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!..."

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?"

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...

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.

Common Ground

Once again, His Choseness has called for conservatives to find "common ground" on the abortion issue. In his speech at the Catholic Non-Denominational University (NDU), Obama pointed out that we who dare to disagree and stand on moral principles would be less uptight about our positions if we only moved to the common ground offered by those more enlightened than ourselves. He begged that we refrain from caricaturizing him (I guess the big-eared likenesses hurt his feelings) just because we disagree with his positions. Civility, he pointed out, starts on the left and can only be attained when we hard-core, back-woods rebels cross over to the dark side and drink the Kool-Aid of secular socialism.

Obama demonstrated his firm stance on common ground by requiring doctors and other medical practitioners to kill babies on demand. This is the only way we can improve health care for all. I guess he figures that if the woman is too stupid to keep her legs closed, she is too stupid to figure out how to find another doctor when her family practitioner tries to provide prenatal care rather than a butcher knife. The woman can thus choose to abort, while the doctor cannot choose not to perform it. Rather to protect the woman from the natural consequences of her actions than the doctor from the moral, emotional, and mental anquish that would naturally come from performing such a horrendous act.

This is common ground?

Believe in This...

Looks like His Excellency Mr. President Obama can't find an honest Democrat or a totally nieve Republican. After all his tax-evading nominees bowed out on grounds that they, well, evaded taxes, Obama went across the aisle to see if he could find a RINO to help fill his administration. He found one who was willing to give it a shot, only to find out that he couldn't totally convert the guy to the dark side (referring to, y'know, Star Wars 'dark side' and not, like, well...).

King Obama Day

So what did you do for our illustrious leader on King-Obama Day?

As if getting out of school and work wasn't honor enough for the memory of MLKing, Obama has decided that it should be a day of service! The great one has spoken, and the media outlets jumped. They told me that I should dedicate the day before the Great Inauguration to serving those less fortunate than myself. Apparently, from the great long list of organizations in need of service, that would be just about everybody... except me. Who knew I was so fortunate.

Now, I realize that I am about to commit heresy, but I could have sworn that MLK's day was already about service.

Sorry, I didn't mean no disrespect to King-O! I just was trying to point out that we seem to overlook His Honorableship's tendency to reinvent the wheel. When he comes up with an idea, it's as if no one had ever thought of it before. I mean, what about when he is caught putting... get this... peanut butter on jelly? Won't the media have a hayday with that one. Oprah will introduce that KC restaurant that serves peanut butter and jelly. The Food Network will run a special on the history of that long-forgotten treat we once enjoyed. Peanut butter, we will be reminded, was invented by George Washington Carver, while jelly, although brought over by the Pilgrims, was never paired with it until the King (Obama, not Elvis) was in a hurry between an environmental summit and an appointment with Bill Ayers, and asked the White House chef for something sweet and salty. Unfortunately, the kitchen was out of whole wheat bread and alfalfa sprouts, so he just grabbed whatever was closest and threw it together.

I digress.

Happy King-Obama Day!

The Last Minute Voter Guide

1. McCain has experience: served in the Senate since the early 80's, served in the armed forces, as a commander, for years before that, served in Vietnam.

a. Obama gave a speech in 2002. Obama was a Senator for 2 years (his last two years are hardly worth counting).

2. John has judgment: As a captive in Vietnam, under the harshest of conditions, John chose to respect those with whom he associated rather than taking advantage of his position.

b. When faced with the embarrassment of his prior close associations, Barak's leadership style proved to be to turn his back on those associations, even his longtime preacher.

3. John has courage: John chose to serve his country in Vietnam. Rather than give up and give in to his captors, John persevered thru some of the worst imaginable torture. Against strong opposition to a president and mainstream supporters of his own party, John spoke out against cruel torture, even of terrorists. Early in his Senate career, he bucked the very president whom he admired, Ronald Reagan, and opposed certain efforts in the middle east.

c. Barak associated with known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. When he could have stood up for the nation of Israel, he chose instead to remain silent thru a dinner in honor of a friend of his who was a spokesman for the PLO. He applauded and praised this friend. When he thought his association with these friends would cost him politically, he lied about those associations. He renounced his preacher, after 20 years of sermons and support from the right reverend wright.

4. John is bipartisan: he is known for reaching across the aisle. While this is frustrating at times, it shows that his intentions are to further the best interests of this nation, even if that means losing support from certain important factions in his own party. He worked closely with and developed a strong friendship with Joe Lieberman, with whom he found support to promote the troop surge, when it was not popular.

d. Upon graduation, having married a successful attorney, Barak dedicated his time to building up partisan community organizations and finding ways to siphon government (tax) funds for these groups to further his own ambitions.

5. John understands economic realities: While he admitted to not knowing enough about economics, he understands enough to recognize that the fundamentals of a strong economy do not involve "spreading the wealth" or punishing achievements. While details can be worked out on exactly how best to preserve our capitalist system (which, by the way, the whole world, socialists and communists included, relies upon for their own prosperity), he will at least try to preserve our capital system.

e. Barak wants to spread the wealth. He has studied how to do so (as opposed to why not to do so). He believes the economy is best strengthened through governmental interference and management. (The same government that, when the purse strings were placed in the hands of the democrats, ran up a debt the size of which the world had never before imagined possible?) A student of socialism and marxism, he has yet to remove the rose-colored glasses to see the reality of things.

6. John is not in bed with the media: While they loved him early on, they turned on him in a heartbeat when they discovered that he really was, after all, a Republican.

f. L.A. Times, San Fransisco Chronicle, NY Times, Washington Post... (Who's this Bill Ayers? Barak said what? When?)

7. John McCain is a practicalist: While he espouses ideals and holds moral values, he understands that reality dictates solutions. He recognizes that certain core ideals and moral values are superior to others because those cores make it possible for other ideals and values to exist and to thrive. i.e., Equality is only possible where liberty is cherished and honored.

g. Barak is idealistic and idealogical: Reality only exists where he says it exists. Equality is the ultimate goal, and can only be accomplished at the expense of liberty. Equality will be served on a golden platter (which you are only allowed to look at and admire from your equally wretched and decripit hut).

Hope this helps! Now go vote!

Why Bill Ayers Matters

Suppose I attended a church for 20 years, a significant time during which the preacher taught that the adult-child relationship should be very intimate, that children should be taught the ways of adults at a very early age, and other such incendiary notions. But after 20 years of attendance, I said, "I don't remember hearing such things, and even if those things were taught, I only believed in the other things that were being taught, or I only attended because my family had been going there for years."

And suppose that during that time, I helped channel money into organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association.

And suppose that during that time, I associated with a man who was an unrepentant mass child molester and purveyor of kiddie porn, twenty years ago, and only seven years ago stated that he didn't think he had molested enough kids, but was now actively involved in building fun day care centers.









Would you let me baby sit your kids?

What's In a Name

Heavens! Biden is mildly upset that a sheriff introducing Sarah Palin referred to the Democratic candidate as... get this... Barak




Hussein




Obama

Oh, Goodness. Not only can "we" not say "we" to refer to ourselves, now, "we" cannot even reference the candidate's. own. name. as to do so is epithetic... or mean politicking by racist Republicans. (I think its just pathetic... meaning stupid. Biden thinks it is epitaphic... meaning a statement on Barak's political gravestone?)

Fluffy Bunny with Teeth

Talk about ugly. Talk about desparate.

The AP has clearly shown its bias. Take a look at this story.

And this story.

Let's break it down. Palin finally 'goes public' with Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, an issue which has only been explored by Fox and conservative talk hosts, except when briefly mentioned with scoffing dismissal by the Main Stream Media. Because Palin, the Veep candidate, actually said it, three times, in fact, the AP has no choice but to report it. So, it reports it. Here's how:

During her stop in California, Palin was asked about an Associated Press analysis that said her charge about Ayers was unsubstantiated, a point made by other news organizations, and the criticism carried a "racially tinged subtext that McCain may come to regret."

"The Associated Press is wrong," Palin said, before arguing that the issue had not been adequately discussed.

In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton prior to April's Pennsylvania primary.

Oh, it was adequately discussed? Because it came out as a question in a primary debate? How come I don't recall seeing any mention of that in the media at that time?

Unsubstantiated? The AP seems a little contradictory here...

Her reference was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions.

Just like he denounced that preacher dude?

And what was this "racially tinged" stuff?

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Republicans, when will you learn? You have got to avoid using the following racially charged words:

1. we

2. us

3. they

4. them

5. our

6. their

7. Constitution

8. God

9. bless

10. America

The AP, in the spirit of bipartisanship, did at least acknowledge that:

Obama isn't above attacking McCain's character with loaded words, releasing an ad on Sunday that calls the Arizona Republican "erratic" — a hard-to miss suggestion that McCain's age, 72, might be an issue.

"Our financial system in turmoil," an announcer says in Obama's new ad. "And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."

Only to point out that:

A harsh and plainly partisan judgment, certainly, but not on the level of suggesting that a fellow senator is un-American and even a friend of terrorists.

The AP then just went on to point out how wrong this 'unsubstantiated' 'Swift-boat' 'character' attack is.

Yes, this is actually being considered a 'character attack', rather than an attack on the man's political viewpoints. A character attack is generally dismissed by the public. Political viewpoints, however, really ought to be aired in the public laundromat.

Quote of the day:

"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

Barak, the Sure Bet

Palin has arguably little real foreign experience, other than being the governor of a state that borders Russia and Canada. She has a reasonable explanation for why she never got a passport until a few years ago. Maybe she just really liked Alaska. I mean, how could you not? Maybe there is something to the concern that someone with limited foreign experience could inherit the white house. (Although, really, is it so important that one leave the U.S. in order to have a clue as to how the world works? I wonder how many U.S. senators actually visited with foreign leaders before running for the senate? Is it not just as important for them, who have such influence in everything from who to ally with to whether to sign a treaty concerning the protection of migrating birds?)

But, see, Palin is not running for president. Nope, folks, she is seeking to be vice president. This means that, should her ticket win, a U.S. senator with a vast number of years of foreign experience, military training, and dedication to the best interests of his country will be the president.

It is conceivable that one day he will die. Perhaps that day will occur during his term as president. And it is, therefore, conceivable that Gov. Sarah will become our next president.

That makes some people feel a little uneasy. Understandably so. The concern is that we might have a president with only, by that time, a few years of foreign policy experience. What is not so understandable, however, is, if this is a concern of yours, why you would vote to guarantee that the next president will have very limited foreign experience. After all, how much possible foreign policy experience can a man get organizing a Chicago community?

I guess people just really don't like uncertainty.

Alpha and Omega, but more Omega than Alpha

The Book of Barak

Chapter 1

1. And on the Two million two hundred eighty one thousandth and first day, was Barak created.
2. And thus was he seen as alright.
3. And thus was it said that Barak has been created.
4. And thus was it said that in this Barak is given all wisdom, knowledge, and celebrity status
5. Yea, he shall lead his people, and shall show them the error of my ways
6. And the mantle of the world shall be upon his shoulders, and his fuzzy little head
7. And he shall be called negotiator and community organizer
8. Yea, verily, and even shall he be called presidential nominee
9. For many shall celebrate him, and shall faint at his presence
10. He shall proclaim, behold!
11. And as they behold, they shall hear his chants of change
12. Yea, the children of the world shall hear such chants, and shall give wonder at the meaning of these chants
13. Nevertheless, notwithstanding such wonderings, they shall say what meaneth these changing chants of change, which chants I like, albeit I know not why
14. Verily, let us go down from the mountains, and from the hills and the valleys, and the organized communities
15. Yea, let us go down to this community organizer who chants for change
16. Verily, let us chant with him for change, even to the chanting of change
17. Let us touch the very television screen from which his chants of change emanate, that perchance we might feel of this change of which he chants
18. Behold and yea, let us lift him even unto the seat of the president, and proclaim his diety to those unbelieving of the elephant persuasion; yeah even before the houses of government
19. Yea, let us paint the lips of swine
20. Yeah, let us sit with those who seek to destroy us, that we might console our souls with such sittings
21. Yea, let us raise taxes unto he who chants change, that we might bring low those who do actually create change.
22. And on the next day, well...

Barak , for a Change

The Great One hath spoken - and the name he spake is 'Biden'. I am afraid I was asleep as the heavens parted. I am sure when the grand concourses of angels descend upon Mile High for the coronation of His Exhalted One, I shall be in the midst of school, or work, or eating dinner, or watching a movie with the kids, or maybe just sitting in the loo, reading.

There is really no need to watch it. I can tell you how this whole thing will play out:

The entire Mountain West will black out for exactly 45 minutes. This will be the direct result of the simultaneous plugging-in of 42,000 greenmobiles at the exact same time, a moment which will forever be remembered fondly by now-short-haired-hippies and wannabe hipsters, and beard-brandishing-back-to-nature-from-whence-I'm-sure-I-would've-come-had-my-conservative-parents-not-been-multimillionaires-AlGorians as the Great Power Outage of '08. Once power returns, Hillary will announce the official motto of the Demoncratic Party as "Bush Sucks". As the applause dies and the brown smoke begins to clear, Pelosi will then enter the Mile High to announce the official platform of the Demoncratic Party to be as follows:
'1. Change
2. Something about Change
3. Change...something something... Change
4. Let's make some changes
5. Change: Good
6. Department of Change
7. Spare change tax
8. Obama is now God
9. Bush sucks
10. No, change that last one to "Bush Sucks!"

At that point, Ing-Deng-Wang, the UN Secretary General, will rise to declare his support for Obama's campaign for World King.

The Right Reverend Wright will then rise to call upon all within the sound of his voice to take to one knee in humble reverence for Obama Almighty (oh, and to throw off the white yoke of oppression, while we're at it).

Biden will stand and speak for exactly 3 days, 2 hours, and 17 minutes, and still come across as an a$*ho^@.

Then the lights will dim, trumpets will blare, and a chorus of angels will sing His Name, as He Whose Name is Too Worthy for Mere Mortals to Speak enters the great chambers. All will hush and cry as His hand passes over their heads.

He will then address the world, giving them hope that the hour cometh when they shall be delivered from the evils now plagued upon them by this country he unfortunately must call home. He will express appreciation to the freedom fighters who have sacrificed so much for his cause. He will remind Americans of our duty to negotiate with those who strive for our extermination because our mere existence offends their god. Finally, he will remind us all that changety change change change.

And the crowd goes wild!

So saith I.