And So It Begins

Folks, we're looking at the new Clinton era. You could also call it the era of the Black Jimmy Carter. Keep a close eye on this president. I predict that there will be scandals erupting all around him, from virtually day one.
Actually, day one doesn't come for a little over a month yet, and already we've seen the first one - the Bloggomasonofabitch scandal in Illinois - in which the governor of Illinois is preparing for a lengthy stay in federal prison (in the Illinois Governors' wing) for trying to sell Obama's vacated Senate seat. Obama and his people say they had no inappropriate contact with Bloggo, and the media aren't even looking into it. Somehow, with media collusion, the Obama "team" has wiggled its way out of this one, but there will be others. And I'm not so sure Jesse Jackson Jr. (the longtime FBI informant) is done singing yet, anyway.

All of Three Seconds

I told someone this morning that I'm tired of the liberal media bias. I was going to leave it at that, but she wanted to press the issue. "Can you give me one good example of liberal bias in the media?" she asked.

"Sure," I said. It took me all of three seconds. Go to Yahoo.com, and you'll see this headline:

McCain raises Ayers in anti-Obama ad

See, here's where the bias is obvious. The story leads off with this:

WASHINGTON - John McCain is hammering Barack Obama over his association with former 1960s radical William Ayers in a new TV ad.

Now, you tell me: Would you call a murdering terrorist like Ayers a "former 1960s radical"? Most of his bombings weren't in the 1960, but were instead between 1970 and 1972. William Ayers and his wife were responsible for more than a dozen terrorist bombings in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Ayers spent ten years on the lam as a federal fugitive, and then beat the system on a technicality – and all the Obama-loving media has to say about him is “former 1960s radical”.

Folks, we're not talking about nasty speeches made on open mic night at the Student Democrats Club. We're talking about wide-open terrorist murders committed in the United States, against United States citizens - some of them military!

And still, the media says "former 1960s radical". One reporter (I guess you could call him that) called Ayers "rehabilitated". What part of this man's past suggests rehabilitation? Can anyone point to some defining moment that rehabilitated him? If so, it would have to have happened after 2007, when he said that he regretted not planting more bombs, right?

You know, to the best of my knowledge, Osama Bin Laden hasn't been able to carry out any large-scale terrorist acts against the United States since 2001. So does that mean the Obama campaign would call Bin Laden a "former" terrorist? A "former" radical?

Of course not. So why Ayers? Because Obama has something to hide here, that's why. Because when it comes to the story of the connections between Obama and Ayers, just as in the connections between Obama and Wright, and Obama and Rezko, Barack has something to hide.

But the media won't pursue that. And that's some pretty blatant evidence of media bias. Don't ya think?

Olberman is an Ass

Ah, once again, the Liberal Media rares its ugly head in defense of the indefensible. Now this Olberman guy (I have no idea where he came from or why he's on TV in the first place) is now calling Sarah Palin's pastor a terrorist.
.
Of course, check it out for yourself, you can find it on his webpage. Google it. I'm not going to link to it, because it's riddled with advertising, and of course because it's just plain crap. But this is indicative of the kind of people we're dealing with.
.
These talking-head Liberals don't know the difference between a terrorist like William Ayers, who actually bombed people and was part of an organization that actually killed people, and the Alaska Seccesion Party, which may be nuts but as far as I know has never set a bomb.
.
These talking-head Liberals apparently don't know the difference between the moderately strange antics of the Assemblies of God churches around this country, which have been steadily gaining ground into the mainstream for decades (and are actually quite normal and tame), and preachers like Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.
.
Commentators like this guy, who literally can't tell the difference between a pastor and a bomb-setting terrorist...Is this who you want influencing your kids? And isn't it just par for the course, for such maxi-Liberal farces like this guy, to simply wash over the whole issue of the difference between right and wrong? Isn't it just completely normal for these people to hold someone like Obama up as some kind of hero - and by extension, someone like Ayers - while villanizing Sarah Palin?

This is why I can't stand Liberals, folks. What's wrong with Ayers? EVERYTHING. And I for one am thankful to have at least SOMEONE in this political season to stand behind. Palin isn't perfect, but there are no terrorist skeletons in her closet. The Liberals sent two hundred muck-dredging lawyers into Alaska, and the fact that she has a pastor in the Assemblies of God system is the worst thing they could come up with - so now this guy, this Olberman, who looks like some wierd kind of a joke, to me, has to play attack dog and act like there's a scandal here.

And here's the upshot. The more these moral-compass-less Liberals froth at the mouth about the Assemblies of God and Sarah Palin's connections thereto, the more Christians will vote for her ticket. See the difference between articulate, which Olberman is, and smart, which Olberman is (evidently) not?


PS...As an afterthought it occurs to me that, if Alaska were to become its own country, I would probably want to live there. Heck, I might run for Secretary of State there. WOO HOO!!!!!

Why Care about Bill Ayers?

Why do people like Sarah Palin care so much that Barack Obama knows William Ayers? After all, when Ayers and his people were bombing the Pentagon and other sites around this country, Obama was only eight years old.

.

I guess that makes everything okay, then.

.

So for those of us who either weren't around then, or were (or have since then been) too lazy or unconcerned to do our own research [I fall into both categories], here's a breakdown of the activities of the Weather Underground, which of course was Bill Ayers's group. As you read it, imagine if this sort of thing were happening today. Remember the response those two "snipers" in the Washington DC area brought about: newsmedia, law enforcement from all over the country, people afraid to get out of their cars at the gas pump... Now imagine if the dates on this list were in the 2000's instead of the 1970's:

.

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a "kickoff" for the "Days of Rage" riots in the city October 8-11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, "Prairie Fire."

8 October-11, 1969 – The "Days of Rage" riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book "Prairie Fire" that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a "War Council" meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO).

13 February 1970 - Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department .

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – "bomb factory" located in New York's Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members die . The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO "bomb factory" on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO "weapons cache" in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..21

May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn's name releases its "Declaration of a State of War" communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time. 9 June 1970 - Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters .

27 July 1970 - Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men's Colony prison.

8 October 1970 - Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 - Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 - Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 - Bombing of The United States Capitol . " [NYT, 3/2/71] April, 1971 – abandoned WUO "bomb factory" discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons . [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 - Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 - Bombing of William Bundy's office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 - Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 - Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy . [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 - Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 - Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 - Bombing of Gulf Oil's Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 - Bombing of the State Department in (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 - Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York .

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation .

October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article 4/18/2008 5:31 PM CDT on suntimes.com

Any questions? Well, I have one. Do you honestly believe that, if John McCain or Sarah Palin were to EVER have stood on a stage with this man, that he or she would have a political career today?

IF YOU SUPPORT AMERICAN TROOPS, then think about this: Who works at the Pentagon?

I just can't imagine that this country is that far gone - And that's why I care that Barack Obama has had past connections with William Ayers.

Sarah Says Something Stupid, Evidently

According to my sources, Sarah Palin has said something stupid.

.

Let me get this straight. Governor Palin sat for an interview with Katie Couric, and said something dumb about foreign policy. I didn't see it, because I wouldn't watch ten seconds of Katie Couric for all the money in the world (see the post about Couric, somewhere far below). But from what I gather, she said something about Alaska being here, and Russia being there. I haven't heard the stupid part yet, but that's what I was told.

.

So then, this apparently stupid interview was lambasted by an actress named Tina Fey (or Fay, I don't know which) on Saturday Night Live. Another show I don't watch. Haven't seen it in years. Didn't even know it was still on, actually.

.

And then we have the Bill Maher thing, where he called her a bimbo on his TV show. Guess what? I'm not one of the three people who still watch his crappy-ass show, either.

Three instances of either Palin saying something stupid, or other people drilling her for saying something stupid. I counted three references to the "Alaska is over here..." remark during a meeting at work yesterday - it's gotten that bad.

.

So here's my point. Let's count some of the stupid things said by the other side, shall we?

Do you remember when Obama said that his parents met at the march on Selma? In fact, the march on Selma happened when he was two years old. How about when he said a Kansas tornado (which was Bush's fault, by the way) had killed thousands of people, when in fact the death toll was actually...um...12?

.

How about when Joe Biden called Obama "Barack America," said he was running for president and not vice-president, and then called a possible Obama administration "the Biden Administration"? How about when Biden told a wheelchair-bound state senator to stand up, called Obama "clean and articulate" (an obvious racial reference), and said that you need an Indian accent to to walk into a 7-11 in Delaware?

.

What about when Biden told a reporter that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had said on televesion in 1929 that the people would get through the stock market crash? (FDR wasn't president then, and there was no television.)

.

I also heard McCain say some stupid things. He accidentally called himself a Liberal Democrat (probably a Freudian slip), and said that his campaign would be despirited, when he meant spirited. I'm sure he;s made a lot more mistakes than that, but to be honest I don't listen to him very often, and would have missed most of what he has to say.

.

Look, people. We all say stupid things, sometimes. But it's pretty clear to me that, barring any serious REAL problems with her, Sarah Palin is the best person in this race. But she's not a polished Washington politician, and is, evidently, capable of saying dumb shit, just like the rest of us.

Position Statement

I recently read a piece about the Operation Politically Homeless, which I have to admit, strikes at something for me. I'm absolutely positive at this point that I'm no longer a Conservative, if this is bailout plan what Conservatives are. And of course I've never been a Liberal for one second in my life. So where does that leave me? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think so.
The mainstream way of thinking in this country would have us believe that if we're not one or the other, then we're throwing away our votes. If we're not either Democrat or Republican, we're part of some fringe movement, destined to perhaps sway the vote a little, one way or the other.

But I say this: If you don't vote according to what you really believe, then what exactly are you doing with your vote? This is neither the time nor the place for compromise. Our solemn mandate, our sworn promise, and our absolutely vital DUTY is to take a stand.

So with that in mind, here's a breakdown of my political views as I presently see them (at this point in their evolution). Let's see if you agree.


1. FOREIGN POLICY
A. Iraq
The United States was partially correct in its initial assessment that Iraq possessed, and possibly planned to use (again), banned weapons. These weapons included chemical weapons and medium-long-range delivery systems, but not the biological weapons or nuclear weapons materials that the US cited at the time. To clarify: Iraq did possess banned chemical weapons immediately prior to the US invasion in 2003. I realize this makes me sound crazy, but I base this belief on certain things I saw first-hand in Iraq in 2004, which I won't delve into here.
The United States was right to invade Iraq in 2003. Don't get me wrong, was is NEVER a good thing. But the objective of that invasion was the complete removal of the B'aath regime, for both humanitarian and regional-security reasons. That mission was accomplished. Shortly thereafter, however, the mission changed to one of provision of military security in Iraq, and the whole thing fell apart, as such things are wont to do (especially when led by particularly incompetent people).
Now, toward the end of 2008, the future of Iraq is much less uncertain than it was three or four years ago. In my opinion, the way forward lies in the reintroduction of private enterprise into the Iraqi socioeconomic structure. Because the first difference between a terrorist state and a free state is economic standing (the abolition of universal abject poverty), private entities from all corners of the world need to invest in Iraq's future, in order to secure a strong economic foundation upon which the Iraqi nation can build, going forward.
In order to invite the foreign investment that I think will save the Iraqi people in the future, the world needs to see a measure of political and military stability in that country. It is for this reason that I continue to support sustaining a US military presence in iraq. Not an open-ended committment, and not the present troop strength, but also not an artificial, arbitrary "pull out now" attitude. Gradually reduce US troop strength in Iraq over the next three or four years, until only a light, advisory contingent remains. But also, I feel it would be important to maintain a force capable of returning to a security role in Iraq if necessary in the future.

That said, I should also point out here that my support for our mission in Iraq - and in Afghanistan, as you'll see in the next paragraph - shouldn't be misunderstood. I feel that we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq, at least as well as can be expected. I also feel that this is the right time to begin the scale-down phase of our involvement there. I am not a pro-war person, as very few Americans are really "pro-war" anyway, and I scoff at some people's weak attempt to describe themselves as "Anti-war". All people are anti-war (at least, the overwhelming majority of Americans are). But this doesn't mean that we have to be so blind that we can't recognize situations that MUST be dealt with.

B. Afghanistan
The reconstitution of anti-American paramilitary insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States. As such, the government of the United States has a solemn, sworn duty to destroy that danger by whatever means necessary. It's just that simple. Go after them, and destroy them. Remove the threat with the use of rast, decisive action. This is a perfect example of why we have a military in the first place.
Then leave. As soon as our military objectves are met, our next responsibility is to extricate our military personnel immediately. Building and/or rebuilding is the responsibility of the Afghan / Pakistani people, although American private enterprise should be encouraged to find creative ways to invest in the region.

2. DOMESTIC POLICY
A. Marriage
The ability to decide who should and who shouldn't be eligible for marriage is in the hands of all the wrong people. Evangelist Christians, activist judges and pandering politicans should have absolutely NOTHING to do with who gets married, in any place, at any time, or for any reason. ALL matters pertaining to marriage should be left entirely to the people who are directly involved in the marriage (ie the couple to be married), and government, the Church, etc. should be removed from the formula.

B. Abortion
I see abortion as a dinner table issue, and not a legislative issue. In fact, this is a good example of an issue that has been used by both the Republicans and the Democrats as a divider, to purposely drive an ideological wedge down the middle of American society, for their own political purposes. But it's really a matter to be decided by the individual(s) directly involved, with the help of family, friends or whatever social network (support structure, whatever) that individual has in place. NOT the government.

C. Taxes
All taxes are too high.
On the national level, income tax is heavy-handed and oppressive, because funds gained through income tax are frequently used in ways that don't represent the best interests of the American People, from whom those monies were taken in the first place. This alone could be construed as taxation without representation, and is itself grounds for the abolition of the federal income tax.
On the local level, oppressive tactics are used to extract taxes in the form of property tax paid to school districts (by taxpayers with no children in those schools), double-dipping government agencies like departments of transportation (who collect one tax for roads and bridges, etc, per year, and then also profit from state monies, and then require annual registration payments from motorists - not to mention government-operated toll roads), and others.
All taxes should be minimized, and would be, if the government itself would only limit its functions to those tasks specifically mandated to government. The upkeep of roads, bridges, highways, etc., should be funded privately, not publically. This would result in better efficiency, better quality work for a lower cost, completed in a more timely manner.

D. Health Care
Privatized. Period. Look at it this way: What has the government ever done as well as a private company could? By "as well", I mean as cost-effectively, as hgihg quality, and in as timely a manner?

E. Corporate Welfare
Instead of the federal government forking over $85 billion bailout of a private insurance company (AIG), I would propose (I cannot take credit for this, but it's brilliant):

I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a "We Deserve It" dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. citizens, aged 18+. Our population is about 301 million counting every man, woman and child. So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. Now, divide 200 million, 18+ adults into $85 billion - that equals $425,000.00 each! Yes, my plan is to give that $425,000 to every adult as a "We Deserve It" dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So, let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every person would pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25.5 billion right back to Uncle Sam! It also means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife would have $595,000.00!

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00?·

Pay off your mortgage? – housing crisis solved·
Repay college loans? – what a great boost to new grads·
Put away money for college? – it'll really be there·
Save in a bank? – create money to loan to entrepreneurs·
Buy a new car? – create jobs·
Invest in the market? – capital drives growth·
Pay for your parent's medical insurance? – health care improves·
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean?

Remember this is for every adult U.S. citizen, 18 and older (including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that is cutting back) and of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it! Instead of trickling out a puny $1,000.00 economic incentive. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U.S. citizen!! As for AIG – liquidate it! Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General! Sell off the real estate! Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it out. Because if the government has a bailout responsibility, it's to the American people, not to some private company.

F. Outsourcing
Oustsourcing is a function of private enterprise operating in a free-market economy, and as such, is a good thing. It creates healthy competition and removes government involvement in tasks that the government lacks the ability to perform efficiently anyway.

G. Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that our right to carry weapons shall not be infringed. Sorry if it offends anyone, but that sounds pretty straightforward to me. IF we as a nation decide that we need more stringent gun controls, we'd need to first do a few things. First, we'd need to abolish all existing gun laws. Second, we'd need to amend the Constitution to redress the Second Amendment. And third, we'd need to forge an entirely new set of gun laws, and actually enforce them according to the law itself.
Or, we could just leave the Second Amendment alone. While recognizing that nuclear weapons, for example, are not covered under the Second Amendment, we should also recognize that "assault rifles" (an entirely arbitrary and meaningless term) are covered.

H. Crime and Punishment
I'm concerned about violent crime. I'm also concerned that the police are more interested when my neighbor smokes a joint than they are when someone breaks into my house. I don't condone drug use, but some things are just more important than others. With that in mind, I'd like to reorder the legal priorities of this country. I'd like to impose a moratorium on non-violent and non-theft cases (violent cases including threats, coercion, trafficking-in-persons, etc) until such time as the legal backlog in this country has been sufficiently dealt with.
I would also insist that illegal immigration be stopped at once. One of the most basic responsibilities of government is the protection of its people from foreign incursion, but the legal establishment in this country is too busy chasing small-time dope peddlers.

I. All Other Issues
Where at all possibly, the private individual should hold the majority of power in this country. I believe this is what men like Jefferson and Adams had in mind. I also believe that the present order of things is this country approaches that which might have been seen in England before people started breaking away from that particular oppressive regime in the 18th century. Therefore, I feel that any step toward a return to privatization of the economy, personal choice in matters that don't concern the government (or shouldn't, anyway) like abortion and marriage, and upholding of the Constitution, is a good thing.
All efforts by others, Democrat, Republican or otherwise, to move this country further toward a Socialist, big-government agenda, especially at the expense of the simpler, more basic and fundamental responsibilities of government, must be resisted through whatever legal, political means are available to us. Vote, write letters, that kind of thing. Get involved, and maybe we can still take our country back from special interests and heavy-handed government panderers.

Why I like Sarah Palin

Yes, she does.


Yeah, it's about change, to an extent. And yeah, there's reason for hope. But when the rhetoric dies down, people - real, non-Washington, non-pop-star people, people like Sarah Palin - will get to work, following tried and true leaders with a known, demonstable record of real change and reform.


Obama - whether you're talking about the Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X (Barack Obama) or Q. Crackhead the Pop Star (the crapper...I mean, uh, rapper who has changed his name from P. Diddy to So-Rock Obama) - doesn't have the slightest plan for the future of this country, beyond pithy catch phrases and an elaborate website full of pie-in-the-sky promises that neither he, nor anyone else, can pay for.


I've never been McCain's biggest fan. I can promise you that I would NEVER, EVER, EVER support a candidate simply because of party affiliation, and I can assure readers (if there are any) that I am NOT a Republican. But the bottom line here is that all of our present problems are caused by Big Government - specifically the kind of cradle-to-grave Big Government involvement in our daily affairs that Obama and his ilk espouse. It is for this reason alone that I have until now supported McCain and his campaign.

Now, though, while I still don't like McCain that much, I do have someone to look up to in this campaign. Sarah Palin is the ONLY major-party candidate in this election who's more American Way than Washington Beltway. Perfect? Of course not. But given the choice between the two major-party tickets, I have to say, I think the choice is pretty clear. Only one of those tickets has a real, non-Washington, non-business-as-usual name on it.

Little Boy Likes Obama

Aww, ain't that cute. Lookie what I found while researching Sarah Palin and Alaska politics.

The Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X has a brand-new campaign "headquarters" office, smack in the middle of downtown Anchorage: Obama campaign office

This guy's name is Jeff Giertz or Geirtz or something like that. I think I'll call him Jeffy. And, complete with his fresh-from-the-mailing-tube Obama posters, he's ready to take on the world!

It was just too cute not to post. Must...resist...Power Ranger...jokes...

Almost Can't Believe It

This is so good, I almost can't believe it:

I wondered how this Sarah Palin thing would turn out. And so far, it's been better than I'd dared to hope. Ol' Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X is just beside himself. He just can't believe it. John McCain has stolen his thunder - and his claims of being the "reformer" who will bring "change" to Washington.

HA!!!!

I can't believe it either. I can't believe people like P. Diddy,


who shall henceforth be known here on LNDA as Q. Crackhead the Pop Star, has actually changed his name (again). This time he's calling himself So-Rock Obama. And this rapper-turned-Burger King shill has even released a statement, saying (in part):

(Q. Crackhead the Pop Star to Sen. McCain): "I had to check in with you to tell you, you are bugging the f*ck out...You got a running mate from Alaska. Alaska? Alaska. Alaska!" (sounds to me like he's trying to figure out if it's a real place)

(Q. Crackhead the Pop Star to Gov. Palin): "You are not ready to be no vice president. What is the reality in Alaska? There isn't even any crackheads in Alaska. There isn't any black people in Alaska, no crime. There isn't even any foreign policies in Alaska. You need to get versed on black policies. We are the future."

Now, I ask you: Is this the future of American politics? Is this who you want influencing your vote? How about your kids' votes, once they're of age? It's pretty pathetic, isn't it? People like this deserve to be ridiculed into oblivion, not lauded and applauded for their quasi-political nonsense. But Q. Crackhead the Pop Star has vowed, evidently, to rustle up a million "Yoofs voters" (I think he means youth voters) for Obama in November.

Somehow, I think things are taking a turn toward the surreal.

And now for a taste of the real Alaska:

Governor Sarah Palin has enjoyed the highest approval rating of any governor in the United States since the day of her inauguration in 2006. Presently she stands at 86%. She has been the governor of our richest, most diverse (not to mention largest, by land mass) state for one year and eight months.

Check out this article by Alaska news KTUU.com, channel 2 in Anchorage: Spotlight on Sarah Palin.

Actually:
Unlike the Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X, Governor Palin has actually brought real, visible, measurable political reform to a nationally-visible elected office. She has changed the politics of her state. She has actually done something about corruption, even within her own party. Her limited experience includes actually taking on the oil companies (in a state where the oil companies used to reign supreme); actually fighting crooked incumbents in both the Republican and Democratic parties (and other, lesser-known political entities in the state of Alaska), including seriously dug-in, long-time political machines; and actually finding room for compromise in the issue of same-sex union.

Obama has done none of that. Nothing even close to it. Not one time, ever. He's never balanced a state (or municipal, no matter how small) budget, never had to meet the actual expectation of serious political reform - and to assert that such reform is even possible within the old Chicago Political Machine is simple silliness.

See, for all his rhetoric about change, hope for a new future, and all that, Obama is a product of a very old, very firmly established political structure. He was recruited, vetted, groomed and led by the hand, by people who have been in power in the poorest parts of Chicago for decades. And in all that time, not the slightest hint of meaningful reform has ever been seen, either within the Machine or without.

If this country were a true meritocracy, Sarah Palin would have Barack Obama beat hands down, all by herself. She is an all-around better person, with more serious accomplishments, and more (and more important) experience. Sarah Palin doesn't use being of a particular color or from a (supposed) particular socioeconomic level, etc, as a smokescreen to hide having only 143 days on the job before running for another office. She doesn't pretend to be on banking committees, or claim undue influence in foreign affairs. She goes to work and actually makes things happen.

And I have yet to hear an effective argument against that.

Torture Chamber Found in Mosque

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- "There are the bloodstains on the wall, and here it is dried on the floor," says Abu Muhanad as he walks through a torture chamber in a Baghdad mosque where more than two dozen bodies have been found.

The above is an excerpt from a CNN piece here. Evidently, the militant thugs known as the Mehdi Army, led by renegade thug-in-residence Muqtada al Sadr, terrorized Baghdad pretty severely during their stronger days, back before the surge.

But thuggery doesn't work, does it? Noooo. It doesn't. The world should have learned this by watching Nazi Germany crumble in the 1940s, Soviet Russia crumble in the 1990s, the Taliban fall apart in 2003 and 2004, and the outright collapse of totalitarian regimes all over the world.

Totalitarian oppression doesn't work.

What works is the rule of law, and the solid, consciencous application of self-rule. This is what the surge was all about: routing these lawless pieces of filth from their nasty little hidey-holes and sending them running, or killing them where they stand, or packing their sorry backsides - US Government-supplied Kor'an in hand - off to Gitmo Vacationland.

What works is ensuring that the people have a right to own the fruits of their labor. Ensuring that the people have the freedom to live peacably and prosperously.

The beginning of this prosperity, in the case of Iraq, is removing (destroying, when necessary) the forces that were so firmly in place in opposition to freedom. That means these people who were so clearly using this mosque as a place of torture and murder.

The surge put a stop to that, at least in this location. So what conclusions can we draw from all of this? Well, for one thing, there's the most obvious conclusion that those who opposed the surge were wrong. Because if Barack Obama and his ilk had had their way - if there had been no US troop surge in Iraq, the Mehdi Army would still be in control of this nBaghdad neighborhood, and this mosque would still be a factory of death.

You're Such a Racist

Well folks, it has finally happened. I was officially called a racist this morning, because of my failure to support Barack Obama.

Because of course, as we all know, if you're not buying into this whole "Hope and Change" smokescreen, you're an outright racist.


We were discussing the possibility of Bobby Jindal being named as McCain's running mate, when a colleague of mine (a white woman) somehow found the strength to pull her head out of Obama the Messiah's fourth point of contact long enough to say, "Except that he's brown, and the Republicans don't want anyone who isn't white."


Fucking Democrats. Seriously. Not that I'm surprised. But it's so perfectly typical of a Democrat to assume that they somehow have the market cornered on minority matters, and that everyone else is an automatic racist. Somewhere along the line, they've annointed themselves the sole gatekeepers to American morality - If you ain't one of them, you ain't moral.


So there you have it, folks. Vote for Obama or go put on a white bedsheet and start lighting crosses. You damn racist.

I swear I'm going to laugh if McCain chooses someone who isn't white. Just as has been the case with virtually every policy statement I've heard yet from the Obama camp, they won't be able to tap dance fast enough. "Um, uh, um...I meant someone who doesn't have a white shirt..."

Republicans for Obama

Is that anything like Jews for Hitler?

According to the Barack Obama campaign, John McCain's campaign is funded almost entirely by Washington lobbyists and other political insiders. According to Obama, McCain's goal is to stop "this movement for change".


Folks, this is why you get nonsense like this:

I ask you: How, exactly, does a Republican support Obama? What, Republicans for Forced Redistribution of Wealth? Look. It's not just a matter of liking McCain (I don't care all that much for him, either). There are severe ideological differences at work here.

I'm not a member of any political party. But I consider myself a staunch Conservative, with serious conservative values (on most issues). If you're a Republican who supports Barack Obama because you think John McCain is too old, then you're not a Republican. It's just that simple. Obama believes in forcing you to pay for the health insurance of people who don't work and don't contribute. He believes in imposing an artificial and arbitrary cap on a company's income, collecting the balance of that company's profits for the Government, and then redistributing said monies elsewhere.

If you would vote for that, regardless of the reason, then you should stop calling yourself Republican or Conservative, because that's not what we Conservatives believe in.

Do You See A Pattern Here?

We all know about the Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe. We all understand how he decided it was inappropriate to stop by our military hospitals (twice) to visit wounded troops after being told he wouldn't be allowed to take the camera crews. We know all about his motivations there. But he denied all that, prefering instead to attempt a redirect of your attention to the time three years ago when he visited Walter Reed (to see if there was a talking point there about the poor maintenance conditions).

Well, here's another example of that kind of (simply astonishing) arrogance. In a World Net Daily piece written by Aaron Klein, we see that Lord Utmost Obama X had no problem visiting Jerusalem's Western Wall, one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

Of course, I have no problem with anyone visiting Jewish holy sites. But I wondered at first...Why could he visit the Western Wall but not the hospitals?

Then I got my answer, and here it is: BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE AT THE WALL!!!!!!

From the World Net Daily piece by Aaron Klein:

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall – the holiest site in Judaism – with official campaign posters, WND has learned.
Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign.

"These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site.

Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

Obama campaign posters can be seen in media footage of the Illinois senator's early morning surprise visit to the Western Wall.

His visit reportedly was not on the official campaign schedule.

The posters display Obama's name in Hebrew. One poster erected on the main police barricade used by Obama to enter the holy site boasts the official red, white and blue campaign "O" symbol and advertises the candidate's campaign's website.

A second poster also displays Obama's name in Hebrew and contains an image of Israeli and American flags.

Reuters posted images of the Obama campaign posters showing a handful of people waiting behind the police barricades.

Reuters images had the following caption: "Supporters of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stand behind banners printed with his name in Hebrew as they wait for his arrival at the Western wall."

The caption implied supporters brought along the pro-Obama material. But an eyewitness speaking to WND tells a different story.

"The kids waiting for Obama may not even be Obama supporters. No one knew Obama was coming in advance. We saw the police barricades erected. We saw Obama's face on the posters, and some police said Obama was on his way. So a few people gathered by the barricades and waited for Obama," said the witness.

Obama's media relations department in the U.S. did not reply to a WND phone call request for comment.

Obama arrived at about 5 a.m. Jerusalem time. He wore a Jewish skullcap and placed a prayer in the wall he said he had written. He bowed his head while a rabbi read a psalm calling for peace in the holy city.

According to media accounts, one worshipper repeatedly heckled Obama, chanting: "Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Jerusalem is our land."

After his brief visit to the holy site, Obama headed for Berlin, where he met with German leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He also delivered a major policy speech in front of Tiergarten Park's Victory Column, a 19th century structure in Berlin capped by a gilded angel.

IT NEVER ENDS

Here’s an interesting article that I picked up from another blog. At the end, in blue as usual, is my commentary.

Civilization's last chance; The planet is nearing a tipping point on climate change, and it gets much worse, fast.

By Bill McKibben, May 11, 2008

Even for Americans -- who are constitutionally convinced that there will always be a second act, and a third, and a do-over after that, and, if necessary, a little public repentance and forgiveness and a Brand New Start -- even for us, the world looks a little terminal right now.

It's not just the economy: We've gone through swoons before. It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff that built our sprawling society. It's that when we try to turn corn into gas, it helps send the price of a loaf of bread shooting upward and helps ignite food riots on three continents. It's that everything is so tied together. It's that, all of a sudden, those grim Club of Rome types who, way back in the 1970s, went on and on about the "limits to growth" suddenly seem ... how best to put it, right.

All of a sudden it isn't morning in America, it's dusk on planet Earth.

There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.

Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high and, if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary. It's like watching the tachometer edge into the red zone and knowing that you need to take your foot off the gas before you hear that clunk up front.

In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas -- hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally. Two weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year -- two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast.

And suddenly the news arrives that the amount of methane, another potent greenhouse gas accumulating in the atmosphere, has unexpectedly begun to soar as well. It appears that we've managed to warm the far north enough to start melting huge patches of permafrost, and massive quantities of methane trapped beneath it have begun to bubble forth.

And don't forget: China is building more power plants; India is pioneering the $2,500 car; and Americans are buying TVs the size of windshields, which suck juice ever faster.

Here's the thing. Hansen didn't just say that if we didn't act, there was trouble coming. He didn't just say that if we didn't yet know what was best for us, we'd certainly be better off below 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

His phrase was: "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." A planet with billions of people living near those oh-so-floodable coastlines. A planet with ever-more vulnerable forests. (A beetle, encouraged by warmer temperatures, has already managed to kill 10 times more trees than in any previous infestation across the northern reaches of Canada this year. This means far more carbon heading for the atmosphere and apparently dooms Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto protocol, which was already in doubt because of its decision to start producing oil for the U.S. from Alberta's tar sands.)

We're the ones who kicked the warming off; now the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80% of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.
And we have, at best, a few years to short-circuit them -- to reverse course. Here's the Indian scientist and economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year (and, by the way, got his job when the Bush administration, at the behest of Exxon Mobil, forced out his predecessor): "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In the next two or three years, the nations of the world are supposed to be negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto accord (which, for the record, has never been approved by the United States -- the only industrial nation that has failed to do so). When December 2009 rolls around, heads of state are supposed to converge on Copenhagen to sign a treaty -- a treaty that would go into effect at the last plausible moment to heed the most basic and crucial of limits on atmospheric CO2.

If we did everything right, Hansen says, we could see carbon emissions start to fall fairly rapidly and the oceans begin to pull some of that CO2 out of the atmosphere. Before the century was out, we might even be on track back to 350. We might stop just short of some of those tipping points, like the Road Runner screeching to a halt at the very edge of the cliff.

More likely, though, we're the coyote -- because "doing everything right" means that political systems around the world would have to take enormous and painful steps right away. It means no more new coal-fired power plants anywhere, and plans to quickly close the ones already in operation. (Coal-fired power plants operating the way they're supposed to are, in global warming terms, as dangerous as nuclear plants melting down.) It means making car factories turn out efficient hybrids next year, just the way U.S. automakers made them turn out tanks in six months at the start of World War II. It means making trains an absolute priority and planes a taboo.

It means making every decision wisely because we have so little time and so little money, at least relative to the task at hand. And hardest of all, it means the rich countries of the world sharing resources and technology freely with the poorest ones so that they can develop dignified lives without burning their cheap coal.

It's possible. The United States launched a Marshall Plan once, and could do it again, this time in relation to carbon. But at a time when the president has, once more, urged drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it seems unlikely. At a time when the alluring phrase "gas tax holiday" -- which would actually encourage more driving and more energy consumption -- has danced into our vocabulary, it's hard to see. And if it's hard to imagine sacrifice here, imagine China, where people produce a quarter as much carbon apiece as Americans do.

Still, as long as it's not impossible, we've got a duty to try to push those post-Kyoto negotiations in the direction of reality. In fact, it's about the most obvious duty humans have ever faced.
After all, those talks are our last chance; you just can't do this one lightbulb at a time.

We do have one thing going for us -- the Web -- which at least allows you to imagine something like a grass-roots global effort. If the Internet was built for anything, it was built for sharing this number, for making people understand that "350" stands for a kind of safety, a kind of possibility, a kind of future.

Hansen's words were well-chosen: "a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." People will doubtless survive on a non-350 planet, but those who do will be so preoccupied, coping with the endless unintended consequences of an overheated planet, that civilization may not.

Civilization is what grows up in the margins of leisure and security provided by a workable relationship with the natural world. That margin won't exist, at least not for long, as long as we remain on the wrong side of 350. That's the limit we face.

___________________________________

I love these people who devote themselves to “making people understand” their point of view. All of this reminds me of the time in 1992, when Al Gore said that if we didn't get rid of SUVs within ten years, there would be no world for our children to grow up in.

Now that those ten years – and then some – have come and gone, and there are more SUVs on the road than ever, and our children are still growing up in this world, nothing has changed. Al Gore is still seen as the hero champion of the environment (an Oscar? Are you fucking kidding me?), and we’re still predicting dire consequences if the stupid masses aren’t properly indoctrinated.

Made to understand.

It doesn’t matter how many times this nonsense is proven wrong. Now we’re all supposed to be terrified about the end of our civilization within a “few short years” if we're not "made to understand" that flying somewhere in a plane is "taboo," while taking the train (whi the hell takes a train anywhere in this country?) is an "absolute priority".

Is this what you think is going to happen? The collapse of civilization? Are you fucking serious?

Do you people actually believe that a big-screen TV "sucks juice" faster than a regular TV? And if so, that it contributes to the thawing of the permafrost?

Or that Al Gore has ever used public transportation in his life?

I'm all for reducing the amount of waste (garbage) each of us generates, and I recognize the need for reducing our dependency on petroleum. But I'm so sick of people acting as if my car is the reason for global climate change.

Get a grip, people. The reason people are against the "combating climate change" bill is because it would enable the government to levy what amounts to an additional tax on businesses of all sizes, payable to a new world court headquartered in Europe. That's a pretty crazy idea, in my opinion - especially since it wouldn't do anything to actually combat global climate change.

Here’s the real problem. Americans (and some others) have become so incredibly narcissistic that we just can’t stand to believe that there could be changes going on within our own world that have absolutely nothing to do with us; changes that were not caused by us, and will not be “solved” by us.

Not by the “350 Project”, and not by you or me. The bottom line is that the “global climate” has been changing since the creation of the planet – every second, every minute, every hour, since the very beginning of the Earth. It was not caused by SUVs or by big-screen TVs, and going back to the Stone Age isn’t going to reverse it.

Hats Off to Texas

Now, I want you to imagine this, if you will. You're a fourteen-year-old girl, walking home from the library with your best friend, who's only two years older than you. You walk through the park, as you've probably done many times before - only this time something's different.

This time, you stumble upon a gang initiaiton. Enraged by the intrusion, six teenaged gangbangers descend upon you, leaving you to wonder if you'll ever see your family again.

This actually happened, right here in Texas, in 1993. And the two girls didn't live to see their families again. They were raped and beaten by all five of the boys, and then murdered.

.

Their bodies were left to rot in a bayou.

.

Here's a much better explanation of what's going on here than I can write:

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/03/25/refried-beans-supreme-court-overrules-bush-oks-mexican-illegal-aliens-execution/

The killers are arrested, convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to die in the state's death chamber. Off to Death Row with them. But what happens next is even more bizarre.

As (at least) one of them was born in Mexico and is here in the US illegally, Mexican lawyers accuse the United States of a number of breaches of international law, sparking a flurry of appeals and hearings that continues for more than a decade.

At issue is a treaty agreement from the 1960s that allows foreign travelers the right to seek legal assistance from their home country. One of the indivduals (read: murdering, raping, butchering animals) who committed this crime declared after his own conviction that he is a Mexican national and should therefore have been allowed by the terms of this treaty agreement to seek legal assistance from Mexico - which he didn't do.

Mexican officials, I presume, got the International Court of Justice involved, and the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States must stop the State of Texas from carrying out its sentence of death until the case can be further reviewed.

President Bush issued a statement requesting that the State of Texas stay the animal's exocution, pending further review. In his statement, the President also said that he disagrees with the ICJ's decision, but would abide by it.

The State of Texas paused for about two hours, and then exocuted the animal.

So, I have a few questions here:

First, what kind of jurisdiction should an "international court" hold over matters of justice within the United States?

Second, should the President have sided with that international court, in a case wherein a foreign national raped and murdered two children in the President's own home state? Is it appropriate for an elected official to turn his back on the intentions of his own people like that? Just who, exactly, is the President elected to represent on an international stage? As a side question, what do you figure Ronald Reagan would have told that International Court of Justice to do with its decision?

Third - and this is the BIG one - What do you think that International Court told the families of those two young girls? Those two beautiful, bright, vibrant teenagers who just happened to be there by accident on that night, and died in the most horrific way imaginable - How much consideration do you figure this International Court has given to them?

And here's a bonus question: How long does it take for such a case to be reviewed? This animal has been on Death Row for years. Again, he committed the crime - he and his friends killed these little girls - in 1993, fifteen years ago. But he didn't claim to be a Mexican national then - that only happened after Mexican lawyers got ahold of the case.

Got another one for ya: In the wording of the original treaty, according to CNN (I have not read the treaty myself, thank you very much), the agreement covers foreign travelers. Not foreign rapists and murderers. Not illegal aliens who've lived in the US longer than they lived in whatever shithole they escaped from. Not gangbangers who rape and murder little girls for fun.

Yes, the State of Texas, against what must have been virtually overwhelming pressure from international courts, Mexican lawyers and the leader of the free world, stood up for their principles and carried out their laws. They did the right thing. I don't like the death penalty - in fact I hate it. But do recognize its necessity. And what's more, I recognize the right of the State of Texas (or any other state) to carry out its own laws, no matter who says what.

So hats off to Texas, and may she continue to take no shit from anyone.

Silly me...

Now here I was, thinking there was an FAA requirement to display the US flag on all aircraft registered in the United States. If not, then at least I figured it was the right thing to do.

And then I saw this. I guess I was wrong, huh?

What, the flag isn't patriotic? Is that it?

Now, I know two supporters of the Lord Utmost Obama X. One of them, upon seeing this post, will giggle. "Oh, you're just being radical," she'll say. The other will bring up the next pic, which shows McCain's campaign plane, sans flags on the tail:

But here's the difference: Any pop star can refuse to wear a flag until cornered by the press, and any malcontent can refuse to include his country's flag on his plane. But here's another picture of McCain's plane, which I found only moments ago:

This is said to be John McCain's A4 Skyhawk, shot down by the North Vietnamese in 1967. I don't know if it really is his plane or not, but that's the claim. Now, I'd like to see any supporter of Lord Utmost Obama X draw comparisons with that.

Because I'm pretty sure "McCain's plane" had the appropriate US insignia on it.

Barack's "New" Plane

So here's the question:
How many planes has Barack Obama had on this campaign?

I've seen a number of stories about his different planes, but generally candidates fly on chartered birds, I believe. And I think this is the first one with its own Lord Utmost Obama X logo on the tail.

So what have I been able to find in ten minutes of seaching the inter-web thingy?

In January, the Chicago Tribune reported the campaign's acquisition of a new 737-800. But in July, when his plane was diverted due to mechanical trouble, he was on a chartered MD-80 according to the New York Times.

The biggest story here, I think, is the relevancy. Political blogs are abuzz with people (supporters, mostly) who wonder what's so gosh-darn important about Obama having a new plane that it has to be reported by three mainstream reporters. But the way I see it, it goes to the character issue.

Like Al "Alpha-Male" Gore before him, the Lord Utmost Obama X has announced his intention for the federal government to require sweeping changes in the way virtually every American business operates, in order to appease the hardcore environmentalist lobby. Forced carbon emission reduction, Cap-and-Trade, and other expensive and unproven programs like Carbon Sequestration, will allow both the US federal government and foreign-run "environmental courts" to tax, fine, limit and alter fundamental business practices, based on still-unproven environmental theory. It's impossible to add up the moneys spent in the various environmental programs on his website, but the first number is $150 BILLION.

So I think it's only fair to ask about the carbon emissions from this latest 757 - evidently his (at least) third upgrade in seven months.

Also, in the beginning days of this campaign, I remember hearing a lot from the mainstream media about health care. At the core of the issue was the notion that so many Americans couldn't afford to have adequate health care insurance. Lord Utmost Obama X's solution was to increase taxes on private companies, limit some companies' profits, and spend billions of dollars establishing at least six different federal agencies to oversee the forced allowance of the uninsurable into government-administered (but still privately funded?!) insurance policies.

So I think it's only fair to ask how many Americans could have paid for their own health care insurance with the $300,000 that his new plane's paint job is reported to have cost.

And this is the part that really kills me - Our Friend Barry has made a political career out of convincing grassroots supporters, poor people who really can't afford health care, don't have jobs, can't pay their rent, etc, that he understands them. He feels them. He's po' like they is. After all, he's only a community organizer at heart, right? Somehow, people are turning out in droves to ignore the hundred-million-dollar incomes, the fancy millionaire mansions, the limousines and private Gulfstreams that surround the Holy Freshman and his entourage. But when this multi-million-dollar Boeing 757 arrives in Jordan with Obama's personal, focus-group-approved logo plastered on the tail, this bold new statement in the politics of American elitism won't go unnoticed.

He was right about one thing: He's not pursuing politics as usual. What he's doing is far, far worse.

Talking Down to Black Folks

Evidently, according to Reverend Jesse, talking down to Black folks is a sin punishable by the removal of one's nuts. Don't get mad at me, folks, I didn't say it.

And of course, we all know that Reverend Jesse is the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of talking down to Black folks.

Well, of course he is! To listen to Reverend Al, Reverend Jesse and the Messiah Lord Utmost Barack Hussein Obama X, you'd think it's a prerequisite! Or, more accurately, it's a competition between the three of them. They want to establish who can be the biggest poverty pimp, and the Messiah Lord Utmost Barack Hussein Obama X is winning.

And just like me, Reverend Jesse apparently doesn't like it.

Why I Miss the Cold War

I’ve heard quite a bit about “Why don’t they like us?”…Ron Paul (I think he’s a senator or congressman) says it’s our fault that the rest of the world doesn’t like us. He says, “They don’t hate in a vacuum. It’s our policy.”

Something someone said to me the other day kinda stuck with me. I was describing an initiative that my company took in Iraq to ensure acceptable living conditions for the workers of a company that had been contracted by the US for some sanitation work on a military base.

Let me clarify that. My company (at the time), the dreaded Halliburton, whom everyone seems to hate these days, sent me to another company’s labor camp, to ensure that this other company’s bosses were taking good care of their people. They weren’t, so we “greedy” Halliburton folks grouped together and worked toward the improvement of their living conditions. Our actions eventually got that other company (who was a subcontractor of ours) to clean up their act.

“And somehow, we’re the bad guys,” he said.

Yeah. We’re the bad guys. Even within our own country.

Well, it seems to me like, if you want to know why they hate us, you have to know which “they” you’re talking about. So, toward that end, here’s a short list:

The Mexicans don’t like us because we invaded Iraq. They showed us that by roundly booing Miss USA – in fact, they chanted, “Osama! Osama!” while she was on stage. They also evidently don’t like us because we provide work for more than 20 million of their countrymen, without requiring anything from them – not even taxes.

The French never did like us. If you doubt that, spend a weekend in Orly and then you tell me. But they really don’t like us right now because we put a stop to their corrupt Oil-for-Food program.

The Canadians think we’re stupid. Check in with David Suzuki on that one (evidently, Canadians are smart because they have his television show about environmentalism, and we’re not, because we don’t).

The Nigerians really, really don’t like us. The most popular bumper sticker in Nigeria is the likeness of Osama Bin Laden, “because he stands up to the Americans.” But they sure don't mind coming here and working in our factories and shops.

The Somalis don’t like us, because we went into Somalia. Also because we pulled out of Somalia.

The Sudanese don’t like us, because we both went into and pulled out of Somalia. They also don’t like us because some people are talking about taking action against the Sudan – and also because we’re not taking action in the Sudan.

The Rwandans don’t like us because we didn’t go into Rwanda and Burundi. I wonder if they'd like us if we had?

The Angolans don’t like us because we didn’t go into Angola. They also don’t like us because we’re in Angola.

The Serbs don’t like us because we went into Kosovo.

The Kosovars don’t like us because we struck a deal with the Serbs. The Kosovars also don’t like us because we struck a deal with the Kosovars – which is also why the Serbs don‘t like us.

The Iraqis hated us for invading Iraq in 1991, then hated us for pulling out of Iraq in 1991, then loved us for invading Iraq in 2003, but now they hate us for invading Iraq in 2003.

The Iranians didn’t like us because of our support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and they don’t like us now because of our military action against Iraq.

The Kuwaitis loved us for invading Iraq in 1991, but don’t like us for invading Iraq in 2003. They loved us for staying in Kuwait after the Gulf War, but don’t like us staying in Kuwait now.

The Saudis don’t like us because – well, because we’re not Saudis. Also, they don’t like us for stationing troops on their land, except when they’re being invaded by neighboring powers. And because we “allow” the women in our country to be seen in public.

The Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Omanis, Yemenis, Qataris, Libyans, Algerians, Tunisians, Somalis, Sudanese, Eritreans, Djiboutians, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis don’t like us because we support Israel.

The Israelis don’t like us because we support the Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Omanis, Yemenis, Qataris, Libyans, Algerians, Tunisians, Somalis, Sudanese, Eritreans, Djiboutians, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis.

The Afghans loved us for invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban in 2001, but now they don’t like us for invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban in 2001.

The Nicaraguans don’t like us because we opposed the Sandinistas in the 1980s, while supporting Honduran-based Contra insurgents.

The Hondurans don’t like us because we secured their border with Nicaragua and stifled the illicit drug trade during that crisis. They also don’t like us because we removed most of our troops from that region, and allowed the illicit drug trade to flourish again.

The Panamanians don’t like us because we invaded Panama to depose Noriega. They also don’t like us because it took so long to invade Panama and depose Noriega.

The Chinese don’t like us because we support Taiwan, condemning our military might while we park our warships in Taiwanese harbors to protect the Taiwanese from the Chinese.

The Taiwanese don’t like us because of our economic ties to the Chinese, and because we invaded Iraq.

The North Koreans don’t like us because we’re worried that they’ll nuke South Korea.

The South Koreans don’t like us because we’re worried North Korea will nuke them. They also don't like that we invaded Iraq. Nor do they like that we keep reminding them that they also invaded Iraq.

The Japanese don’t like us because we’re worried North Korea will nuke South Korea. And because we invaded Iraq. They also don’t like us because we keep reminding them that they’re also worried North Korea will nuke South Korea, and that they also invaded Iraq.

The Spanish don’t like us because we invaded Iraq. They feel we’re too zealous in our fight against terrorism. They also don’t like us because we remind them that they also invaded Iraq, and that the difference is that we didn’t cut and run when the war became difficult.

The Germans don’t like us because we invaded Iraq. And no one knows about invading other countries like the Germans.

The Russians don’t like us because we want to build a missile defense system, which would make their #1 export, old Soviet-era ICBMs, obsolete. And because we invaded Iraq, which showed the world that their #2 export, crappy old Soviet-era tanks, are also obsolete.

Let’s see…did I miss anyone? Obviously the Columbians don’t like us because their cocaine cartels suffer when our cops seize shipments, but I don’t know if that counts for much any more.

NOW…YOU TELL ME…Is there anyone on this list who has not, in the past fifty years, who hasn’t directly benefited from US foreign aid of some kind? And how many of those countries have returned that favor? One? Two? The Nigerians, for example, who proudly sport pictures of Osama on their cars, can’t get enough of our oil money.

It’s enough to make a fella miss the good old days of the Cold War, isn't it?

A REAL Message of Hope

A message of hope...

After all is said and done, what does Obama have to do with his preacher's comments? Everything.

See, there are those who will curse their own country when they see things happening with which they disagree. These are people who specialize in building division wherever convenient (racial division, economic division, etc etc).

By contrast, see the next post down. Ronald Reagan taught me that my future prosperity (the prosperity I enjoy today) was related directly to the exercise of my own freedom. And I used that freedom from that day to this, in order to ensure my own prosperity. Rather than damn my country (or sit in a pew and say "Yes Lawd" when someone else does), I get up at four in the morning and drag my fat butt to work. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has made far more money than I probably ever will, standing in front of a congregation of ingrates and cursing my country. But all is not lost. I have message of hope for you. And here it is:

Your prosperity is not linked to the government. Your well-being isn't tied up in gas prices. Regardless of what the CEO of Exxon does, or how much he makes, or really who the president or vice-president is, your livelihood - your prosperity - is up to you. It's your responsibility. No amount of cursing America is going to change that. So there's your hope. It's not in Barack Obama's "progressive" social programs, or in Hillary's war stories, or even in McCain's policy problems. It's nestled neatly in your own freedom.

Reagan Quotes

Thanks to Dan Souza http://www.dansouza.org/Articles/Reagan/Early%20Life/early_life_of_ronald_reagan.htm for these quotes from Ronald Reagan.

We could sure use Mr. Reagan right about now.

To sit back hoping that some day, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last. But eat you he will.

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence. (Jan. 7, 1970)

We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success - only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period, contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development. (Sept. 29, 1981)

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell and anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. (Sept. 25, 1987)

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if we only had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. (Oct. 27, 1964)

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. (Oct. 27, 1964)

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right. But I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom, consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." (Oct. 27, 1964)

The Couric Conspiracy

Why won't they take me seriously?!!!!!

Recently, CBS announced that Katie Couric will step down as their anchor person. Or, their anchor. They also released a statement blaming America's not being "ready for a woman anchor" or some such nonsense.

So here's a news flash for CBS News. No one cares that she's a woman. Your ratings have fallen lately because of media bias. And your statement is a beautiful example.

I don't watch a lot of news on television. Years ago, I'm told, newscasters and their stations actively supported American troops in the field. I've seen old Life Magazine issues and have seen old newsreels slapped together by CBS and other companies, highlighting the bravery of American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen. I have yet to see a single story, put together by CBS or any other major network (other than Fox), on any television broadcast, website or any other media, highlighting the bravery, fighting character and love of country of the American fighting soldier that I saw with my own two eyes in Iraq. I've seen a lot of why-we-shouldn't-be-there stories, though. Lots of those. And lots and lots (and LOTS) of coverage of bombs going off, casualties and blown-apart American military vehicles.

I've even seen the Evening News run footage that was put together by al-Qaeda as anti-American propaganda. Footage featuring my friends' dead bodies, thank you very much.

Is it a liberal-vs-conservative issue? I think so, and here's why.

Politically speaking, I came of age during the Clinton years. I specifically remember how damaging Bill Clinton's lies were to the American fighting man, as I was in the military at the time. In fact, before Clinton I wanted to make the Army my career, and by the end of his second term I was out of the Army with no intention of ever going back. My beloved Army had become a pawn in his perverted political game, from the Loathing Letter to the whole Don't Ask Don't Tell circus - and it had a serious effect of the morale of the American soldier.

I remember also while Bill Clinton was running for President, Bryant Gumble interviewing George H. W. Bush, the sitting President of the United States, and arguing with his answers like some kind of protestor. It was so painfully obvious who the reporter supported for the office, and that he was going to say whatever he had to say to discredit the most powerful man in the world. I felt like trying to call the President personally and assure him that most Americans did not feel as Gumble did. This was on the Today Show, I think. And the whole event opened my eyes to just how far out there a bunch of liberal reporters can be - and just how much they can get away with.

Just how disrespectful they can be.

I came away from that wondering just who these people thought they were. In his grandest dreams, Bryant Gumble could never do half as much for this country as George H. W. Bush (that's the elder George Bush, for those of you who don't know) has done. But he was never, so far as I could see, called on the carpet for his actions, and nor were any of the show's producers, directors, or writers. No one, nothing. Never. So I started wondering, just how far gone are these people?

Of course, these days, I have my answer. For example, not a day goes by in which I don't hear (read, etc) someone in the media saying "It's now five years since President Bush gave his famous 'Mission Accomplished' speech". Never mind that President Bush never said the words "Mission Accomplished." They were printed on a banner that had been raised by US Navy personnel on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Also, never mind that those words referred specifically to the military routing of the Iraqi army, the capture of Baghdad, and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime of Hitleresque henchmen. It was never intended to refer to subsequent counter-insurgency operations in Iraq.

But that's just one example. I've referred to the whole media-bias phenomenon as the Couric Conspiracy, because Katie Couric came from the same source of bias that we saw with the Gumble incident, which cemented my opinion of the newsmedia back in the early 90s. Same band of conceited, we-know-better-than-you, puffed-up reporters who will stop at nothing to put their own political views at the forefront of every story - even if it means criticizing a banner put up by sailors to celebrate a military victory.

And it falls right in line with the typical media big-headedness that they're now saying it's because she's a woman. Or, more accurately, that the rest of us rubes aren't ready to get our news from a woman. According to them, we're all just that shallow. We're too stupid to see through their bias, and we're too oafish to watch a female news anchor.

It's not only typical media conceit, it's typical liberal conceit, in a typically right-of-center country. It couldn't be more obvious - evidently, that is, to everyone but the media.