been done long ago when he told his son to sing a certain song and it didn't go over well.

It is such a shame when parents blessed with a gifted child take full advantage of it and decide to either control their lives, or live through their child to make up for their own short-comings.

This is so evident in the relationship between David Achuleta and his father.  Is it any wonder David can not express himself well?  He's probably been so over-whelmed by a controlling parent, that he has no 'voice' of his own.  The only thing David seems to believe he has in order to win his father's approval, is his voice; he sings his heart out!

What David will come to learn is that he can stand on his own without "Dad" and the fact he has come so far with the general population serves to make that evident.  Right now, if you watch him, he seems truly in awe at the response he gets from an audience and is at a loss for words....sad, really, but is an indication that he has been in a very controlled atmosphere most of his life.  Its almost as if his father has never really given him credit that is due and has always demanded more from him.  But, that's typical of that type of parent.

David Achuleta is a very sweet person from all appearances and I hope he grows into a stronger personality...and I think his experience in American Idol has gone a long way in helping him to achieve the self-confidence so necessary in a 'world' as stressful as the entertainment industry.

He just needs to break free from "Dad".

(This is, of course, cannot be stated as either fact, or otherwise, but is simply my personal opinion from my own limited observation.)