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!..."

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...

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.

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?

Brainless Beauties Only, Please

PC Police Officer Perez Hilton arrested and convicted Miss California for being honest and having a valid opinion. I usually don't pay much heed to the beauty pageants. In fact, they are usually more laughable than anything, especially when it comes to the question and blabber sessions. But something very special happened in this one. When asked a question about her stance on the gay marriage issue, Ms. CA stated that she believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She had to outspeak the boos emanating from the audience. I think this is awesome. What a unique opportunity this young lady experienced.

We talk of suffering persecution for standing up for what we believe to be right. Often, we experience this in very indirect ways. We are accosted through our TV sets or newspapers or internet. If confronted on a one-on-one situation, there is usually some semblance of respect given for your opinion by the other party, who may then go and gossip about you later.

This girl was confronted with a big dilemma. She likely would have gotten the crown. She didn't even have to give a strong stance. She could have given a non-answer that would have satisfied the head-hunting liberals who were reaching for their pitchforks as the question was being read. In fact, if you read her reply carefully, I think you see the struggle she is going through. She realized the importance of this question, and of this moment, and she went for it. What a defining moment in her life. In this moment, she rose above the crown... sort of a Miss USA++. The crown she wears will endure much longer than the one she gave up.

Mind if I Breath?

Arkansas finally enacted the law allowing officers to stop motorists for not wearing a seatbelt. It would be disingenuous to argue that seatbelts do not save lives. They do. Maybe not all the time, but enough to argue that it is probably, usually, a good idea to click it. And, yes, there is some cost to the State for people who are thrown out of their seats during wrecks. And, yes, there is probably some societal cost, families are left father-/mother-less, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

But so does breathing. In fact, poor Mrs. The Practicalist, has been suffering with a bronchial infection for the last month or so. She may have caught it from me, having lived in the same house as me for some 12 years. It comes and goes with me. We also catch colds, usually from one of the kids, who brings it home from school. The flu seems to make its rounds in similar fashion. There are annual numbers, usually in the ten's of thousands, of flu related deaths. The effect of these problems on the health care industry, the costs to the government and society are astronomical! And yet, we are still permitted to walk around breathing.

Interestingly, the effects of breathing are far more extreme than those of unbelted car wrecks. Once the car wrecks, it usually stops running. The person is ejected, which means he is no longer able to stand on the accelerator. The vehicle is no longer contributing to global warming. And if he is no longer breathing, then he, too, has ceased polluting our air. Unfortunately, we who remain alive, continue to exhale dangerous CO2. This is illegal, unless we have purchased our share of emission credits.

Understanding that the government has not yet figured out how to issue licenses for breathers; it does regulate our freedoms to drive. This is why it can so easily permit officers to stop motorists for not wearing seatbelts. They should also use this opportunity, once stopped, to see if we are breathing while driving, and, if so, fine the he!! out of that dirty, liberty-assertive breather!

Knowing is Only Half the Battle

G.I. Joe used to explain safety tips to us young and stupid kids back in the day. He always said, "Now you know; and knowing is half the battle!" Thanks, Joe. Now I know.

In an attempt to diffuse Republican criticism of the god-awfully unrealistic non-stimulating stimulus package crammed down our throats at every 15 minute news update, and most notably by His Excellency, Himself, Yahoo! Buzz saw it necessary to quell our fears regarding the volcano monitoring and high-speed railway to Disneyland. So you don't have to read it, I'll tell you... volcano monitoring is the monitoring of volcanoes and a high-speed railway is a railway that goes really fast. So now that you know, don't you feel better about spending money on it? "Gosh," you say, "that sounds worthy of my taxpayer dollars!" And now you know.

Uhhh... but wait. This might (or might not) be a great way to spend our precious few (billion) dollars, but what does it have to do with economic stimulus? Why is it in this package? Could it not have found its way into our regular budgeting sweepstakes? I thought "Stimulus Package" meant a package that has lots of economic stimuli - you know, things that stimulate, i.e., grow, boost, support growth, push to grow, make the economy expand, create sustainable wealth... in an economic growing sort of a way.

Now maybe I don't understand just what "economic stimulus" means, exactly. But I'm quite certain that no combination of those two words can in any way connote "liberal binge spending for projects that liberals don't want popping up in regular budget bills."

Thanks, Yahoo!, for the knowledge... but your point was...?

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...).

Random Thoughts, Part I

There is a big trend on Facebook to list 25 random things about yourself. In that spirit, I include a few random thoughts of my own:

1. Another reason to be a Democrat: free pass on tax cheating (e.g., Tom Daschle and that other guy nominated to head the Treasury department). It looks like Obama can't find an honest Democrat and has had to start looking on the Republican side for cabinet members.

2. Maybe, instead of borrowing money just to give it away, in an effort to stimulate the economy, we could just pass some great big tax cuts, especially on corporations and stocks, then borrow whatever shortfall we end up with. I'll bet it won't approach ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

3. I just laughed at a guy whose cell phone went off in class, only to have mine go off shortly thereafter.

4. My sweetheart cheered for Arizona because they wore red, and she likes red. I think that was pretty cool, since I was cheering for Arizona, too. I thought it was because I liked Kurt Warner, but I think it was because they were wearing red... and I like red.

5. I was disappointed at the umpiring during the Super Bowl. Harrison got his 100 yard touchdown with the aid of an uncalled holding.

6. I was hoping for a Cardinals win, but either team deserved it. They both played well. It was a great second half.

7. My wife is into sewing now. She is really picking it up fast and making some really cool things. She does a great job. I love watching her. It reminds me of when I used to watch my mom, only my mom would take up every available space and would stretch out the project for weeks on end.

8. While I hope that Obama becomes a good president, I hope that he fails with his ideas as they now stand and as they were promised during his election. He can be a good president by paying more attention to practical and conservative ideas.

9. I wish Republicans would pull their heads out and stand on their principles and quit worrying about re-election.

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!

Let It Be

The Practicalist has been on extended hiatus from political commentary. However, I am compelled to add my couple of pennies worth, as war has progressed in the Gaza strip, and the world has decided to add Israel to the list of countries that have no right to defend themselves. Currently, that list, in its entirety, is, as follows, to wit:

1. The United States of America
2. Israel

Welcome, Israel.

Now, the Uniched Nations is getting involved. The human rights (and unearned privileges) council, comprised of Arab and African nations, whose human rights records give them a mandate like no other council before them, are calling for investigations of Israel's wartime activities. Other human rights (and unearned privileges) groups, are also condemning Israel for standing up for its citizens. Of course, wink wink, "without diminishing the responsibility of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups for indiscriminate and deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians."

Well, let's see, doing the research, I have found calls by the UN human rights (and unearned privileges) council for investigation into Hamas and Palestine's actions a total of... let's see... carry the 1... um... aha... zero times.

So, just to be sure I understand the logic here:

Israel conquered the Gaza strip during a war in which it was attacked by multiple neighbors. After being sold out by its staunchest weak-kneed allies, it agreed to provide the strip to Palestinians, should they be capable of governing themselves. As soon as they were given land, those Palestinians turned right around and started bombing and killing Israeli towns, villages, and civilians. Israel sent messages to citizens of certain towns in Gaza telling them that they would soon be bombed, and to please try to not be there when the missiles arrive. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to indiscriminately bomb Israeli civilian locations. Israel puts up with it for a while, knowing that any response would draw severe criticism from "civilized" nations. After so long, and so many deaths of its own civilians, it responds with very targeted, and telegraphed, attacks. And for its decision to lop off the head of the dragon attacking it, rather than merely chinking it with rocks, it is severely condemned by "civilized" nations who can't even avoid terrorizing their own civilians.

Well, I say, go Israel. Do what you've got to do. The rest of the pansies be damned. I don't recall seeing daily tracking numbers of Israelis killed during the last several months of random killings by Hamas. If folks didn't like you before, there's really nothing you can do that would change that. Look out for your own people.

Why Protest the Church?

Gay activists are protesting several churches, most pronounced being the LDS Church, because they are angry about losing the ability to wed each other in California. Members of the LDS Church contributed nearly half of the fund to support Prop 8 in California. It is fair enough that gay activists should be angry about losing an election. It is also fair enough for them to believe that they have the right to marry each other. Although I disagree with them, I can concede that they believe it is their right.

I believe that it is not a fundamental right for a man to marry a man. A person's homosexual tendencies are certainly something they have a right to act upon in the privacy of their own home. I do not believe those tendencies make that person any different from me in the eyes of the law. Therefore, I do not believe the law should extend to a person with homosexual tendencies any more protection than it extends to me. I do not have the right to marry a man, two women, or a goat. I do agree that, by law, those rights could be extended to me. But I do not believe that they have to be extended to me. That is because they are not fundamental rights, such as the right to speak freely without censorship from the government.

But even that right, as fundamental as it is, can be restricted where it interferes with substantial and critical societal norms, such as safety, and in some instances, decency. For example, one is not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because to extend that right would harm those in the theater and cause the government to exert resources that it otherwise shouldn't have to. This is just one example of a societal concern that trumps certain fundamental rights, and is not exclusive. There are numerous other societal concerns that would trump other fundamental rights.

Marriage is one of those rights that is beneficial to society, but which society can define. If society determines that certain types of marriage are harmful to society, then society has every right and responsibility to curb the exercise of the right to marry. In order for society to make that determination, certain elements in that society must be free to exert influence and pressure, in other words, to exercise its right to speek freely on matters of societal concern. This is what happened here.

Now, gay activists have the same right to try to exert influence and pressure on society to see things its way. They certainly exercised that right, and are continuing to do so. What I find rather humorous on one hand and hypocritical on the other, is that they feel that they should attempt to exert that influence on churches. I find this humorous because I consider it to be a great waste of their time and energy. See, the Church believes that God's will is that we should attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage. There are a number of reasons for this, and you are certainly welcome to speak with a member of the LDS Church to find out why. But if the Church believes this is God's will, and the Church believes that it is led by a prophet of God, then all the protesting in the world will not change the Church's stance.

There are two things I find hypocritical. First, this ridiculous allegation that the Church and its members are bigoted. This coming from a group who is protesting because it thinks religion has no place in this debate. People who espouse homosexuality as OK have adopted a religious stance, whether they want to call it by some other term. They believe that it is OK, and we believe that it is not. But, in the rhetoric, the bigotry comes only from those who claim that it is not OK?

Second, gay activists are calling for the IRS to strip the Church of its tax exempt status. Yet, how many of their organizations are paying taxes on the funds they raised in opposition to the proposition? A church is a social institution, established to promote social values. When those social values are threatened in the political arena, must the Church be expected to simply stand aside, while those values which it promotes and holds dear are threatened? Look at the flip side. Gay organizations are established to promote societal values. When those values are threatened in the political arena, must those organizations be expected to simply stand aside?

All I ask is for some intellectual honesty. If you decide to embrace a lifestyle that you know is offensive to certain religions, don't go demanding that those religions change their doctrines to accept your lifestyle. Live what you believe, try for political change, and try to convince society to accept you. But don't demand acceptance where you, at the same time, refuse to offer it.

Sour Grapes

Be careful what you wish for...


1. Change. Change is nice... if you save enough of it up, you can divide it up between the kids for a good time at Silver Dollar City. Change is not so fun, however, when you have to scrape it together to pay for gas for the next few days. Change is in the air, and unfortunately, it's giving off a rather foul odor. A radio commentator accidentally stated that "Obama is rewriting history!" How's that for a flub of the day.

2. Hope. Hope is nice... if there is a chance of it being realized. Hope is not so nice when it's all you've got. I had once hoped that I might make a few bucks, and could give back to others, in appreciation for their assistance in getting me here. I now hope I can make enough bucks to make up for the bigger chunk of change I'll be losing by making those few bucks.

3. A New America. That would be nice... if it means protecting my liberty and letting me enrich others with my own ambitious attempts to better my situation. It would not be so nice if means standing in line behind everyone else who is waiting for the next bread crust to be tossed his way.

Looking for the positives...

1. This is a corner-turning election. Obama inspired many people who have otherwise felt invisible in a political sense to become politically active. Blacks and minorities will hopefully see that we are not a latently racist people. Now, when a person is elected president despite his/her minority status, then we will have arrived somewhere great.

2. Kudos to California, Arizona, Arkansas, and (I think?) Florida for recognizing the importance of protecting the sanctity of families and the rights of children to be raised in a loving home with a father and a mother committed to each other.

3. Republicans can now soul-search for why they have strayed so far from those core principles that made us so strong and attractive. The other side doesn't have them. But because they cannot be found here, people will go to whomever promises them the moon. Get back to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, and constitutional directive. Realize that your biases are what killed you. Who could have beat Obama on the economy? How about the guy that deals with economic issues for a living? Sounds great, except that he's a Mormon! He may be a Mormon, but it took morons to give him the boot.

The Great Tent Approach is fine, so long as those under the tent can agree to the core principles. Trying to redefine your party is fine, too. Just don't do it merely for the sake of prolonging the life of the party. I always get nervous when Republicans start talking about what we can do to attract more people. That usually means "what can we compromise in order to win?". If you are going to redefine the party, get back to those principles stated above. If they are true principles of good government, then people will see them, see that they work, and then want to associate. If you just look for what's going to attract the most people, you will be redefining continually ad nauseum, because people are fickle and lazy, and fickle and lazy people tend to drift with the wind of the 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!

Scary Thoughts for Halloween

Remember when the Reid and Pelosi wanted be the de facto president? Remember that? They thought that if they legislated an end to the war, the real President shouldn't be able to call them on it. Remember that? (Check this old post.) Fortunately, they quickly discovered a small thing we call the Constitution which provided a little check on the legislature. The dynamic duo were muffled and the war continued unhindered.

With a vote for Obama, there will be very little need for that pesky little Constitution. There will no longer be a check on the majority. And those now in power who have been chomping at the bit to get busy spreading the wealth (other's wealth) will have nothing to stop them. Oh sure, there's that pesky little thing we call the Supreme Court, but because it is conservative, it is pretty bound by that little constitution thing to deciding only constitutional things. It can't veto stupid legislation, or legislation that merely destroys that pesky little thing we call capitalism.

If the pollsters have their way, we will soon have a socialist lawyer running the "free" world. He and his ilk have long longed to be more like Europe, to place equality above liberty. He uses words such as "middle class" and "wealthy" to avoid pesky little words such as "proletariat" and "bourgoise" to avoid letting his redness slip.

McCain concerned conservatives because of his willingness to sell out, er, reach out, across the aisle. However, his history has demonstrated that he supports the traditional American dream. That is that we can pursue whatever legitimate course of employment or venture we think will get us where we want to be. This requires an adherence to the basic concept that, except for government's inept interference, the markets will adjust themselves, the wealthy, and those growing wealthy, will employ others, in their quest to acquire more wealth. Based on McCain's history, we can feel somewhat comfortable that when he reaches across the aisle, it will be to those Democrats who also adhere to these ideals.

On the other hand, Obama's history leaves us with little hope that we can attain what he and the current elite already have. The best we can do is hope for a few crumbs of bread. As a member of the extreme upper-lower/lower-middle class, I want to hope for better. I want to hope that I can eventually see success in business, such that I am making good money. While I am not looking to become rich, I would sure like to become so should good fortune fall my way. I don't see that under Obama. His history of associations and comments seems to speak otherwise.

I know a man who told his prospective employer that he didn't want to be paid more than $xx,000. Why? Our already existing socialist programs have been very good to him and his family. Should he make more than that, he stands to lose it all, which would require that he make much more in order to make up for those benefits. See, socialism creates large gaps between just getting by and getting ahead. As the government gives, we can get by on $xx,000, but if we make more than that, we actually do worse, unless we can get to $xxx,000. Since that is a very difficult gap to overcome, why try? Even if we do, we are then rewarded with a much higher tax burden "to help those who are following". So we then have to hit $x,000,000 before we can really breathe. The more we socialize, the more difficult that gap becomes.

That's about all my scary thoughts for now.

This wig hurts.

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?

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."