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!..."

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...

Breaking News: Biden's Blunderings Redacted

I found a copy of Biden's notes for the speech writer. Though you might find this interesting:

"1. Let's see if we can't beef up this Obama plan a little. Like: You want
something? He'll give it to you. Free health care? It's yours. Cheap college?
You got it. Tax breaks? Yours. Barbecue'd ribs on every table and a hybrid
midget car in every garage? Yeah, baby! (Note: Scratch that last one... and get
me some of those ribs)

2. Let's see: a. The Bush administration has been
an abysmal failure. 2. Barak's positions are right because Bush is doing what
Barak said should be done. Hmmmm.
(I know the logical conclusion is either
that Barak's positions are abysmally felacious or that Bush's administration is
doing the right thing. But, just see if you can't hide them both in there.)

3. I know that I compared McCain's position on Afghanistan three years ago (when the oppressive Taliban
had been run out of town and a democratically elected government was looking
promising) with Obama's position less than two years ago (when things started looking a little sour), but, you know, I
mean, what else am I supposed to do when my guy just doesn't have a whole lot of
positive foreign policy statements?

4. Put something in there about how
much I love and respect McCain, so I can at least get the "bless his heart" in
there before I talk about how just sucks.

Oh, and, uh, change, uh...
something something token change, and uh, let's make change! Or something like
that.

Don't worry about making it coherent. Just get a few "Bush sucks!"
in there."

NOTE about his actual speech:
I will admit when I have been impressed. The first half of Biden's speech impressed me. The introduction by his son, and Biden's comments about his family and the lessons he learned from his parents and his overcoming obstacles gave me a new level of respect for Joe. Unfortunately, he somehow turned that into an "entitlement" speech, and then went off into misstated comparisons, etc., as you can see in those speechwriter notes. So now, instead of a major as$ho^e, he's been demoted to lieutenant as$ho^e.

Obama Plan: Inflate the... Numbers

Obama makes the off-hand prediction that if all Americans would inflate their tires and maintain their vehicles regularly, we could offset all the oil we are losing by not drilling off our own shores. McCain calls him on it. Most of us realize how preposterous this is. But wait... suddenly there is all kinds of evidence that doing this would save more than quadruple the amount of oil anticipated from off-shore drilling.

Now, I know Time and CNN are media gods, and if they say it, it is true... but would it be so difficult for them to give us one (1) little bitty source? Maybe just a little insight into their calculations of how I can personally save one whole barrel of oil this year?

Let's see... inflating my tires... tried that... I pick up about one half mile per gallon. Using Time Magazine's method of computation, I am saving 400 gallons per year. (Prove me wrong.)

Maintaining my vehicle regularly. Change my oil every three months or 3,000 miles. At 5 quarts per change... per vehicle... I am using some 50 quarts of OIL per year. But I am gaining another half mile per gallon of gas. So, using the same scientific computation as above, I can not only cancel out all that oil, but decrease my gas consumption by... oh, let's see...(carry the 1)... 200 gallons per year. Let's make it sound really good, and say that each barrel of oil produces some 10 gallons of gasoline, and voila! Obama is not only on the right track, but has underestimated his own energy policy, as I am saving 60 barrels of oil this year!

Isn't number crunching fun? Using this method, I can save $30,000 this year by simply eating 1 egg and 1/2 piece of white toast for breakfast.

Seriously, do these number crunchers take into consideration the impracticability of rebuilding one's home to make it more energy efficient. From what I've seen, it would cost some $20,000 of remodeling to save $2,000 of energy per year. Over the course of 10 years, you'd wind up having to upgrade, at a cost of another $5,000 to $10,000. Not to mention the amount of interest your paying for your remodeling. The new appliances are all made with plastics... which come from... OIL.

And even if we could save some 200 million barrels of oil each year by inflating our tires, does that diminish the advantage of expanding our domestic drilling and building new refineries? Is it enough to simply decrease usage? Is it not plausible to decrease usage and increase production? If we do decide to save on oil, would it be so wrong if the oil we were saving on came from our own shores?

Come on, mass media people, do you really think we are so stupid that we don't know that inflating our tires increases fuel efficiency (and saves on tires)? But do you really believe that this is the key to breaking our addiction to foreign oil? Really?

The First Non-Mormon President

Regardless of what happens in these primaries, the next president will be very unique. We will either have the first black president, the first female president, the first Mormon president, the oldest president, or the first non-Mormon president. Huh?!

Yes, the first non-Mormon president. Mitt Romney is an able leader. He has the experience, expertise, ideology, and demeanor to be a great president. So do most of the other Republican candidates. Even Huckabee could be a decent president (although a little populist). And if Romney were anything but a Mormon, Huckabee would still be sitting in the back of the pack. There is no doubt and virtually no argument that the Huck's Iowa win came from the evangelicals. Evangelicals do not like Mormons. Evangelicals love their neighbors, and will go fishing with them and loan them their lawn mowers, and give them a cup of sugar, until they find out that the neighbor is a Mormon. Then the neighbor is going to Hell, no questions asked. Then the neighbor gets postcards from "the Mormon temple" "on behalf of Mitt" with half-truths and misreprentations about the Mormon doctrine. Then the neighbor's kids don't get picked for the backyard pick-up game. Then the highly qualified neighbor gets passed over for neighborhood association or PTA president for someone who speaks a little more "Christian". Then the highly qualified presidential candidate gets passed over for someone who is a little more... "not Mormon".

For most people, this sounds like sour grapes. I can concede that. But many of you "know what I am talking about." I worked with a good man. We talked about morals and values and family and our faith in Christ. He was impressed with my views, and naturally asked me where I attended church. I told him I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. His face changed. "Oh." "Still think you'll see me in Heaven?" I asked.
"No," he replied.
"Is that because you won't be there?"
"Oh, I'll be there."
"I see. So I won't?"
"Nope."
"Even though I believe in Christ and have accepted Him as my savior?"
"Yep."
"Even though I have been baptized and try to keep His commandments?"
"Yep."
"No chance, huh?"
"Nope."

Romney still stands a good chance. He has been running a smart campaign. Unfortunately, some ignorance just can't be reasoned away.

McCain may do well. Huckabee will continue to suck votes away from Romney. Interestingly, Huckabee is not the only one benefiting from the Mormon thang. Many evangelicals and other Christians are voting for McCain simply because they are more comfortable with him than with a Mormon.

~Everyone stumbles upon the truth now and then. Unfortunately, most simply pick themselves up and hurry on their way.~

A Little Frightening...

As you know, the President vetoed the bill in which Congress legislated Congress to be the President. Bush commented that this seemed a little unconstitutional. Harry Reidiculous replied, basically,

to hell with the Constitution. We are the Congress, dammit, and it is our job to be president if we want to.

I am paraphrasing, of course, because mr. reid is a Mor(m)on who would say "heck" and "darndiddlydangit" instead. For you skeptics out there, who just have to have "the facts", here is what he actually said, after "bristling" at the claim:

"We are not going to be submitting our legislation to somebody at one of the law schools to look for its constitutionality. We have an obligation, under the terms of the Constitution, to legislate," he said. "That's our job."

I think I summed it up pretty well.

So do these...



These folks don't seem to think we have a constitution.





See that feller over yonder? He assures me that we still have a constitution.







Whaddyall think?








I am saddened this day to find that we do, in fact, have a constitution.

Speaking of Chris Matthews...

I think I have found why Libs will always be Libs, and why they will never understand this war. They have no substance. For evidence, check out this blog. Particularly striking is Chris Matthews comment about why people were so supportive of Bush when he delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

As Matthews saw it, people jumped on the war wagon because they liked the idea of having a hero for president, because we like having a "guy" as our president. Thus, we supported the war, not because there were two very tall buildings no longer in the New York skyline,
or a big hole in the Pentagon, or a scar on a field in Pennsylvania. Not because Saddam had given us every reason to believe he was supporting the guys who dunnit. Not because Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and threatening to use them to destroy us. Not because this was an important stage in the war against terror. Not because we saw this as a strategic element in the big picture.
No, Chris gives supporters of this war no credit for having any substantial reason for supporting this war, and the commander-in-chief. We supported this war because Bush is a "guy".

"Sam," you say, "this seems to be evidence that conservatives have no substance." If you believe that, then you have just demonstrated your own lack of substance. Chris has no substance because he cannot accept that there may be valid reasons that people supported this war. He has no substance because he actually believes that supporters of the war have no substance, and that a person can only support the war because they are nothing but sheep. He has no substance because he looks at the person of the President rather than the substance of the President's arguments. He has no substance because he refuses to support the war only because he refuses to support a Republican president. And that is why he will always be a Lib. It's just too easy.

It's a great day for us libs!

I got an email from a good friend of mine, wondering what happened this week. The best I can say is... I sure am glad I am now a liberal. We won. We completely ignored the facts, analyzed our emotions, pled our emotional causes, and have now received validation.

We were very successful in convincing people to vote on emotion in complete ignorance of the facts. For example, the largest deciding factor for most of us was the war in Iraq. We don't like the way it is going. So we voted for a Democrat who also doesn't like the way it is going. Interestingly enough, George Snuffalufagus said, on ABC this morning, that there is admittedly very little that Congress can do to affect the way the war is going. That is the president's job.

Ignore the facts, vote on emotion.

You should try it.

It is very liberating.

Speaking of the President (I mean "Mr. Bush"), it sure was kind of him to wait until after the election to change out Rummy. Heaven only knows how many of these elections would have gone to the evile Republicans if he had only made the switch last month! Thanks, George! We owe you one.

Stirring up the Ark

Well, my letter got printed in the Arkansas Traveler, and the response has been wonderful. One insightful writer, a former journalist, went off on me because she is being stripped of her rights and doesn't know it (or I don't know it, or somebody in Iraq doesn't know it?)? Yeah, figure that one. Another assumed that because I don't like media bias, I don't know much about the war in Iraq, and neither does anyone who else who watches Fox News. (I just wish I could get Fox News.) And then there was Mr. Sturtevant, an Education graduate, who finally got to me. His wisdom and insight left me to ponder things about myself, and I realized that I just think too much. I learned that I have led a sheltered and insulated life. So, after much reflection, and lots of Cutsie Curic, I decided I needed to publicly recognize Mr. Sturtevant's contributions to my life.

Liberal letter enlightens (How do you like that headline?)

Please thank Mr. Sturtevant for bringing to light my unfortunate disposition toward being easily misled. Having reflected upon this personal fault, I am now a changed man. There is no bias in the media. Rove's comments were properly sandwiched between arguments against the administration, and under a headline, which clearly and properly colored his visit and comments in shrouds of protest. I can ignore that such treatment was not given to any of the many stories reporting on activities promoting the illustrious left (e.g., Judge Griffen's story, or the Oct. 9 story regarding the former CIA agent promoting Bush lied to us.)

I can accept that Bush lied to us, even though this greatly distorts the definition of "lie." I can ignore the actual fact that my president acted on faulty intelligence, and patterns of behavior and threats made by Hussein.

Judge Griffen correctly stated that no one invited us to depose Saddam. I can simply ignore the fact that thousands of dissidents had been begging us for years to do just that.

People of faith have no business expressing their moral opinions. Pointing out to another where one thinks that person has gone astray from moral virtue, standing up to protect society from what one considers to be deviant behavior, and defending what one perceives to be morally right is intolerance, and should not be tolerated in our society!

The loss of 2,809 soldiers in a three and a half year war to defend me from terrorists, and the world from madmen who killed hundreds of thousands of people and threatened to use weapons of mass destruction to destroy me and my way of life is too high a price; and not contrasting it to the number of soldiers killed in previous wars does not misguide or mislead people. This number should be placed in front of me at all times so that I might feel the guilt.

Finally, I am convinced that when my school paper speaks to issues outside of campus, it should be to reform those misled conservatives. Leave fair and balanced to Fox News. I should have been more supportive of my fees going to support liberal campaign material.

Again, thank you, Mr. Sturtevant. You have changed my life. By simply ignoring the facts, I shall no longer be misled.

Sam Eastman
Graduate Student
Law