Who's To Blame?

It amazes me (but does not surprise me) the way the Tea Party is portrayed as the obstructionists in any debt "negotiation" or other "negotiation" or "compromise".

President Obama yesterday stated that there is faction in Congress (tea partiers) who refuses "to put country ahead of party." What a load of crap! The irony here is that the Tea Partiers are the only faction in Congress who are putting the needs of their country ahead of the needs or desires of their party. The proof is in the pudding: just look at the way establishment Republicans scramble to distance themselves from these people. Look at the headaches these folks gave Boehner and other party leaders.

The Tea Partiers stand on principles, and those principles do not include running this nation into the ground with irresponsible spending and the continual whittling away of liberty. They are a faction of the Republican party only because the Republicans are the closest to this way of thinking. But they do not support Republican candidates or ideas simply because they are Republicans. On the contrary, more Republicans support Tea Party ideas because those ideas are grounded in truth, morality, and fact.

You may disagree with the notion that liberty requires responsible spending, and fewer government restrictions (although you would be a moron... but we'll save that for another day); but to blame the Tea Party for the breakdown in "negotiations" is simply disingenuous.

It is interesting that Tea Partiers were the only faction that passed any legislation that could have prevented the downgrade before Congress' last second scramble to save their jobs. And it is interesting how quickly those ideas were dismissed, without so much as a discussion in the Senate. Hmmm... was the discussion on the House bill muffled because Democrats were looking to compromise? That notion is an oxymoron. Senate debate on the bill never happened because Democrats were not willing to consider any idea that did not agree with their liberal principles. So who really obstructed the debt "negotiations"?

Beware the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Republicans beware! Beware the Democrat and media attempts to decide the Republican presidential candidate! Do not be fooled. Right now, Donald Trump is being touted as the guy Obama does not want to go up against. Really?! Remember McCain? Y'know, the guy Obama did not want to go up against? Remember how Democrats would roll up into the fetal position and tremble with fear at the thought of McCain heading up the Republican ticket? They could take on anyone Republicans put up... except McCain. And for some unexplained reason, Republicans drank the Kool-Aid. As soon as it was official, they all jumped up and laughed at us. "Gotcha!" Remember that? Obama (said with incredulity) slid almost effortlessly into the office of the most powerful man in the world. But here we are again... Trump is being touted (and touting himself) as the great threat to Obama's job. So what happens? Republicans say, "Oh my! This is the man the Democrats are saying they don't want to run against? He must be the most qualified and winnable candidate." And, voila, he shows up as the early front runner. Let's just slow down and evaluate the field. There are people considering a run at the White House who have demonstrated abilities to lead and be followed, who have experience turning around actual deficits, and who seem to understand and appreciate the Constitution and its role in our government. Republicans need to learn that the media is not in the business of presenting "just the facts." The media is in the business of building a socialist society, and they will do whatever it takes to get there. The media knows the power it has to set the debate, to tell us what the issues are, and to decide who gets the nod. The Tea Party has taught us that we can buck the system and set our own agenda. We can determine our own issues and put them on the table for serious consideration. Keep in mind, Trump is friends with Whoopi Goldberg. Need I say more?

Beggin' yer Pardon, Matey...

Somali pirates ha' nabbed ano'er American yacht. Y'don' say? Th' pair o' lovebirds scouring ye world was snatched near yon coast o' Somalia. Th'bootleggin' commenced na'er te th' conviction of ano'er buccaneer what done jacked th' Quest only ta git his mates shot in th' rescue. Th' varmints swared an oath ta ratchet up th' ante on th' prey o' their next bounty.

Arrrg!

Thus beggin' yer pardon, mates, but... Why are ye sailin' on th' cusps o'Somalia, ye barnacle bottomed, sea swiggin' country parsons? Ain't ye been privy ta no news o'er the five years hence?

I'm Sorry, But I Do Not Apologize

This could go so many ways...

So, Rush Limbaugh comedically mimics the Chinese language, and now Asian-Americans are up in arms, demanding apologies, picking up pitch-forks, and storming the golden EIB studios... right after the dinner rush dies down at the Mulong Restaurant.

First, what good is an apology going to do? I am reminded of Inigo Montoya... y'know... "Hallo, my name ees Inigo Montoya. You khillt my fhatder. Prrrepare to die." He finally gets the six-fingered man at the edge of his sword. Mr. Six Fingers begs him not to kill him. "I will give you anything." Inigo says "give me all the riches in the world" among other things. "Done" says Mr. Fingers. With everything promised him, Inigo says, "I want my fatder back, you sunny beach." And then proceeds to drive his sword thru Six's heart.

Not all that satisfying when you have to ask for it, is it?

You really think an apology from Rush Limbaugh will back up the bus? Call off the dogs? Return our attention to the buffet?

I hate public apologies. In today's world, they are absolutely meaningless. A waste of time. I'd rather eat the rubbery peppered beef than listen to another public apology.

But, says Mr. California State Senator, who is spear-heading this head hunt, I got made fun of when I was a wee little lad, and now I grow up and find out that, although I am a state senator, in reality, I am "a second class citizen". Boo hoo hoo. (No, that was me feigning sympathy, and not the name of the person to whom this statement was attributed. That senator's name is Yee Leland... or Leland Yee.)

Boo hoo. Try growing up Mormon in the Bible Belt, with 5 brothers and 3 sisters. Or a conservative in college. Or a married white Morman man with 4 kids. Or a lawyer. Or in Oklahoma, or Arkansas. Uh-huh. I know you are grinning a little. (You may apologize in the comments below this post, if you feel so ashamed.)

I am sorry (not a public apology, folks... so calm down and keep reading), but every one of us is a member of a group or class or phylo or whatever that at some point in time got made fun of. Yes, even rich white kids got made fun of. (Not that I was one, I just made fun of them, so I know.) We all made fun of each other. I teased girls a lot (which explains...). I certainly hope that I have not just offended the entire female population by stopping to explain myself so often. If so, I do not apologize. Get over yourself.

As for Rush... he'll just keep on keepin' on.

And so will I...

So these three idiots walk into a bar... which is just funny already, 'cause, y'know, they're idiots... (See how many calls for an apology that one brings!)

I Think We'll Be All Right...

It is amazing where you can find inspiration and hope. People don't have to be instructed when to come together. We know by instinct when that time is right. Enjoy the clip embedded in this article. It is very much worth a gander.

Whoa, now!

Let's not get hasty, here. The Left is at it again, capitalizing on every opportunity to shut us up. Reference the Arizona shooting. Now Yahoo is hollering for us to be careful about "the rhetoric". As if we are responsible for that moron's actions. But, y'know, that seems to go right along with the "everyone is responsible but the guy who dunnit" mentality that guides Lefties nationwide.

The Tax Less Taken

It's been a year. Is it safe to come out of hiding?

Talk about backwards! Our (not so) Dear Leader has once again revealed his true colors concerning his perception of your property. Critical of the Republican plan to extend tax cuts for all Americans, Obama states that to extend tax cuts to the top 3% would be "to give" an average of $100 million to each of those people.

Let me say that again: extending tax cuts = giving money to the taxpayer.

Still didn't catch it? Try this: Not taking their money = giving them money.

I'm sorry... but "not taking" is not synonymous with "giving".

"Not taking" necessarily means that the property not being taken belongs to the person keeping the property, and not to the person wanting to do the taking.

"Giving" necessarily requires that the property must first belong to the person doing the giving.

If the person "not taking" is the government, then the property necessarily belongs to the tax payor.
If the person doing the "giving" is the government, then the property must necessarily first belong to the government.

So...

To claim that a tax cut would "give" property to the rich would necessarily mean that the property belongs to the government... which is interesting, since "tax" necessarily means that the property is surrendered to the government, meaning that it first belonged to the tax payor. But for a liberal, the property never truly belonged to the person earning it, or the "wage earner", which means that at tax time, we are really figuring out how much of our salaries Our Dear Leader is willing to let us have.

Hmmm... have you been watching Greece lately?

The L-Word

Since when did calling a man out on a lie make him racist? Former president James Carter needs to just sit down, shut up, and slink off into oblivion before he hurts himself.

In a very strange, partisan attempt to suck as much juice out of a controversy as possible, Jimmy Carter, among others, is twisting S.C. Rep. Joe Wilson's timely comment during Our Dear Leader's prime time propaganda hour into racism. Please, someone explain to me just how this leap is made, and then how it is actually reported as though it is a serious addition to the issue. It would seem, in fact, that Mr. Carter's comment was the racist one here, as it would logically follow that he presumes blacks to be liars, so that any reference to a black man as a liar would automatically trigger a racial connection in his mind, just as the N-word came to do in the American language.

Add to my list of racist words: The L-Word.

How does Mr. Carter square Joe's comment with the thousands of L-bombs lobbed at the most recent former president?

This whole incident is nothing but hypocritical partisanship at its worst. Joe Wilson simply said to the president what I, and many thinking citizens around the nation, were yelling at the TV set at that same moment. Was it out of place? Well, a little more than half the House, and many other sanctimonious pansies in Washington and across the media seem to think so. I would disagree, however. I think it was totally appropriate. In fact, those around him should have applauded, and stood up, and joined in with him. Those two words should have been a chant that lasted so long that Obama finally shrugged his shoulders and sauntered off into the protective arms of the media, his Congressional partisans, and yellow-bellied Republican pansies who prefer form over substance.

See, Joe Wilson actually used the L-word in its proper context. Contrast, if you will, with the context in which it was used over the previous seven years, where "Liar" meant one who promotes the defense of his nation with statements which he believed to be true at the time they were made, but which later turned out to be unverified. Joe Wilson used the term to mean one who makes assertions that he knows at the time to be completely false.

Jimmy Carter used the term to mean a black man.

From here on out, any time Obama, or any other Democrat, opens his mouth, he should be met with passionate chants of "You Lie! You Lie! You Lie! You Lie!..."

You Sure You Wanna Hear This?

Bank of America asked me to conduct a satisfaction survey regarding my recent call to its customer service center. I just about lost it when this message appeared:

Bank of America appreciates your business and is committed to provide you with world-class service. Thank you very much for taking the time to provide your feedback and for choosing Bank of America.

I thought it would be fun to complete the survey. It won't result in any change in the Bank's position, but, well, they asked.

My Personal Protest - Update

Last night, I called Bank of America's 800 number. A very nice, polite young man helped me get one overdraft fee refunded. With the account I had signed up for, you are entitled to a "Stuff Happens" refund. Then he very clearly explained that he as a customer service representative was not the person with the authority to refund any others. Catching on to his suggestion, I told him I guessed I better talk with someone who does. "So, are you asking to talk with my supervisor (who has the authority)?" he clarified. "Sounds good, sir." I replied.

Shelby then came on the line. I remember her name because I was sure to use it a number of time during our one hour conversation. She politely explained to me how this system was designed for my benefit. I politely explained to her how this system didn't seem to be benefitting me, and that it seemed more for Bank of America's benefit. She replied that if Bank of America was intent on scamming its customers out of their money, she was sure there were other ways to do it. I replied that seems like the most effective so far. I explained to her that I wasn't asking her to change the system. If it works for some customer's benefit, great. But in the instances where it does more harm, wouldn't it make sense to correct that individual account for that particular situation. I said that the bank would still be able to retain some of its overdraft fees, but it wouldn't kill the customer in the process. She said that if the bank were to do that, everyone would be calling everytime they got an overdraft fee. I said no they wouldn't. Most people don't want to bother with, get frustrated, and then go on with their lives. Of those that do challenge it, most will quit after the first "No". But at least you would be helping those who unexpectedly get hit with $200-$400 in overdraft fees because of one large overdraft. She finally decided she just wasn't willing to help me. I told her she had the opportunity right here to save a customer and help salvage Bank of America's rapidly declining image. She decided it wasn't worth it.

Today I went back to work picketing the bank. Later, I went back inside to see if Patrick had changed his mind about keeping my money. He smiled and reminded me that he was half brain-dead. He insisted that he had proven to me that I did not have the money in the account to cover all those charges. I reminded him that I, in fact, did have the money to cover those charges. He assured me that was merely my opinion, to which I defined the difference between opinion and fact (I figured he must have struggled through his public education). He laughed and told me he was keeping the money. I didn't laugh, and reminded him that it was not his money and that I wanted it back. At that point, I noticed his very nervous hand punch three numbers on his cell phone and wait to push the send button. I politely informed him of the customers I had discouraged from opening an account with his bank, and the others who will be closing their accounts. He laughed again... keeping his shaking hand on the send button. I figured I'd be back another day, so I left.

The positive from all of this has been the many people who have shared their stories of hopelessness and anger caused by the nonsensical, cold hand of the Bank of America. I know of only one person who is neutral on the Bank of America. I now know of many who have an abiding hatred of this institution. I hope that they can find ways to deny this stupid monster of their money.

If there is any way possible for you to find another bank, please do so immediately. Open an account with that bank, get all your deposits and direct payments set up, and then walk into the Bank of America and loudly proclaim your intent to cancel all your accounts. Demand the money in cash, immediately, or be immediately transferred to your new bank, "the one that wants my business." When they ask you why you are cancelling, tell them loudly that it is because they do not deserve to be in business. They need to be knocked down to main street level to be given a reminder of what life is really about.

The government was afraid to let banks fail. This has given them a false sense of importance. Together, we may not cause them to fail, but we can sure support the smaller banks who appreciate your business and want to help... and make money.

Bank of America Stole My Money!

I knew we were getting close, but I thought we had enough to clear. As it turns out, we actually did, except for one larger bill that was scheduled to come out that day. So what did Bank of America do?

Well, although all our smaller transactions had been done several days ago, and had already been pending (meaning the bank had put a hold on those funds), Bank of America decided to post them all the same day, starting with the largest first, and then proceeding downward until it started posting the $6, $5, ..., $1.75 Sonic drink (purchased 4 days prior). Unfortunately, by this time, there was not enough in our checking account to clear these (which totaled $21). Fortunately, I have a set up where if there are enough funds in my checking account to clear, the bank will automatically move money from my savings account to cover it, which it did. There was enough to keep our balance in the black... until they deducted their $10 transfer fee. And yet, the bank decided that, despite all this, I would pay it $35 for every transaction that was originally in the red... which was 6 transactions, for a total of $210.

So I figure maybe I could talk to the bank I have been loyal to for 5 years and have two accounts with, they would see where this is ridiculous, and would kindly refund at least 4 or 5 of those fees so a man can continue to feed his family until his next paycheck.

Smiling, the bank officials proceeded to describe that this method of applying the large transactions first is for my own protection. "Wouldn't you rather make sure your mortgage or car payment is paid first?" said the man. "No, I would not," I replied. "Well, 98% of Americans would disagree with you," he stated. "No, they would not," I replied, explaining, "If they were $21 short, they would prefer to pay you one insufficient fund charge and then scrape together that $21 deficit, along with the returned check charge that the mortgage company will charge them, and get it done the next day." I went on, "Besides that, I have overdraft protection as a customer of your bank, which means you would have paid it anyway, and then I would only be owing you one $35 overdraft charge and have that and the $21 deficit come out of my next deposit, which I made later that very afternoon."

"No," he said.

"Yes," I said. "Most people would consider that as logical, and fair and reasonable. If your system is truly designed to protect me, it doesn't seem to be working all that well at this moment. All you have to do is rearrange the order in which you honor my debits, and 'poof', I owe you $35."

Smiling, the manager explained that that is not possible, to which I explained that yes it is quite possible, since I have seen it done once before.

Smiling, he told me that it is a technical issue, and that I would have to call the 800 number, because there is nothing he can do here.

Not smiling anymore, I pointed to a large deposit that I had just made that same day, which the bank so kindly decided to hold for 8-10 days, and which I intended to use to open a business checking account. "Do you see this transaction, right here?" I asked. "Why, yes," he said, smiling. "Well, this will clear in a week, and when it does, I will take every last dime of it out of this bank, because I am thru with your b.s., and then I will close down both my accounts and take my business to a friendlier, more reasonable bank."

I then proceeded very loudly to tell him that I was tired of being robbed by my own bank, that they know that what they are doing is wrong, and that it is nothing but theft.

Not smiling anymore, he told me that I was welcome to leave the bank now. As I stormed past the not smiling customers who were turning their heads, I reminded him loudly that he has lost my business, and that he can tell his managers that. He kindly followed me out of the bank and into the street, where I proceeded to proclaim to Springdale downtown that Bank of America just stole my money, and that they are nothing but a bunch of theives. As one man got out of his car, and looked at me, I said, "Isn't that right?" "Hell, yeah!" he replied, just as loudly.

Realizing that an 800 number is not going to get me any more than a live person would, I took a different tack. I created a sign, and stood outside the bank for two hours, warning people about the bank they were about to enter.

I haven't got my money back yet, but I did persuade one young lady who was about to make the mistake of opening an account at the Bank to pursue other options. I also convinced our legal secretary to go ahead and change banks as well.

I'll be back out there tomorrow.

God Bless Our Troops... please

I just read an article about what our Marines are doing today in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to read it... and then someone please let them know how thankful I am for them.

I remember my high school wrestling days, when the coach would crank the heat. It was hard, but I could through it because I knew that it wouldn't be more than a couple of hours. These guys are carrying gear and equipment in merciless 100 degree desert, hiking for miles, always at the ready.

Those few... proud... Marines.

Let Freedom Ring!

By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled Farmer stood,
And fired the shot hear round the World.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Payne, Common Sense



Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Payne, Common Sense



Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right. - Thomas Payne, Common Sense


"Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it."
–The Crisis by Thomas Paine

A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery
- George Washington at Valley Forge

These are the times that try men's souls. - Thomas Payne, Common Sense

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
- Declaration of Independence

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be
Free and Independent States
- Declaration of Independence

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Delaware	• George Read	• Caesar Rodney
	• Thomas McKean
Pennsylvania	• George Clymer	• Benjamin Franklin
	• Robert Morris	• John Morton
	• Benjamin Rush	• George Ross
	• James Smith	• James Wilson
	• George Taylor
Massachusetts	• John Adams	• Samuel Adams
	• John Hancock	• Robert Treat Paine
	• Elbridge Gerry
New Hampshire	• Josiah Bartlett	• William Whipple
	• Matthew Thornton
Rhode Island	• Stephen Hopkins	• William Ellery
New York	• Lewis Morris	• Philip Livingston
	• Francis Lewis	• William Floyd
Georgia	• Button Gwinnett	• Lyman Hall
	• George Walton
Virginia	• Richard Henry Lee	• Francis Lightfoot Lee
	• Carter Braxton	• Benjamin Harrison
	• Thomas Jefferson	• George Wythe
	• Thomas Nelson, Jr.
North Carolina	• William Hooper	• John Penn
	• Joseph Hewes
South Carolina	• Edward Rutledge	• Arthur Middleton
	• Thomas Lynch, Jr.	• Thomas Heyward, Jr.
New Jersey	• Abraham Clark	• John Hart
	• Francis Hopkinson	• Richard Stockton
	• John Witherspoon
Connecticut	• Samuel Huntington	• Roger Sherman
	• William Williams	• Oliver Wolcott
Maryland	• Charles Carroll	• Samuel Chase
	• Thomas Stone	• William Paca

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

- The Star Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key

I am Honored... I think

Does anyone know how my "Obama Lied" post ended up on LibertyPost.org?

Not that I have a real problem with that, I think, yet, anyway...  It's kind of an honor, I guess.

I am just surprised that it landed there, and not sure how...


Another interesting honor has been the number of visitors coming from SmokingMeatForums.com to check out my smoker modifications.   All those mods still seem to work pretty well... if the most tender, flavorful brisket ever in the history of samoking is any indication...  By the way... those first pics of the ribs are almost laughable now.  Don't get me wrong, they were delicious, and tender, but rather scrawny.  They were my first successful ribs, and I was proud of them then.  But they are nothing like what comes out of the smoke now!  MmmmmMmmmmmMmmm.

I promise pics next time.

Fixing the Fight

The Chosen One is revving up for a fight... a fight he has fixed.

Obama is pushing to take complete control over the economic sector, demanding that mortgage companies write their mortgages with fat crayons using words that are no more than 5 letters long. That way, people purchasing a home will know what they are getting into. This is called the "See Spot Buy House" plan.

Then there is the "plain vanilla" plan. This requires that mortgage companies type in large print "WE BUY HOUSE, YOU PAY US, YOU KEEP HOUSE" with a line underneath for the buyer to sign his/her name... in fat crayon.

This will be the mortgage industry from here on out. His More-Intelligent-Than-Me-ness claims that this will allow consumers to easily compare mortgages when shopping for a house. What will there be to compare? "Gee, I don't know, Dear, I think I like the green crayon contract over the red crayon contract."

Flabbergasted that banks and consumers and just about anyone who has passed the third grade might consider this plan to be a little too, uh, wrong, Obama welcomed a debate... on his own terms.

"But what I will not accept — what I will vigorously oppose — are those who do not argue in good faith."

And therein lies the fix. Any argument that defends the status quo will be considered a bad faith argument. Any argument that does not transfer more control to the government will be considered a bad faith argument. Any argument that hints at letting the markets correct themselves will be considered a bad faith argument. Obama just created a straw man.



So, what is a good faith argument?


"Does this brown crayon make my butt look big?"

Open Congress

I placed a link on my side bar, but I think I should emphasize it here. It takes you a site called Open Congress. There, you can actually see all bills introduced in either house of Congress, their status, who is sponsoring it, who voted on it, etc. You can read the entire text of the bill or just see what riders are attached to it. You can track them for later.

This is an important site. We have to begin getting involved. We have sat silent for too long. As a result of this site, I have been able to become familiar with several key bills. I was then able to write to my congresspeople and voice my concerns, backed by actual knowledge of the legislation, and not just what I have heard from various sources.

Please take a few moments to look at the site and become familiar with it. Our founders would really appreciate it.

Obama Lied!

In his zeal to sell his porkulus bill, which enslaved this nation to a monetary debt it will never, ever, ever be able to repay, His Obamaness lied to the American people and to Congress.

Just 10 days before taking office, Obama's top economic advisers released a report predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent or below through this year if an economic stimulus plan won congressional approval.

That report was written and prepared for the specific purpose of selling the need for the stimulus bill. Obama, by way of Biden, now realizing that the report was nowhere near reality, claims the report is a reflection of what "everyone else thought" the unemployment numbers would be.

Sounds familiar, does it not. Seems we were given some information a few years back that tended to justify an invasion of a dangerous middle-east country. That information, as it turns out, may have been flawed. As a result, then-President Bush was branded a "liar" for telling us what he thought was true.

So where is the outrage now? Where are the pitchforks and torches?

Here's the difference: Bush (and Congress) based its decision on what it believed to be hard evidence of facts that had already occurred, or were occurring. Those were facts that either were or were not. In that case, EVERYONE believed that the facts were true. After all, there seemed to be several sources.

This time, Obama (and Congress) based its decision on a report created by a small group which speculated about what the future might hold. Speculative reports are subject to so many variables (if A, B, C, D, E, F, ..., ZX, ZY, ZZ occur, or cause such and such) that they are prone to manipulation. The creator of the report determines what factors he wishes to include in his model. This report just so happened to be co-created by Jaren Bernstein, Biden's chief economist. What do you think he wanted the report to show?

Exactly.

So who's the real liar?

And who is this "everyone" Biden is referring to? As I recall, there were many strong opponents of the stimulus package who I am quite certain were not in agreement with this report.

Don't try to blame your lies on "everyone", Messrs. Biden and Obama. Facts are facts. You can ignore or mislead what you want, but some of us are watching...

You Did Not Just Say That

WalMart is in town!

I love their stockholders meeting. Walmart stockholders are not your typical rich and sophisticated crowd, unless your typical rich and sophisticated crowd wears halter tops and 80's hairdo's. These folks are the cream of the earth, though. They are the nicest folks.

Every year, Walmart selects one or two associates from each store and flies them into Fayetteville, Arkansas to live in vacated school dorm rooms, watch free concerts (with big name talent... Carrie Underwood, Hall and Oates, Foreigner, Sugarland, Brad Paisley, and Daughtry, to name a few), and get a year's supply of free samples from Walmart vendors. And every year, I get to drive in multiple circles getting these people from their dorms to the concert and dining hall and back. I really do enjoy it, and everyone is very courteous and very happy to be here.

So, tonight, I'm driving a big 40 foot transit bus, heading west. I am in the process of turning south. As I am in the intersection, a man runs up to me, waving me down. Because he is directly in front of my giant bus, and because I don't feel like getting buried in the mounds of paperwork that would surely follow my squashing this fellow, I decide I better stop... in the middle of the intersection... with cars trying to get around me. I open the door and motion for him to hurry and jump on. He doesn't. Instead, he stands there...

and patiently asks,


as he is pointing in the direction I just came from,


"Are you headed that way?"

Obama Jong-il

As a child, I thought President Reagan was a Mormon. It just seemed natural. He was highly regarded, and spoken of with adoration and reverence in my home and (public) school. I remember my school teacher being excited to vote for Mr. Reagan in 1984. Growing up Mormon, we spoke with adoration and reverence of the prophet and other church leaders. They wore suits and ties, Reagan wore suits and ties. It was a natural connection to a young mind such as mine. Imagine my surprise when I discovered he was very much not a Mormon. It didn't matter, we respected him and loved him. Even years later, I cried when I heard that he had died. I made it a point to watch the elaborate funeral procession.

However, just as we do not worship our prophet, we did not worship the President. We did not build shrines to him, or purchase basketballs, footballs, or tennis shoes with his face or likeness. I do not recall seeing Afghan quilts bearing his likeness hanging prominently over the WalMart fabric section, nor do I recall ever seeing a Time Magazine cover with Nancy's picture being offered as its own print for $15.95. Especially when he was first elected. I do not recall chastisement for speaking of him in a humorous or even derogatory manner.

I remember making fun of Jimmy Carter, with his big toothy smile, but I do not remember being told to hate him, or that he was evil. In fact, I felt honored to listen to his departing speech on a transistor radio... because he was the president, and that was a historic moment. At a young age, I recognized that.

As I matured, I came to realize that Ronald Reagan was a man. A good man, but a man nonetheless. I understood the honor that it would have been to have shaken his hand. I received a letter with his signature (manufactured) in reply to a letter I wrote him about how young teenagers should be allowed to work. I was disappointed that he didn't address that issue in his reply. When he made a decision, it was OK to disagree with it. There was certainly political discussion, and he had his supporters. I respected the President.



But today's climate is something very different. Mere respect is beneath His Oval Officeness. He is to be worshipped, praised, and adored by the masses. He is too important to trifle even with something so mundane as a serious discussion with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. To question his wisdom is blasphemy. To suggest a better way is heresy. He is the great Conqueror of Capitalism, the Hero of Hollywood, The Hope, The Future... The Dear Leader.


Hmmm...

It seems that title and worship has also been designated for another certain leader... a man with spiked hair and sunglasses, whose masses follow him without question, giving everything they have to his benevolent care, trusting that his decisions are always correct and that their lives are better because of his unerring wisdom. They do not see their meager existence as such. No sacrifice is too great for The Dear Leader. They erect massive portraits of him on buildings and in their homes. All they lack now are the basketballs and tennis shoes.

Isn't it ironic that our Dear Leader is condemning their Dear Leader?

The New Aristocracy

Perhaps the most noble concept to come out of our American Revolution was this concept that one is not noble by virtue of one's birth, but by virtue of one's actions. While our founders and recent American ancestors were, by no means, perfect in carrying out this ideal, it was, nonetheless, this ideal that led immigrants by the millions to our hallowed shores. When crafting our Constitution, there was much discussion as to how our leaders were to be selected. Some called for a king, or kings, instead of a president. This, of course, was squelched by those who recalled the atrocities committed by kings past. We wanted a president, and senators, and representatives. There was much discussion as to how they would all be chosen. Would senators be hereditary, chosen by class or wealth? These were actually discussed; but, again, rejected. These would be chosen by the states from which they hailed. Even later, we chose to make them directly from the people (bad choice, IMHO, but for other reasons). Representatives were always by direct vote. The idea was that aristocratic designations were discarded. In fact, the Constitution clearly prohibits the taking on of titles of nobility. America was to be the land of opportunity where our leaders are chosen by their merits.

There was little to no deliberation regarding how judges, or cabinet or agency appointments, would be determined.

Today, even the most meritorious of minds is not qualified for a position on the Supreme Court, unless that person is born right. Obama made that perfectly clear when describing his ideal candidate. And from his pick, it seems that a person's birth is more determinative than her merits.

Now, I admittedly do not know enough about Ms. Sodomayor to know whether she will perform well on the bench. I have done some research. Here is here biography according to judgepedia.org (check it often, as it is being updated while you read)... and here is an interesting blog that details a certain speech she gave before becoming an appellate judge. But it doesn't matter how much I don't know about her. She was chosen because of her ethnicity. Senator Chucky Schumer's letter to His Socialistness promoting her is very telling.

He begins with the premise that ethnicity should be the President's first consideration:

"Dear Mr. President,

We write to bring your attention to the shortage of representation of Latinos in the Federal Judiciary and strongly urge you to consider the Latino legal community when deciding your first appointment to the United States Supreme Court should a vacancy occur during your presidency....

It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and Ken Salazar are two candidates who would make outstanding justices. They have top-notch legal minds, years of experience, moderate approaches to the law, and would make history by being the first Latino on the court." (emphasis added)

The good senator expounded upon this last qualification:

"Latinos are a large and growing segment of our society that have gone grossly underrepresented in our legal system. Indeed, while Latinos comprise around 15 percent of the population, only about 7 percent of federal judges are Latino. Moreover, not a single Latino has served on the United States Supreme Court in the history of our country."

Recall that W tried this same approach when he nominated Dede Meiers. He was so proud to have nominated a woman. He just knew she would sail through and everyone would like him. However, after eating humble pie, he made the smart move, and started looking for... wait for it... qualified candidates. His two happened to be white men... very qualified white men. Note that the first description is "qualified".

Diversity is fine... as a result. When we make it our goal, it gets in the way of progress. America can and should be colorblind. We should promote people based on their merits. When you are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States, those merits should first be allegiance to the United States of America, allegance to the Constitution of the United States of America, allegance to the laws of the United States of America, knowledge of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and a history of the correct application of that Constitution and those laws to the cases or issues presented.

Ms. Sotomayor may be a fine candidate. She'll be vetted in the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are a few senators who will ask her some very pointed, relevant questions (unlike certain senators in recent previous confirmation hearings... ahem, Schumer) regarding her merits. These will involve asking her to explain a few statements made in a few speeches regarding the respective roles of the judge and the law in the judiciary process. I will be interested in hearing her answers. I hope that she can explain them well.