Incredible Christmas Story!

I found this this morning and think it supports what I was saying two posts down. Tell me there hasn't been significant and tangible progress in Iraq because of our involvement there. It can be said that this was always possible, that it could have eventually come to this, but there was no such movement in this direction until George W. Bush made the decision to go in and oust Hussein. Even the kids notice the improvements.

Merry Christmas To All!!!

God's blessings on all who visit here. Thanks to all for prayers and concern shown for my recent forced vacation.

Insightful

I found this piece this morning, and found it insightful as well as humorous. I especially liked the author's notice of how true liberty brings out people of "courage", that despotism never does. Comparing the Bush's shoe-throwing attacker to the courageous Dixie Chicks is right on the money. If Bush had been half the demon depicted by the left, fewer lefties would've exercised their free speech rights. It's easy to be courageous when there's no real risk in doing so. As the author suggests, that the shoe-thrower lobbed his loafers at all is a sign that Bush's policies in Iraq have successfully brought about the freedom he sought for them.

You're F**kin' Kidding Me!

The title of this post represented the first words out of my mouth when my employer laid me off this past Friday morning. I didn't say a whole lot more than that. Needless to say, my emotions quickly rose to a dangerous temperature. When emotions rise, intelligence dips, and had I tried to speak again, the result would have been either incredibly pathetic or incredibly illegal. So, as I turned in my inventory, I did so in a number of trips to the car instead of one trip loading up a cart, so that I might walk it off as best as possible, that I might regain some composure before they seek to elicit from me any comments. If I was more like Paul the Apostle, I would rejoice in this episode allowing me the opportunity to act like a Christian for His Glory. But to my shame, I think only of how easily I could render them permanently justified in parking in the handicapped space. God grant me peace.

But this situation also affords me the opportunity of once again affirming my position that we are where we are as a result of actions taken or not taken, decisions made one way or the other. Can we sustain the injury of such unceremonious treatment? What can we do to insure that we can? It is a necessary concern that each of us is as totally covered against major inconveniences as we can make ourselves. It is a task that should have total priority. The reason for this is that one never knows what life has in store. Maybe it's not a layoff, but a catastrophic illness or injury. Can we survive it financially? If not, why not? What the heck are you doing with your money, with your life, that you can't secure this responsibility?

If you are an employee, this warning must be taken more to heart. One gives up at least eight hours, plus whatever time is used up by being employed, including lunch breaks and commuter time. One also gives up the full right to determine when one can take time off for vacations, sick time, personal time, how many holidays are honored. One is limited by pay to living a life limited by that level of pay. In other words, one's life is not one's own. The trade is not equitable, unless you feel your time, that 10-12 total hours devoted to a job, is worth only what your employer is willing to pay you for renting it.

The main thing to keep in mind is that there is nothing more one's employer owes than that to which both parties agreed upon one's hiring. And that goes especially for keeping you employed. Think about that. Did anyone negotiate the permanence of their position upon hiring? Thus, one can be let go at any time, no matter what your union rep tells you. Plus, the employer might be stupid and running the business into the ground and the business folds. Or, the company could be bought out and your position eliminated. The bottom line is, how are you prepared for this? Just as death, the loss of one's job comes like a thief in the night. At least it feels that way.

There's one overriding purpose for having a job: that's to have money that one can invest in order to provide another, hopefully passive, form of income that will at least match one's wage at the J.O.B. As it is being developed, all debt should be paid down at once. Then, with debt removed, more investing can take place. Learning to make money work for you is a study worth mastering.

Anyway, I haven't been practicing what I've preached to the best of my abilities. The loss of this meager gig is troubling. There's no doubt about that. But I am not without resources and the mortgage will be paid before we run out of dough. Though I'd like to find a situation quickly, we can handle things for an extended period. Not good enough by a long shot, but fortunately, we've managed to get to this point, so that shows that better things can be had if effort is actually exerted. The opportunities are endless and there truly is no excuse for poverty, none for not being prepared to fend it off should the time come.

What War?

I stumbled upon this today. Tell me there's no war on Christianity or religion. Of course it's not just Christian or religious words that have been removed from the Children's dictionary. A variety of fruits and veggies, common names of plants and words related to English history and culture have also been removed. Many of the words still have value and are descriptive, having a place in the common lexicon. Some of the words that have been put in their place are, first of all, not words but are phrases, but also not likely to need a dictionary for modern kids to know. They're computer related and most kids with a modest introduction to the technology has at least heard the words, if not used them themselves.

But to remove all those religious terms is really appalling, since there's little left around from which kids can get a sense of the all-permeating aspect of God. Nonsensical "scholars", who have yet to find anything that has adequately replaced the lack of Christianity in the schools and public square, have taken another step toward the descent of Western Culture by banishing these words from the lives of the next generation.

Rights vs "Rights"

In a recent post, Shedding Light, I ruminated on a few aspects of the homosexual agenda situation and in the subsequent comments once again dealt with questions concerning why I should feel threatened by the country someday granting marital "rights" to homosexuals. One of my concerns regards the clashing of our well established right to practice and express our religious faith vs. the "right" to openly live as a homosexual and go through life pretending there is no difference whatsoever between them and heterosexuals, otherwise known as "normal people", forcing them to act as if they believe it, too. And without a doubt, clash we will, just as we are doing now. This piece from Illinois Family lists a number of case studies where that clash has actually played out, and how the already well established right has too often been dealt a blow (pardon the expression) in favor of the fantasy "right". In addition, there is also the right of free association that will be expected to take a back seat to the rights of these sadly confused people.

I offer this from the same newsletter as a kind of companion piece that shows the determination of the homosex activists to force the rest of us to comply with their selfish sex-based demands. They have a friend in Barry Obama and likely most of the Dems that he has chosen to staff his cabinet.

Another Good Idea

I found this via an email from Culture Campaign. Say what you will about the Roman Catholic Church, but they do tend to stand firmly behind their beliefs. That's something that the rest of Christendom could emulate. It's true that they have their liberal factions, and apparently more Catholics voted for Obama than didn't. But when it comes to those things that define what it means to be a Roman Catholic, the heirarchy doesn't bend. I like that.

Here, we read that the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, led by Chicago's Cardinal George, have re-iterated their support for the unborn and have done so in the strictest of terms. Again, I find it gratifying that there are some that are committed to good as they see it without worldly influences dictating their direction. Read Cardinal George's statement here.

The issue of abortion is often described as a "wedge" issue. I've even heard Newt Gingrich use the term, though which issues he considers "wedgie", I'm not entirely sure. It goes without saying that for me, and many, many others, human life cannot be considered a "wedge" issue. I was set to look for a third party when it was said that McCain was considering a pro-abortion VP. I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice. Anyone who believes abortion is a wedge issue needs to have their moral compass checked for defects.

Good Ideas

Over at American Descent, Geoffrey made a comment about other countries having good ideas. Though it was in context apart from what I'm about to relate, this Russian idea is one worth adopting.

As mentioned in his book America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn speaks of the depleting populations around the Western World. The linked piece points out Russia's horrible birth rate, largely due to a very high rate of abortion. The United States still has a birthrate that is high enough to replace those that die off, though at a far lower rate than in years passed. Though many simply choose to have fewer kids than in earlier times, abortion also plays a part.

So, aside from the obvious immorality of abortion (which compounded the previous immorality of promiscuity), we also face a decline in population that threatens us economically. How much less would our Social Security problem be with the 40-50 million aborted lives allowed to live and grow into productive citizens paying into the system?

The best part of the article mentions an abortion free day, where women are schooled in being good mothers. What a concept!

More AGW Stuff

These articles are from a Brit who apparently has quite the rep for debunking the AGW stuff. The open letters to McCain are especially detailed in responding to common positions by the AGW folk. For those concerned with polar bears, the second part speaks to that near the end. If desired, one can begin with the first letter and it will continue on until the fourth, or just pick one and go. The first two deal with the goofy AGW beliefs, while the second two speak to policy proposals based on those goofy beliefs. Anyone who wishes to counter the Viscount should supply some type of link or source.

A Very Happy Thanksgiving To All!!!

I take keyboard under hand to wish all who visit here the best of wishes as we begin another holiday season. There is so much for which we Americans must be thankful. Feel free to list any of special personal noteworthiness.

I thank God Almighty for my beautiful wife, for my beautiful daughter, for my beautiful step-daughters. I thank Him for having given me life in a country that is the best the world has to offer. I thank Him for the family from which I came, and the family into which I entered through marriage. Everything else is gravy.

Bring It On Indeed

I saw this AmericanThinker article and just had to post a link to it so that everyone can see an example of extreme racial bigotry and hatred. It drips with disgusting epithets and tired stereotypes.

Just kidding. It's really about Global Warming. Just a little joke for my own amusement. Geoffrey thinks AT is racist, among other equally goofy things, so I had to have my little joke. But give it a read. Despite Geoffrey's unsupported opinions about AT, which hosts pieces by a veritable cornucopia of writers and people who live in the real world, this piece is by a physicist who understands the subject, though likely not to Geoffrey's lofty and fantasy world standards. It's more than denial of the Goracle, it's a counter to what apparently passes on the left for consensus and science. But then, what do I know? I don't understand these things. I wonder if this guy has any peer reviewed papers? (That's like God's own impramatur.)

Shedding More Light

I was saddened by this news regarding eHarmony. Michelle Malkin nails the situation perfectly.

Of course what we're looking at here is, as Michelle states it, bullying by the homosex faction. Also as stated, there are tons of homosex match-making sites from which a desperate homosexual can choose. In the same manner, there are likely tons of photographers, or at least quite a variety, in New Mexico that two lovestruck lesbians needn't intimidate a Christian into either taking the job or suing her for spite. It is plainly a matter of one insignificantly small group forcing their morality down the throats of the overwhelming majority. ("Forcing down throats"? Jeez, I hope that doesn't conjure homoerotic thoughts in the oversensitive mind of Geoffrey! So much elicits such imagery for him, poor guy.) These sad unfortunates are gaining special consideration by certain segments of the legal community that supersede already established Constitutional rights to free association and the exercise of religion.

This is a manifestation of homosexual guilt. It is this guilt that drives them to insist upon their "rights", rights that don't truly exist (a Constitutional right to sodomy?), and their guilt won't be truly assuaged until every living being believes what they down deeply don't believe themselves. And they intend to make for every opponent a living hell to endure until they get their way.

Bigotry my ass.

Shedding Light

This is a post about homosexuality. I want to say right out of the box that I don’t intend to temper my comments, so the more sensitive should beware. I was provoked to touch on this topic by a variety of reasons. The first regards my last post, “Stock In K-Y Should Soar”. Geoffrey’s first comments referred to it as a “homoerotic” reference that he found interesting. Clearly the title suggests a forced anal assault, so I wonder how that sounds “erotic” to Geoffrey. Perhaps he gives himself away?

But that is just the beginning. After the election tragedy, I was understandably down and blogging was not feasible. I could not concentrate on how to express my dismay that so many Americans are so stupid (“We didn’t like Bush, McCain is just like him, so we’re voting for something worse, damn it!”). What little I did post now looks weak and beneath the low standards I’ve set for myself.

So I decided at one point to review the sites under the heading “Left Ones” to see how they reacted to the election. As far as I had gotten, any celebrations I found were as shallow and substance free as the entire Obama campaign and its support. But then I went to Geoffrey’s site, where I found this little gem. In another screed of untruths and mis-characterizations, Geoffrey continues with his nonsense regarding hatred at the heart of people like Neil from 4Simpsonsblog. In the comments section, he gets reinforcement in his drivel from others, particularly Alan, who lurks about without posting comments, except on blogs where he might find more like minded individuals with whom to find similar reinforcement. That’s OK. He can post where he likes.

But I had thought some progress was being made between Alan and me after a long and civil discussion that took place at ER’s blog. In that discussion, he made reference to what he termed my “jackassery”. Yet at Geoff’s blog, his own jackassery was as out as he is.

But I digress.

No, wait. I’m not digressing at all. You see the point of Geoff’s blog was to re-iterate the need to continue the fight against hate-filled, hypocritical bigots supporting “discrimination” against the homosexual community.

But the hate is coming from their side, and if not for the Fred Phelps’ of the world, it would be overwhelmingly from their side. There’s the hate for the real Word of God. There’s the hate for those who live by that Word. There’s the hate for thousands of years of tradition. There’s the hate for truth, particularly in the realm of science, as there is none that supports their insistence that they are born that way and beyond the ability to change. There’s the hate for the notion that should such evidence ever be found, that it still wouldn't justify their behavior. There’s the hate for settling for what Thomas Sowell recently called their most solid ground, that everyone should respect their privacy. There’s the hate for those who rightly feel that they have no right to impose their morality upon us, as they insist we not do so with them. And of course, there’s this hate. Add to that the recent story regarding the old woman accosted by another “tolerant” Prop 8 protester.

That’s where one finds the real hatred. It is NOT hatred to relate the true teachings of the Judeo-Christian doctrine. To remind others, as Neil says, that:

* 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
* 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
* 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
* 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
* In short, to advance “same sex marriage” is to be perpetually shaking your fist at God in rebellion.

It is NOT hatred to consider how state sanctioning of homosexual marriage would naturally lead to marital arrangements of any other kind, and to have legitimate concern for how that would impact our culture. It is NOT hatred to feel that such a drastic change to the definition of the word and institution of marriage should NOT be based on lies and unproven beliefs. This article describes one of the very first lies that started it all. And it is definitely NOT hatred to find silly, selfish and immature the notion that marriage and all the laws based upon it should be changed to satisfy the demands of such a tiny portion of the population (2%) and how they choose to pleasure themselves.

Sowell is right about what their best argument is. All the rest are lame and/or more easily rectified by addressing each point individually. What they hope for, be it marriage or civil unions, has little hope for improving society or can be abused and likely in ways we have yet to imagine. So I say to them, back up and consider how ridiculous it is to let your urges dictate any legislative change, and how weak you are for letting them rule yourselves.

Finally, another point or two:

It is said by some that the victory of Prop 8 represents a growing tolerance as the 52% that passed it is smaller than previous votes on the subject. I say it shows that woeful lack of resolve to do the right thing no matter how difficult, how much time it might take, or how expensive it might be, that shows itself in issues from fighting radical Islamic terrorism to raising honorable and disciplined young men and women who abstain from sexual activity before marriage.

Geoffrey finished his diatribe by proclaiming that he will not remain silent in supporting homosexual rights as he feels he did by not posting on Prop 8 before the election. First, whereas he used to feel it wasn't his place to dictate to those in other states, he now feels he must, that the principle is too important. That's pretty funny. Do you feel that way on an international level? If not, why not? Truth, actual truth, not your truth, should be proclaimed everywhere regardless of man-made boundaries. Secondly, rest assured that those of us on this, the righteous side of the issue will also not desist in opposing the misguided beliefs of the homosexual community and their enablers.

Stock In K-Y Should Soar!

Well, I guess congrats are in order. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for those. I'm far too concerned about giving my condolences to a nation astray.

I'm not bigoted enough to think that this is a great day for America simply because the president-elect has darker skin than all those who went before him. I'm far more concerned about the content of his character, a character already suspect because of alliances as well as philosophies. I'm far more concerned for all the babies that won't stand a chance. I'm concerned that the freedom of religious expression will be further eroded in favor of how a minute percentage of the population chooses to pleasure themselves. I'm concerned about even more corporations moving overseas due to even more burdensome taxation. I'm concerned about the suppression of speech under the guise of "Fairness". I'm concerned about foreign wackjobs teeing off on the United States, her interests and allies, now that their choice for our president has won.

Is there enough lubricant available to lessen our pain?

New Blog Addition

Announcing a new addition to "Right Ones" called American Descent. Please give it a look.

GASP! How Dare He!

Over at Mark's blog, Casting Pearls Before Swine, commenter Wade Moline had this bit of insight about Barry Obumble:

"...he has said the constitution doesn't give government enough power, he has said this country is fundamentally flawed because the constitution is fundamentally flawed."

After reading that, I thought about how in the execution of the War on Terror, President George W. Bush was constantly accused of usurping our rights and, heaven save us! trampling on the Constitution of these here United States of America. Now we hear that Barry is less than pleased with the manner in which the Constitution was written. His words suggest change indeed. But is this the type of change any true American should be expecting? Does the hope expressed by Barely and his minions include a hope to change our Constitution to give the federal government more power? I was under the impression that it was a document designed to limit government's power. This from a constitutional "scholar". Where are all those Bush haters now? Willingly bending over, I'm guessing. "Thank you, may I have another!"

One Will Make This Likely

The article in this link is about California's Proposition 8, which will establish a California State Constitution definition of marriage that will void the decision of radical state court justices which declared homosexual marriages legal and equal to traditional marriage. (I stole it from Neil's blog. He finds the best stuff.) The article could be another in the series of downsides of homosexual marriage that I've run in the past. But I present it for another purpose.

Of all the myriad reasons to oppose an Obama presidency, of which there are likely at least twenty as well, possibly the number one reason for me is the question of judicial nominees. As far as the Supreme Court, we already know that ol' Barry opposed the appointment of Alito and Roberts. We also know that he prefers another Ginsburg or Breyer or Souter. And we've gotten more confirmation, in the form of a 2001 radio interview, that the Obamanable one views the Constitution as most view used toilet paper. Being smarter than the authors of that noble note, he finds it greatly lacking.

I say all this to note that with an Obama presidency (GACK!), the likelihood of the type of dangers listed in the linked article is greatly enhanced, and horribly so. His vision for America is blatantly unAmerican. And he will ram that nightmare of a vision down the throats of normal Americans unaffected by his empty, but expertly delivered rhetoric (his only legitimate ability, used for ill rather than good) with the help of justices and judges handpicked from Baraboo, Wisconsin's RB,B&B Museum (or their winter home in Florida).

He thinks he's a uniter (which, according to spellcheck, isn't a word). Read the linked article again and you'll have a sense of just how divided our nation will become should the polls attract more idiots than people of good sense and Barry Obooboo's judicial nominations be confirmed. And that's just one issue. Add to it things like taxation, illegal immigration, abortion, foreign policy, and then consider he'll complete the double triumvirate of himself, Pelosi and Reid, and with his appointments the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The chances are very high that his thoughtless and buffalo'd lapdog supporters will find themselves wondering, "What the hell was I thinkin'?" Please. Obama supporters. GET A CLUE!

For Les

Bulls 108
Bucks 95

That's all I wanted to say.

Darn! Can't Blame Bush!

I lifted this from the Heritage Foundation from whom I receive email newsletters. Of course that means that it is all crap and probably racist, because y'know, if it's conservative, then it's biased and can't be trusted. Yet...

Another Stolen From Neil

I see stuff like this, and I just have to post it, too. If I didn't hate spam, and knew how to do it, I'd send this.

Stolen From Sister Toldjah's Blog

This thread at Sister Toldjah's reminds me of a discussion I once had somewhere regarding the fact that some people just shouldn't vote. That's not to say that I think the average American should in any way be prevented. Of course not. That would be wrong. But if there was some way to convince idiots to stay home and stop pretending like they know what they're talking about, that would be great. It would mean absolutely no Democratic votes of course, but if that's what has to happen, then so be it. In other words, if Dems really want to display their patriotism, they should stay home on election day. That one selfless act on each of their parts would be regarded by me (at least) as a true indication of patriotism unlike anything they could ever show by voting for Obama.

Of course there are socialists out there. They know that Obama's a socialist and that his policies reflect a socialist bent, so yeah, they'd be voting from an educated perspective. And there are America haters out there who think everything is our fault and as Barry has friendships with some people with some celebrity who are hateful of our country, then yes, they too are educated enough to know that an Obama presidency could be sympathetic to their pathetic sensibilities. And of course, those who insist on sex without consequence know which candidate will protect their ability to kill their kids.

But as the link to Sister Toldjah's blog clearly shows, as well as the links from that post of hers, the depth and breath of stupidity amongst Obama supporters is the stuff of legend. In my own corner of the world, I have been astounded by reasons people have given me for supporting the Obamanable One. A co-worker thinks voting for a good speaker is a good thing because you'll know what he's talking about. I suggested that perhaps he would have then supported one of the greatest speakers of the 20th century, Adolph Hitler. Another aquaintance was swayed by Obama's position on ethanol, due to the fact that we grow lots of corn here in the People's Republic of Illinois. I was stupified. Ethanol. That's his issue. Jeez. And of course, the usual "We need a change" without a clear explanation of just what the hell that means or how it would look. Just shoot me.

I could go on. Believe me, I could. But the question might be, what of you rightwingers? Surely there are rightwing counterparts to those you mock? And I'd say, get your own blog, ya loser! But seriously, if you put two chimps in a booth and they voted, the one who punched Johnny Mac's ticket is, by virtue of his choice, the smarter chimp. And it's not because the chimp is well versed on economics or foreign policy, but rather, considering their penchant for throwing pooh, they see Obama for what he is.

But truly, more stupid than those highlighted in Sis' post are the educated and political of the Democrat community. They see Obama for what he is but their hatred for the right leads them to deny it or ignore it or to pretend it isn't true. And what is Obama? For all his sorry policy positions, his alliances, his world view, he's simply wrong for this country. Don't be stupid.

Stolen From Neil's Blog...

...to present to my gentle readers here. This guy might very well be just another hack, like Thomas Sowell, but these same points have been presented by many, many others, and are legitimate concerns, except for those who insist on ignoring them in order to thwart right wingers at all costs. Brown's list seems a bit short, however, but as it stands, there is plenty that should provide a reason to absolutely anyone who is willing to vote based on objective review of reality. I tell ya, folks. This is likely the definitive "lesser of two evils" election that any of us old enough to vote has ever seen or will likely ever see. All other such elections will be compared to this one. This is the gold standard of "lesser of two evils" voting. And that Johnny Mac is indeed the lesser is without question for all of Brown's reasons and then some.

Tidbits

In this morning's paper I read that :

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the first major world leader to face voters since the global financial meltdown, led his Conservative Party to victory Tuesday, Canadian media projected. It was predicted the Conservatives would win enough Parliament seats to at least form another minority government."

Italy, Germany, France and now this. Cool. Seems our foreign friends are beginning to reject what some in this nation strangely think is a good thing.

Also, a letter writer opines that these were the facts on June 12, 2007:

-Stock market and 401(k)s at all time highs
-Unempolyment was at a 25 yr low
-Federal tax revenue was at an all-time high
-Income taxes at an all time low
-Federal deficit was down 50% from previous year
-Interest rates were down
-Home values were up
-Gas was about 2.35 per gallon

The writer goes on to point out that Bush's policies haven't changed in the last year and a half. "The only change has been the Democratic takeover of Congress." He then re-iterates what conservatives have been saying for awhile, that Bush's mistake was not weilding the veto pen on all those massively pork-laden and earmark burdened bills that came across his desk. But yeah, let's vote in more Democrats. Because we need change. Because prosperity just doesn't work.

Barry O Ads

I found this series of ads in an email this morning. The lot of them takes just a few minutes to view. It's basically a series of questions that doubters have of an Obama presidency that need to be answered before November. But then, he can't answer them in a manner that will dispell those doubts. We've already got spin.

Sowell's Perspective

From one who's likely smarter than all of us, I offer this, this, this, and this. Hmmm. Maybe "idiot" isn't the right word for Barry.

Anti-Religion From LBJ

This Townhall.com article expresses sentiments with which I agree regarding the muzzle placed on political speech from the pulpit. The efforts of LBJ were without a doubt a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. It's a wonder that he was not soundly rejected for stifling free speech. But then, it's not uncommon for the left to redefine and re-interpret the Constitution to better suit their motivations.

The tax exempt status of the church was intended to honor the importance of faith in our lives. Before this nefarious deed was forced upon us, the church was always a voice that guided in a positive manner. Indeed, the church was a major factor in persuading the populace of the importance of independence prior to our fight for it in the early days of our nation. It stood against slavery throughout our early history and supported the movement against segregation. The church was our national conscience.

But then Johnson found himself and his policy proposals opposed by the church, so he moved to silence them or make them pay. Many churches are small. Possibly most of them. Every dime counts and to have to choose between preaching against the proponents of harmful policy or paying taxes runs counter to the intent of their exempt status. In other words, it is unAmerican. We have not been helped in the least by efforts to remove faith from the public square. Our culture wallows in the gutter as a reult. We need to support any efforts to overturn this self-serving act and return to a time when preachers were free to speak out against politicians directly if they so feel the need, without the risk of losing precious funds to taxation.

Some are concerned about the influence on people of a Bible-thumping preacher who's beliefs might be anti-science, based on that which cannot be proven. But this lame argument deflects attention from whether or not the idea proposed has merit. I think Fred Phelps is a good example of improper preaching being rejected, and his is rejected by people of faith more strongly than those without faith. Such concerns are baseless. I encourage everyone to add this to the list of things to change when contacting representatives. The government overstepped their Constitutional boundaries when they instituted this horrible policy.

Fast Eddie Gone

Today it was announced that Paul Newman passed away at age 83. What a great actor. Hard to believe he didn't garner more Oscars. Newman was a flaming liberal. He was so liberal that he ended up on Nixon's "enemies list", an honor of which he was most proud. But there's one thing about him that stood out to me. That was his generosity. Unlike some libs I know, Newman spent his own money on his charitable causes. His "Newman's Own" food products are common place. We use some of them on the Marshall Art estate. All the profits went to charity and reports are that this one venture resulted in donations of more than $175 million. He also established camps for kids with cancer in several states and Europe. That's a man who gave, and he gave directly. May he rest in God's Peace.

View This!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

A Good One

I heard this today on the Sandy Rios radio show in my area. A caller was speaking of the debate and McCain's decision to suspend his campaign to focus on the financial mess. The caller, an elderly black woman, was commenting on Obama's desire to NOT postpone or cancel the debate tomorrow. She asked if Obama intended to show up by himself, to which Sandy had no answer. Then the woman says, "If he does, it'll be an empty suit debating an empty chair." I'm glad I was stopped for a train or I might have run off the road.

Just To Clear Things Up...

There have been, since news of Palin's daughter's pregnancy, comments regarding such an event happening at all, given the political and religious leanings of the hot governor. Alan Colmes mentioned it to Dick Morris just the other night. The crux of the biscuit is that because one speaks on social issues from a particular perspective, that one must never fall short of the ideals of that perspective and should that one falter, the faltering proves the worthlessness of that perspective. The problem is, of course, that one never spoke of one's own ability to inhabit perfection, but only that the perspective presented represents a higher ideal from which we would all benefit should everyone adhere. Indeed, another risk of faltering is to then be labelled a hypocrite for engaging in behavior said to be taboo.

Neither of these is accurate of course. We on the right are every bit as subject to temptation as anyone else. It's just that we don't pretend our shortcomings give us justification to redefine right and wrong as they have been traditionally understood. We don't pretend there is anything so drastically different about the human condition in this day and age that does so either.

And we don't claim perfection. At best, we only hope to emulate perfection as closely as humanly possible, knowing full well that perfection is unattainable and that as human beings we fall woefully short.

None of which has anything to do with proclaiming messages regarding family values and the like. Those messages are sound and the consequences of adherence or ignorance are obvious for all honest people to see. That won't change no matter how many people there are who believe that they can "change the rules".

And what of hypocrisy? That's the easy part. If one preaches "do good" without any intention of doing so himself, that's hypocrisy. If one preaches "do good" and intends himself to live the message but at some point succumbs to temptation, that is human failing. Far more than the former is the latter likely to feel shame as a result for the latter still believes in the message and knows of its truth, a truth rejected by the former.

Palin has been victimized in this typical manner. It's a minor thing when taking into account her entire experience since accepting McCain's invitation. It is a ploy and a very weak one, but one that annoys me with its transparency whenever it's played.

Like I Said, There's Football.

What's with this Desean Jackson idiot? If I were coaching the Eagles, I'd fine that jerk 10K for such a stupid, pathetic, self-promoting and egotistical jackass move. It's bad enough they feel the need to perform stupid end-zone celebrations, but shouldn't the children get into the end zone first? He cost the team 6. And no, it doesn't matter that Westbrook punched it in on the next play. The kid's still a jackass and he still deserves a fine.

So Blamin' gets braggin rights and I gets gaggin rights. Damn Bears. I gotta little advice for Lovie: how 'bout adjusting at half time? How about trying to figure how the opponent will adjust to you?! Damn Bears. I hope they don't waste that Matt Forte kid. He don't run like no rookie.

So who's this Brett guy they used to have in Green Bay? I think these guys are the youngest team in the NFL. A good nucleus of dudes up dare, ya hey.

Minnesota and Detroit. BWa ha ha ha ha. Same ole' same ole'. Damn Bears.

That's it for my division. How bout yours? Oh yeah. Cowboys suck!

Of Course, There's Football

Today I witnessed a wonderful thing. The Chicago Bears b-slapped the Indianapolis Colts. It was beautiful. After the torture of watching their pre-season comedy skits, they came out and played like the Bears we all hope to see every stinkin' year. Though their first series began horribly, they ended up controlling clock with the fine running of rookie running back Matt Forte. He's the first rookie to start the first game of a season since Sweetness, Walter Payton did it. But Walter carried 8 times for no yards. Forte ran about 20 times for around 120 yds. and a TD. Kyle Orton didn't dazzle, but he made no mistakes and ran the offense in a more than competent manner, which was made to look relatively easy through the fine work of a make-shift O-line. If Forte can run like this throughout the season, the defense won't be overworked, and they can beat the crap out of opponents like they did tonight. And as long as Devin Hester doesn't make any more bonehead plays by being overly cocky, our special teams will continue to be as special as they have been for quite a while. Next week, at Carolina. We'll see.

In the meantime, both Chicago baseball teams are in first place in their respective divisions. The Cubs have been losing a lot, but so have Milwaukee and St. Louis (thanks guys). And the Sox have been spinning their wheels and though they've gotten a bit of breathing room (2.5 games in front since this morning. Didn't see anything baseball related today), they've basically been matching the Twins loss for loss and win for win. That's OK as long as we're in 1st. Tough break losing Carlos Quentin's bat for a while. Prolly won't be back until deep in playoffs. (36 HR/100RBI) Both teams in the playoffs would be way cool. The deeper they go, the cooler it will be.

Sports are cool.

Books Galore

This is depressing. I go over to Geoffrey's place to answer his challenge. I read the freakin' Greenwald piece (gag) and compose a thoughtful and insightful response, only to inadvertently delete it. I hate when that happens. So now I have to do it all over again.

Later.

For now, just to have something to post, I've decided to talk about the books I'm reading.

To begin, I had four books going at one time; not a usual situation for me. When we vacationed in Charleston, I took Moby Dick and found it a bit of a slog. As if it would help, I also had The Federalist on hand. That takes a bit of work. We had gone to Patriot's Point to check out the USS Yorktown and arrange a Ft. Sumter visit and whilst checking out the large gift shop there, I was checking out the book aisle. A gentleman hands one to me saying, "This is the only book you need to buy." His name was Dr. Art Schmitt and the book was his. A War With No Name-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-A Survivor's Story told his tale of his three tours of Viet Nam very early in the conflict and his subsequent dealings with his PTSD. Here's how this chopper pilot dealt with it: he became a doctor of psychology. He seemed a real nice guy, signed my book, asked how I wanted him to sign it. I felt awkward in his presence and let him know his signature was more than enough for me. I had done a quick scan of the book whilst waiting in checkout and was immediately humbled. He signed it when I went back to him to let him know I did indeed buy it.

So Schmitt's book put Moby and Hamilton (et al) on hold until I got home. Started reading Melville again and what came in the mail, but Newt's book, Real Change. I highly recommend this book. Newt lays out excellent ideas for turning our country around that I haven't heard from either party. His American Solutions web site discusses the ideas as well.

So I still have Moby and the Fed to finish, though the Fed might take awhile. But then I recall that on the shelf I have Ed Meese's book on Reagan, and a neighbor gave me a copy of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and just this past weekend, a friend left a copy of Skydog-The Duane Allman Story by Randy Poe. As if that wasn't enough, I take the daughter to Barnes & Noble and her book of choice was not available, but I find a buy two get one free selection of John Adams by David McCullough (which I had wanted), Benjamin Franklin-An American Life by Walter Isaacson, and The Language of God by Dr. Franci S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, who I believe I heard interviewed on Michael Medved's show. I'll be busy for a while. What are YOU reading?

Oops! Almost forgot. I never made it to The Last of The Mohicans, either.

Deeds Of The "Worst"

This article is like a "Part Two" of the previous post, which it pretty much is since it's by the same guy, Randall Hoven. An additional plus for me is considering how well the last one went over, this should bring lots of well documented counter arguments and/or guffaws by Dan meant to imply that he knows better, the thought of which brings guffaws from me.

But I think it should be kept in mind that the points made by Hoven are not hidden, they are not that which most are truly unaware, and they make it hard to take seriously anyone who claims that Bush is the "worst president ever". Seems to me a lot was accomplished for by a guy who's supposed to be a "moron".

But back to the fun. If the usual suspects want to dispute the points made and the sources used to support them, I'm gonna stick my neck way out there and assume they won't dispute those stats of the first paragraph. Those stats they'll likely leave alone. Let's watch.

Illegal and Unjustified

From the racist and journalistically inferior AmericanThinker.com comes this piece discussing the "lies" of the decision to invade Iraq. The source is the very Congressional document that justified the action as well as later intel.

More Lies And Slander? Not At All!

Matt Barber has a nice piece at Townhall.com. I will continue to re-print articles such as these to re-iterate just what a lowlife Obama is for his support of this vile practice. Plus, it gives me an opportunity to comment on this "above my paygrade" remark regarding when one gains human rights.

This comment alone speaks volumes about the character and courage of this pretender to the throne. I suppose I should go easy on the guy. After all, one cannot have courage of his convictions if one has no convictions. I don't mean the type of convictions his friend Tony Rezko now has, but the type by which men are measured. But what kind of weenie can't muster the courage to answer this question? That's easy. One who doesn't want to highlight that which he knows is abominable. One who doesn't want to highlight what horror he supports.

Even most pro-abortion lefties see problems with both partial-birth abortions and denying medical care for living breathing infants. Not this guy. Screw the kids, we can't deprive women their right to do away with them. Hell no. What would this nation come to if people cared about the most innocent and helpless among us?

Geoffrey said something recently along the lines of abortion not even being on the radar in this election. More's the pity for this nation. And Les has big problems with the suggestion that he and other abortion "rights" supporters are labeled by some as equal to murderers. Hopefully, they don't disagree with the heinous nature of either partial-birth or opposing BAIPA. These are fully formed infants we're talking about here.

We can set aside every other position and issue and campaign promise. None of that matters. His position on these two issues are enough for honorable men and women. Barak Obama does NOT deserve consideration for President of the United States of America. Those who support him dishonor themselves.

I can smell another bumper sticker:

It's Obamanable!

It's an Obamanation!

It's

OBAMACIDE!

NOBAMA

Litmus Test?

This Kathleen Parker article appeared in my local newspaper, but the link is to Townhall.com, which is good since my local paper's website doesn't reprint everything it printed in the paper. But anyway, Parker is considered a conservative pundit and I have found fault with her reasoning, which might cause heart palpitations in some of my liberal visitors.

Parker's concern is with the Saddleback event hosted by Rick Warren. She believes it constitutes a religious litmus test that is unAmerican. My problem with this is that this is one of those things from which the federal government is restricted, but not us. We are perfectly free to judge the worthiness of a candidate based on our own prejudices and guidelines. It is not unAmerican in the least. That is what voting is all about: voting for the candidate that we feel is the best for our nation. And in the deciding, we are free to use any "test" we so choose to satisfy our desire or anxiety regarding the course and future of the United States of America.

For myself, I enjoy knowing what shapes a candidate's world view. Upon what is it based? And if the candidate is a man/woman of faith, what faith and how does he/she understand it? Any insights into this are as important for me as their stances on the issues themselves.

It's all part of the pecking order of stats and minutia that help me determine which candidate gets my support. During the primaries, Romney's Mormonism was a mark against him. Not a big mark, because I've known a Mormon or two in my life and found them to be very Christian-like. And as it appeared he had a real shot at winning the nomination (at least for a while), I knew that his faith was not something that would be prohibitive in the face of an Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or any of the other Democratic jokers he might face in the general.

But it is a factor. I would prefer my president to be as typical of a true Bible-believing Christian as possible. I would prefer he be the type of Christian I myself strive to be. I know this probably scares some people. They might refer to Bush and make some crack about his quality (as if they were accurate in their assessment).

But the point is that we, as voters, have the right to judge candidates on their religious position as well as anything else. We, in fact, would be remiss as citizens if we ignored such things should we judge them important.

Your Chance

Lately, but not only so, I have been accused of basically having no thoughts of my own, having never educated myself on political philosophy, of relying on sources that agree with me only, of relying on biased sources that spew lies and distortions. Naturally these accusations come from those who don't quite agree with my take on things. Apparently there is a wealth of knowledge heretofor unknown to me that will illuminate my mind and guide me to the realm left of center, and this knowledge base is comprised of solid truth, facts and common sense.

Thus, I invite my left of center friends to use this thread to inform me of just where I can find this totally reliable font that will generate the paradigm shift necessary for me to be as, uh, enlightened as are they. This could be books, periodicals, TV/radio shows, whatever. But, and this is an important "but", you must demonstrate in some way why I should believe that such sources are worthy of any faith.

Right wingers are welcome to do the same.

Just so everyone knows, I will not be offering any myself. I don't need to. I haven't made such accusations. The gauntlet of challenge is thrown. Good luck. I can't wait.

They Call Him Funny

What a tool. I don't know if there's anyone who visits here who might find thougtfulness, intelligence or insight in the opinions and blatherings of a Bill Maher, but I just had to post about this.

Way back when Billy-boy was doing his "Politically Incorrect" on late night ABC, that was before it moved to HBO, I found his show to be pretty entertaining from a conversational point of view. He would often have comedians on as well as politicians, pundits, and others. I cannot recall a single event wherein I laughed at one of his "jokes". I used to think, "his monologue style reminds me of Carson without any laughs". He's just not funny.

So what can it be? How does this buffoon find an audience? It certainly isn't his intelligence, since I've seen no evidence of that either.

But when it comes to religion, he has to be one of the all-time Christophobes to ever soil the airwaves. He has absolutely no clue regarding Christianity or religion in general. Through the misfortune of having heard him spew on religion on a number of occasions, nothing he's ever said encourages me to believe he has ever truly studied or searched for the truth. He impresses me as one who may have read a bit, but always with the stern "convince me" attitude of one who insists on holding firmly to his atheist ways. And he's welcome to believe what he likes. But talk about hate(ben) and misrepresentations(Dan) and smearing.

So how can it be that he continues to hang onto his TV show? I know that some of the left-leaning amongst my humble readership will deny that he speaks for the average liberal. But how does he maintain not just any following at all, but one large enough to justify any broadcaster to keep him on the air? Who could be supporting him? Let's see, Christians? Republicans? Conservatives? Rhodes Scholars? I gotta think it has to be lefties. This unfunny lowlife represents a good portion of those wacky liberals. Who else would find him funny or clever or worth the time of day?

The Cut Of His Jib

This AmericanThinker article puts Obama's character front and center very well. Kyle-Ann has had Barry's number for quite a while now. I find it particularly appalling that this entrail of a man would, as his first action as president, support more killing of innocent human beings. What a slug! And he dares call himself a Christian. Shame on those who support this jerk.

A Good Day

Two way cool things happened today.

First, I received in the mail my brand new

NOBAMA

t-shirt and bumper stickers. This was a great thing to find upon coming home from the grind.



The second thing was finding out how clean Milwaukee now is. This shouldn't be a surprise considering how well


THE CUBS SWEPT!!!!

Yes, my friends. It was a really good day!

New Additions

I've added two new additions to the blog rolls.

Under Right Ones is Perri Nelson's Website. I've only recently started reading his stuff, but his comments at other blogs I found well reasoned. Right now he has a good post regarding Garfield's take on the oil crisis.

Under Left Ones is Democracy Lover. I've never read his blog, but we've been nasty to each other at other places. Lately, for no apparent reason, we've been rather civil with each other and he's invited me to look over a post of his, on which I've yet to comment.

With both of the above, I've placed them under the heading I thought was most appropriate for each regardless of how they might in fact label themselves. I think I've put them each in the proper place. Please give them a look.

For all those who have not had a formal introduction to my readers (such as they may be), "Sorry!". I've only just taken to doing this recently.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

And excellent Ralph Peters piece for your consideration. Indeed, the same could be said for those who think diplomacy can change the hearts of despots intent on destroying their imagined enemies.

Support Yourself, PP!!!

I don't understand this at all. It's bad enough PP is getting an exemption for baby-killing. Why is my tax money going to support it, especially when the other two thirds of their income is staggering? There's nothing about their operation that is deserving of either.

UPDATE:

What a great story! I wonder why, however, PP closed the gates on this truck. Did they feel it's presence would hurt profits?

Plain To See

I noticed this little article and saw that it summed up my own feelings on faith in the public square. I don't know too much about Jim DeMint other than the fact that he is always mentioned as one standing firmly for conservative principles. He echoes my thoughts with the following quote from the article:

"Before the 1960s, it was pretty clear that abortion was wrong, that sex outside of marriage was wrong, that unwed birth was wrong, and pornography, homosexuality – all this was considered wrong by the society," DeMint contends. "But government came in and turned right and wrong upside down."

I've made pretty much the same statement myself in discussions regarding the moral state of our culture. Now, I wouldn't say that government took the lead in this change for the worse, but they certainly sealed the deal, as it were, in much of it. The courts have done more to steer us in the wrong direction, but more than anything else, it was we the people who are mostly responsible. A segment of us decided that they did not want to deny themselves the pleasures of the flesh and as they were finding like-minded judicial support, the rest of us sat back and did nothing as they made their incremental progress toward the full moral decline the now afflicts our nation.

But look again at the list in the DeMint quote. Each of those items are directly related to sexuality and civilization's unwillingness to control their urges and keep sex in it's proper place. The only thing that really did a lot to keep such things in check was religion and the belief system of its adherents. Nevermind whether or not God's existence can be proven. Indeed, let us concede for a moment that He doesn't and still, nothing since the 60's has had nearly the positive influence on people regarding sexuality. In fact, without God in the public picture, society has chosen to elevate sexuality far above its proper place and sought ways to justify further disregard for the responsibility that should be attached to it. It has become soley a matter of self-gratification

And so we have inflated rates of STDs, particularly amongst younger and younger kids, an unforgivable amount of abortions, too many marriages that should never have taken place which end in divorce within the first decade, broken homes and families, and a push by a tiny but vocal group who demand their abnormal urges gain the acceptance of all society, even at the cost of the majority's Constitutional rights to express their faith. One can't help but believe this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of just how bad things will get as a consequence of religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian influence, being pushed out from any public considerations.

So we've pushed out God and replace Him with, what? Ourselves. Yeah, that's working out really well.

Cool Vid

From a Frank Gaffney article at Townhall.com, this video to which he linked humorously illustrates the state of affairs with oil situation these days. I'm not one of those who believe the AGW whiners know much of anything useful, but I do believe it's time for drilling in this country right now. And what better reason than to reduce the amount of money flowing into countries that are less than friendly. Thus, I hope, but won't hold my breath, that Congress will follow the lead of President Bush and lift the restrictions on drilling. The time is now. Actually, the time was ten years ago, but what are ya gonna do?

Here's the Gaffney article. Check it out.

What Absolute Gall!

I just had to post this travesty before calling it a night. To think that anyone would actually try this stunt is beyond me and to think that a judge would actually think there might be merit in this suit is a definite sign that the world is going to hell in a handbag. And some insist that there is no agenda, no attempt to silence Christians, no attacks or wars or attempts at forcing others to accept depravity as normal, good, just like anyone else.

If this goes to trial, I hope the defendants go for broke so that this jerk is exposed for the pathetic ass he is. It'll be more than a little interesting to see how this story progresses and I hope NewsMax stays on top of it.


UPDATE:

I wasn't planning on bringing up this story, but as another display of gall, I felt it apropriate. It's becoming tiresome to hear charges of "hate" anytime someone opposes the homosexual agenda. But part of that agenda is to characterize opposition is such terms. It's unfortunate that some are falling for lies like this.

Good Bye Tony

Prayers for the passing of Tony Snow. Just like Russert, he seemed to be every bit the truly good guy that all those with whom he worked said he was. I enjoyed him on the radio, on Fox News and will miss him. Prayers for his family as well.

Back Home

Home from the trip and sorry it came to an end. Really enjoyed Charleston and all it had to offer history, culture and great-dining-wise. Despite the potential for hurricanes and earthquakes, I wouldn't mind living there. Hot, humid, but always breezy from winds off the ocean. Bertha was making waves, literally, but they weren't so bad the day we were at the beaches. Anyway, they say there's no place like home, but so what. There's no place like a lot of places and when the family is with you, what does it matter? So we're back to the real world and all that means. Sob.

Happy 4th!

I hope everyone has a safe 4th of July. Be careful with those firecrackers. Be careful with those hot dogs. I don't wanna hear of anyone blowing off their fingers! I'm skippin' town for the following week so I don't know if I'll have the chance to blog, or even want to. I'll be visiting historic Charleston and I can't wait. If you visit here while I'm gone, you'll have to clean your own mess. Later!

New Blog

I want to introduce you to a new addition to the "Right Ones" column. Shared Thoughts is Andrew Clarke's blog. He gives Marshall Art's an international flavor as he is based down under in Australia. Give him a read. It's good stuff. Welcome Andrew!

Voting With The Nose Held Tightly

In a few discussions at other blogs, the subject of voting for "the lesser of two evils" came up. Naturally, in this upcoming November election, McCain is clearly the lesser of two evils. But the point made was that some just don't want to go that route anymore. One claimed to be "force-fed" McCain and doesn't much care to be.

Well.

My response was that I don't think we were so much force-fed McCain as much as suffering the ramifications of our own inactions. In 1994, Newt Gingrich led a conservative revival with the "Contract With America" and all was good. Since then, it seems that the general feeling has been one of complacency, that things will always be such with the right-wing side of things. This has obviously not been the case and the midterm elections certified it with the loss of Republican control in Congress. Some think it will get worse come November.

So what to do? Our job, as conservatives, Republicans, right-wingers, traditionalists, and people of faith has always been to be involved. To stay on top of the issues and to let our representatives know what we think about issues and their positions on them. Allowing the Obamanation to win won't prove anything to anyone except that we are bigger idiots than the left ever could possibly have conceived.

But should even that evidence of the coming Apocalypse occur, it is encumbent upon us all to get involved and stay there. Yeah, that means making time in our busy lives for staying abreast of current events, writing, calling, emailing our representatives constantly to TELL them what we expect of them. Politicians are needy creatures. They need our approval and they need our support. When a DOMA type bill comes up for consideration, we need to be on the horn letting our reps know they need to support it. Even if our rep is an idiot like Dick Durbin or Barak Obama, we need to continually let them know.

In fact, it's even more important if our rep is the guy for whom we didn't vote. Imagine being some goofy Democrat and getting nothing but calls and complaints from constituents. Imagine being constantly told that every move you make, or intend to make, is wrong or offensive or contrary to the will of the people. A Dem would fold like a lawn chair.

So we need to do this now. Our reps, whether we voted for them or not, our party, local chapters as well as national, to let them know what we expect, and also for giving kudos when we approve of their moves, we need to stay involved. We need real leaders. We need to show them what a leader looks like, so we don't have to hold our noses in order to defeat absolute bad choices like Obama, with a vote for a choice that just ain't good enough, like McCain.

In the meantime, hold it tightly and vote for McCain.

Don't Touch My Guns

I don't really have any guns. I just liked this article regarding the Second Amendment.

Another Good Reason To Vote Against Obama

With a hat tip to Neil over at 4SimpsonsBlog, I present this. The chick can sing. Check her out. Vote McCain. He's less crappy.

UPDATE:

I just saw this and had to post it. Both a good parody and a good reminder of the type of company Barry keeps. In other words, more reasons. Hat tip to Sister Toldjah.

More About "Obscene Profits"

Whilst lifting, sculpting my middle-aged body into the powerful force for good that it never really was, I like to peruse the wonderully written and logic intensive articles provided by the truly deep thinkers found in the many right-wing sites found on the world-wied web. This fine article found at AmericanThinker, a site that confuses the pseudo-intellectuals and reduces them to hanging their hats on dangling participles rather than disputing the points presented, would have been better attached to a post soon to fall into the archives for lack of space. Thus I present it here.

Needless to say, I agree with the sentiments contained therein, and wish to re-iterate my disgust with those politicians and their supporters who believe that there exists any right of the government to confiscate the profits of successful people or corporations. The left especially, though old Mickey concurs, chooses to demonize the successful and the wealthy in order to position themselves as saviors of the downtrodden, most of whom are fully capable of creating for themselves a successful life of whatever type they choose, if not for having been fed the B.S. of those who wish to avoid dealing honestly with real issues. Here, "Big Oil" is clearly being smeared as evil, when the greater culprits of high petrol prices in this country are those that are doing the accusing. At least McCain sees the bennies of nuclear power. But I fear he may no go far enough to reverse the unnecessarily burdensome restrictions and regulations that have done more to create this situation under which we all suffer. It will only get worse under Barry, because he's a complete idiot. There's supply and demand, and then there's government interference. The first requires politicians to stay the hell away. The second requires real courage and thoughtfulness to reverse to stand up to the real culprits, politicians and the lefty environmentalists.

R.I.P.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the passing of Tim Russert, host of "Meet The Press". I haven't had much chance as I used to to watch the show, my church having no Saturday services, but occasionally I'd catch a re-broadcast on MSNBC. Though I agree with Hugh Hewitt, who commented that he didn't always bring his "A" game for lib/Dem guests, I also agree with him that Russert would be tenacious with any guest who failed to answer to his satisfaction when an issue discussed was deemed important enough to be so, and in those cases it didn't matter who the guest was. Also, he was obviously both extremely prepared as an interviewer as well as one who deeply enjoyed what he did. And he definitely seemed like a genuinely nice guy. Always a plus. The Sunday morning political talk won't be quite the same and they are diminished by the passing of Tim Russert. May he rest in God's Peace.

Changing Tunes

I really enjoyed this Ann Coulter column. She nails this perfectly. She also could have pointed out how the Dems have whined about Republicans disenfranchising voters, but their primary rules, with the "super delegates" make voting completely worthless within the Dumbocratic Party. People actually vote for these guys.

The Best Reason To Vote Against Obama

As this piece illustrates, it is important that we elect McCain over Barry if only to have any chance at getting decent Supreme Court Justices when one or two of the lefty buffoons retire. This decision ranks as one of the most dangerous by the five fools in some time. We can't get a guarantee that Johnny will nominate a Roberts or Alito much less actually have them confirmed by the Dumbocratic majority, but there's no doubt that Barry will put forth a total idiot like Ginsberg and then we're screwed, because the idiot will be with us for too long, writing more stupid decisions like the one presented in the link. Remember: we've got crappy, and less crappy. Vote less crappy. Vote McCain.

That is a good bumper sticker.

UPDATE:

I offer this article to give more insight into the stupid Supreme Court decision regarding habeus for Gitmo detainees.

World Opinion For Some Looney Leftists I Know

Here's a little something from that bastion of lies and poor writing skills, AmericanThinker.com. This pretty much ends the discussion in my favor right here, because as the left insists, world opinion is all important, it determines right from wrong, and it's the bar to which we must always rise. Or it could be that foreign news services don't know lies and poor writing skills when they see it. Or it could be that there are some around the world not as gullible and politically confused as Euro-trash and the American left.

Another Great American Thinker

Michelle Malkin's column at Townhall.com points out yet another industry hauling in OBSCENE PROFITS!!! that hasn't gotten the venomous outrage and condescending scrutinity endured by the oil industry. Now, I pointed out the movie industry after reading of the money taken in from the Memorial Day weekend. That would be one weekend. But Michelle brings up another obvious, but very contemptable industry, the abortion industry, namely, Planned Parenthood. According to her data, our tax dollars comprise a third of their budget. That has to stop. There's quite enough morally challenged libs and feminists that can donate without taking my dough to whack infants.

On a side note, she mentions early on a quote from McCain regarding his distaste for OBSCENE PROFITS!!!, as if it's any of his business how much someone else makes. And who the hell is he to decide at what point profits become obscene? Pretty subjective, if you ask me. Just another tidbit illustrating Johnny's lib leanings. We gotta face it: Come November, we're screwed. But I still maintain he's less crappy than Barry.

Stating The Obvious

The always brilliant Thomas Sowell states the obvious in a piece that touches on two aspects of the Obama situation: his past performance vs his rhetoric, and his views on the real threats before us.

In the first part, Sowell discusses how Obama's soaring rhetoric is at the least, misleading when compared to what he has done in the past and with whom he has chosen to associate himself. Later, he wonders on Obama's understanding of terrorism and their ability and willingness to be destructive.

Indeed, these things have been discussed before, by both pundits like Sowell as well as by bloggers like myself. But it never hurts to continually cry out what should be so plain, but rarely is to his supporters.

It's kinda funny, in a pathetic and self-destructive way, that, like the Nicaraguans, who supported the communist Sandinistas after ridding themselves of the Somozas, the liberal left in this country, after decrying the Bush administration as some evil force in the world, are willing to throw in with someone who starts from a far worse place. As bad as they stupidly think Bush has been, they're willing to support a far worse choice than another Republican. Even if it could ever be conceded that the left is, uh, right, there's no way any sane person could see Obama as the answer.

You Kiddin' Me?

"I didn't anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny."

This recent Obama quote caught my attention. How is black liberation theology in any way conventional? If Trinity UCC was his first and only taste of Christianity, I guess I could understand and cut him some slack. But even then, if he had never taken a moment to look at other denominations, or even other UCC congregations, where does he get off using that term "fairly conventional"? How would he know? And if he did examine others, how could he not see the unique qualities of his chosen church? As insignificant as this is, and I'm sure certain left-leaning visitors would categorize it as such, it seems like he's either trying to convince the listener that his faith is like any other, or he is ignorant of how it differs from truly conventional Christianity.

Or perhaps he just doesn't realize that most people are concerned about the goofball that has preached to him for the last twenty years, and why he'd consider such a dude a mentor. It has really been about his judgement in continuing to support Wright's ministry, with all his hysterical anti-Amercian and race-baiting rhetoric. Now he thinks it's time to leave Trinity. Uh, uh, pal. It was time a long time ago. And you ain't foolin' nobody about why you're leavin'.

Obscene Profits?

It dawned on me Monday morning as I read the reports of the top earners for movies over the holiday weekend, and now I've remembered it and wondered. What will Hillary or Barry do about the obscene profits of film makers? "Indiana Jones", "Iron Man", "Prince Caspian" and others did rather well, I'd say. Let's take those profits and...

Stark Difference

I offer this essay not as a direct answer to the question Dan asks at Eric's blog, but in answer to the sentiment that motivates it. Tell me this ain't Thinkin'.

Almost, But No Cigar, IMHO

I recently agreed to review a few of Vinny's posts wherein he believes he has victoriously pointed out blatant falsehoods or mistakes of local radio hostess Sandy Rios. She is also president of Culture Campaign, a Fox news contributor, and a sometime columnist at Townhall.com. The thread in question concerned the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 2, and whether it states that blacks are three-fifths of a person.

Now before I go on, it is on purpose that I have chosen not to reprint the section. It is a good idea for anyone to go and look it up, and better yet, review on occasion our founding documents.

So anyhoo, the complaint was that Rios stated to a caller that the Constitution didn't say that, and that it was in a later court decision. Well, I didn't review the decisions in question and will hereby concede that point to Vinny, that though I feel for the purpose of the discussion Rios was in with the caller, her blunder is a minor point. (Vinny disagrees.)

But as to the Constitution piece, I have to say that I don't believe it does condemn blacks to only 3/5 of a person. Rather, I believe, based on reviewing Federalist 54, that it states they are at least 3/5 of a person. The distinction is important.

At the time of the crafting of the Constitution, the slave owning states (SOS) had a habit of flipping on blacks being either people or property. If it served them to do so, blacks were people. If it served them to do so, they were property. The section in question had to do with apportioning representatives to the states. The SOS decided that they would get more representation if they were to consider blacks as persons equal to anyone else. The non-SOS said, "Whoa, dudes!" (ala Spicoli) "Which is it? Are they people or property?" As Alexander Hamilton put it, to some extent they were both. They were often treated legally as the law treats everyone else, but they were at the same time, owned as property was. For the most part it was totally based on the whim of the slave owner.

But Hamilton argues that they could not be totally on par with free men because they were not free. That's not to say that Hamilton thought they weren't people, but that the law of the states in question treated them as property at least a portion of the time. So the non-SOS insisted that the SOS couldn't have it both ways. The result, as I see it, is that it was decided that blacks were at least 3/5 of a person if not entirely so, and it was then written in the Constitution as such. This guaranteed that they could not be treated as less. Not much consolation if you're a black person, but a sight better than being akin to a chair, and a whole lot better than being whatever the slave owner says you are based on his whim at the moment. A slim distinction to be sure, but what if you were a slave?

It’s A Wonderment!

The title of this post comes from a phrase often used by Cole Younger, as played by Cliff Robertson in “The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid”. It applies here to the returning visitor Geoffrey Kruse-Safford (and really, Dan Trabue as well). Here’s a guy that posts on topics that just make my head swim. Philosophy, science, the philosophy of science (or perhaps, the science of philosophy) are often topics into which he dives deeply. There’s no doubt that he is sincerely and totally fascinated with these topics, and he uses his blog to, among other things, explore and discuss these weighty things with his visitors. It’s all very impressive, if you’re into that sort of thing.

But, in a shocking twist, Geoffrey, like Dan, can’t seem to avoid missing obvious points in the opinion pieces of others. It’s really a wonderment!

Case in point: Geoffrey, like Dan, feign confusion in understanding the simple terms of my challenge, which was, once again, to visit AmericanThinker.com, select one of the many Obama related articles there, and defend BARRY against the critiques the author makes. What could be so hard to fathom in this challenge? Three simple steps. Cretins could do it.

But then he makes an attempt. You can read it and his response here. (In the comments section, you’ll find more examples of the difficulty liberals have understanding conservative commentary. Dan attacks the prose of the many fine writers there, as if he’s a journalism professor, rather than stiffening the spine and engaging in substantive rebuttal.)

Geoffrey begins by presenting the article he had chosen and immediately shows he missed the point. He thinks the article was about the religion of Obama’s father. It was not. Bear in mind, I read both the article and Geoffrey’s response to verify what I thought I saw and sure enough, he totally blew it. The article was about the left’s reaction to concerns about Muslim influence in Obama’s life. That’s the main point of the article.

In fact, there are a number of points Geoffrey made that show his lack of understanding in what I found to be an easy to read and understand piece. Here’s a few:

-He wonders as to the relevance of the faith of Obama’s father and compares it to, among other things, Nixon’s mother’s obsessive-compulsive disorder. Yet in the piece, the author shows examples of what relevance there might be. Geoffrey’s confusion is answered right in the article. To wit, what would be the perception of the Muslim world to Obama considering his Muslim connection? Yeah, to us it would seem there should be nothing about which to worry, but we are not devoted Muslims who are coming from an entirely different place.

-He accuses the author of “subtle racism” for mentioning the common practice of
omitting the race of a non-white crime suspect. Is Geoffrey saying that this doesn’t happen? Is he saying that it would never make a difference to a story? It’s certainly happened at least a few times since 9/11 that is, not mentioning that the suspect is Muslim.

Geoffrey then speaks of the middle of the article and that which has been disproved: Barry in a madrassa (perhaps not, but a Muslim school where he learned the religion), that he’s an apostate facing death (perhaps to some radicals, but this is covered in the Robert Spencer quote in the article), Barry’s Islamic middle name (Geoffrey’s right. It’s clearly Swedish), that we’re at war with Islam (Nobody says this. It’s radical Islam we fight. Big difference.)

Geoffrey ends by slamming AmericanThinker.com, which doesn’t surprise. For all his well-read background, he doesn’t display much in the way of understanding what he reads. He attacks it as a source of race baiting and religion knocking and accuses them of school yard tactics. Ironic. Typical.

From McCain's Own State

Geoffrey took up my challenge, but posted it at his own blog "What's Left in the Church". I've been working on my response, which I will post here. There's so much to mock, I mean, to refute, so it's taking some time to compose it without being incredibly long. I tend to glaze over when new threads are too long. I spend too much time visiting blogs as it is without reading book-length posts. (Sorry to all who write them---feel free to carry on as you see fit.)

In the meantime, with a stomach full of Japanese food and saki, I chose to simply relax, do a little light reading and came across this. I had heard of this before and it suggests that the cries that we can't deport all 12-20 million illegals are simply shrill whines. And, surprise, surprise, it's a matter of enforcing laws, as well as passing a few initiatives. Get on the horn with your reps and turn up the heat. If Arizona can have success with this, why not everyone else?

Blog Roll Addition

Note under "Left Ones" that I have added Vinny's blog, "You Call This Culture?" Give him a read. It's all in the name of fairness and balance and equal time.

Boo Hoo Barry!!

This AOL piece presents a video from the Tennessee Repubican Party that Barry calls "low class". He believes that his wife should be off limits for critique. I'd agree if she wasn't front and center speaking on his behalf and saying silly things about never being proud of the USA until now. This is a terrible whine. If Michelle is bold enough to speak publicly, she, and more so Barry, should be accepting that there may be criticism of what is said. Now if she were to have stayed in the background, as some politicians' spouses do, then the complaint would be valid. But then, there'd likely have been no criticisms of her. Grab a hanky, Barry, and calm down.

This'll Take Some Time

As my challenge has gone unanswered (beyond mockery and lame excuses), I have taken back the gauntlet and instead have decided to take up the challenge laid down by my man Danny Trabue to review the "plan" of one Barry H. Obamanable. I've already visited his website (Barry's, not Dan's) and reviewed the section entitled "Fiscal". I figured it would be the funniest, so I started there.

Dan was right. There's a lot of words there. I didn't compare it to McCain's site since I don't give a rat's patooty about McCain, other than the fact that he is not Clinton or Obama. But there are lots of words. They're the same old words we hear and have heard from the left for, like, ever, and as far as I can tell so far, there's a curious lack of "how". That is, how is he going to make these things happen, how will they fix what he thinks they will fix, and how will he prevent the results that these ideas have been shown to bring about in the past. But hey, it's early and I just started.

One thing I noted: Dan said that there are links for more info about what he plans to do. I don't know yet about the rest of the site, but the one link I came upon in the Fiscal section took me to a page that simply repeated what was said on the page with the link. Well, that's one way to make the site bigger than McCain's. But it doesn't make it more informative. And as to that, McCain has been in politics for a couple of decades. I think we have a pretty good idea whence he comes.

As the title of this post says, this'll take some time trudge through. It'll be painful. In fact, I already feel it in my backside reading his fiscal policies. But I've a good set of waders and a closepin for my nose, so wish me luck. It's a dirty job...

I Was Sure I'd Hear Something!

Well gentle readers, I must say that I am greatly disappointed. I put up the challenge to Obama supporters to visit www.AmericanThinker.com to peruse a few of the many opinion pieces about Barak Obama and then pick one to defend him against the author of the chosen piece. No one picked up the gauntlet. Sure, I know I don't have that many readers. But I was certain that at least one of the lefties who visit had spine enough to step up to the plate. I mean they're all blog readers/hosts, so it's not like they aren't wasting time anyway. The only thing I can take away from this sorry result is that what has been suspected is actually true: Obama is undefensible, and his supporters are afraid to learn who he really is.

This is typical of the left. As we learned during the Bill Clinton campaigns, it's never about character in selecting a president. I mean I get Hashfanatic visiting and using terms like "the Bush crime family" (I always get a chuckle when this guy posts his goofy comments---thanks Hash), but there is never anything to back up such assertions. In the meantime, Barry has numerous questionable alliances, and yet, he gets incredible support from among the left. This tends to support Michael Savage's assertion of liberalism being a mental disease. How could anyone support a guy like Obama with the track record he has? It boggles the mind, and apparently it boggles the minds of the lefties if they can't state why they want to vote for him. Time for a change? (We hear this every election cycle) Change to what? They have no idea. The right has a far better idea of what that change will look like than do Obama supporters.

What Obama is, is any guy off the street, as in, they'll take any guy off the street and make him president. He's got nothing in terms of experience, smarts, ideas or the character to be our next president.

Just A Few Thoughts

CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'

I hear today that the California Supreme Court, or whatever they call them there, has rendered a 4-3 decision allowing for homosexual marriage. This, after they the people, had just a few years ago voted overwhelmingly in support of traditional marriage. Dan Trabue must be hacked big time to see "we the people" ignored and overruled by four unelected people. For the next 30 days, California has no definition for marriage. Only an amendment to their constitution will stop this judicial activism. May God have mercy on California and the four judges who abused their power.

PANDERING?

John McCain has unveiled his plan for dealing with global climate change. Between this and his amnesty plans, I'll really have to pinch my nose closed when I punch his number in November. It's a good thing he insists on keeping taxes low and attacking earmarks. The tax dollars that will be flushed on such stupid legislation have to come from somewhere. He speaks of all those scientists concerned with GW, but doesn't speak at all about all those who know that the Gore version of events is crap.

THIS WOULD BE A CRIME

Of all the wacky things Dan likes to actually say he believes in, and I give him props for sticking with it despite its wackiness, there is one thing I had to think about for a few seconds. That would be his belief that we should be spending money on education opportunities for those in prison. He has some research that claims the recidivism rate is lower for those convicts given training or education while incarcerated. Well, here's my problem with this: They already were given a free education in our fantastic public school system. What did they do with it? So this is how I would tweak Dan's idea. I would charge the con for the schooling. They would pay for the education with their income from the job they get as a result of their training. Non-payment would put their asses back in the slammer for theft of services. Personal responsibility requires this alteration.

ONE MORE TIME

Though I defend him often, mostly because he deserves such defense when I do, George Bush has not been the president I thought he would be. Oh, he was far and away the better choice in both 2000 and 2004. Of that there's no doubt. But for all his good points, he has made some bad moves. Harriet Myers, amnesty for illegals, and stuff like that. But against the three left standing (and I don't count the candidates out there who have no chance of winning anything), I would vote for George in a heartbeat. Without question.

An Illustration

This from
AmericanThinker.com is a fine illustration of the difference between right and left. It also gives a fair look at the lib thought process. Like ER, the author prefers to remain anonymous for career reasons, and that's too bad. But it doesn't diminish the soundness of his perspective.

Here's A Bit O Fun!

This offering from Real Clear Politics addresses a silly statement, make that a "stupid" statement, made by Barry O. recently. The statement...

"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

...gave me pause. About what was he talking? To which despot did any of these guys speak before war? Turns out, as I believed, there were none. So the question becomes, did he knowingly say something that wasn't true, or is he simply that stupid to speak of what he doesn't know and do so as if no one at all is paying attention? I hope he didn't get too jacked over Hillary's "sniper fire" comments.

AmericanThinker.com is a routine stop for me, as I find their contributors to be astute observers of what's going on politically. It was through this site that I came across the above RCP piece. Naturally, as a conservative site, there are a lot of columns regarding Obama and what a profound chucklehead he really is. I could link to a lot of articles and create posts around them as I've done now and then, but there are just so many for that to be practical. What I'd like to encourage, however, is for anyone interested, particularly my left-leaning readers, to visit there and peruse a handful of Obama related articles and then come here and defend Obama against the author. Right-wingers can expound on why they agree if they so choose. Provide either a link to the article, or the title and date when it was published. I'll assume that should no lefty take me up on the challenge, that AmericanThinker's contributors have opined on what is indefensible regarding Barry O. The more I read, the more I feel he is the most terrible choice for any really thinking individual to support. Some conservatives have said something to the effect that, "I'm sure he's a nice guy, but..." I don't think that's the case at all.

Another "No Duh!" Commentary

This opinion piece re-iterates what should be a slam dunk for everyone with a mind. I particularly like the faux sign posted along with it. It speaks volumes on the stupidity of gun control and gun-free zones. I think that if any school or business wants to consider their property a gun-free zone, they should require that all who must be there must wear a tee shirt with targets on the front and back.

There are so many stupid, and I mean REALLY stupid, arguments against concealed carry. A couple of favorites include: "It'll turn into the wild west!" and "So if someone wants to carry a bazooka, you think it's OK?" I usually laugh when I hear people say stupid things like these, but it's really not funny any more. For the first lame quote, a simple examination of all states allowing concealed carry would show just how stupid the comment is. It just hasn't happened. The second quote, far more stupid than the first, doesn't need a response. It's that stupid.

The whole notion that there is no way to decipher the 2nd Amendment properly in order to allow for self-defense is probably the most stupid suggestion of all. The founders were prolific writers and speakers. We know for certain that the amendment meant self-defense, period. I commit to searching through my dusty and cobwebbed archives of stuff saved over the years for a gun magazine that spent about a half dozen pages supporting this very point. Wish me luck. If I'm not out in two weeks, send for help.

It Ain't What I've Been Told

A fascinating letter to the editor appeared in this morning's local paper.

Saturday over a cup of coffee, an Investor's Business Daily editorial caught my eye.

All that I have read in most newspapers and heard on TV and radio is that President Bush has cost us our respect, and allies and our global standing has gone to pot.

"But a look at U.S. ties shows Bush to be a master diplomat who is strengthening U.S. relations all over."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says "the world owes President Bush a debt of gratitude in leading the world in our determination to root out terrorism." I had read that when Brown came to power, our relations with Great Britain would go down the tubes.

How about President Sarkozy in France, Prime Minister Berlusconi in Italy, even Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany? They are all Bush fans. So are the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Canada. Add Estonia, Poland and the Czech Republic, Romania, and Albania.

Tens of thousands cheered him in Africa. Then there are the Asian countries, the Arab states of Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain, plus India, Brazil, Chile. Even Russia and China still talk.

Of course our Democratic Congress is trying not to vote for free trade in Columbia so they will turn against us.

My question to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and the liberal media is who is left that our president is alienating? Perhaps a few anti-American dictators! Who else?

Seems to me President Bush has done an outstanding job creating friendships by attacking terror, supporting democracy and promoting free trade.

James A. Wagner
Barrington

I haven't seen that issue of IBD, so I'll have to assume that the list is lifted from the editorial he cited. I'm sure that there are pockets of Bush bashers in each of those countries on the list. I mean, we've seen protests on the news in the past. And I doubt we're the only country with those who see only what they want to see. Also, none of this means Bush is now the best prez ever. In addition, it doesn't change the fact that world opinion, even good opinions, should NOT dictate to us our path. Perhaps I'll try to find the editorial in question. It might be online. I'd like to see it for myself. In any case, it's refreshing to hear what is likely a more reasoned observation than we are accustomed to hearing from naysayers in this country. I never bought the "world opinion" hype anyway.

UPDATE:

Note that I've corrected a point to better reflect my meaning. It's where I've italicized the word "NOT". Without that word, the entire meaning is wrong and would make me appear to be a liberal weenie. That would be unfortunate.