Inevitable Cries Of Discrimination

I saw this coming from several miles away:

“Nigeria has criticised (sic) new security measures for passengers flying to and from the United States as unfair and said they amounted to discrimination against 150 million people.

“The US government has announced that travellers (sic) from 14 countries, including Nigeria, are to be subjected to extra checks including body pat-downs, after a young Nigerian was accused of trying to blow up a US jet on Christmas Day.”

Extra checks including body pat-downs?!?! The horror! The audacity! How dare Nigerians be subjected to the security measures in which all Americans are also subject? Racist, I say! Racist!

Says Nigerian Information Minister Dora Akunyili:

“It is unfair to discriminate against over 150 million people because of the behaviour of one person.”

I expect the response from the Obami to be as predictable as this outrage from Nigeria. It will be something along the lines of, “You’re right, that was unfair and discriminatory. We’ll stop immediately.” How many others miss the “Cowboy Politics” of our last President right about now? Wouldn’t you like the response to be similar to what we Americans already hear any time we don’t like how we’re treated at the airport? “Don’t like it? Don’t fly.”

So, while the wheels of SmartPower™ grind out some appeasement, I will suggest a proper response to Ms. Akunyili:

“Unfair? I’ll show you unfair: no more flights to the United States for you. Miss those pat-downs now?”

How Long Ago That Was That?

When I completed reading this AP article, I was compelled to go back and count:

Paragraph 1: “two decades ago”
Paragraph 4: “This incident was over 20 years ago”
Paragraph 5: “20 years ago”
Paragraph 7: “the incident in 1987 or 1988”
Paragraph 10: “Twenty years ago”
Paragraph 12: “20 years ago”

So, with great thanks to the prowess of AP journalism, the reader is sure of at least one thing: something happened a while ago. What was this incident in our distant past? I can help narrow down the lengthy, wordy, and time-frame repetitive article for you:

Obama’s nominee to head the TSA lied to Congress about abusing his power 20 years ago. The abuse of power in which he was reprimanded was 20 years ago; the lie was recent, ergo the emphasis on when it happened to solidify the nonsense of the Accomplice Media:

“Acknowledging he has given inconsistent answers to Congress…”

Ah, I see now. He didn’t lie, he was just inconsistent … about something 20 years ago – don’t forget that! A cursory check of what’s what leads me to believe that “inconsistent” may be intellectually dishonest. The two salient paragraphs are here:

“In an October affidavit for the Senate committee, he initially said he asked a San Diego police employee to run a background check on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend and was censured by his FBI superiors 20 years ago for what he said was an isolated instance.

“But a day after the committee approved his nomination and sent it to the full Senate, he wrote to the senators and told them that he was incorrect, that he twice ran background checks himself.”

Inconsistent? Faulty recollection? He submitted an affidavit to Congress claiming he asked someone else to commit a crime for him prior to committee approval. A day after that approval, he clarified his lie by admitting he didn’t ask someone else to do it once, but did it himself twice. I call that a blatant lie. That’s OK though, because he assures us that this was an isolated incident (getting caught, I assume).

What we have here is a man who (20 years ago) abused his position of power to access information of a United States citizen for personal reasons. This breach of the rights of a citizen is the sort of thing that liberals howled about when the Bush administration enacted the Patriot Act. Where are the liberal concerns for privacy rights? Are we to entrust a position of power, one which has open access to sensitive material, to a man who has already abused such power? Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes:

“There are two problems with this, both of them serious. First, TSA has access to serious, sensitive information that is far more open to abuse than the records at the SDPD. Putting Southers in charge of that would be akin to putting a tax evader in charge of the IRS (or Treasury, for that matter). Second, if Southers cannot give honest testimony the first time in front of Congress about an incident from twenty years ago, what confidence can we have that Southers will tell the truth when things go wrong at TSA under his watch?”

Ed alludes to both Tim Geithner: Secretary of the Treasury and tax cheat, and Charlie Rangel: Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means (the one which writes tax code) and tax cheat. Add to these fine, upstanding lawbreakers a safe schools czar who is openly sexually deviant, an FCC diversity czar who admires the oppressive techniques of Hugo Chavez, a former environmental czar who is an open Marxist and 9/11 Truther, and Obama’s decision to place a man like Southers in charge of the TSA makes perfect sense.

It wasn’t so long ago that a plumber named Joe elicited an inconvenient response from then-candidate Obama. As a result, his personal records were illegally accessed by government officials and the details of the search were promptly released to the Accomplice Media which was all too accommodating in releasing. If Southers is to assume this position, will there be a level of accountability in such searches as there was from Ohio’s Department of Job and Family Services? I don’t think so. Therefore, what would stop a man who has already proven a proclivity to access this sort of information when he would be assured no consequences such as the ones he has experienced from 20 years ago?

Ah, I must just be a tin-foil wearing (bacon-eating) conservative nutball teabagger or something. I should just shut up about something this guy did once … er, twice, 20 years ago. The AP article linked here assures us that everybody except eee-vile conservatives think he is a stand-up guy. I read all the high praises of him (strangely, AP didn’t seem to have any criticism whatsoever). And hey, he assures us it was an isolated incident. That should be good enough for me, right? Is that good enough for you?

Knee-Slapper

Reality has gone bye-bye for the kooks at the democrat Congressional Campaign Committee. Seriously, do they actually believe this?

“(democrat) strategists Wednesday asserted President Barack Obama ‘has been far more aggressive in fighting al Qaeda’ than the previous administration.”

Wow – just wow. This amazing assertion got me to wondering how they came to this determination. Did they, as liberals usually do, write it down on a scrap of recycled paper, fold it up, put it under their pillow and wish really hard, or did they actually compile some sort of rationale for this sort of assertion?

“(The dCCC) stressed it was President George W. Bush, not his successor, who relegated the fight against the terrorist network to the back burner by turning ‘its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq.’”

Pillow wishing as expected. More than 19,000 Islamic militants were killed in Iraq from 2003 to 2007. Are we to understand that none of these were al Qaeda? All the al Qaeda were elsewhere? If so, are we to understand that Obama’s dithering for months upon months over sending the troops his generals were requesting in Afghanistan was the more aggressive approach? This was the “front-burner” approach?

Furthermore, the statement from the dCCC included finger-wagging at Republicans for – get this – trying to “score political points and even raise money off the terror plot to blow up a plane and kill innocent Americans on Christmas”. A quick check of very recent memory recalls this administration first claiming that this was an isolated incident, and there was no indication that it was part of a larger plot. This administration also claimed, from several high-level voices, that the system worked.

Did Republicans score political points from this? You bet! However, they did so because the administration, yet again, failed miserably and attempted to politically deflect all of it in hopes the media would continue to act as accomplices. I can hardly stomach criticism from the same democrats who tried their level best to lose the war in Iraq when Bush was President for the simple and sole reason of scoring political points.

To make these assertions of Obama’s superiority to Bush in war-fighting is as inane as claiming the system worked regarding the al Qaeda panty-bomber.

Holiday Cheer

I have found it difficult to find my center as of late. So much in my life, and in the world around me, seems to have gone awry. Lately, it seems no matter how hard I work, and no matter how hard I try, the water rises faster than I can tread. Even this day, one which means a great deal to the faithful but also means much to those who don’t adhere to any faith or religion – peace on Earth and good will toward men knows no civilized boundary – we find ourselves learning of yet another terrorist attempt on an airline destined for the United States.

In the ramp-up to this holiday, we find ourselves embroiled in a battle over whom to entrust our health care. We find ourselves out of work or underemployed. While we dig out of the snow and bundle up from the cold, we listen to the supposed SmartPower™ explain why we must sacrifice more of what little we have to save the planet from warming. Apparently, it’s a warm snow that is blanketing the nation. Apparently, it is warming that has been frosting my vehicle every morning … in Phoenix.

Amidst cries from us, the people who are slated to pay for all of this nonsense, we are called racists and Nazis. We are assured that we will pay dearly for our dissidence, yet also assured that we will be pleased with the results of this work. While I desperately try to stay afloat financially, I am informed that my cost to do so will necessarily skyrocket.

When I awoke on this Christmas morning, I was despondent. I was unhappy with how little I was able to provide for my family this past year, and how little there was to put under the little tree. I awoke this Christmas morning feeling like a failure. As my wife readied my son for his Christmas morning, I sat in front of my little tree:

I was still a little foggy from just waking up, and was feeling down as I reflected on Christmases past when I was a boy. I was able to awake to a big real tree surrounded by a sea of presents. Then, my son came out and looked upon the small display:

My son’s eyes were filled with wonder. Granted, he has never seen a display the likes of which I recall from my boyhood, and granted he was too young to grasp any of this last year. Just the same, my wife and I were filled with joy as he slowly began to rip the wrapping paper off his newly found treasures, and we basked in his merriment:

Will I find myself working towards a larger display for 2010? Of course. However, I found myself a huge measure of holiday spirit from the simple pleasures of my beautiful boy:

All the treasures of the world, all the tea (and US holdings) in China simply cannot buy the joy brought to me this Christmas day:

My family and I extend our heartfelt wishes of health and prosperity to all who happen upon this humble holiday cheer. Peace on Earth, and good will toward men.

Radio Free America

In 1949, an anti-communist organization was formed in New York City. Among the work performed by the National Committee for a Free Europe was the creation of Radio Free Europe, a broadcasting organization providing news, analysis and opinion beyond the scope of the monopoly of propaganda in Eastern Europe. Additionally, it was an outlet specifically for refugees and exiles in the region that had been completely marginalized otherwise. In short, it was a means to broadcast dissent in the face of totalitarian regimes.

Flashing forward to the end of 2009, we find ourselves nearing the end of the first year of a Presidency and Congress that has shown many similar features of those totalitarian regimes of old. Dissent is immediately attacked and marginalized. Those in media who are like-minded with the regime are heralded as the true bringers of news while those who present opposing views are targeted and libeled. The whistleblowers have been quietly brushed aside and prosecuted. Even some who simply asked questions and received inconvenient answers were targeted by government employees of like-mind with the candidate answering inconveniently.

These trends have been ongoing for many years, and have been growingly disturbing. If you filter through the years of articles on this site, you will note the many times I lament on the bias in media and the stranglehold liberal group-think has there as well as in academia. While disturbing, it was a source of gripe only. Ultimately, Americans have enough freedom to form their own opinions, choose their own sources of information, and set their own agendas. This reality of American life takes a major step backwards.

Henry Waxman, a democrat from California who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (which has jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission) has some frightening things to say about our free press. With news organizations acting more like the propaganda arms of the democrat party for decades, and ramping up their bias in coverage (and non-coverage) of the issues of the day, there has been a profound migration to alternative sources of information such as talk radio and the internet. Feeling the stranglehold grip slipping, democrats are attempting to act in the best interest of democrats instead of a founding American principle.

The Federal Trade Commission has been holding a two-day “workshop” facing media companies who have been hemorrhaging readers and viewers to explore ways in which the government can help them survive. My guess is that returning to objectivity in reporting was not a subject of discussion. Yet, this action must give us extreme pause. If media companies are failing, it is incumbent upon them to alter their business model – as all other businesses must – in order to compete. Such a “workshop” is an offense to the Constitution.

Speaking of Constitutional offenses, and remembering that our Founders thought enough about the toxic relationship of government involvement in the press that they addressed it in the First Amendment, Waxman speaks the unspeakable:

“(A)s we look at these various solutions, government’s going to have to be involved in one way or the other.”

No, sir. No it will not. The democrats have been tinkering with many different ideas in which they can regulate free speech. At what point do we stop this madness? When “real” news sources describe the Commander In Chief speaking at West Point as going to the “enemy camp”? Nope – that’s freedom of the press. When government attempts to subsidize that news source because it echoes their current agenda? Bing!

In short, the very mention of government involvement in the success or failure of any news company sets the worst of precedents. If we allow this transgression of one of our core founding standards to proceed unchallenged – a standard in which has been essential in allowing our freedom to endure these many years, decades and centuries – in which city do you think Radio Free America will be founded?

Thankful

So much in this country and in the world has me more than upset. Concerning many facets of life today, I am hopping mad. I am bitter and I am angry. However, today is not the day for those things. Today is Thanksgiving, and although I find my list of things in which I am thankful to be one that is shrinking, I must concentrate on the things of which I am truly thankful.

I have a job. It may not be ideal and it may not pay much, but I have it and am doing well at it. For that, I am thankful.

It is football season, and I get to watch the NFL every Sunday. For that, I am thankful.

I have a roof over my head and food in the cupboards. These things are tentative on a monthly basis, but I still have managed to keep things afloat. For that, I am thankful.

A friend just gave me a digital TV. He could easily have sold it, but he gave it to me because he knew I could use it and he was able to. For that, I am thankful.

I am alive and in good health. By the numbers, this should not be. Every day for more than three decades I have been thankful for this.

Bacon.

I am married to the most beautiful woman in the world. She loves me and tells me so every day. For that, I am more thankful than you can imagine.

There is very little chance that I will ever hear a radio DJ utter the words, “Here’s the new song from Rick Astley”. Enough said.

I have a son who is happy and healthy. How could anyone be more thankful for anything else?

Please take time today among all the chaos and mania of holiday nonsense to stop and truly ponder the things in which you are thankful. Be sure to remember bacon.

The Plan

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration set out to determine the new path for our nation in order to provide better security from an enemy which was beholden to no nation, no borders, no rules, no sense of morality, and hell bent on killing Americans regardless of their status as citizen or military. An enormous task to say nothing else. Unfortunately for America, opponents of the political party of the Bush Administration set out to utilize these efforts for political gain. The democrats proved themselves to be up to that task.

When Bush delivered his 2005 State of the Union address, we had already heard much from the democrats in this vain. In the most critical hours of deposing the dictator in Iraq and facilitating the transition of that nation to a democracy, to say that Bush’s opponents were pessimistic would be akin to calling the Pacific Ocean a quaint little fishing-hole. We heard choruses of “quagmire” and “Bush’s Viet Nam” over and over again from politicians and pundits alike. We heard over and over again that elections in Iraq were going to be a complete disaster:

“Does anyone think there’s not going to be absolute chaos from June 30th until January 1st or 31st when we have general elections?” –Sen. Joe Biden (d-DE), The Early Show, April 7, 2004.

“[A]nd the heart of the challenge all comes back to a lack of security. We’re not going to have successful elections” –Sen. Evan Bayh (d-IN), Late Edition, December 19, 2004.

“[T]he election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death - for us and for the Iraqis.” –Sen. Ted Kennedy (d-MA), remarks At Johns Hopkins’ SAIS, Washington, DC, January 27, 2005.

We heard lots and lots of cynical nay-saying that the course of events proved all to be completely wrong, lest we forget this gem:

“[The Iraq war] is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. ... This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed.” – Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), New York Daily News, June 9, 2005.

But the resounding and repetitive message we heard from democrats was a complaint that Bush had no “plan”. Nancy Pelosi’s response to the 2005 address included this already tired complaint:

“We have never heard a clear plan from this Administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight.”

By lacking a plan, Pelosi et al were referring to the President’s refusal to commit to a firm date in which we would leave Iraq. Once again, the Accomplice Media was more than willing to be the echo chamber for liberals to demand such foolish policy while simultaneously watering down or ignoring altogether the salient response:

“We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.”

Assuming this is too complex for the average liberal to comprehend, allow me to translate: the plan is to win. The timetable for leaving Iraq is that we will be there as long as it takes to win.

Flash forward to an Obama Administration who declared that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity”. Yet, when it comes to the requests from the Generals, Obama fiddles like a school boy caught chewing gum in class. Perhaps it is the simple disparity in Obama’s “plan”. Remember, the goal used to be to win. Generals tend to have this same goal. On that subject, we have heard only this from Obama:

“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” –President Barack Obama, ABC News, July 23, 2009

Harvard scholar and Nobel Laureate Obama getting history wrong is one thing, since the event in which he references that he wants desperately to avoid invoking the image never actually happened. Being worried about simply using the word “victory” leads one to believe that he might not have much interest in achieving victory in this “war of necessity”. So, if victory is not the “plan”, exactly what is, Mr. President?

Where is the media demanding to know the “plan”? They sure wanted to know it, and know it right now when we were busy liberating Iraq and helping them fight al-Qaeda. After successful elections in Iraq, they still were demanding a “plan” in the immediate. A clearly defined plan, annunciated to the world, on exactly when and where we will do what.

So, what specifically is the Obama Plan?

The Emotional Quotient

I wake up, and go to work. I always get there early so that I can be set up and ready to go when the work bell rings. I work hard, and what was considered Gold-Standard production in years prior is now barely enough to keep my job. Every month is a tight wire walk, knowing that things are getting worse, people are getting desperate and the company might opt to spend a little less on someone else regardless of past performance or dedication.

I wake up, and go to work. Regardless of the fact that my personal finances are nearing total ruin, I must continue to do what I can. Notification comes in from management that benefits will be cut, and costs will increase. For someone who has children, this means less working capital than before. The bills are being paid, but now my son eats normal meals while we sacrifice and eat little to nothing. This is the responsible thing, and any parent would do for their kids. I remember my parents telling me they were always willing to do so for me – they just never had to.

I wake up, and go to work. Notification comes in from the property management company that our rent will increase by $1,300 per year. Don’t like it? Move out. There is barely enough space in this apartment, and while there is a buyer’s market going on right now, I have nothing to negotiate with. Not only can I not afford or get a loan for a home, I probably can’t even get approved for a smaller, crappier crap-box of a place to live because I don’t have the best credit around. I struggle to live, and the biggest single expenditure I have is my tax liability.

Our President said that he supported spreading the wealth around, and he really meant it. But, nothing says misery quite like the Emotional Quotient. When times were going bad, it was demoralizing for me to have to liquidate my 401k. I felt failed when I had to sell my major appliances for cash. Nothing, but nothing compared to the loss I suffered when I sold my soul.

I wake up, and go to work. I do so, knowing that I am no longer making enough to survive. After work, I prepare myself. I once was known to refer to my guitar in the way that Charlton Heston referred to his Second Amendment rights. However, things are different now. So, I take the one physical item in the world that was, to me, priceless; and I sell it. I get enough money to survive and feel good that I was able to keep my family housed and fed.

But that was it. I sold it. There would never be another like it. It was my lifeblood for more than a decade. It was my companion, as I actually threw a major fit in an airport (pre-9/11) because the security people wanted me to send it to checked baggage. I won that fight, and was able to take it on the plane with me … and then I sold it. I sold it so that I could make sure the rent was paid. I sold it so that I could make sure my son was fed.

I wake up, and go to work. Despite of my efforts, doing a good job, and surviving the mass firings, I find little comfort in my success due to the fact that I can no longer pick up that beautiful guitar which fit my body so perfectly, and play my daily frustrations away. I quietly sigh as I take my next customer, and I think to myself, “Can this person tell from my voice that I am a man who sold his very soul?”

While others decide who might need my “wealth” more than I, you can find me lamenting the fact that I had to sell literally everything in the world I owned just to survive. By everything, I mean literally everything. I have no assets left. I have no savings left. I have no retirement fund left. My son has no college fund left. I gain no comfort from the notion that President Obama feel s this is right because so many others have had so much less than I in the past. Yet, of all the things I have had to let my heart break over letting go, none come close on my Emotional Quotient quite like my guitar. This simple piece of wood and wire was the physical embodiment of my musical soul. As I progressed as a musician and performer, so it followed. It was worn in all the same places as I was. It had the same flaws and quirks that I had. To me, it had no price – no value. To others, it was worth several hundred dollars.

Statistically, the guitar was a good investment. It cost about $2,000 new and was sold for about $800 at about 15 years of age. Beyond that, in immeasurable terms, it was the instrument in which I wrote my first song. It was the instrument in which I recorded my first album. It was the standard in which all other instruments would be measured. I sold it.

When you listen to the administration pay lip service about jobs saved and created, about healthcare, about the environment, or anything else, try and remember the Emotional Quotient as well. By the numbers, the loss of my guitar was minor. Yet, in selling it I feel as though I have lost more than I ever owned. How much will we be willing to cede before enough of our soul has been sold?

American Tears

Tonight, I weep.

I weep not for my own sake. I weep not for my own well-being. I weep for my son. I weep for his sake; for his well-being; for his future.

I weep because I know that someday I will have to explain all of this to him. Some day he will ask me about a nation I love so much and have raised him to love, and why his teachers are telling him that nation is so bad.

Some day he will want to know why the President of this great nation had so many poor things to say about Her. He will want to know what it was like before the dollar went away. He will ask about the days of freedom; of liberty. I weep because I fear that I will speak of those days in fond remembrance.

I weep because he is too young to remember the time when the government did not dictate our diet, our healthcare decisions, our energy usage, our travel habits, our words and our very thoughts. He will look at me in wonderment when I tell him there used to be a time that we could speak freely against the highest powers of the land without fear of rebuke.

I weep because I will have to explain how, even with the recent historical example of Viet Nam, how we as a nation could once again leave our soldiers and the people of foreign lands yearning to breathe free hanging out in the breeze. I will have to explain how, in the wake of the worst attack on the nation in history, we allowed another avowed enemy to acquire the weaponry needed to put that attack to shame. I will have to explain why our leaders actually encouraged this.

I weep because I will have to tell him the story of how I watched as the nation I love, for whom so many gave so much, was eaten from within.

I have lost faith in the political system. Moreover, I don’t have the foggiest idea of how to fix the problem for the sake of my son. For that, I weep the most.

From My Cold Dead Lips

My, oh my, there has been much ado this week about the war being waged by the White House against Fox News. Less than one year in office, the Obama administration has voiced support for a legally ousted Honduran who was looking to usurp the law of the land to retain power; has intentionally betrayed allies such as Israel, Britain, and Poland; has projected a limp and wavering American intent regarding the greatest threats to the world-at-large; and has ultimately waged war on the American economy with his unilateral domestic policy which has a dismal historical record (let alone the speed and deft of its current failure). However, it seems that the one battle Obama is willing to fight is against those who dare to object to his vision.

Afghanistan? This takes time for those as enlightened as The Dearest Of Historic Presidential Leaders to mull and consider. Iran? We must temper ourselves with nuanced diplomacy. Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Dissent from within? These are things than cannot be tolerated.

There is just so much on the subject, and I don’t have the time needed to properly catalog it all. As always, Doug Ross does a great job with much of it and I again suggest putting his site on your daily rounds as I do. Yet, the purpose of this article isn’t so much about what is, but rather what we predicted it would be.

Nearly one year ago, I wrote my final analysis of warning. There had been plenty of articles previously which had not gone so far as to outright accuse Obama of being the next Führer, but the culmination of behavior and imagery had become too much for this bacon-lover to pass over.

In his Blitzkrieg campaign for Citizen of The World Presidency, with Accomplice Media in tow, Obama sought to destroy and silence dissent in every step. As I outlined one year ago, the now-disgraced (yet still federally funded) group ACORN outright admitted that nearly 400,000 voters they registered were fraudulent. Again, these are numbers that they quoted – not numbers of which they were being accused. Was ANYONE in the media interested? Nah, why bother? Was ANYONE in the media interested in the $150 million raised by Obama from outside the United States due to his campaign’s willingness to commit outright campaign fraud? Nope. Why?

Has anyone heard of WGN radio?

“Team Obama has launched an offensive against WGN, the Chicago Tribune’s radio station, for interviewing Stanley Kurtz. Mr. Kurtz is a conservative writer who this week forced the University of Illinois to finally open its records on Sen. Obama’s association with William Ayers, the unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist.

“An Obama campaign email to supporters called Mr. Kurtz a “slimy character assassin” whose “divisive, destructive ranting” should be confronted. WGN producer Zack Christenson says the outpouring of negative calls and emails is “unprecedented.” He also notes that it is curious -- because “we wanted the Obama campaign’s take” on Mr. Kurtz’s findings, but the campaign declined to put anyone on air.”

Did you get all of that? When Obama was campaigning for His Sacred And Destined Office, a local Chicago radio station had the gall and gumption to speak with someone who – gasp – forced a taxpayer-funded University to release records about The Anointed One. Are you noticing any similarities in the above story from before the election with today’s campaign against the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?

It is at this point I would invite any liberal to request links about Joe The Plumber. I don’t think I need to rehash the damage done to this poor fellow who dared to elicit true intentions from Obama, but I will be more than happy to scrap with you on the subject.

I also highlighted the results of reporters asking inconvenient questions of the Impending Historic Administration by noting that Joe Biden cancelled all future interviews:

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.”

How dare a journalist ask questions about socialist agendas in a Presidential candidate? The NERVE! No more interviews for you. Once again, does this sound familiar?

So, when we hear recently that Rush Limbaugh receives a smear-job from the Accomplice Media, essentially sinking a business deal he was pursuing that had nothing to do with politics; when we hear that democrats are literally locking Republicans out of meetings; when we hear that the Obama administration is refusing a media organization access; I am simply not surprised in the slightest. Those who look up to Mao Tse Tung, like those in this administration, must know that Mao’s way was to place a bullet in the head of those who speak out against him.

While there are many pressing issues at hand, both foreign and domestic, none are more important than the Obama Offensive against the First Amendment. His biggest error is thinking there aren’t enough safeguards in our system and patriots in our land to ensure this attempt to usurp our most cherished freedoms will succeed. While patriots who defend the Second Amendment proudly state, “from my cold dead hands”, I among many others contend, “from my cold dead lips”.

You will not silence me. Ever.

Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot

Considering the recent track record at CNN, including (but not exclusively) broadcasting false and unsubstantiated quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh and fact-checking comedy skits that dare to poke fun at The Almighty Dear Leader of The Socialist States of America, I wonder if I should take umbrage:

Click image for larger view

What say you, oh lovers of freedom and bacon?

A Quick Thought From The Wee Hours

Does anyone else find this odd? Maria Shriver is seen using a cell phone while driving in direct violation of the law her husband signed. The country is alight with outrage and discussion.

Charles Rangel is in charge of the Ways and Means Committee – the very body that writes tax code. He is under investigation for what can be generously described as serial tax evasion. Nobody seems to care.

When I say “odd”, I really mean “sick, sad and indicative of our current elected leadership”.

Quick, Easy, And Without Cost

While I have a wide variety of topics in which my opinions run vast and distended with rants, I have decided to opt towards a small suggestion to a large and prominent problem. That problem is our government attempting to “fix” and/or “reform” healthcare. While Our Dearest And Most Historic Leader has extolled the bipartisan passing of the Baucus Bill out of one ridiculous government circus, sending it into another even more outrageous process which will ultimately change it to something that wouldn’t have passed out of the first, many Americans are continuing to scratch their heads. Why?

Is it because the highly publicized promises of transparency have been lowly publicized broken promises? Is it because the notion of getting one vote from the opposition garnered so much fanfare from the President? Is it because the process of passing this legislation is so convoluted that it pales only in comparison to the legislation itself? Or is it simply that most Americans simply do not have the time or inclination to concentrate on such a dry topic as the specifics of insurance?

Until recently, I cared very little about insurance for the same reason that the bulk of Americans: there are much more exciting things to talk and think about. However, due to circumstances beyond my control, I ended up in the business of insurance and am now in-the-know. It’s still dry and boring and I worry about anyone that wants to talk about it. Just the same, a little insight goes a long way.

While the insurance I deal with is a different arena, the concept is exactly the same. The concept of insurance is to indemnify the insured from catastrophic loss. Now, before you ask what the hell that means, allow me to rephrase. Buying insurance is the process of trading loss. You are conceding a small yet known and quantifiable loss (your premium) for a large unknown loss (catastrophe). The way this works is through the Law of Large Numbers:

“A statistical axiom which states that the larger the number of exposure units independently exposed to loss, the greater the probability that actual loss experience will equal expected loss experience. In some instances, insurers can virtually eliminate their risk of loss by securing a large enough number of units in an insured group.”

Once again, before you ask: this means simply that the more people in a group, the less impact any one loss has. If one person crashes their car, their exposure is the full amount of the damage. With insurance, that one person crashing their car as compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who haven’t crashed their car has a small overall financial effect on the insurer. Why is this pertinent?

While politicians preen and spin for government healthcare, which many Americans understand will be too expensive, too corrupt, not compassionate enough, and ultimately will suffer the failure that similar systems have experience across the globe, everyone seems to forget the driving principle of insurance. This is where the simplest, no-cost solution comes into play. If we are to implement the Law of Large Numbers to health insurance in a fundamentally significant way, the government could simply allow insurers to cross state lines.

As it stands, insurance companies are limited to the borders of the state in which it writes insurance. Rather than publicly fund a system run by the government (which has a 0% success rate with any business it has run), why not open the borders within the country? Allow insurers to expand their groups, thereby reducing premiums to all groups, especially the high-risk groups that so desperately need costs amortized? The solution is simple, requires no major legislation, does not require participation from those who chose to self-insure, and most importantly does not cost any taxpayer money.

Please Stay Tuned…

This message is being brought to you by the Political Correctness Czar, Melvin Snard:

Good evening, America. I am here tonight to speak to you about one of the greatest threats posing American life today: the possibility of being offended. As we all know from our Political Correctness training we have been receiving at school and in the workplace, there is no greater American sin than offending another person. Certainly, this is a much greater offense than mediocrity or failure.

Currently, the Supreme Court is reviewing this egregious offense located in the Mojave Desert:

I apologize if this image has caused you any discomfort. I know it is difficult for me to gaze upon, so I sympathize with your emotional response. This disgusting and improper image has been standing since 1934, and should soon be dismantled. Until the final ruling, it now appears like this:

Whew, that’s much better. Anywho, I figured that since this image has caused so many tens of people grief, I should investigate other infiltrations of possibly uncomfortable images in the American lexicon. I was horrified, after learning to read, that many of the letters in our current alphabet invoke feelings that might be icky to some. Therefore, by the power vested in me by no measure of Congress, I hereby announce the official alteration of the American alphabet. Please note the elimination of the following letters:

A: Due to the turmoil associated with the concept of anarchy, the letter “A” will no longer be used (also see the former letter “O”).

B: Turned on its side, this letter resembles the female cleavage, which can be construed as sexist and is therefore banned.

C: Due to the resemblance to the Crescent Moon, a symbol of Islam, the letter “C” will no longer be used.

G: Due to the resemblance to the Hammer and Sickle symbol of the former Soviet Union, the letter “G” will no longer be used.

K: Three of these and you have horrid racism. Therefore, the letter “K” will no longer be used.

N: Due to the nature of trauma inflicted by the N-word, the letter “N” is racist and will no longer be used.

O: Since the symbol for anarchy consists of both the former letter “A” and the letter “O”, neither will be used heretofore.

Q: Who cares about “Q” anyway? There are so few words that use it, so we’re just going to chuck it while we’re cleaning house.

T: Due to the resemblance to the Christian crucifix, the letter “T” will no longer be used.

V: Due to President Obama’s dislike of the term “victory”, we have no choice but to quarantine (hey, the former “Q”!) the letter “V” from here on in.

W: Lying bastard of a letter, claiming to be “double U” when it’s really a double “V”, which has been removed. Double victory pains the President, doncha know? (If that doesn’t work for you, “W” for win. If that doesn’t work for you – uh, hello, former President with a middle name beginning with this letter. Etc, etc, etc.)

X: Hello – crucifix hiding in a 45 degree angle. Gone.

Y: Let’s face it, this letter just can’t decide if it is a vowel or not. We can’t have this sort of ambivalence to existence in our new world.

Z: The racist “N” on its side. No more of that hatred in our alphabet.

Additionally, the letters “E”, “F”, “H”, and “L” will remain on a probationary period. As they all have the potential to resemble the crucifix in their line crossings, they will be evaluated on a regular basis.

Being the sensitive and caring non-gendered person that I am, I have done my very best to identify all of the images that could offend anyone for any reason. However, I am willing to take suggestions if any letters I have missed offend you. Please send any suggestions for future letter-bans to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Thank you, and may Al Gore bless us all.

Obama, World Citizen And Diplomat

All throughout the last Presidential election, we heard ad nauseum about how Obama will be the diplomat this country so sorely needs after eight years of Bush’s Cowboy Diplomacy. Certainly, no person I know would argue that Bush was a skilled orator, and Obama can give a pretty good speech (assuming there are no problems with his teleprompter). While the words we use and how we use them are certainly important, actions are vastly more important. Regardless of what Obama says in any given speech, his touted ability to bring about global respect for America is determined by his actions. So, where does our dear leader stand?

Britain: Fail

A staunch ally, Britain was at the front of the line for the Obama-style diplomatic reset. Prime Minister Gordon Brown presented the newly inaugurated (anointed) leader with an incredibly thoughtful and historically priceless gift: a pen holder which was carved from the timbers of the sister ship of the HMS Resolute. Timbers from the Resolute were used to make the Presidential desk which has been in the White House since 1880. In addition to this was the framed commission of that ship. Gordon’s wife, as by tradition, brought gifts for the First Children: outfits for the Obama girls from Topshop, one of Britain’s most expensive and trendy stores.

Citizen of the world Obama brought 25 DVDs that can be purchased in any store anywhere in America. These DVDs were, of course, in NTSC format. This is the format that we use in the United States and is not compatible with the European PAL format. Mrs. Citizen of the world brought two toy Marine One helicopters which can be purchased in the White House gift shop.

But hey, if you are going to fail, do it big-time. Obama also returned a bust of Winston Churchill to Britain – a gift that has been in the White House since the September 11 attacks. He also refused to attend a joint press conference with Prime Minister Brown – a press conference that is a standard occurrence for such a diplomatic meeting.

Poland: Fail

On the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, Obama reneges on an agreement to install a missile defense shield. This decision was largely considered by the people of Poland as a double-punch in the face.

Israel: Fail

On the 68th anniversary of what is considered by historians to be the day that the Wannsee Conference took place (when Nazi Germany planned the extermination of Jews in Europe), the United States abstained from voting on a UN resolution demanding that Israel give up their nuclear weapons. We could have stood by the side of our greatest ally in the Middle East and vetoed the resolution, but we apparently decided to vote “present”.

Tibet: Fail

Less than two years ago, Candidate Obama voiced his support for Tibet and wagged an empty gesture “shame” finger at the Chinese. Now, President Obama breaks 18 years of precedent and does not meet with the Dalai Lama.

The list goes on and on. However, if this is how The Great Unifier treats our friends, exactly whose embrace are we striving to achieve? Perhaps this bacon-loving rube in Arizona isn’t as refined and intelligent as Our Grand President, but wouldn’t we be better off with our time-proven allies versus trying to gain the admiration of China, Russia, and the Islamic nations who want nothing less than our total compliance or destruction?

As far as I see it, Obama’s diplomacy is personified by his bid for the Olympics: dead last. His abilities as a diplomat are as successful as the 2008 Detroit Lions.

Thoughts On Jobs

First, consider this (courtesy of Innocent Bystanders via Powerline):

The democrats slammed through Congress a nearly $800 billion bomb. Just stop and consider that number for a moment:

$787,000,000,000

That is what democrats simply could not wait a moment to spend.

However, there is a statistic that I have yet to see anything about on the subject. That would be the people more fortunate than the growing number of unemployed, yet less fortunate than years past. Of those still employed, how many (outside of unions and government) can expect growth in their earnings? How many are making more now than they did last year or the year before?

Speaking for myself, I will make less money in 2009 than I made from January to July of 2007. I am certain that I am not the only one that is fortunate to have a job, yet unfortunate enough to be making less and less. Add to that the looming tax increases (attention liberals: allowing a tax cut to “expire” is an increase, you dolts) and increased cost of living and you have the makings of a crash in the middle class.

What I would like to see is a comprehensive graph that illustrates both the decline of jobs and the decline of net income for those still employed. The unemployment numbers are bad, but so are the numbers for those who still work - and work hard.

Seriously Disturbing - UPDATED

UPDATE:

It seems that I was not the only one disturbed by the video of children being indoctrinated. The original video posted has obviously been removed from use at youtube, and it was quite difficult to locate another. Here is one that I found at ResistNet, so watch it before the democrat champions of free speech remove it too:


Find more videos like this on Patriotic Resistance


---

This is beyond disturbing. It envokes images of Hitler youth. I would have just as much problem with this if it were done for a President with whom I agreed:



As Americans, it is our duty to object to this. It is wrong.

I Just Don’t Understand Why

I find myself a little surprised in my choice of topics for this week. Usually, I have tried to contain myself to more policy-based discussions, along with my usual media screeds – and, of course: bacon. However, I couldn’t help but notice all the attention that is being paid to the topic and began to ask myself questions as to why. Quite frankly, not being able to discern a reasonable answer to the question is what put me on this path.

When the “Runaway Bride” story broke back in 2005, I was not only uninspired to write about it, I basically stopped watching broadcast news altogether. The answer to the question was simple: it garnered massive attention because it was given a movie title (lest we forget the flurry of “Home Alone” news stories which followed the film) and Americans generally like a saucy narrative. While some sex scandals are indeed newsworthy due to the stature of the offender or the legal ramifications of the case itself, most tend to be filler for the insatiable hunger we have for this type of storyline.

I have been sparse in my writing entire articles based on a sex scandal. Inevitably, I must reference former President Clinton’s indiscretions; however, the purpose isn’t for the narrative of the sex but rather the lack of judgment on behalf of a sitting President and the lies which followed this incredible lapse in critical thinking. The same applies to former Vice-Presidential candidate and, more recently, former Presidential candidate John Edwards. Once again, the inherent story exists within the particular brand of slime Edwards oozes; the brazen lies told; and the media’s willingness in assisting him with covering over the whole thing.

Inexorably, this brings me back to Mark Foley. In the past, I have discussed at length the media’s obsession with this scandal. However, I find it to be yet another prime example to contrast against. Make no mistake: I do not promote or endorse Foley’s behavior. His departure from Congress was warranted and his public disgrace is merited. Yet again, it seems that media types are only disgusted by the bad behavior of Republicans and tend to make excuses for democrats – which brings me full circle to the question with which I cannot seem to find the answer: why are liberals defending Roman Polanski?

Rather than filter through the more than 1.5 million Google hits on Mark Foley, allow me to sum up the media reaction to the Congressman sending lurid emails to 16-year old staffers with a report from The Washington Post:

“ABC reported that the boy forwarded the photo-request e-mail to an unidentified congressional staffer and wrote that the message was ‘sick sick sick sick sick.’”

Remember that use of repetition. Anyway, the answer to the question of interest in this story is simple: it was the catalyst for Pelosi and Company to claim widespread corruption in the Republican Congress and eventually played a major role in the democrats winning back control. Somehow, the story was less interesting to the media that the democrat who replaced Foley had a sex scandal of his own, having paid more than $150,000 to his mistress. Alas, I digress – it seems well established that democrats have the media in their pockets and thus we will have over coverage of Republican sex scandals. So, again I wonder why the lefties are all coming to Polanski’s aid.

The details of Polanski’s crime are well-documented and, as of his recent arrest, have been rehashed in graphic detail. He drugged and sodomized a 13-year old girl, plead guilty, then fled the country. Since leaving the United States in 1978, he has been living a normal life free of the constraints of justice. For more than three decades, he has lived a much better life than most law-abiding Americans. Finally arrested, the reaction from the media has been stunning:

The Los Angeles Times writer Patrick Goldstein saw it fit to make excuses for the filmmaker due to the budget troubles of the State of California and the hardships of his life, with mentions of escaping the Nazis and the murder of his pregnant wife. Additionally, he makes sure to note that Polanski’s victim has since “forgiven” him. Golstein’s contention is that Polanski’s situation is a “tragedy” and that he has “paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions”. Based on the link for the article, its original title suggested Los Angeles prosecutors were stalking Polanski, but it was apparently toned down by the editor to merely suggest they were hounding him.

While I do not have the resources of the Los Angeles Times, I’m pretty sure there are no legal exceptions to raping a 13-year old for the reasons extolled by this media outlet. I have yet to receive a response from them to clarify that issue.

Tom O'Neill, the senior editor of In Touch Weekly, finds the pursuit of Polanski “mind-boggling”, and also apparently concurred with the legal prowess of the Los Angeles Times that the combination of the victim’s forgiveness along with a three-decade avoidance of justice would negate any action.

ABC’s Good Morning America (yes, the same ABC which thought Foley was “sick sick sick sick sick”) referred to the ongoing efforts to bring a child rapist to justice as hunting the filmmaker and called it “prosecutorial obsession”. Color me nutty, but I would want prosecutors to be obsessed if someone I loved was forcibly sodomized.

I could go on with examples from Time, CNN, NBC, and CBS, but I think the point is clear. The Accomplice Media and their minions in Hollywood are circling the wagons for Polanski. I cannot fathom why. What could possibly be the motivation? I simply do not know. However, I was particularly disgusted by another use of word repetition:

“I know it wasn’t rape-rape” – Legal Expert Whoopi Goldberg

What?!?!

The issue here is quite simple. Regardless of being a talented filmmaker, regardless of having suffered unimaginable horrors at the hands of Nazis, regardless of having suffered unimaginable horrors at the hands of the Manson Family, regardless of his age, regardless of his victim forgiving him after so many decades, regardless of California’s economic woes, and regardless of what Whoopi Goldberg thinks, Roman Polanski committed a crime and confessed to it. If we are to make exceptions for Polanski, we might as well throw out the law altogether.

So, can anyone explain to this bacon-loving rube why defending a child rapist is the liberal cause du jour?

The Accomplice Media

I was back and forth on what to write about for my return to this foray. Much has occurred in the months since I last posted an article of substance. I was seriously considering a comprehensive roundup, but quickly realized the amount of time it would take and the length of the article would be prohibitive. Thus, I had to decide on a topic that engenders the many months past. Hands down, no question about it: the media and its utterly disgusting partnership with the current administration. The media should never, ever be working in congress with the politicians. We have so many historical precedents to choose from that illustrate just how dangerous such a partnership can be.

When my wife read my post from last night, she commented to me that I let Charles Johnson have it pretty hard, and that got me thinking about why I feel so strongly specifically about the direction Little Green Footballs has taken. Suddenly, it hit me: it angers me because he is doing precisely what the media is doing: ignoring the current administration and concentrating on the faults of the opposition. Seriously, doesn’t Johnson realize that he is doing nothing different than what CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN have already been doing for years?

Now, I don’t want to get too far off track, and I could list example after example from the start of the Obama administration, but that would make this post run much too long. Thus, I have two examples to highlight – one which is of little consequence and one which is of significant consequence. Let us begin with a little light reading.

The Media Loves A Sex Scandal … Involving Republicans

It is an easily referenced example, and one I have highlighted before in 2006. Mark Foley, a Republican member of the House, received the full brunt of the power of the media when he was caught sending lurid emails and text messages to teenage Congressional pages. When I wrote the linked article, there had been 152 stories run in the Accomplice Media about the scandal. I compared that to the plight of Mel Reynolds, who was indicted in 1994 for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse of a teenage campaign worker. In the course of a full year, a grand total of 19 stories were run about Reynolds (who was later pardoned by Bill Clinton).

So, it is with complete and utter lack of surprise that the Accomplice Media completely ignored the story broken by … wait for it … The National Enquirer about then-Presidential candidate John Edwards. Granted, I wouldn’t give much credence to the Enquirer as a news source, yet they had and presented some pretty solid evidence right from the start. The media was totally uninterested. Why? This was a story in which the media should fall over each other to get the scoop: a candidate for the President of the United States having an affair and fathering a love child while his wife was undergoing cancer treatment. Yet, Edwards told them, “Nope, not true”, and they responded, “We believe you”.

Why do I bring this up now? Because regardless of the continuing lack of coverage, there have been reports very recently that the child is undeniably his – and he is ready to finally admit it – after repeatedly lying to the public. Oh, and it looks like he was using campaign money to keep people quiet about it. One must wonder why the media is so uninterested! Perhaps because painting any democrat as the lying, deceitful turd that he is would be damaging by proxy to The Glorious Leader?

Mr. President Goes To Hollywood

In his continuing effort to sell his lemon of a healthcare industry takeover, Obama hit the Sunday talk show circuit. It was an All-Barry-Sunday blitz with appearances on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Univision. Rounding it all out, he made yet another appearance on David Letterman’s dusty and unfunny late night Bush-Bashing show. Strangely, he did not appear on Fox News, assumedly due to its primal evilocity. While Letterman lavished praise upon his Dear Leader and NBC’s David Gregory asked some pretty hard questions about the White Sox, only one – ONE – interviewer asked him about ACORN. Straight from the interviewer, George Stephanopoulos:

“It was one of the most popular topics among the questions you submitted to me for my interview with President Obama – the controversy involving ACORN.”

How does it come to pass that during a total meltdown of ACORN, which was largely ignored by the media, with Congress voting to strip ACORN of all Federal funding, that only one of five “news” outlets bothered to ask the President about it? Two words: Accomplice Media. If it has the possibility to make The One Who Will Fundamentally Transform America look bad, the media simply pretends it doesn’t exist. And let us not pretend that Stephie did his level best journalism here either – allowing such nonsense answers from Obama to pass such as:

“I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.”

…and, in response to a direct question about whether he will sign or veto cutting off funding for ACORN:

“George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.”

Now, we know from Joe Wilson’s outburst that calling Obama a liar is racist, so I must be cautious when I comment on the above response the President gave. Nah – that was absolute crap. Transparent dodging and outright lies. Stephanopoulos allowed it to go unchallenged.

This brings me to my final note about that interview. Obama’s laughable (if it weren’t so horrible) dodge about his supposed non-tax on healthcare. The idea goes something like this: participate in my program or face a fine of $3,800. It’s a “fine”, silly; it’s not a “tax”. Much in the spirit of “I won”, here is The One:

“George, the fact that you looked up [in] Merriam’s dictionary the definition of ‘tax increase’ indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.”

Uh, no Mr. President. Not at all. You are trying to use semantics to avoid admitting breaking one of your largest campaign promises:

“I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Adding a $3,800 “penalty” or “fine” or “gratuity” or whatever other BS you want to call it is, by definition, a tax increase. What have we heard from the Accomplice Media on these outrageous lies and dodges? You guessed it: bupkis. If the media is willing to cover for democrats in power to this level, we must ask ourselves: at what point would they deem to be “too much”? I expect it would be when the administration returns to a Republican. Then, and only then will their investigative prowess be renewed.

Here We Go Again … Again

What a strange sensation this is: I am up late; everyone else is in bed; the silence of the night and solitude of the hour call to me with a whisper. The whisper is faint, yet clear: “Shouldn’t you be writing right now?” I’ve heard this whisper many times before, yet I have been failing to answer its call for quite some time. Has it really been that many months since I have consigned myself to answering that internal call? If so, why does it seem so much like it was only yesterday that I did this last? Alas, these are questions which need not be answered here. This paragraph is only meant to bridge the gap of time. Sorry for my departure and thank you for your requests for my return.

Change™

I have changed the appearance of the site. I have done so in part because I felt it necessary to answer the President’s call for Change™. Also, I thought that since my format will be slightly different, a change in appearance might be appropriate. So, feel free to credit President Obama, but mostly it’s because I felt it was appropriate. I leave it open so that if it doesn’t work, liberals can blame me but if it works well, then they can give credit to their ultimate hero.

I have and will continue to change the Essential Links. One major adjustment that needed to be made was the unfortunate decision to delist Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs. While I am quite certain that he will neither lose sleep over it nor even be aware of it, for I am but a small voice in a sea of new media, I can no longer tolerate the direction he has taken. While I have admired Johnson’s stand against typical conservative stands on Creationism as science to be taught in schools, his new line apparently seems to be tacking left versus holding a steady course. I’ve been disappointed with his direction for some time, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was his brief post from September 15:

Obama Supports Extending Patriot Act

Watch as the same people who loudly supported the Patriot Act for years suddenly start to find things wrong with it

I was utterly appalled to see Johnson concentrate on an imagined backlash from former supporters of the Patriot Act as opposed to the actual hypocrisy of Obama’s new stand. So, as I have been doing in lieu of writing articles for the past many months, I left a comment (getting me a whopping “-2” rating amongst his own adoring followers):

I know this is your site and all, but would you be at all interested in pointing out the massive hypocrisy of Obama on this point?

His response said it all:

You go right ahead. I don’t feel like it right now.

It is truly sad, but it is what it is. In the spirit of his item above, I wonder how long it will be before the vitriolic and hateful DailyKos crew become faithful followers of the once-staunchly denounced conservative web journalist that singlehandedly brought down Dan Rather.

So, moving along as I intend to continue to do here, allow me to set the stage of expectations for future installments here at the land of Neil Diamond and bacon. My current employment and personal situations no longer afford me the opportunity to provide daily installments, so I have opted to jump back into the pool with a weekly roundup – not unlike my initial intent back in 2004 when I began this mad, mad journey. While I am well aware that there are plenty of folks out there doing much more in-depth and influential work, I must ultimately admit that I will be doing this for me over all else. I don’t expect national attention and do not expect to break the next big story – never have. However, I will call things as I see them and will do so unapologetically.

So, that’s my reintroduction. Tomorrow, I intend to post about stuff actually happening in the world.

(Note to self: what a great place to have a catch-phrase. “Good night, and good luck” has already been taken, but it would have worked nicely.)