Seven piece band...only without a piece (ipads and iphones maybe, but not a single instrument)

...and what does this do for the sale of the real mucical instruments (Who needs them now?)

Where was the hand in the cloud? ...and when the Irish play the convicts, I will be rooting for the convicts

Another in a series of declining values...

A little over two years ago I posted the following over in my sidebar:                sidebar →

The Police State of Massachusetts is now imposing laws against nature. Massachusetts is by far the most un-Constitutional government of the State, by the State, and for the State than any among the the fifty that hold a star on the banner of freedom. It is run by Socialists and hypocritical so-called Christians…the worst among them are the Catholics who go to Church on Sunday and forget what they Prayed for on Monday. - Norman E. Hooben - "A proud Catholic proud of my Faith. A proud Catholic NOT so proud of my Church!" - July 16th 2008

The content may have lost the interest of the public at large and that's too bad.  But irregardless of my original intent with the posting a more important message should have echoed through the Catholic and Christian communities...and that message is in the postscript following my signature line.  It says that I still believe the basic tenets of my faith but the Church whose ruling body should be adament about keeping it's flock away from the wolves have joined the pack.  This concept is further exemplified in the following: ~ Norman E. Hooben

How Notre Dame Lost A Loyal Booster
Disregard of Catholic values yeilds loss of respect and loyalty
By Patrick Brady / Special To The Express-News San Antonio, Texas

Many of the great leaders of our country are familiar with Gen. Douglas MacArthur's words at West Point on athletics: “On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days and other fields will bear the fruits of victory.”

I believe there are great parallels in soldiering and athletics. Both require teamwork, courage, discipline and physical conditioning. They also require honor and, and perhaps most of all, they require obedience; obedience to lawful authority — commanders and coaches. Lack of any of the above and units fall apart as do teams — and so do universities.

I played on a Catholic high school football team known as the Fighting Irish and was a rabid Notre Dame football fan. I remember the cartoon of the Irish huddle looking skyward as a hand in a cloud X and O'd a game winning play. They were obviously God's team. My dream was to play football at Notre Dame but my abilities felled my dream. Needless to say I was ecstatic when the Army sent me to Notre Dame for graduate studies.

It was a great time. Christian values filled the campus and the team where players' graduation rates stood out. They never lost a game I attended. I knew the coaches, had a special pass to practices and played handball with Ara Parseghian. I was even allowed in the locker room, where I actually touched the famous sign slapped by all the Notre Dame greats before games: “Play like a champion today.” By graduation I was an irrational Irish football fan and my closet was full of Irish shirts, sweaters, even underwear.

Over the years, I lived and died as they won and lost. I developed an intense hatred for some teams who consistently beat Notre Dame, Miami in particular. Because Miami had some player disciplinary problems, one year the Notre Dame student body wore shirts emblazoned with “Catholics vs. Convicts.” I proudly wore that shirt but, alas, Miami still kicked our butt.

Then I noticed disturbing changes. This premier Catholic university was becoming un-Catholic and concurrently — the team began to lose. In my day, if the Michigan State coach had a heart attack (which he did) after a brilliant game-winning call in overtime, we would say God was punishing him; and when the Irish coach lost a game against Tulsa by inexplicably calling for a pass when a gimme field goal would have won, we would have wondered: Where was the hand in the cloud? And this Catholic campus began to fill with trash such as the “Vagina Monologues” and rumors of rape by an Irish player possibly causing a suicide.

Earlier they dissed, disobeyed, their lawful authority, the pope — the supreme voice for life on the planet — to honor the most pro-abortion president in history. As no journalist would allow the use of his paper to propagate fraudulent journalist values, no Catholic university should allow the use of its campus to honor those who defile Catholic values. Many Catholics were outraged.

My beloved university was a fraud. They were no longer what they said they were — Catholic. They can be what they want, but they ought not to lie about it. The final straw was when they hired a coach away from his team on the eve of its bowl game. Is that honorable? That's hypocrisy. Away with the sweaters and underwear, this soldier could no longer support such a university.

Now the former agony of frequent Irish defeats is ecstasy. And when the Irish play the convicts on Friday, I will be rooting for the convicts.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady earned the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, where he flew more than 2,500 combat missions and helped rescue more than 5,000 wounded.

“desperate to prove that Obama is US born” ~ All evidence available says that Obama was indeed...a citizen of Indonesia

Source: Patriot News

‘WHO CARES WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN?’
Source: Managing Editor - (12/28/10)
International leftists and anti-American Democratic Socialists like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews(1) care, that’s who! These folks are the real “birthers,” desperate to prove that Obama is US born, with absolutely no help from their political messiah.
They care where Obama was born because they want to make the issue of presidential constitutional eligibility all about birth place, aka “native-born” status, instead of “natural-born” status, which has nothing to do with birth place.
Leftists want anyone “born on US soil” to be eligible for the office of president, including “anchor babies” and even 14th Amendment citizens, none of whom are “natural-born citizens” of the United States. They want to rewrite Article II – Section I – Clause V via precedent and so far, they are doing a fine job of doing just that!
Leftists and even many ill-informed on the political right have worked tirelessly to make the issue of Obama’s eligibility all about nothing more than his birth place, alleged to be Hawaii. But birth place is only a demonstration of “native-born” status, not “natural-born” status.
History is Clear
Few modern day lawyers know what the US Constitution says or what it means. But historians do know and history is quite clear. History begins with understanding the difference between “natural law” and man-made statute. The term natural born citizen is based in natural law, and as such, it is a foundation for many man-made statutes.
During the formation of our new country, it was necessary to establish national sovereignty for the purpose of national security. The terms used to accomplish this had to meet standing international laws and treaties of the time, in order for our nation to be recognized by all other nations as a sovereign nation with sovereign citizens and citizens’ rights.
The international standard in place then and now is known as The Law of Nations. We see this term referenced in our US Constitution under Article I – Section VIII – the Enumerated Powers section of our Constitution, wherein it states that Congress shall have the power – “To define and punish - Offenses against the Law of Nations;” – note that Law of Nations is capitalized, referring to the international treaty defining national sovereignty and citizenship the world over.

To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well. – More history here

The Law of Nations treaty is the foundation for our national sovereignty and the term “natural born citizen” is found, and was studied by our nation’s founders, in a book written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. The book was a scholarly in-depth look at what constitutes a sovereign nation, a citizen and citizen rights, recognized throughout the civilized world.
In it, Vattel defines “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” – which became the standard that must be met by anyone seeking the highest office in our land, the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
Book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives. – reads as follows – pay particular attention to the sections in BOLD.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The following section has created confusion for some – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Yet this statement is not in conflict with the balance of the overall section. Both “native” and “natural” born citizens are indeed “citizens” by birth, born in the country (on US soil), of parents (two parents) who are citizens. This means that anchor babies, while “citizens” due to 14th Amendment laws, are neither “native” nor “natural” born citizens. They are only “citizens, via man-made laws related to immigration and naturalization statutes.
However, the sections pertaining specifically to the topic of “natural-born” citizens is very clear – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. - The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; - I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Intentional Confusion in the Political Class
The political left, which has worked for more than a hundred years to dismantle the US Constitution via judicial fiat and broad interpretations of constitutional text that borders on subversion and treason, hopes to limit the term “natural-born citizen” to nothing more than birth place, or “native-born” status and they don’t even see a need for a legitimate birth certificate from the applicant for President.
The political right hopes to rewrite the term “natural-born citizen” as well, adding to the “condition of their fathers” requirement put in place by our founders, a birth place and mother’s citizenship requirement.
People who opposed John McCain’s bid for the White House developed this interpretation from thin air for the purpose of disqualifying McCain’s campaign for the Presidency. However, this interpretation is just as improper and the left’s interpretation which asserts that essentially all citizens are natural-born citizens, including 14th Amendment naturalization citizens.
Intentional Misdirection
As Chris Matthews attempts in the MSNBC video clip linked here, leftists continue to speak about whether or not Barack Obama is a legal US citizen. Of course, the debate is not really over whether or not Obama is a legal US citizen, although that might be a valid question under his highly unusual family circumstances.
The constitutional question is based upon whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required for the office of President under Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, which reads - “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (our founding fathers), shall be eligible to the office of President;”
According to the actual definition of natural born citizen placed in our Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the Unites States no matter where on earth he may have been born. At birth, he naturally inherited the “condition of his father,” who was at no time in his life a US citizen.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national, a citizen of Kenya - then ruled by Britain. Inheriting the condition of his father at birth, Barack Hussein Obama was born with the natural citizenship rights of his father, a British subject and citizen of Kenya, not the United States.
As such, Barack Hussein Obama was born with foreign loyalties and as a result, he violates the natural born citizen requirement for the office he currently holds and everyone including all members of the US Supreme Court know it.
Barack Hussein Obama is precisely the type of citizen the founders were attempting to block from holding the highest office in this land. Yet, Barack Hussein Obama is the sitting President of the United States, in great part due to the intentional misinformation floated and perpetuated on the matter.
No Matter Where He Was Born
Was Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii?
The truth is - nobody knows because Obama refuses to provide any legitimate proof answering this question, not even a simple birth certificate that every other natural born citizen of the USA has in their possession.
Was Barack Hussein Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro as a citizen of Indonesia and did Obama naturalize to US citizenship upon return from Indonesia?
All evidence available says that Obama was indeed adopted by Lolo Soetoro, making him a citizen of Indonesia at the time. What happened next, nobody knows, once again, because Obama refuses to answer the questions.
Does Barack Hussein Obama have dual or divided loyalties?
Based upon his known family history as well as his focus on international interests versus national interests, one must honestly conclude that Barack Hussein Obama does indeed have at best, dual and divided loyalties.
Does being born in Hawaii answer the question of constitutional eligibility?
No… a birth certificate for Hawaii will result in establishing only the place of his birth, his “native born” status, NOT his “natural-born” status. His natural-born status is already answered in Obama’s own statements, that he is the son of a foreign national. If a birth certificate shows someone other than Barack Obama Sr. as his natural birth father, then Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud and cannot hold office for that reason.
So, I say again, who cares where Barack Hussein Obama was born?
A much better question is who is going to remove this fraudulent thug from office in handcuffs?
If Republicans don’t address this issue upon swearing into power in January, then Republicans are complicit, the constitution is dead, and the people are on their own.
The American patriot either gets this one right, or they get nothing else right. The world is not laughing at Obama, they are laughing at the ignorant spineless Americans who prefer politicking over their own constitution. As long as we fail to clean up our own house, the rest of the world has no reason to respect our opinions on anything else.
We right this wrong, or all wrongs stand! The entire free world is watching and so far, nobody is impressed!
JB Williams
1) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/40822521#40822521

Email Author    [Email Article To Someone.]

The Internet: Net Neutrality, It's now an official "I told you so!"

Back in 2007 I openly warned people of the consequences that would follow if you allowed the government to tinker with the Internet...some people listened and we were able to put this thing called Net Neutrality in limbo for a couple of years.  Well we the little people lost the battle with the biggies with all the money.  So the likes of Hillary Clinton (she was a senator from New York when she was bribed...yes, that's right, bribed!  $119,250.00 into her pocket! ...further, she gets to keep it now that she is Secretary of State) and John F. Kerry (sorry I forgot how much he made off with, but he did buy a new boat) plus a few others in the halls of congress are rolling in the dough because we little ones can only vote at the ballot box while big business can vote with big bucks. I put out another warning last April (↓see below)  and nobody listened...

Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Internet...oh that Internet beast...will it gobble you up? Net Neutrality will affect both the bloggers and their readers.

So now we all have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes because big business will make those fortunes from us. ~ Norman E. Hooben

ps: Somewhere in those warnings I said, "Don't let this become an I told you so story." 
Well, it's official, "I told you so!"

Source for the following: Boston Globe
Internet rules give big business control

HIAWATHA BRAY’S article “FCC OK’s Internet service rules’’ (Dec. 22, Business) showed some promise for those in favor of Net neutrality, however, the FCC’s vote to approve new rules governing the Internet fell far short of President Obama’s campaign promise to protect online free speech and commerce. The new rules hand much control to wired and wireless Internet service providers.

As vice president of Full Channel, a small cable operator and Internet service provider in Warren, R.I., the assumption might be that I would favor rules that put control in the hands of the service provider, however on the contrary, I am a proponent of true Net neutrality. The rules place small- and medium-size businesses in all industries, not just small Internet providers, at a disadvantage by giving control to large corporations.

Full Channel is one of more than 900 small cable, Internet, and phone providers. Combined these businesses serve about 7 million households. With small providers giants in control, online start-ups, and anyone who publishes media online are at the mercy of these Goliaths that serve more than 200 million Internet users.

Earlier this month, Comcast ordered servers hosting Netflix videos to pay for access to its Internet subscribers. Under the new rules this will be only the beginning of big cable and telephone’s role as the gatekeepers of information. The Internet is edging closer toward a locked-down oligarchical model and possibly a disastrous future for consumers and businesses alike. It makes good business sense to support a neutral Internet. A network under any other structure will stifle commerce, free speech, and innovation.

Levi C. Maaia Vice president, Full Channel Warren, R.I.

For the record: An earlier editing error changed the meaning of a sentence in a letter by Levi C. Maaia, vice president of Full Channel in Warren, R.I. The sentence should have read, ‘‘With giant Internet providers in control, small providers, online start-ups, and anyone who publishes media online are at the mercy of these Goliaths that serve more than 200 million Internet users.’’

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

How many of you knew Obama when...?

...when he was yanking your chain trying to get your vote!

John over at Midnight Review was pretty much dead on with his predictions

Our list of "Obama Beliefs" made in October of 2008. This was before we really knew him. How did we do? You decide.

A belief against private gun ownership
A belief that any and all abortion legislation is good
A belief that all industry should be unionized
A belief that privatized education threatens the National Well-being
A belief that capitalism has produced economic failure on many levels
A belief that political debate needs to be limited
A belief that terrorism should be defined as a crimial activty
A belief that "minimum wage" must meet "living wage" standards
A belief that WalMart needs legislative supervision
A belief that he and Michelle are a co-Presidency
A belief that conservative Christian talk have legislative limits
A belief that the Christian Church cannot have membership requirements if it partners with the Government in aid and relief
A belief that he and Michelle owe a political debt to the Black community
A belief that the Military offers great opportunity for our Nation's minority We are leaving this item in the list although comments that lead us to include this items have proven to be misleading. Obama is in fact anti-military. His personal feelings are secondary to the fact that he is the Commander in Chief of the most effective fighting force on earth. A belief that preemptive military strikes are categorically wrong
A belief in the election strategy of "deracialization" - the political practice of blacks talking like whites in a predominantly white region for the purpose of getting elected. A belief that "affordable housing" policies need to be expanded
A belief in reparations to the Black community for the sins of slavery
A belief that Jesus Christ does not define "God" in exclusive terms
A belief there are times when the Government knows better than the parent
A belief that your 401k should be taken from you and added to the Social Security fund
A belief that the Patriot Act needs to be repealed
A belief that Guantánamo Bay must be closed
A belief that the U.N. is both useful and necessary
A belief in abortion without governmental limitations - period.
A belief that conscience laws should not be allowed for health care providers
A belief that only government can solve America's economic problems
A belief that the military is a necessary evil. He wants a one-war force as opposed to the two-war force we currently have. Very dangerous.