Rants and Other Refinements

Silence Of The Rants

2011-03-05T00:14:00.001-08:00

I’ve learned in my life that the less one makes declarative statements, the less one looks foolish in retrospect. With that said, I am posting this to say my thanks to those who have supported this site and to say fare thee well.

This is complicated, but I will do my best to explain. I have been writing this site since 2004 and I have always done so knowing that it would be something that is personal, humorous, unique, and completely non-commercial. I have had periods of prolific content, periods of hiatus, periods of anger, periods of comedy. I have written some pieces that I think are quite profound and others that are banal and sophomoric. I have traversed the gambit.

However, what I haven’t been able to do and what I feel I will never be able to do is make impact. Making waves is easy, but making true impact doesn’t appear to be in my portfolio. For a number of years, this meant very little as I was working from home, was married to an absentee wife, and had oodles of time to … well … rant. That was then.

Now, I am remarried and have a son. Given the choice, I spend my time with them over this site any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Moreover, I have a taxing job which allows no time for such indulgences as this site. This leaves the time that I sleep. For more than two years, nearly every post you see here (including this one) has been written in lieu of sleep. Frankly, I just don’t have it in me anymore.

When I posted this poll, I expected the result I received. There are a couple people out there who are kind enough to follow my prattle and I will always feel good about that. However, for the literally hundreds of hits to this poll, a mere ten people were motivated to click an answer (the eleventh vote for “I don’t know” was me testing the poll). Nine out of ten voted for me to stay around, and again I cannot thank you enough for that. However, that is an answer in of itself as to my overall impact.

To gather a larger view of the daily activity on this site, I used the StatCounter analytics to show me what drives people here. Of the last 500, the majority linked here because of this image:

245 of 500. So, my biggest audience is looking for porn. Second largest in the search terms, a paltry 56 of 500:

Both images were in the same article. I wrote a satirical article about banning letters of the alphabet which was prompted by a lawsuit against a WWII memorial in the middle of a desert that consisted of a cross. I had hoped my crafting of this satire would have impacted people more for the content than for the understandable obsession with cleavage and strange obsession with the anarchy symbol.

Anyway, the more I type my lamenting farewell, the less I sleep. So, I will now say my thanks and be on my way.

To Doug Ross: I am not sure exactly how to properly thank you. There has been no one source of reference to my site than yours. I still have trouble figuring out why someone with your readership would even take notice. The traffic to this site would have been a fraction of what it has been if not for your attention. Many heartfelt thanks.

To Maine Now And Then: Rarely in life has someone had such kind words and encouragement for me. I am humbled, sir. Thank you.

To HeadMuscle: Few writers exist with your talents. I’m sorry I don’t have the wherewithal to forge forward with the Intolerance Party. I am still tinkering with ideas on The Example and will let you know if I make any salient headway. I thank you for your support, attention, and other refinements.

To all my other friends and family who have supported me in this endeavor over the years: thanks for indulging me. I promise to talk about something else next time we have dinner together.

Perhaps this situation will change and I will find reason or motivation to return. Until then, I leave this site active as an archive and will entertain any requests to take over the domain. It’s been fun.

Impasse

2011-02-17T00:54:00.000-08:00

I would like to apologize to those few folks that follow this site for the pause in an update. I have found myself at another impasse and am not certain how to proceed. I hope to receive some input from you.

As a preface, I want to say that I am very proud of what I have done here over the past six years. This site has reached every corner of the globe, and has received praise from some prominent people. However, much like my music career, this site is kept alive and running by love over success. I do enjoy writing the occasional screed as much as I enjoy the occasional romp with my guitar, but the obvious conclusion is that neither have any impact whatsoever on society.

This is where I hit the proverbial wall. I created a political party platform and called it the Intolerance Party. I still like it, think it is funny, and wish like hell I could continue creating content in its name. I have been trying like hell to put a campaign video together, but it all falls flat. It doesn’t work right now because our situation it too serious.

Without satire, I serve little purpose. Serious reporting and journalism is covered – I am not adding anything. So, I am considering shutting down this site and moving on. Currently, my largest draw to the site is from Google images: one of an image of the anarchy symbol and the other an image of cleavage. Seriously.

So, I would really like your input.

Thanks.

John Green: True American Hero

2011-01-11T00:43:00.000-08:00

I need not flesh out with too much detail the unbelievable nonsense which has been spewing out of the leftist voices in America over the Tucson shootings this past weekend. Much has already been said, and I fear we have barely seen the tip of this iceberg.

We know all too well what leftists do when an incident occurs: immediately legislate away American freedoms, Constitution be damned. As per usual, the First and Second Amendments are the immediate targets (pardon me for using such a heated rhetoric term in political discourse). My immediate concern is with the leftist attack on free speech. This has been the framing of this incident from minute one:

Yes, “we” must tone down “our” rhetoric. We know this because every damn mainstream analysis tells us so. I opened a shitpile of links from every American media outlet to highlight this, but why waste the time linking them all? Anyone who finds themselves here at this meager site has, at bare minimum, a tertiary sense of media and has already seen what I am talking about. So, why would I want to highlight all those media articles and internet links? Not so much because of what they are telling us, but more so due to what they are not reporting:

With few exceptions, such as that of the fine folks at Hot Air, and a few mentions with no commentary or context, nearly no media outlet cares to discuss the brave and noble words of a grieving father. John Green, father of nine year-old Christina Green, seems to show an understanding of America better than anyone in media or government has shown in this tragedy – and has done so having suffered the most egregious effects of the event:

“I know she wouldn’t want…restrictions.”

“We don’t need any more restrictions on our society.”

“If we live in a country like the United States where we are more free than anywhere else, then we are subject to things like this happening, and I think that’s the price we have to pay.”

While most Americans mourn the loss of life and condemn the acts of a madman, democrats went to work. They immediately strategized the best way to squeeze political dollars from this. The so-called “progressives” in America wasted no time in blamestorming. The media and politicos decided not to heed their own warnings of “caution” regarding motivations as they did when a muslim shouted “Allah Akbar” before shooting up a military base.

Yet, here we see the easiest person to sweep up in the calls by the left to further legislate speech – the father of a slain nine year-old girl – displaying insurmountable courage and wisdom. I do not know, nor do I care, to which political party Mr. Green subscribes. He gets it. He said it better than anyone else, and because he did so in such circumstances, I consider him an American hero.

Meanwhile, the leftists still control the message. They create the framework. Behold:

The first link from Examiner.com is a short quote among many other quotes, most of which call for – you guessed it – limits of speech. The other links are ridiculous as expected. However, there may be hope in the 1,225 other links as highlighted.

Nope. How bad is it when the only media voice of reason regarding America’s most cherished freedom comes from Toronto?

The leftists still have their stranglehold on media. While they continue to scream and yell about Fox News, one single media outlet on pay cable, they control all the messaging. They hold all the strings. They frame all the discussions.

Worst of all, they have no shame.

Thank you, John Green. Thank you for being stronger than I could ever envision myself to be. I have not the proper words to express my sympathy for you and your family.

A Short, Concise Challenge

2011-01-06T00:37:00.001-08:00

Merry New Year.

So, it seems that the liberal, progressive effort to cleanse our history of historical context has taken us to the point where we are now going to rewrite the American classic piece of literature: “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”. In order to make liberals feel good about themselves, they have consigned themselves to revising Twain’s masterpiece by a simple process of “Find and Replace”.

Yes, I report the news you already know that Twain’s work will be republished with this progressive edit. OK, so I never posted about the edit of “Blazing Saddles” having the same word edited out for television viewers regardless of the fact that the use of the word in the film was to highlight the ignorance of racial discrimination. Just the same, I probably should have. If more Americans stood on their laurels regarding the use of this particular word in art as progressives do for the use of Christian symbols covered in ants, feces and semen, then we might not find ourselves wondering how we have come to editing one of the most acclaimed pieces of Americana.

Therefore, I present a simple challenge: coherently explain to me why the use of this particular word is acceptable for rap/hip-hop artists, certain film actors, and certain comedians (especially when the word is not used in any contextual manner in these examples), but not for Twain’s book.

Any takers from the Media Mutters Morons? Anonymous posts are enabled, you cowards.

Self Promotion

2010-12-22T01:20:00.000-08:00

It appears that Doug Ross is doing his annual Fabulous 50 Awards, and while reflexively justifying why my site does not belong on such a prestigious list I thought I might make a bid of self-promotion. It is certainly true that I do not run consistent content or provide regular intervals of articles. Blog sites are considered outside the mainstream – my site is outside the mainstream of blogs. I get it. Regardless, I hereby submit my egregious effort of self promotion by highlighting my 2010 lowlights:

January 2010: Diamond Blogger

I submit that no other blog listed features the author singing Neil Diamond.

February 2010: Media Memory Hole Blockage

Click image to see for yourself

I cannot claim to be the only one who captured this screen-shot of AP memory-hole dumping, but it makes a case that I do work other than the whimsical.

March 2010: This one has naughty language

Click image to smear

While breaking down a serious smear against a close personal friend, I managed to work in a shot at Rahm Emanuel’s notorious shower scene.

April 2010: Blazing Borders

Many thanks to Chuck for this poster

Utilizing the film Blazing Saddles, I inspired fellow a fellow blogger at Headmuscle to reproduce the article in its entirety, create a movie poster for the article, and worked in a Barney Frank reference with the Dom DeLuise character. I’m very proud of this one and think it alone qualifies me for consideration.

May 2010: It’s Elena

Do you have any idea how much time I spent searching for these two photos? Seriously!

June 2010: Media Madness

Am I wrong?

Sick and tired of all the nonsense, I went to every damn major media outlet online, captured the screen, highlighted the nonsense, and still managed to locate this gem. To cop a phrase from MNF: C’MON MAN!

July 2010: Strap-On And Friends In Alternate World

“How can you suck and blow at the same time, Keith?”

This article was so worth the hours!

August 2010: Tolerate This

No image for this one. Just go and take the test.

September 2010: The Party Starts

The Intolerance Party is born and the party platform is released.

October 2010: GOTV

My first ever Get Out The Vote video. I am very proud of this work.

November 2010: Time For Tea?

Go ahead and call me a teabagger. I double-dog dare you!

December 2010: Feeling Motivated

A tribute to my new found love of motivational posters.

Let us not forget a year chock-full of bacon. I have more references and tributes to bacon than any other site in contention.

Whaddya say, Doug? Do I make the cut this year?

Other Refinement: Christmas "Fashion"

2010-12-21T00:47:00.000-08:00

A co-worker:

Yeah.

Intolerant Motivation

2010-12-05T21:37:00.000-08:00

The following is a message from the Intolerance Party:

Things are bad. We elected people who have done serious damage.

Regardless of the fact that WE TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN, we understand that some of you were swept up in the madness of the moment. Many of you relied on formerly trustworthy sources.

Many of you now know that an adoring media can be dangerous. While all cannot come to this realization, enough of us can recognize the “product” which was created for our consumption.

No matter how much they try to sell us on the benefits of Olestra, none of us care to risk the oily anal discharge.

Bacon has never wronged us in this way.

The time has long since passed that we revisit our own history. The way our history teachers framed events might not be exactly the way things were.

The one thing history shows us is that we cannot survive this massive spending spree with the people’s money…

…especially not when it is spent so frivolously and fruitlessly.

Spending of this kind lends credence to those who would bilk the public fund to combat fantasy disaster scenarios for personal financial and political gain.

Let’s all take a moment and center ourselves.

While some use the environment, others use the strife of ancestors past. Again, we must look to our past – our history – to see who was and still is on the moral side of the issue. Who gains from race and class warfare? Here’s a hint: they are the ones who incessantly slam it on the table.

Meanwhile, there is a threat to our own little squabbles. For political purposes, some have come to the defense of this nonsense. Let me be clear: these sick assholes will not care who you voted for.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Enough is enough. I have a hard time believing that even the filthiest of the hippie leftists wearing the Che Guevara t-shirt selling the “Yes We Can” bumper sticker from the trunk of the Chevy Volt in which he lives would truly be accepting of Islamic rule. The American leftist currently defends the Islamic asshole with full fervor simply because the American conservative fights them. We fight for the American rights and way of life. They seem to fight for the sake of opposition.

If leftist weenies get their way, and we accept these Islamic overlords to run the show, they will be the first crying sissies looking to us gun-clinging conservatives to save them from their eventual stoning. Before this happens, let us try and remember that we are all Americans. Although we differ in a million ways, we are united in a billion ways. While our spending has put us in debt many trillion ways, let us again unite so that we don’t have to teach our children what comes after that.

Other Refinement: David The Douche

2010-11-18T23:46:00.000-08:00

This is my co-worker, David:

David knows full well that I am a die-hard Bears fan. He also knows that I had recorded the game tonight on my DVR so that I could watch it from start to finish. Since I work nights, I couldn’t watch it real-time. He knows this because he works roughly the same schedule.

So, by the time I am at the start of the second half, with the Bears up by only six points, I get a text message on my phone. It’s David, letting me know that he was happy the Bears just won.

At this point, David is now my own personal bitch-slave. I now open the floor to suggestions on what horrible and degrading things I should demand him to do in public. Have fun, be creative and the winning suggestions will be listed with photos.

Let him have it.

Why Is This Still Acceptable?

2010-11-07T23:55:00.001-08:00

In 1773, American colonists rose up against the tyranny of the English Crown. The political elite deemed it necessary to force upon the people unreasonable taxation without representation. The people, who had finally endured enough, sent a message back to the ruling class that they would no longer tolerate such malevolent rule. This event would come to be known as the Boston Tea Party.

I don’t know the exact year of origin of the term, but at some point likely in the twentieth century, the act of dipping one’s genitals in another’s mouth became known as teabagging.

So, here we are in the new twenty-first century. It is a time of political correctness. The things we say, now more than ever, can make or break us. Whether sought or unsought, the wrong term which may be deemed “racist” or “intolerant” has destroyed the lives and careers of countless Americans. We are a nation long past the hurling of racial epithets such as “the N-word” (a word I fear to reproduce here, yet rap and hip-hop artists use at will without worry of insurrection).

Make a joke at someone’s private birthday party? You’re fired. Use a name that some historian can link to racism? Lose an election. Speak out against a group that calls itself “The Race”? You’re a damned racist. Yet, refer to Americans who believe in the Constitution as “teabaggers”, and you can count yourself among major media personalities as well as prominent lawmakers.

Since when did we all lie down and allow the term to be acceptable? Is it because there is no race associated with it? Here’s one for you: American. The term is vile, rude, and totally incongruent with the ideal of a civil discourse on governing principle. Aren’t we constantly bombarded by the very people coining the term that we must be more civil? Are we truly the ones who have abandoned civility?

They get angry when we call them socialists. They get furious when we call them communists. Yet, we hear them parrot the words of Marx, Lennon and Mao. They wear shirts bearing the image of Che Gueverra, praise the wonders of the Cuban paradise, and proclaim Hugo Chavez a visionary – yet loathe being classified as what they truly are. So, how apt is their term for us?

Are we sexual deviants? Are we homosexual? Are we sexually experimental? I’m sure that some of us are. However, the term which has become so conveniently mainstream has been assigned to us all without any real attribution as to behavior. It is derogatory, just as is “nigger”, “mick”, “dego”, “dothead”, “injun”, “wetback”, “spick”, “wop”, “slope”, and “kike” to name just a few. It is just as offensive.

The oh-so-tolerant leftists continue to throw this soubriquet around, all the while proclaiming to be the sole possessors of the talisman of compassion. Meanwhile, we Americans who believe that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing continue to be slandered and derided with this abhorrent term.

Since when is this sort of behavior acceptable? Would male homosexuals be content with the mainstream use of the term “pole-smoker” or female homosexuals with “carpet-muncher”? Would they sit passively as those terms were used in a news broadcast or on the floor of the United States Congress? How about the black community? Would they accept being called a “spear-chucker” by any news personality?

Why do we, Americans who understand and embrace the freedom endowed us by our Creator, sit idle as we are likened to a sexual act? Why do we allow our media and lawmakers to do so with impunity? We are the first to object to all the derogatory terms mentioned here. The terms we use against others are apt: communist, Marxist, socialist. They are not used as a smear, but rather as a description. Does “teabagger” accurately describe the community in which it is directed?

The moment leftists stop using this term will be the moment I consider any of their calls for “civil discourse”.

November Or Never

2010-10-26T23:19:00.001-07:00

The Declaration of Intolerance

2010-10-15T00:39:00.000-07:00

INTOLERANCE, October 15, 2010
The unanimous Declaration of the Intolerant Americans of these United States

When in the Course of human events it becomes once again necessary for The People to dissolve the political bands which have failed them completely and to reclaim the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We reaffirm the self-evidence of the Truths that all People are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Our government must be returned to The People, deriving its limited yet just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever Our government again grows destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to reinstitute Our Founding rules of governance, laying its foundation on the Founding Principles which have proved to be the first in history to successfully effect Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that those in government long established or short should not promote nor enforce Change for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. To avoid another long train of abuses and usurpations, The People must never again allow the pursuit of variance from the American Constitution which has served Them so well for centuries. – Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity to be Intolerant of these usurpations and to renew the Original Vision of Our Founders. The history of the present American Ruling Class is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have refused Assent and Compliance to Laws, especially and egregiously ones which they have so vigorously written, passed and enforced on The People.

They have forbidden Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation until their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.

They have refused to acquiesce to the Will of The People when they pass other Laws for the accommodation of special interests in conflict of the Interests of The People, displaying the arrogance of Tyrants.

They have called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, inaccessible, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their measures over the compliance of The People.

They have subverted the Rules of the Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the Rights of The People.

They have refused for a long time, the ability of others to be elected to office without their approval and consent.

They have endeavored to prevent the The People of these States to establish commonsense Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their illegal migrations hither, and further creating synthetic reasons of racial bias for their political gain.

They have obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing Assent to Laws and establishing Judiciary Activism.

They have appointed Judges dependent on their Will alone for the subversion of Our Constitution.

They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

They have suggested Standing Civilian Armies without the Consent of our legislatures for the sole purpose of political power and persuasion.

They continually attempt to render the Military defunct in times of War in favor of Political Civilian Armies to battle The People from within.

They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to Our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For allowing large bodies of armed enemies among us based on religion and race alone:

For protecting them, by mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world while selling our future to others:

For regularly imposing more Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us at their arbitrary discretion, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For utilizing a formerly Free Press to be tried for pretended or perceived offences without the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For the abolition by decree or moratorium our most valuable resources:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

They have abdicated government here, by declaring us too simple to comprehend their agenda and waging War against us if we speak out against them.

They have plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

They are at this time enacting large bodies of legislative measures to indenture The People to submission, desolation, tyranny, and death by their arbitrary decree, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Heads of a civilized nation.

They have constrained our fellow Citizens from freely speaking against their Tyranny with accusations of racism.

They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us with their divisive nature specifically to solidify their political powers over the interests of The People.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in the attentions of our governing brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of their positions of power. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, reclaim the power in which we endowed them and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Americans Intolerant of socialism, in General Agreement do, in the Name, and by Authority of The good People of these United States, rightfully publish and Redeclare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the political parties which have so fundamentally strayed from the path of Freedom; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other what remains intact after decades of Constitutional desecration: our Lives, our Meager Savings, and our Most Sacred Honor of the Restoration and Preservation of the Greatest Nation on Earth.

- The Bad and Angry McDougal (with large assistance from some pretty smart people from the 1700s)

Intolerance Party Is No Joke

2010-10-11T01:32:00.000-07:00

The Bad and Angry McDougal are coming to your town. If you have liberals, then you have been very bad.

We have had enough. We won't sit still any longer. We won't be on the sidelines.

We are not happy. We warned you all in the last two elections what these asshats would do if we gave them power. Too many of you didn't listen.

Now is the time of intolerance.

Other Refinement: The Green Car

2010-09-27T00:40:00.000-07:00

I do not offer this story as a testament to anything other than the strangeness that is life. Take from it what you will.

Tonight, a very strange thing happened. I want to be very careful as to my description of these events as I do not wish to allow my opinion to at all influence the reader. I’m not here to hold your hand and lead you to anything – and anyone who knows me knows that I am not one to profess this sort of thing.

My wife went to the local Circle K for a Coca-Cola slushee (please contain your impulse to quote Bill and Ted here). While at the Circle K, she laid eyes upon a toy car:

Our son is crazy about cars. He has die-casts galore. We indulge his fascination as parents will do, and get as much enjoyment from his joy as he gets from receiving a new car for his collection. Just to give you a small idea, here was his “garage” before his third birthday:

This collection was assembled very slowly over the course of almost two years. During these two years, we were living on a shoestring budget, so very little was available for such luxuries as die-cast toys. Yet, to the credit of my wife, a dollar here and a dollar there was set aside to keep our son flush with new shiny cars that he loved so much. By his third birthday, I was making better money and we were able to splurge on him:

We still have a big bag full of cars that we give him every so often as reward for good behavior – and we are lucky enough to be the parents of a boy who gets LOTS of cars. He is an incredibly sweet and loving boy, and is always ecstatic to get a new one for his collection.

A little while after my wife went out for her sweet treat, my son came to me. He was obviously anxious about something. He led me by the hand to the kitchen, which usually indicates a want for either a meal or a treat. I asked him what he wanted and he pointed to a kitchen cabinet which occasionally houses excess die-casts and stated “cars!”

Seriously, this was too cute for me to take. Since he had been a very well behaved boy all day and this was the first time I could recall him asking for a new car, I was happy to oblige. As there were no cars in the kitchen, I asked him to sit at the dining room table and I would go find him one. He cooperated as requested.

I went to the bag of cars and selected a neat blue Hot Wheels with “California” painted across the side. I then went back to my son who was waiting patiently at the table. With Blue California behind my back, I approached him with a smile and produced what I thought would satisfy him. To my surprise, his response was simple: “No”.

This really stopped me in my tracks. He has never … EVER … greeted a new car with anything other than elation. I asked him, “You don’t like this car?” He replied, “No, GREEN car”.

Well, what can I say? The boy is getting older and his tastes are apparently refining. Luckily for me, I happened to notice that one – only one – car in the bag was green. So, I told him to sit tight while I go and get him what he wanted. When I returned with the green car, he was equally agitated: “NO! GREEN CAR!”

Anyone who has children will understand the difficulty in dealing with a three-year old child who wants something but cannot quite describe what that thing is. I began to get other green cars from his garage. These did not help. I thought to myself that I might need to give the boy a late afternoon nap.

Since the Circle K is very close to home, my wife returned in time to experience the tail end of a three-year olds tantrum. I began to explain his desire for a green car and his well-out-of-character response to a shiny new die-cast ready to be ripped from its packaging. She then told me something that made me take a pause.

While at the Circle K, she was looking at this cheap monster car which was in some pretty beat-up packaging. It’s one of those things you see in every convenience store around the country. She said she picked it up, looked at it, and decided to put it back because the packaging was so beat up. It just happened to be bright green.

We were a bit intrigued by this and decided quietly that she would go back to the store and buy it. She gathered her things and stated that she was going to get the mail. After she left, I asked my son if he knew where Mommy went. He replied, “Yes”. I further queried, “What did she go to get?” I assumed he would reply with the mail, as that is what she said. He boldly pronounced, “Green car”.

When she returned home, my son’s prize was in an opaque plastic bag. She asked him, “Do you know what I have in here?” He was certain. She pulled it out of the bag and showed it to him. “Is this the car you were asking for?”

“Yes”

I kid you not.

Intolerance: A Party Platform

2010-09-14T05:10:00.000-07:00

It is with much pride that I announce the formation of a new political party. Today, the Intolerance Party is formed. I am certain that, once read and considered, this platform will be accepted by all Americans as the way forward.

1. Politicians And Taxes

Any politician who endorses tax increases better be damn sure their taxes are paid in full to date. Those politicians who endorse such policy and/or write such policy who are found not to adhere to the letter of the law will not be tolerated.

2. Bacon

All food product shall either be bacon or offered with a side or topping of bacon. Absence of bacon will not be tolerated and met with the full force of the law.

3. Presidents And Taxes

Any President who derides “the rich” by endorsing the soaking of those with taxation better be damn sure his or her White House is squeaky-clean with their tax payments. Presidents who endorse “tax the rich” policy while having tax-evading staff will not be tolerated.

4. Botox

Never again will we tolerate anyone in power to be rightly dubbed “Stretchy McHugeGavel”. Seriously, this shit will not be tolerated anymore.

5. Czars

What country is this again? Since when is it acceptable for an unelected, unconfirmed douche nozzle to be given a job which pays far more than 95% of the taxpayers footing the bill? Furthermore, if we do not object when this sort of position is called a “Czar”, at what point do we cease toleration? On principle, I and my “comrades” object and refuse to tolerate this.

6. Racism And Race-Baiting

a. All racism is to be called out for what it is. That means calling out racism against white people too. All racists are to be duly ridiculed for the idiots they are, dressed up in pink tutus and paraded in front of the Intolerance Memorial Walk Of Shame before they are banished to obscurity and banned from further media contact.

b. False claims of racism and race-baiting activity should be met with the full force of intolerance. No soup for you.

7. Meat Purses

Quoth the wife: “She’s been stretched and stitched so many times, she’s a purse”. Past the age of 60? Appearing in public like this? 170 lashes with wet bacon, and we will not bloody tolerate you anymore.

8. The U.N.

We’re done, assholes.

9. Dictators

What’s done is done. From now on, we use Godfather Rules: “I want to congratulate you on your new business and I’m sure you'll do very well and good luck to you. Especially since your interests don’t conflict with mine.”

The Corleone Family does not tolerate your insolence and neither will we. Mess with us or our business and Michael will shoot you in the face and take your country. No exceptions.

10. Bacon

Yes, it’s that important.

11. Media

Anyone bitching about conservative voices in media will be immediately deported. You have every news outlet including the one paid for by taxpayers and you complain about one cable channel? You’re out.

12. Hollywood

Enough already! Will you guys PLEASE go back to making movies? Even though we disagree with your inane ideologies, clouded world views, and have nothing in common with you and your $15M per movie incomes, we still like to watch your ENTERTAINMENT. Stop with the political posturing and dance, you overpaid monkeys. Except for you, Michael Moore – for the love of all that is Holy, please don’t dance. We can neither tolerate nor stomach it.

13. Term Limits

Illustrations are not necessary. We know who they are. All elected positions limited to two terms - total. Two terms in the House means no terms in the Senate. Two terms in the Senate means no terms in the White House. Our Founders had no tolerance for the political dynasties and neither shall we.

14. Immigration

Borders exist for a reason. Us on one side, Them on the other (note: it works the same for Them too). Build an enormous wall on those borders, electrify it, cover it with razor wire, guard it with intolerant men and women armed with automatic rifles, and paint the word, “INTOLERANT” in red, white and blue letters over and over again across the length of it. Want to immigrate? Follow the damn rules. Here illegally? The back of the line begins WAY THE HELL OVER THERE. Broke the law there? We’ll review it. Broke the law here? Bye!

15. Doctors

Any doctor that spends less than 5 minutes with you, treats you like dirt, has no idea of your medical history after you spent 2 hours filling out their stupid forms, or suggests running the same damn tests you waited 2 weeks to do 4 weeks ago is legally subject to three kicks to the groin. Additionally, every minute we are made to wait past our appointment time is $100 subtracted from our out-of-pocket expenses. We can all agree that this would be true reform.

16. Political Dollars

How many ridiculous piles of dollars are collected and spent in the name of electing a politician? How utterly stupid is this? We tolerate this no more. Therefore, every dollar donated to an elected official must be paid back twofold to the taxpayers out of that politician’s own finances. Every dollar donated to the losing candidate must be paid back to the taxpayers out of that loser’s own finances. Want to fix the deficit and debt? This can help.

17. Boot To The Head

Anyone demanding tolerance for those trying to kill us gets a boot to the head. And one more for Jenny and The Wimp.

18. National Defense

Simultaneously cutting the budget for defense of the nation while brokering the largest arms deal in history to the very nation which cultivated Osama bin-Laden… Should this even have to be spelled out? W H I S K E Y T A N G O F O X T R O T ? Zero tolerance for this. We don’t care if it is ignorance, stupidity, or outright evil. This aggression will not stand, man.

19. The Tolerant

“There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.”

Tolerance is always selective. Intolerance is absolute.

20. You

Get up off your ass. Register to vote if you haven’t already. Vote in EVERY election. Voter apathy sickens us. It will not be tolerated. It is this lethargy which has allowed spendhungry asshats to decimate this nation’s economy and threatens our very freedoms which our Founders fought so hard to bestow us. Anyone who chooses to sit on the sidelines has the right to do so, but we The Intolerant have the right to piss on your shoes for doing so.

Thank you for your time and attention to our Intolerance Party Platform. In 2012, please vote or write in your Intolerance candidates: The Bad and Angry McDougal.

Go Ahead, Ed

2010-08-31T20:34:00.001-07:00

While people from both sides of the political spectrum spat at each other regarding how many people attended Glenn Beck’s event in Washington this past weekend (numbers seem to range between 1,000 and 17 kagillion), I wanted to focus on another set of numbers – a set that is a little more quantifiable.

It seems that Ed Schultz at MSdNC is absolutely certain he could draw a larger crowd if he so desired:

“I could get every union head in this country, I could organize every progressive group in this country, the main bloggers. This could be The Ed March. Folks, 300,000 people on the heels of six months’ promotion, that ain’t no big shakes!

Six months’ promotion, NBC News says 300,000 people. I bet I could do that! I bet I could do that with this radio show and my TV show and six months’ production, six months’ promotion, if I had the budget I could equal that march. I know I could!

I guarantee you, I could do more than 300,000! It ain’t a big deal!”

Aww, isn’t that just so sweet? It harkens back to my days of youth, remembering the kid who didn’t win the science fair proclaiming that the victor’s trophy wasn’t any big deal anyway.

So Schultz calls the number 300,000. Fine (sounds a little high to me, but okey-dokey, then). Juxtapose that number with these numbers captured from Drudge tonight:

One will note Beck’s viewership at 2,600,000. 300,000 divided by his current viewing audience yields an 11.5% attendance. Now note Schultzie’s 699,000. Do the math. If Ed really thinks he inspires his viewing audience to the tune of nearly 43%, especially when Beck uses faith in God as his call to action, then I might suggest some therapy for the man. Considering recent allegations of his behavior as of late (due to not being important enough to be used in an MSdNC promo spot), this suggestion might be overdue…

Just the same, I’d love to see it. You can do it in six months, Ed? Cool – have at it. We’ll wait. And watch.

Welcome To Your Post-Racial Utopia

2010-08-24T21:04:00.000-07:00

This sickens me:

“Des Moines police are trying to determine what led to a series of attacks outside the Iowa State Fairgrounds over the weekend that included the assault of two police officers.”

Hmmm… What could possibly have led to this?

“We don’t know if this was juveniles fighting or a group of kids singling out white citizens leaving the fairgrounds,” Sgt. Lori Lavorato said. “It’s all under investigation, but it’s very possible it has racial overtones.”

Pretty harsh language there, calling attacks on white people very possibly racially … overtoned? Yes, I know that’s not a word. There’s hardly a word I can think of to describe this lunacy. Money quote number one:

“Sgt. David Murillo stated in a report on Friday night, “On-duty officers at the fairgrounds advise there was a group of 30 to 40 individuals roaming the fairgrounds openly calling it ‘beat whitey night.’”

Wow – Sgt. Lavorato was right. It is very possible that racial overtones existed during Beat Whitey Night. I wonder if there is a democrat around to denounce such racial hatred, considering that democrats are the supposed champions of racial harmony and civil rights… Money quote number two:

“State Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, d-Des Moines, who has worked to fight gang-related violence, said he doesn’t have enough information to decide if the fights were racially motivated. He said police comments that race was involved could miss other factors, such as nonracial taunting.”

Anyone who knows me personally knows that this is the point of the article in which I must seriously concentrate on containing a litany of profanity. F-words, S-words, an occasional D-nozzle and other refinements immediately come to mind. Alas, I digress.

This isn’t Los Angeles or New York City, people. This is Des Moines, Iowa. Ever been to Des Moines? It looks a little like this:

This sort of racial violence is a product of our current administration’s daily abuse of the race card. This racial divide is literally spilling out onto Main Street and the very asshats responsible for causing the unrest are trying to tell us it isn’t what it is.

Exit question: what would you imagine the response would have been from democrat Ako Abdul-Samad if one white person (let alone a gang of 30 to 40) openly expressed a racial epithet towards a Muslim, and someone of the Muslim faith received so much as a scratch? My guess is something like this:

Exercise In Tolerance

2010-08-17T02:22:00.000-07:00

I was raised Catholic. I currently subscribe to no religion. However, religion and tolerance of such seems to be of much discussion recently. As such, I have a little homework assignment for anyone who cares to take it up and report back. It comes in two parts:

Part One: Catholic Tolerance

Pick a Catholic church at random and enter it.

As per tradition, one would dip their fingers in the holy water and form the sign of the cross prior to entering the chapel (those of you old enough are familiar with the friendly reminder: spectacles, testicles, wallet, watch).

Do not follow this tradition.

As per tradition, one would genuflect to the crucifix prior to sitting in the pew (bending to one knee while facing the crucified Jesus).

Do not follow this tradition.

As per tradition, one will sit during some parts of the service, stand during others, and kneel during others. If unsure which position is correct, simply look around you and you will know which position of worship is traditional.

Do not follow this tradition. Just sit there the entire time.

As per tradition, one will turn to others around them, shake hands and offer the greeting, “peace be with you” during the service.

Do not follow this tradition. Ignore all offers of peace from the people around you.

As per tradition, one remains until the procession of the crucifix and the priest leave the chapel.

Do not follow this tradition. Walk out when people begin to form a line to receive the Eucharist.

Part Two: Muslim Tolerance

Pick a Muslim Mosque at random and enter it.

As per tradition, one removes their shoes before entering the Mosque.

Do not follow this tradition. See how long you last.

Lesson over.

Strange Dream

2010-07-30T23:22:00.000-07:00

I was just having the strangest dream. It started with Anthony Weiner’s unhinged rant on the floor of the House, but choreographed to James Brown’s “Sex Machine” (I blame MarkJ for putting that idea in my head). Then, I began to slip into a bizarre world …

… it was today’s world, but George W. Bush had been elected for a third term. I was sitting on the couch watching MSNBC as usual …

“Tonight, we delve into the seemingly endless fountain of stupidity from President Bush. In his latest and possibly most egregious public statement, the President of the United States – in the year 2010 of all things – has referred to African-Americans as a “mongrel people”.

“Have you no shame, sir? I am simply appalled at this racist nonsense being spilled from the lips of the most powerful man in the world – on daytime television of all places! HAVE YOU NO SHAME? We go now to our panel of experts …”

“… Chris, you look exceptionally bloated. Your thoughts?”

“Keith, the only thing I find more puzzling than our still being on the air with no viewership to speak of is President Bush’s complete and utter lack of respect for the American people during these difficult economic times. I mean, look: Ma and Pa Kettle are suffering from this stagnant economy and he decides to go on yet another vacation … and flies his dog on a separate plane! Was there not enough room on Air Force One? Are you listening, Keith? You look high.”

“No Chris, everyone ends up looking like this after hearing your voice for more than 12 seconds. Is this any more ridiculous than Bush’s recent effort to prop up his health care initiative by claiming publicly that premiums will be reduced by 3,000%? Perhaps it is President Bush smoking the funny stuff, eh? I mean, it wasn’t too long ago that he claimed to have ‘saved or created’ 2 million jobs when his phony-baloney website claims less than 600,000!”

“How can you suck and blow at the same time, Keith?”

“The same exact way that you do Chris. Let’s go now to this fourteen-year old boy who we trust completely to get the facts right. Rich?”

“Keith, you ignorant slut. I’m Rachel Maddow and you’re not. How stupid is President Bush? Let’s see: how many times did he mispronounce “nuclear”? Not as many times as he mispronounced “corpsman”! It’s honestly embarrassing that America is represented by such a rube. Now, for those teabagging defenders of this President who say that I’m just playing ‘gotcha’ with mispronunciations, how do you explain his mangling not only the quote enshrined on the Statue of Liberty, but the history of it as well? Is it ‘gotcha politics’ if he made these bugling statements not in passing, but in a major public policy speech? Back to you, strap-on.”

“Sorry there, Ralph. I was totally not listening to you. Check back with us when you hit puberty.”

“People, we must keep track. Whether President Bush is criticizing one executive’s boating while off on his own golfing, or lamenting unemployment with a woman who was fired for criminal activity, it seems clear that President Bush is not fit for the job of fry-cook at McDonalds, let alone President of the United States. To all three viewers: good night and good luck.”

Just then, my phone thankfully rang and woke me. I have to stop eating leftover pizza before bed.

(Hat tips to Doug Ross for inspiration, Hot Air for meticulously documenting Obamateurisms, and my lovely wife for calling me)

Picture Of The Year

2010-07-24T16:01:00.001-07:00

Chris Farley Lives!

2010-07-22T20:32:00.000-07:00

Chris Farley is apparently alive, well, and running for Governor of Tennessee:

One American’s Poem

2010-07-09T02:39:00.000-07:00

Racism, racism abound,
No solution or remedy found,
Affirmative action; civil rights,
No solace for sleepless nights,

Lawsuits for Border Patrol,
While Black Panthers shout vitriol,
Legal hate flows just one way,
I’m told it is my price to pay,

Yet I have never owned a slave,
Nor been the cause for another’s crave,
Living life the American Way,
Working hard, with taxes paid,

I find that now in fatherhood,
A great burden understood,
What shall I tell my son,
About the great atrocity he has done?

Has he hurt, scorned or aggrieved,
The people who are so peeved?
Has he stolen, subjugated, exploited,
Has he dominated, oppressed, extorted?

When The Panthers come to kill my son,
What shall I tell him that he has done?
Do I continue teaching wrong and right,
When his crime is being white?

Forgetting that Irish were also oppressed,
Should we just sit depressed?
When government fails to act,
To prosecute based on fact,

Those who suggest to kill,
Anyone with free will … who happens to be a “cracker”?

How do I ever begin to explain this to my son?

Credit Where Credit Is Due

2010-06-14T22:44:00.000-07:00

A little something from Allahpundit at Hot Air has prompted me to chime in tonight, albeit briefly:

“As Walsh acknowledges, Obama won by convincing lefties that he’d be a super-lefty and everyone else that he’d be anything but.”

Hogwash. This idea lends the notion that Obama is some sort of genius salesman and gives credit where credit is not due. Obama did not convince anyone of anything. He read his lines without too many mispronunciations or stutters. After eight years of George W. Bush’s near-painful speech delivery, my letter-carrier would appear as a master orator in comparison.

No, the credit which is due here for the “convincing” belongs solely to the media. They were the ones who nodded in agreement to the rhetoric. They were the ones who felt the leg tingles. They were the ones who refused to question the most outrageous of campaign promises. They were the ones who refused to reference the myriad of contradictory statements. They were the ones who didn’t think “57 States” was as dummy-worthy as misspelling “potato”. They were the ones who buried video of the candidate hobnobbing with domestic terrorists at a party in direct contradiction to assertions from Obama. In short, they framed the sales pitch and hid the lies.

To credit Obama with the success of the sales pitch is … sorry, I can’t resist … like lipstick on a pig.

Disgusted

2010-06-10T03:41:00.000-07:00

It’s late. I haven’t written in a while, and am not particularly inclined to do so tonight. I haven’t posted anything in a while and I am painfully aware of that, so I am forcing one tonight.

Why nothing in a month? I’m sick; I’m feeling nausea; I’m disgusted beyond words. No treatment from the finest healthcare in the world, or the remnants of such left by ObamaCare will have any effect on this sickness, as it is not physical, but rather philosophical. Every single day, I become more despondent regarding the future of our great nation. There are many politicians I would like to blame, but I simply cannot. I blame academia and the media.

The big news of the day, as far as I am concerned, is as follows:

* Republican women win big in primary elections. Additionally, candidates endorsed by eee-vile Sarah Palin have seen victory, while candidates endorsed by Our Most Benevolent And Revered President have felt the agony of defeat.

* Response to Gulf oil spill crisis from Obama administration has been lackadaisical at best and criminally negligent at worst.

* Yet another instance of lawbreaking surfaces from the White House, in which an administration that campaigned on open and honest governance is mired with ethics breaches of criminal proportion.

* In case anyone has forgotten with everything else going on, there is a nominee to the Supreme Court who is a supreme collectivist disaster.

* Queen of liberal media in White House press pool sheds her inner child for her outer Adolf.

* While people wring their hands about cleaning birds covered in BP oil, we have major problems with Iran, Palestine, Russia and North Korea (to name a few) which are not going away.

* Our economy is toast. It is literally about to collapse from its sheer weight.

Those are just a select few headlines which I think are most important and salient to American life today. Yet, what does the media watchdog ABC have to talk about tonight?

Diane Sawyer had to work somewhere

(Boxed in Red)

* Former failed democrat governor “uncowed by billionaire opponent”.

* Oh, those poor terrorists and the horrors that evil Americans imposed upon them.

(Boxed in Purple)

* Nightline utilizes communist propaganda artistry?

* Chick fired for being too hot might have undergone hotness enhancement surgery.

* Scholars have nothing better to do but declare 1970s film villain insane.

Well, perhaps CBS might have their “eye” on some real news, eh?

Murrow has left the building

(Boxed in Red)

* Never mind if Palin’s endorsements were successful – were they pragmatic or simply part of a vast right wing conspiracy?

(Boxed in Purple)

* Are we really still talking about NFL’s Will Ferrell look-alike?

(Boxed in Red and Purple)

* White Republican woman running against white democrat man-like substance “look to make race a referendum” in their Senate runs? Really?

OK, alright – we should look to an unbiased and serious news network like CNN. They’ll have the scoop.

Wolf Blitzer on Jeopardy was still brighter than Obama SmartPower™

(Boxed in Red)

* Believe those here illegally before those hired to combat those here illegally. Lawbreakers are always more trustworthy than law enforcement.

* President to meet with family members of those killed in oil rig explosion … speculation as to whether the “kin” will blame Bush. No speculation regarding whether Obama will answer press questions: yes if teleprompter is in tow, no if not.

* Obnoxious Butthead look-alike comedian proclaims something similar to prescriptions from the likes of Rosie O’Donnell, Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

* Ticker: hot mic highlights how media willingly will release off-air material of Republican primary winners in hopes of thinking people will find remarks about Barbara Boxer’s hair offensive instead of apt.

* History: making excuses for Presidential ass-kicking (or talk thereof)

(Boxed in Purple)

* The whole damn thing.

Alright then, fine! We’ll look at MSNBC since we know how even-handed they are.

Whiter than 1950s sitcoms

(Boxed in Red)

* Spill response plans by BP severely flawed … spill response plans by Obama administration (including miles of oil booms still sitting in a nice dry warehouse) not mentioned.

* Clinton declares yet another toothless and useless UN sanction against Iran – one which Iran has likened to a snot rag – a success for Our Most Beloved and Benevolent President.

(Boxed in Purple)

* Portrait of Hitler sparks outrage. Rhetoric of Hitler spoken by Most Revered Senior White House Correspondent and Witch-From-Sleeping-Beauty-Look-Alike totally ignored.

Am I wrong?

* Only on MSNBC(BS): Brittany Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and goofy garden gnomes (pardon the repetition).

Just for kicks, let’s go and look at the non-news organization, Fox:

Avert your eyes, liberals!

Sorry, but I didn’t find anything worthy of the Red Box (liberal propaganda) or the Purple Box (whiskey-tango-foxtrot news). Granted, I didn’t find the headlines I think are pertinent, but I didn’t find any of the nonsense portrayed elsewhere.

I am simply disgusted with our media. I am simply disgusted with Americans. Lately, I have been hearing a familiar sentiment from people I speak with: if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn’t have voted for Obama. The problem is that there is no reason people shouldn’t have known who this man is. There is no reason that people shouldn’t have understood the agenda. No reason whatsoever.

Media not only laid cover-fire against Obama’s detractors, they have been and are still running full-frontal propaganda. Thankfully, Americans are waking up now – but will enough be shaken from their slumber before liberal rule is solidified not by rule of law, but by rule of institution?

Most sickening – that which has me nearly speechless: will media awake in time to realize that favors are easily forgotten, but transgressions are indelible? Has academia and media become so smart; so intellectually superior; so enlightened that they have forgotten which point in the path of history in which they lie?

Most frightening – will they mind being propagandists for their overlords or will they realize their fate only after it is too late. Either way, it makes me sick.

This Makes Perfect Sense

2010-05-12T00:35:00.001-07:00

This is Barry. Barry, a man with no formal experience to speak of was elected to the highest office in the land.

No, this is not Pat. This is Elena. Elena, a woman with no formal experience to speak of has just been nominated to the highest court in the land.

I find Obama’s nomination of Kagan to be totally congruous on experience alone. Obama found election to the office of President not through experience or position of policy but rather by default from an accomplice media and a generous use of the race card. Why wouldn’t a man like this nominate an ultra-liberal butch with no practical experience whatsoever to the Supreme Court for the next 40 years give or take a decade?

Considering Obama’s previous appointment of Sonia Sotomayor – a woman who has openly expressed her belief that her race makes her better suited to decide cases than white men – one can understand why the President would appoint someone with literally no track record to reference.

The deck has been stacked, my friends.

democrat Opposition To Phoenix Law

2010-04-29T03:17:00.000-07:00

I’ve been watching and weighing in here and there as the debate rages on about the law in my home town of Phoenix. Mostly, the whole thing makes me shake my head in disbelief, as does much of what political power causes liberals to do. However, when I saw this today, it all became very clear:

Click for a good laugh

“Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. Law”

The title nearly says it all. AP journalist Amanda Lee Myers goes on to lament:

“Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.

Arizona’s sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won’t take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state’s underground economy.”

Got that? A new law yet to take effect has already put the fear of the law into those who might take advantage of illegals by hiring them at pennies on the dollar for back-breaking labor. Oh, the horror. Even more insane, the lament continues for an underground economy while failing to mention all of the salient and devastating effects to the on-the-level economy caused by people who are here illegally, paying no taxes, and still able to draw from the public fund. It gets better:

“Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.”

I have been concentrating on the two points made here which are laughable when it comes to democrat opposition to this move by the State of Arizona: (1) that we needed to pass a law which makes breaking the law against the law; and (2) that we need to direct police to question a suspect about illegal activity should they suspect it. In these aspects, the law is silly in of itself. However, it took the headline and following lament of an AP journalist to help me realize why democrats really oppose this law. Allow me to illustrate (with apologies to Mel Brooks):

Many thanks to Chuck for this poster

Once upon a time there was a town in the American southwest called Phoenix. For a while, it was a decent place to live, but there was a problem growing there. Because the government was unable, unwilling, inept, or all of the above, immigration law in America and the lack of enforcement created an easy place for people who came to the county illegally to settle in. Needless to say, lawlessness begets lawlessness.

Outlaws behaved like outlaws.

However, the outlaws had support from within the country. Between the lawlessness of the illegals and of the politicians who would seek to pander to these lawbreakers for position and power, some law abiding people were inclined to move elsewhere.

“Now I don’t have to tell you good folks what has been happening here in our beloved little town. Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. Now the time has come to act, and act fast. I’m leaving.”

For those who vowed to stay, for those who stood for the law of the land, for those who would stand against lawbreakers: threats of violence and acts of violence were visited upon them. Nonetheless, a new law was passed. It said that breaking the law was now officially against the law. Amazingly, this seemed to work, as the lawbreakers decided to move on to towns where breaking the law wasn’t against the law.

Back in Washington, this news was not good for democrats in power.

They gathered to discuss the deep ramifications of Arizona effectively operating without their approval or assistance.

“Chairman Kaine? Might I disturb you for a moment sir? It seems that those flyovers out west have passed a law that would snatch hundreds of thousands of potential democrat voters from our grasp by enforcing current immigration law. Even worse than that, it appears to be working almost instantly!”

“Holy underwear! Effective laws? Voters who won’t want an eternal welfare state? We’ve got to protect our phony bologna jobs, gentlemen! We’ve got to do something about this immediately, immediately, immediately …”

“Harumpf, harumpf!”

“I didn’t get a harumpf outta that guy!”

“Harumpf!”

“Now let’s get back to fixing the economy.”

---

Call me jaded, but it seems to me that democrats might really be upset over this law because it does what none of their legislation can ever hope to accomplish: actually work.

Meanwhile, across town in Barney Frank’s basement:

“Hold it, hold it, HOLD IT!”

“WRONG!”

“OK, just watch me. It’s so simple, you sissy Marys!”

Changing The Debate

2010-04-27T03:07:00.000-07:00

A short entry from the wee hours, my bacon loving friends and visitors, as I cannot sleep without putting this one down.

I have been following the fervor in the media and in the blogosphere closely regarding the debate over my home state passing a law which ultimately states that we will enforce the current law already on the books. Of course, I refer to Arizona and the efforts to reign in what is quickly becoming pandemic with regards to criminal aliens.

That’s right – not undocumented workers. Not undocumented immigrants. Not even illegal immigrants. Criminals. Lawbreakers. People who are subverting the law of the land for their own advantage at the cost of those who obey those same laws. Yet, this never seems to be the discussion.

The topic inevitably turns to race. In our post-racial Obamadise, we still seem to find ourselves defining nearly every issue at hand on race first. Personally, if I were to hear about illegal Irish immigration to the United States, I would be equally opposed to it as I am to Hispanics illegally immigrating. When, for the love of the United States, will people wake the hell up and realize that being American is something more than being Hyphenated-American?

The issue is not race. We must stop allowing the conversation to be derailed based on this liberal fallback position. This particular issue is about our current processes of immigration, how to manage those who have subverted the law to get here, and how to improve the law so that we will not have to revisit the subject again in the future. The last time we attempted “reform”, we gave a free pass to lawbreakers. As a result, we have a whole bunch more of them.

The moment the conversation turns to race, the conversation needs to be halted. This isn’t about where you were from before you broke the law. It is about you breaking the law.

Bacon Break

2010-04-16T01:16:00.001-07:00

Lately, I have been finding it difficult to write articles. I hear about green initiatives, and get irritated.

That smoke ain’t green

I read about socialist groups protesting on behalf of the education system, and I want to be sick.

I would have corrected it in red ink

So, instead of writing something filled with my usual brand of annoyance and sarcasm, I end up trying to shut off this stupid computer and work on something productive.

I am making a list of the people who claim Windows 7 was their idea

With the push of a button, I go to my happy place.

Satisfaction guaranteed

Suddenly, even the most objectionable images seem more palatable.

I’d vote for that

I think back when my son was just a little baby.

Builds strong bones and teeth

I think about him now, and what a tough little bruiser he is becoming.

The grease helps scars fade

And I imagine him in the future, getting ready for his Senior Prom.

Tux comes with optional bacon-scented cologne

But seriously, I’m actually working on a personal project right now. I hope to be back and in full political swing soon. Thanks to all for continuing to tune in.

Happy April

2010-04-01T10:21:00.000-07:00

Taxpayer Funded Erections For Sex Offenders

2010-03-24T23:11:00.000-07:00

Straight from the source:

Amendment number: S.Amdt. 3556 to H.R. 4872 (Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010)

Statement of Purpose: To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion.

All but two democrats voted to table this amendment. So, with every Republican and two democrats supporting this amendment (which was shot down by a democrat almost-supermajority), this amendment has more bipartisan support than the healthcare bill which is the law of the land.

Of course, being that democrats were not willing to amend the bill at all lest it go back to the House, this bill was pure political genius by Republican Tom Coburn. He now has the following democrats on record who were unwilling to prohibit coverage of Viagra to child molesters and rapists. Those democrats are:

Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Burris (IL), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Durbin (IL), Feingold (WI), Feinstein (CA), Franken (MN), Gillibrand (NY), Hagan (NC), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kaufman (DE), Kerry (MA), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Lieberman (I-CT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Menendez (NJ), Merkley (OR), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Pryor (AR), Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (NY), Shaheen (NH), Specter (PA), Stabenow (MI), Tester (MT), Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Warner (VA), Webb (VA), Whitehouse (RI), Wyden (OR).

If any of these 55 democrats or 2 independent liberals are from your state, I urge you to call them and ask politely, “Why do you want to give erections to child molesters?”

The Return Of The Hugo Headache

2010-03-20T20:26:00.001-07:00

Those of you two or three people who throw caution to the wind and read this site regularly or those of you who have chosen the path of self-masochism by reading the archives might be familiar with Hugo. Not Uncle Hugo from Venezuela, but my friend Hugo from here in the Phoenix metro area. For those of you who have enough sense not to subject yourselves to more of my site than absolutely necessary, allow me to give a very brief synopsis:

Hugo is an all-the-way-left believer. He is also a very good friend. While Hugo and I are in disagreement on just about everything political, we have always had a wonderful rapport and I truly value his friendship. Just the same, I feel obligated to poke him in the eye any time he plays the role of Useful Idiot. This is one of those moments:

Click to big-ify

“I read the summary of the [healthcare] bill today (in the Arizona Republic). There’s nothing socialized about it (alas), and it prohibits federal funding on abortions (interesting that the catholic nuns support the legislation).”

Isn’t he just adorable? You just want to cuddle up to him, and then smack him around a little. I especially like the “(alas)” inflection, inferring that the total takeover of healthcare by the government isn’t socialist enough. While Hugo will be content to go about and tell people as a point of fact that (a) this is not socialized healthcare, (b) this does not federally fund abortion, and (c) catholic nuns support the legislation, I would usually be inclined to (a) ask for references – something which is regularly missing from Useful Idiot “facts”, and (b) insist that “facts” be purported by actually reading the document versus the admission of a newspaper “summary”.

Perhaps Hugo might enlighten us here on these points? Oh, I hope so (for the comedic value).

Human Rights In Secular America

2010-03-19T02:09:00.000-07:00

To me, one of the most interesting arguments being put forth regarding the pending healthcare legislation is of who is empowered to bestow rights upon humanity. While the list of arguments on the healthcare debate is lengthy, diverse and ultimately boring as can be, I find this particular item interesting and worthy of discussion. The argument is simple: in general, conservatives argue that only God has the power to grant rights to humanity while liberals/progressives contend that God has no place in modern discourse and therefore it is up to government.

Conservatives easily reference the words of our founders:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

The liberals and progressives usually shrug this off with shallow denigrations of the faithful and/or pontifications of the usefulness of two-century-plus-old words from evil, slave-owning white men. I find that it is mostly the “and” versus the “or”, as liberals and progressives tend by nature to hold a deep hatred for all notions religious. It is within this religion versus secular notion which I wish to implore seculars to consider the religious argument.

Regardless of what the media tells you (let alone your politicians, comedians, television shows and popular Hollywood movies) it is quite possible to be simultaneously secular and conservative. All too often, I believe that a person can shut off a conservative argument based on the mere mention of God. I can relate.

I was raised Catholic and was fully immersed in the faith from day one. Over the years, I have developed philosophical differences with the church and with religion in general. I do not contend that God exists or doesn’t. I do not contend that one faith has it more correct than another. Rather, I simply contend that I know enough to know that I don’t know. This can be a troubling notion for some people to live with – people who like a certainty of knowledge regarding what is and isn’t. For many others like me, it is comforting to be able to live with knowing that some things don’t have definitive answers – that it is not necessarily our place to know for certain.

Regardless, I find that some on the right tend to pander to the faithful – enough to justify some of the rage exhibited by the left. I don’t need someone else’s religion jammed down my throat, and I tend to ignore or marginalize those who do so. An example: recently, there was some rally supporting the words, “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. I forget who the Republican big-name at the rally was, but he was sure to emphasize those two words when reciting The Pledge. In fact, he was so concerned with those two words that he totally forgot the words which followed: “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. He fumbled and botched it all. It made me furious.

I have zero patience for religious and anti-religious zealots. I do not think The Pledge should have mention of God removed; nor do I think it is improper to have the Ten Commandments displayed at courthouses; nor do I approve of any other anti-religion activist movements attempting to erase faith from our American history, legacy or society. Zealotry from both sides clouds the issues for the rest of us because both sides contend that the other should not exist.

I won’t begin to speak for anyone else, but I imagine that I am not the only one who believes in conservative government and also would just as soon have politicians leave God out of their political pitches. This is specifically where the argument of the rights of man comes into play. If rights are not bestowed by God, then they must be bestowed by government. I cannot for the life of me think of another option. Perhaps people who are secular in nature might consider what I have come to realize (and explain to others): while the faithful will invoke the name of God, the founders referred to the Creator.

If it is a matter of semantics, then I strenuously suggest seculars not to be turned away by the name. Be it God, be it the Creator, be it a higher power, or be it our humanity – our rights are endowed by something larger than any one man, any group of men, or any government. Our unalienable rights are endowed upon us. Our founders did not bestow these rights – they only acknowledged that these rights existed despite the rule of man.

Please, before you dismiss the arguments on this issue based on the religious aspect, ask yourself if you prefer to have the same government credited with such human rights success stories as the benevolent IRS, the efficient postal service, and the friendly customer service of the motor vehicle department become the entity charged with which rights you are entitled. After careful consideration of such, ask yourself whether you think it is proper for any politician to declare public health insurance a “right”.

Cartoon Of The Year?

2010-03-13T09:09:00.001-08:00

While it is early on, I would certainly nominate this one (hat tip to the ever useful Hot Air)

Activism: A Love Story (Apologies For The Language)

2010-03-10T02:09:00.000-08:00

Click image to smear

Hello friends my sister sent my mother a very disturbing e-mail today. This is the information I pulled from the FWD:

Today, Washington DC PD conducted an investigative traffic stop on the subject that I placed on your chairs. Officers were called to the Congressional gym in reference to a suspicious person (that’s what 10-37 means). The subject was accused of poking a man in the chest in the shower room. Officers’ followed the subject’s vehicle through several area neighborhoods at slow speeds. The subject drove past several schools, but did not make any stops or stopping actions when driving past the schools.

The subject was pulled over in a parking lot. He said he was here from Chicago and he was tracing his family tree. Officers conducted a search of the subject’s vehicle. They uncovered a ski mask, black gloves, tape, rope, and a hammer. The subject’s camera was also searched. There were several pictures of different Congressmen throughout town and several businesses. The subject committed no crime, and therefore was set free with the order not to grope in the showers again.

According to Chicago PD, the subject was a prime suspect of a child abduction/molestation case out of that city in 2002. For some reason the charges were dropped. Not sure the full extent of it. He has some traffic arrests on his criminal record, but nothing serious. He is not listed as a sex offender. I just want you to be aware and on the look out for this guy. If you should notice him or have any contact with him, call 9-1-1 ASAP!

If you see this person call 911 right away!

He is actually on Facebook!

---

OK, so it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the above is a parody of recent allegations of the White House Chief of Staff. However, I am not here to discuss whether or not Rahm was poking Massa in the shower room. Quite the contrary, I have used the humor to highlight how dangerous the activist mindset is, and the ramifications of allowing this mindset to drive policy and law.

The text in the parody above is nearly copy-paste of an actual email and Facebook warning about a friend of mine. I have changed the names and locations to keep from giving it any more print than it deserves, as well as having my laugh at the most ethical White House evah. The photo of the mugshot and MSPaint text is pretty much on par with what was done to my friend as well. This completely libelous garbage was emailed and Facebooked, and immediately gained traction.

My friend, one of more than two decades, is a good and honest man. He is a successful businessman and active in his local politics. In the process of writing his memoirs, he visited a shithole small town in which he once spent time to chronicle the community. That community thanked him by having the police stop him, question him, search him, and release him (due to the fact that he was breaking no laws by visiting a town of his youth in the land of the free and the home of the brave). The small town shithole police with nothing better to do felt it their duty – regardless of the lack of laws being violated and lack of anything better to do – to disperse information to the schools that they stopped someone who didn’t actually choose to live in their particular crapshack of a town. Voila! Life is breathed into a non-story.

I noticed a strange event in my statcounter for this site. Usually, I see my regular three or four readers check in along with the obligatory views from various images I have uploaded over the years. There is the regular spike in viewership when the popular site written by Doug Ross links an article, but other than that my readership is fairly predictable. All of the sudden, I noticed a major influx of hits from Google searches on my friend’s name, as I named him in an article long ago. At first, I thought he might be testing the waters for a new employment opportunity, or had possibly entered into a new foray in politics. Then, I saw the Facebook link.

I will not hide the perpetrators. The text, which I copied and altered for humor above, was being posted and emailed by Benjamin L Palzer of Bourbonnais, Illinois (the aforementioned shithole crapshack). Additionally, this text was also posted as a comment to this site. As anyone who knows me understands, if you involve me – I WILL BE INVOLVED.

I researched Palzer and found him to be an activist for gay and lesbian rights. His Facebook page appears to show a swinging single gay man who promotes gay and lesbian parties. This is the fellow smearing the good name of my friend. I sent him a message on Facebook:

“March 4 at 10:19pm

Benjamin: ***** is a successful businessman and active political figure in *****. I noticed your posting falsely accusing him of some nasty stuff. Be advised that your information is (a) false and (b) libel. I strongly suggest you post a retraction and apologize to *****. In the future, you may want to consider researching accusations against people you don't know before publishing them to the internet.”

The response:

“March 5 at 5:01am

Like I am going to listen to a Football fan and a smoker. Get bent! I posted only what was in the police report and what was given to me by other concerned citizens. Don't bother responding you are going on the blocked list.”

Yes, the ever-present “concerned citizens”, which to the best of my knowledge consists of someone who sent something to his sister, who then sent it to his mother, who then sent it to him. Thank the Lord Almighty that his shithole crapshack has a gay activist watching out for the children in the area.

With the concerted efforts of the falsely accused and his friends, the police and media immediately realized the turd in which they had stepped and corrected their errors publicly. That didn’t stop activist Patti McKenna, a self-proclaimed “Professional Writer and Editor” who reproduced this libel on her website. Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight to screen-capture the nonsense on her site before she also realized the turd in which her high heel resided, but I will never forget her initial rebuttal to being told she was libeling an innocent man:

“Innocent until proven guilty is fine in a court of law, but …”

There you have it, folks. In that one little “but”, we throw our United States Constitution to the wind. But we have to protect our children, so it’s OK to smear a perfect stranger based on absolutely no research whatsoever. While Benjamin Palzer is a jerkass tool, Patti McKenna portends to be a professional. This begs a question for the professional with all of the accolades on her website:

For someone who has SO MUCH experience and is SO BELOVED by those whom have hired you in the past; and someone who has even written a book being shamelessly promoted on a free blog site (I wonder if I should notify WordPress of your Terms of Use violation): isn’t the research of accusations against an American (including easily obtainable local press retractions) a standard practice for professionals such as yourself? If I may query further, perhaps if you spent less time congratulating yourself and more time researching your topics, wouldn’t your work then be actually professional as opposed to being self-proclaimed as such?

I ask all my several readers (perhaps two at this point, as I find myself in yet another lengthy rant) to consider how they would feel if their personal information from a routine traffic stop was used to portray them as a sexual predator. I would further ask that the next time you receive an email from someone like this to consider verifying the validity before passing it along to your friends. You never know, but one of them might be an activist – and we know their ends always justify their means.

The Amazingly Durable American Spirit

2010-03-03T04:09:00.000-08:00

So, here we all are. The news is filled with new versions of the same story. The movement within our government driven by Progressive ideology is steaming full boar towards the cliff, and Americans are not happy at all about that. The latter part of that statement gives me great comfort and hope in the American dream and the American spirit.

The Progressive Movement has gained much traction over the past several decades, and this has been the lament of so many conservative Americans who have been desperately trying to expose the ideology for what it truly is to those center and center-right Americans willing to give it a try despite all the historical evidence of where it all leads. This traction would not have been possible without the systematic takeover of our governmental systems that has been in motion for nearly a century.

While we regularly deride the bias within our media and our educational system, we rarely ask how it became to be this way. In my opinion, I find these two specific instances to be interrelated, as our media is stocked with people that have been fully immersed in the ideology from the journalism programs in our educational system, which is run lock, stock and barrel by leftist ideologues. This is no coincidence, and we can note the influence throughout our history of allowing the Progressive ideology to become acceptable as American ideology.

Americans have regularly and historically rejected this ideology, with some exceptions, dating all the way back to the late 1700s when we officially shed our moniker of Colonist in favor of the recognition of our true American identity. In those days, the people considered themselves Americans but had yet truly declared it to the world. On July 4, 1776, the thirteen states of America unanimously united for autonomy and freedom against the very force in which Progressive ideology stands. As such, if your intent is to transform the American government into something which does not resemble the Republic which was founded, there must exist a systematic revision of ideals and values over the course of time.

In the 1930s, Americans desperately seeking “Change” elected their first and only king. FDR was an early American Progressive, who said in his acceptance speech:

“Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.”

FDR kept his promise, installing socialism into our national existence. It is this very socialism which is now, among many other forces, dragging our nation into the depths of bankruptcy, insolvency, debt and unsustainable spending. You will be hard pressed to find any liberal, democrat or Progressive that has a bad thing to say about The American King. He retained office until death and long past precedent – a true indicator of Progressive ideology: spitting in the faces of our founders and their ideals. But, his policies were forever kept and praised by those who form the minds of the children living under this New Deal.

In the 1940s, President Truman was a strong supporter of the creation of the United Nations – the reinvention of the failed League of Nations. This was yet another Progressive move for America to relegate its autonomy to the whims of other nations in the world – something which our founders would have certainly opposed as the antithesis of America’s providence. Additionally, attempting to co-opt FDR’s New Deal momentum, Truman attempted to slam what was comically dubbed the “Fair Deal” through a new Republican majority. This so-called “Fair Deal” included pro-union, aggressive civil rights programs, and … wait for it … national health insurance. All that succeeded in Truman’s deal was The Housing Act of 1949. We’re all aware of how well Progressives have been handling this issue today. Yet again, please note the media and the lack of criticism when it comes to the abject failure in America, let alone history, with regards to entitlement programs.

In the 1950s, America experienced a rejection of the Progressive ideal. The nation had finally purged itself of the most powerful Progressive leadership it had ever encountered, lasting nearly two decades, from FDR’s election in 1932 until the end of the king’s era in 1952. Yet, while our new President Eisenhower was a five-star general and a Republican, he also found it politically convenient to expand the Progressive Social Security program and keep the people happy. They did not yet know the price their grandchildren would pay for such a Progressive government entitlement. The media was all too accommodating in the propagation of the myth that Social Security was secure and only needed to be expanded to ensure full effectiveness.

In the 1960s, Progressives pushed back against the societal norm. Certainly, Leave It To Beaver asks to be lambasted for its level of cheesiness, but this level of animosity towards family values took a life of its own during this decade. Enter a new and Progressive President who also shared a three-letter moniker such as his predecessor FDR did. Alas, JFK would have not been the household nomenclature had it not been for corrupt Progressive politics.

The 1950s enraged the Progressive and they demanded action, whether the American people wanted it or not. This is why JFK defeated Nixon in a hotly debated and truly stolen election – much more controversial than Bush’s defeat of Algore. Inasmuch as the pushback from the obvious voter fraud in Chicago besmirched this election, the media embraced their new, young and charismatic leader. Failures like the Bay of Pigs and near-misses like the Cuban Missile Crisis were heralded as proof-in-the-pudding that Dear Kennedy was the answer to our prayers instead of the ideologue forced to go against his beliefs to complete the job. When JFK was assassinated, the media took to the street – confirming that the consensus was that it must have been a right-wing zealot who would do such a dastardly deed. When reality set in that it was not the brutality of a conservative (the fancied notion of the devout and the media) but rather an avowed Marxist Communist, conspiracy theories followed and persists to this day.

JKF stands as a glaring example of how academia and media both work to rewrite history and attempt to dictate our beliefs. Try it yourself: stop ten strangers on the street and ask them to tell you what they know of the 35th President of the United States. Once you inform nine of them who that is, you will probably hear nine to ten conspiracy theories surrounding his death, yet not a single conspiracy theory surrounding his election. Furthermore, ask them about the details of the conspiracy to kill JFK and you will hear a resoundingly similar set of nonsense from the Oliver Stone movie. This is how Progressives rewrite history in our time: they make a star-studded movie with gripping storyline notions that hold absolutely no water in reality. Alas, I digress.

In the 1970s, the media took great pride in the destruction and removal of President Nixon. Nixon was the Progressive’s Great Satan. Americans were already milling around with nonsense conspiracy theories about the greatest democrat president since FDR and confused about the miserable failure of his predecessor Lyndon Johnson and his continuation of the Progressive ideal. Johnson’s Great Society left much to be desired, initiating such dramatic success stories as Public Broadcasting, the War on Poverty and the escalation of the Viet Nam war. Knowing he faced annihilation in his re-election bid, Johnson opted out, which Progressives saw as handing the election over to Nixon. Tricky Dick was destined for ruin by hook or by crook – pardon the pun.

It is at this point that I must stop and take a moment. Up until this point, everything I am discussing is history to me. I was born in 1972, two years before Nixon resigned. I recently watched the movie Frost/Nixon expecting the usual demonization of the man, and was pleasantly surprised to see him portrayed as the man I understand that he was versus the devil in tailor-made suits that he was made to be by so many over the years. Certainly, I make no excuses for his downfall – but I wonder how history will remember “the meaning of the word ‘is’” President who was ultimately guilty of the same thing which brought down Nixon: bold-faced lying to the American people.

Yes, I digress yet again.

The downfall of Nixon and following marginalization of his predecessor Gerald Ford (does anyone know anything about this President besides Chevy Chase falling down?) sets the stage for the new Progressive movement in America. Looking back on history in this century, we can see a tumultuous set of circumstances. Two World Wars, a Great Depression, a four-term President (followed by a Constitutional Amendment to keep that from ever happening again), a stolen election followed by assassination, an incumbent President not seeking another term followed by a President forced to resign to avoid impeachment. Politics alone, let alone everything else affecting American life, was bringing about a disenfranchisement of the American people.

Enter Jimmy Carter. Following in the footsteps of his democrat predecessors, Carter completely bungles all things foreign-relations and completely tanks the economy with oppressive taxation. Carter’s biggest mistake was to enact too much “Change” too soon. Regardless of the fawning media coverage – this I do recall as a young boy – the American people rejected the politics and ideology of Progressivism a la Carter.

In the 1980s, conservative was king – sort of. Ronald Reagan, originally a Hollywood democrat who thankfully came to his senses early enough in life to make a difference, took hold of the American spirit at a time when Americans were in despair. The 1980s were a time of American renewal. Gone were the politics of old and innovation was exploding all around us. Ronnie Ray-Gun was at the helm and his brand of Cowboy politics was bringing the Commie Reds to their knees. The President went to the Berlin Wall and demanded it be torn down. The Reds complied, and the bells of freedom rang.

Now, if you were to go through the media reports from the time; and if you were to filter through all of the tripe from Hollywood during this period; and if you were to break down the network television programming in his day; and if you were to review the comics of the period – you would find a much different narrative. Progressives despised Reagan more than Nixon, and rightfully so. Nixon was paranoid and not terribly camera friendly. Reagan was charismatic, likeable, excellent with off-the-cuff and on-the-fly responses, and most importantly carried a message which was anti-Progressive. Reagan believed in less government involvement in American life. As such, Reagan was subject to endless bashing from the media, Hollywood, and at-large Progressives who would gladly have us return to the days of gasoline rationing and capitulation to Iran holding American civilians hostage.

Movies of the time would prominently feature activists protesting the environmentally destructive forces of nuclear power, and would convince us that Reagan’s policies would take us to the brink of nuclear war. I remember watching The Day After – I was 11 years old – and getting the living daylights scared out of me. As much as liberal screamed that a surge in Iraq would fail, so did they scream that an arms race with the Soviet Union would also fail. If we can give it to Progressive liberals, it is that they can talk a good scare and they are consistently wrong about it all.

In the 1990s, the Clintonistas told us we were stupid. They were right. Progressives had managed to convince the center and center-right to either vote for The Hand-Grenade-With-A-Crewcut or the Dope-Smoking-Draft-Dodging-Womanizer. 1000 points of light didn’t carry well against rich characters such as these, and Americans were again looking for charisma. We were still carried away by Reagan – a man who won re-election by landslide despite a Progressive media complex running a record-setting 92% negative storyline about him in the month prior to Election Day. As such, America elected the dope smoker by a plurality – 43%. Needless to say, Americans rejected … shocker … national health care and Clinton went on to be (a) impeached and (b) widely loved by liberals and Progressives as the first democrat to win re-election since FDR. THAT is how popular Progressive ideology had been, despite media reports to the contrary, since FDR first mainlined it in the 1930s.

In the 2000s, Progressives found their ultimate weapon. If I close my eyes, I can hear Kevin Spacey in my head whining that, beyond anything else he simply wants to know what the vote count really was. Somehow, the filmmakers of Recount failed to note that every honest and crooked rumination of the Florida recount still showed that Bush won. This doesn’t matter. Al Gore in his arrogance and subservience to the Progressive cause threw his decorum to the wind and stopped just short of a concession speech.

So, here we all are again. In a bold Republican attempt at obscurity, an ancient and unpopular man was run against a younger and much more polished democrat. Apparently looking to draw from the experience of Bob Dole, Republicans rolled over and played dead to Hope and Change. But perhaps their strategy was smarter than I first imagined. Perhaps, they had more faith than I did in the amazingly durable American spirit.

George W. Bush had become the media whipping boy. While Reagan endured the same treatment, Bush was not the charismatic leader Reagan was, and his coattails were too dirty to ride. As such, it seems that conservatives were truly best suited to give those with the whips the full reigns of leadership. While I, among many I know, screamed bloody murder at the implications of such power in the hands of power-grabbers, the American spirit remained strong.

The idea of Progressive Change is simple: collapse the economic system from within and solidify seat of power by providing government entitlement to the people affected by the economic collapse. What the Progressives did not expect – and admittedly I was not confident of – was that even in these times, Americans would ultimately rise up against those Progressive ideals. Why? Perhaps we’ve learned from our history and the devastation we now are forced to handle with FDR’s New Deal. Perhaps we’ve refreshed ourselves with world history and the brutality which always follows statist government.

Perhaps we are simply different than any other model in which Progressive ideology has overtaken in the history of the world. I am renewed by the overwhelming rejection of national healthcare; the rejection of union stranglehold on the workforce; the rejection of oppressive taxation of job creators; and the rejection of the media’s White Knight narrative of the current Progressive attempt of solving the very problems they have created. Regardless of the media continuing to lay cover-fire for these ideologues, there is a resounding message from America to our would-be overlords:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Other Refinement: Valentine

2010-02-14T23:33:00.000-08:00

A valentine for the love of my life:

Click to big-ify

Legacy

2010-02-06T20:56:00.001-08:00

99 years ago, the boy who would become the 40th President of the United States was born. There is little I can say regarding this man’s life and legacy. As much as I am compelled to pour out about his accomplishments, his detractors, and his undeniable American legacy, I must ultimately concede that I have nothing original to add. I can only point to something which I feel is pertinent to our situation today, as I think that Reagan knew was applicable to all times in humanity:

Yes, this is the famous speech in which everyone knows Reagan says, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” This was the sound-byte of the decade – and rightfully so. However, what grabs my attention today are the words which follow this declaration:

“I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent – and I pledge to you my country’s efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.

Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days – days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city – and the Soviets later walked away from the table.

But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then – I invite those who protest today – to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table.”

These are words which are sorely missed in today’s discourse. Amidst all of our disagreements about how best to lead, how best to legislate, and whether hope and change trump experience and wisdom, we seem to have lost – on both sides of the argument – the actions and policy of success. Ronald Reagan’s legacy seems to be lost in the ash heap of history along with the legacies of the successes and follies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Napoleon and Caesar. This is a crying shame, considering this: Iran suggests ‘impossible’ deal over nuclear fuel in surprise move

“Iran has drawn up tough conditions on its proposed deal to ship out stocks of nuclear fuel, condemning the agreement to failure, The Times has learned.

Western leaders greeted with scepticism (sic) President Ahmadinejad’s sudden announcement on Tuesday that Iran was ready to hand over low-enriched uranium in return for a higher grade of fuel, a move aimed at building confidence and putting off Iran’s acquisition of material to fuel a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s conditions, contained in a written proposal given to British parliamentarians, include handing over its fuel in two batches on Iranian soil – both deal breakers in previous negotiations.”

I am torn on which is the greater tragedy: that anyone would consider this move by Iran to be a “surprise move” as indicated in the title of the article, or that we have chosen to forget the methodology of President Reagan when fighting the greatest threat to freedom in the world at the time. We are posed with a similar threat from a different foe, and yet we seem to have tossed aside the one course of action proven effective.

To see news such as the story above coming across the wires on Reagan’s birthday is a travesty. Have we learned nothing? Will anyone stand up to continue his legacy?

Ronald Wilson Reagan
February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004

Other Refinement: Did You Know?

2010-02-05T09:08:00.000-08:00

This is pretty interesting:

Freedom Of The Press? **UPDATED

2010-02-02T14:21:00.001-08:00

And now, an advisory from a “news source”, Reuters:

“Mon Feb 1, 8:07 pm ET

The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.”

Excuse me? Story withdrawn? To be replaced later in the week? Why? If only we could see the story, we might understand why it was withdrawn. Luckily, the withdrawn story has been captured via screen shot:

Click image to see for yourself

Allow me to illustrate the egregious nature of the now-withdrawn story – it’s easy since the first paragraph says it all:

“NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.”

Aha! I understand now. This article must have been incorrect, because according to the President:

“Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.”

So, either this article or the President must be wrong. By the withdrawal, one might infer the former. Let’s look deeper:

“If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.”

While I am not terribly interested in a philosophical argument with the President about semantics, I will contend that allowing tax cuts to expire is the same as raising taxes. Perhaps the President sees otherwise, but for those of us who will pay higher taxes due to lack of action versus action, the end result is exactly the same. So, allow me to repeat, Mr. President: you are a damn dirty liar.

“Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.”

Fascinating stuff, considering the many, many assurances that taxes would not rise for those making less than $250,000 – I’m SURE I’ve heard that figure before. Yet, I reminisce on the reassurances from the President in his lecture that he and his ilk cut taxes for some 8 million Americans paying for college. Why then, would the tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses be allowed to expire? While I continue to bask in the memory of his Oh-So-Historic lecture and how he laments the pain of the unemployed, I wonder why a change for 2010 would be made to tax the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits.

Simultaneously, I wonder why Reuters so quickly and unceremoniously withdrew this article. I wonder what story will replace it.

Exit note: we might want to keep an eye on the career of one Terri Cullen, Reuters journalist. Since this is the author of the withdrawn article, I would be interested to see if there are any other consequences to such insolence.

**UPDATE**

As reported by TPM, it was indeed an effort from the White House which pulled this story in its entirety four hours after hitting the wires.

“The (White House) official said when the administration saw the story, published yesterday afternoon, they contacted one of the Reuters White House correspondents.”

Is it me, or does this Executive Branch have some pull in the media? The White House claims that the article was false and that there are no tax increases looming for those under $250,000. Perhaps this is the case, perhaps it is not. Pardon me if I don’t take this Administration at their word – their honesty track record has been less-than-stellar. Regardless, one must always take pause when the people in charge seem to have this much control over media content. The White House complains an internet article isn’t true – bam, it’s gone.

Bob McCarty wonders which irked the White House into such immediate action more: the accuracy of the data or the language used such as, “…effectively a tax hike by stealth.”, “middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.” and my favorite, “Trickle-down-taxation”. McCarty also wonders, as do I, the fate of this journalist. Do we need to start a Terri Cullen Watch?

Other Refinement: A-Train To Bacon Heaven

2010-01-30T20:31:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Headmuscle:

Take a 2 pound pork loin roast, hand rub it with Adobo spice mix and about 2 teaspoons of celery salt and crushed black pepper. Cover the top in sliced onions and then wrap the exterior of the roast completely with thick cut smoked bacon slices. Tie together with baking string.

Place in roasting dish over bed of sliced onions.

Cook uncovered over indirect heat for 30 minutes a pound at 350 degrees or until inner temperature is 170 degrees.

When done let the roast set for about 15 minutes. While it is resting take the juices from the roasting pan and transfer them to a sauce pan. Add about a half a cup of white wine and stir for about 5 minutes over medium heat until reduced about 20 pct in volume.

Slice roast loin into servings with garlic mashed potatoes and a veggie. Drizzle sauce over pork and potatoes.

Recommend a crusty sour dough bread for dipping and a nice chilled white wine of your choice. Recommend a Coppola '07 Chardonnay.

Try it and take the A-Train to bacon heaven my friend.

My hero.

Pardon The Pause

2010-01-29T23:20:00.000-08:00

My three regular readers may be wondering where I am with all this news at hand. Sure, I have plenty on the State of the Union lecture and other refinements, but they will have to wait for a little while longer. My wife and I are enjoying time together for her birthday, our anniversary … and bacon.

Rants will be back soon.

The Evaporation Of A Myth

2010-01-21T01:03:00.000-08:00

The myth, which was disseminated by an all-too-predictably-complacent-media, was that Obama’s 52.9% to 45.7% victory over a 70-something candidate meant a policy mandate for progressive liberals in government. As conservatives warned and predicted, the jubilance of this victory would be short-lived even with the progressives owning all branches of government. We knew that America would not long stand for the tactics and results of such policy and governance.

And, less than one year after inauguration, the “landslide” President with a mandate went to Virginia to help Mr. Deeds run the state. This state had not elected a Republican in over a decade – yet did so despite the efforts of the President with a mandate. He also had to go to a very traditionally democrat stronghold of New Jersey to help an incumbent keep his job. The President with a mandate fell short there as well.

Then, we come to Massachusetts – not sure if that is spelled correctly, but I couldn’t get a response from the Coakley campaign on the correct way to do so. While we listen to the Accomplice Media yammer about who did what where, there seems to be only one clear conclusion regarding this race. This is a state which has not elected a Republican in almost four decades. This is the Senate seat once occupied by the so-called democrat “Lion Of The Senate” – a man who held this position comfortably for nearly five decades. Most importantly, this was the solidification of the supposed mandate. That mandate fell on the voters of one of the most liberal states in the union.

Progressives thought they finally had this one in the bag. This is an agenda which has been tried again and again in this country since our inception. Again and again, Americans have rejected this agenda as it is the antithesis of our founding. While we all collectively sigh in relief, we must also renew our vigilance. Certainly, we can be thankful that the progressives dithered away at what they could have swept through before the unthinkable occurred. Next time, we might not be so fortunate.

We must swear to ourselves that we renew the American Promise in our own lives, and the lives of our children. Our complacency will truly be our undoing. This is why I chose two middle names for my son: Patrick Henry. While our public schools will be teaching the wonders of chanting, “Mmm, mmm, mmm”, I will be teaching my son the history behind his namesake’s words, “Give me liberty or give me death”. If our children don’t understand how hard our forefathers fought to break free from the bonds in which we are currently in peril of reattaching, how long will it take before the mandate is no longer a myth?

Call To Action

2010-01-09T22:27:00.001-08:00

This essential and important Call To Action is brought to you by our most beloved and benevolent Dear Leader (and Snacky-Smores)

My loyal minions … er, I mean, my fellow Americans: there is a scourge ravishing our great country and we must band together to fight it with our every effort and last drop of blood. That scourge, of course, is Republican racism. Indeed, while our enlightened and intelligent leadership works tirelessly to provide you with everything we think you need, Republicans continue to block these efforts for one reason and one reason only: racism. So please, volunteer to fight this battle with these other fine comrades:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.

- Former Vice Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro

See Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith based … I wanna cut his nuts off. Barack … he’s talking down to black people.

- Former Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson

You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.

- Vice-President Joe Biden

A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

- Former President Bill Clinton

He’s light skinned and with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.

- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Unless you join with the enlightened progressives, the scourge of Republican racism will continue to spread throughout the nation. Join us now (or else).

Other Refinement: Music Time

2010-01-07T10:51:00.000-08:00

It occurred to me that two of the three claims in this site’s header are plainly obvious but one is not. “Political conservative” and “avid bacon-eater” are not a stretch to figure out, yet my Neil Diamond claim might have been construed as snarky rather than accurate. Henceforth, here I am invoking the spirit of the man:

And, as a bonus, here is a clip from 2007. This is the reunion of The Bad performing their 1998 single “Don’t Take A Chance”:

Amateur musician: check. Neil Diamond impersonator: check. Now, I’m off to work. More rants coming soon.

Inevitable Cries Of Discrimination

2010-01-04T15:12:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-01-02T12:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-31T18:29:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-25T23:58:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-03T00:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-26T00:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-14T00:33:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-09T01:08:00.001-08:00

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

2009-10-29T01:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-21T02:52:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-16T00:42:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-15T01:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-14T01:47:00.000-07:00

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…

2009-10-09T00:50:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-07T02:06:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-03T01:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-02T00:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-29T23:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-22T22:20:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-22T02:06:00.000-07:00

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.)

The Bad: The Return

2009-09-20T20:25:00.000-07:00

A culmination of events has kept this author from returning to this site for quite some time. Those obstacles have now been removed. I can’t make any promises, but it is my intent to begin posting again with a weekly installment. I am working now on an article to be posted Tuesday, and will attempt to post at least once per week thereafter. There are going to be some changes to the layout of the site. Some links will be added, others will be removed. All should be complete and running this Tuesday.

I would like to thank all of you who have left comments, sent emails, made telephone calls, and made face-to-face requests for my return. At last, this return is imminent.

Pop Quiz

2009-04-07T20:55:00.001-07:00

From this chart, can you extrapolate the likely times in which this site was linked by Doug Ross?

Thanks much, Doug!

Thanks also to Paul Ibrahim for his recent link bringing many new people here.

liberal Math: 15,000,000 < 50,000

2009-04-06T22:36:00.000-07:00

My very first article on this blog back in December of 2004 (pardon the language) was in response to a statement from UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland who called the initial tsunami emergency relief response of $15 million “stingy”.

No word from the UN today regarding the initial earthquake emergency relief in Italy. The Obama (Allah praise him) regime has offered the sum of $50,000. Awfully generous, don’t you think?

What a Difference a President Makes

2009-04-01T10:36:00.000-07:00

April, 2009:

“A pilotless U.S. drone aircraft fired a missile in northwest Pakistan on Wednesday, killing 12 people, a security official and residents said.”

January, 2006:

“Pakistani provincial authorities said Tuesday four or five foreign terrorists were killed in the purported U.S. missile strike that has severely strained relations with this Muslim nation.”

Notice a difference? Allow me to contrast further:

2009:

“Residents of Khadizai village said the missile hit a Taliban headquarters and 12 people were killed. A security official, who declined to be identified, confirmed the death toll and added that 13 people had been wounded.”

2006:

“Eighteen residents, including women and children, were also killed in the strike, the provincial government said Tuesday.”

Hey, I think I’m picking up on a pattern here!

2009:

(nothing)

2006:

“Many in this nation of 150 million people oppose the government's support for the United States in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets over the weekend, chanting "Death to America" and calling for the resignation of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.”

2009:

(nothing)

2006:

“‘Pakistan is impressing upon the United States and the European Community that incidents like (the missile strike) on Bajur would adversely impact the ongoing cooperation in the war against terror,’ Kasuri told lawmakers.”

2009:

(nothing)

2006:

“In Parliament, hardline lawmakers urged Aziz to cancel his visit to Washington this week for talks on security and investment and a meeting with President Bush.”

While some conservative bloggers are suggesting that we commend Obama for doing the right thing, I am inclined to pass on the back-patting. Rather, I choose to impugn our insanely biased media for their overly critical analysis of a military tactic when carried out under Bush, while calmly reporting without analysis of any kind when the exact same thing is carried out under Obama.

(c) Somewhat Agree

2009-03-31T00:31:00.000-07:00

On my regular daily circuit of reading, I have come across this twice. It is a short article (and worth the time to read), but too large to reproduce in its entirety. In short, this article by David Horowitz chastises conservatives for over-the-top criticism of President Training Wheels, and has been heralded as a Thank-God-Someone-Said-It manifesto by the likes of Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and listed simply as a quote of the day by Allahpundit of Hotair.com.

I guess I’m not as on-board with Horowitz’s entire notion as it was presented. While I will agree that railing on Obama for reasons of race (other than his and his supporter’s use of race as a means of self-promotion) and religion (I don’t give a damn if Obama is/was a Muslim) is counterproductive and self-defeating, I find other situations worthy of discussion and scorn.

Being a daily reader of Charles Johnson, I have observed him rightly beat down those who continue to follow the foolish path of Obama’s birth certificate. Back when the issue came around, I resisted the temptation to dive into the Kool-Aid pool, but I did put my toes in. In reviewing my observations at the time, I believe that my questions were warranted (and still salient to a certain degree):

“An ink stamp on the back of the certificate soaks through enough to show us the date: Jun 6, 2007. This is all a bit odd for me.

Why was a government extract copy made last year?

Why would Obama refuse to release this certificate to the press, only to apparently give it to a website that openly says “screw them” in reference to Americans that were savagely burned alive, ripped to pieces, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah?

Where is the original?”

While I still think the circumstances around this situation are suspect (for reasons other than authenticity), I am not one of those who are convinced that this is an issue. As far as I am concerned, along with most others, this is a long-dead issue. I would imagine that the small factions of people still hollering about this are the very people who are described in the article by Horowitz. Yet, it is not annunciated that way. Rather, we are treated to this bit of oddity:

“Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a ‘transformative’ radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies – the same that he once joined his fellow democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander-in-chief.”

This appears to be an argument by Horowitz that concern of Obama’s radical agendas should be tempered by the notion that, since he is keeping the course in Afghanistan and Iraq for the very brief moment, that we should reconsider the notion that he might “Change” that course whenever it hare-lips him (or when the polls tell him it is safe to do so). Consider, if you will, another notion: one that should condemn him for keeping the Bush policies. His opposition to these policies was the primary driving force for his rise to stardom within his party – and where the hell are the war protesters decrying their newly anointed savior of American lives for doing exactly the opposite of what he promised during the election? Should we, as Horowitz suggests, be reassured by this as to the President’s direction? I think not. I think we should call this what it is: policy by opinion poll. That is anything but leadership, and what our country desperately needs right now is a leader – agree or disagree with his or her leadership.

“In other words, while it’s reasonable to be unhappy with a democrat administration and even concerned because the democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the anti-Christ.”

Agreed. Again, I must agree that those who quote the Bible and claim Obama will bring the end of the world are those whom must be singled out as those who support some of the ideals as the rest of us, but by no means speak for us. However:

“I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the left.”

The singular aspect of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd that made them over-the-top was the lack of salient correlation. Conversely, I stand behind my “Obama Is Acting Like Hitler Did” notions in this frequently viewed article from just before the election. Unlike the left, I have made a case and cited sources. Previous to that article, I have also noted the similarities between Obama’s campaign imagery and some other unsavory characters here and here, which again I will defend as salient observations. If there are some over-the-top conservative hysterics going on, I sure don’t see them, let alone see them being validated by the media as the over-the-top leftist have been over so many decades.

So, while I would somewhat agree with these other conservative thinkers that we must be wary of our words, lest we lower ourselves to liberal standards (or lack thereof), I would also consider the fact that I am inclined to show our President the same amount of respect that liberals showed our last President. Regardless of who “started it”, this President with whom I disagree on almost all subjects must still earn my respect – just as those with whom I do agree.

Is This The Change You Wanted?

2009-03-30T10:07:00.000-07:00

You wanted change? We certainly have some – in our budget, our tax code, our inability to properly meet and greet foreign leaders … oh, and this:

North Korea has moved a missile onto a launch pad and says it will be fired by April 8.

Swell. What say you, Secretary of Defense?

Gates conceded that North Korea will likely get away with thumbing its nose at the international community by test-firing the missile. He also said that six-party talks aimed at curbing Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions have been largely fruitless.

Why the breakdown?

“If this is Kim Jong-Il’s welcoming present to a new president, launching a missile like this and threatening to have a nuclear test, I think it says a lot about the imperviousness of this regime in North Korea to any kind of diplomatic overtures.”

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Weren’t we told that part of the package of Hope and Change™ was The One’s ability to use diplomacy to solve the ills of the world? Gone would be the days of Cowboy Diplomacy a la George Bush, and in are the days of nuance and progress, right?

Gates lamented the futility of diplomatic efforts toward North Korea and Iran, another nation with nuclear ambitions. Despite the Obama administration’s talk of ramping up diplomatic overtures toward Tehran, Gates was pessimistic about that strategy.

Too bad the American electorate was more optimistic than the Secretary of Defense. So, in the face of yet another Obama administration failure, how will this new situation be handled?

The Obama administration has signaled it wants to scale back the deployment of a missile defense system that was initiated by former President George W. Bush. The White House is also talking about dropping plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Change.

Thanks Doug!

2009-03-29T21:50:00.000-07:00

Thanks much to Doug Ross for linking my recent Motivational Poster of the Day. As you can see, a few folks dropped by.

Motivational Poster of the Day

2009-03-27T10:52:00.001-07:00

Stop! (please?)

2009-03-26T01:09:00.000-07:00

During the election, we conservatives warned the nation of the very consequences we now endure from electing the bumbling, inexperienced yet finely packaged message of Change. Invoking thoughts of United Nations “action”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds to the North Korean move to load a ballistic missile on the launch pad. Clinton’s warning is as toothless as anything from the United Nations, amounting to nothing more than, “Stop, or I’ll say stop again. Keep it up and we might write you a very angry letter.” Enjoy the comedy:

“We have made it very clear that the North Koreans pursue this pathway at a cost and with consequences to the six-party talks which we would like to see revived and moving forward as quickly as possible.”

Um, weren’t democrats the ones suggesting that we handle North Korea with bilateral talks? Yes:

“I want both bilateral and multinational talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.” – John Kerry, first Presidential debate, September 30, 2004

(translation: I want to do everything so I don’t have to take a stance on anything)

“The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.” – George Bush in response to Kerry’s assertion

So, apparently Frau Clinton figures that multinational really is the way to go after all. Also, note the complete idiocy of her notion (in bold) that the North Koreans decision will have consequences regarding something that we would like to do.

None of this surprises conservatives, who warned of the danger in electing untried, inexperienced novices peddling a slick message with no substance. America made a choice for symbolism over substance, and will pay dearly for that choice. How easily we forgot the Carter years.

Whaddya Know?

2009-03-25T03:14:00.000-07:00

Hmmm...

We were dubbed as racist prior to election day for clearly stating that this would be the result.

Failing Math With Style

2009-03-21T20:59:00.000-07:00

Sounds Familiar

2009-03-17T12:42:00.000-07:00

President Training Wheels is complaining that Republicans are just saying no to bankrupting several future generations and presenting no plan of their own:

“If there are members of Congress who object to specific policies and proposals in this budget then I ask them to be ready and willing to propose constructive alternative solutions. ‘Just say no’ is the right advice to give your teenagers about drugs. It is not an acceptable response to whatever economic policies are proposed by the other party.”

After giggling over the drugs comment, I was struck by this amazing feeling of déjà vu:

“Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him…he must be stopped” –House Minority Leader Nanci Pelosi (d-CA), Fox News, March 17, 2005.

“That’s why we don't come up with a [Social Security] plan, because whatever plan we come up with, the President is just going to say, ‘oh, we’re not going to do that, we’re not going to do this.’” –dNC Chairman Howard Dean, Meet The Press, May 22, 2005.

“[R]obert Rubin, the steward of President Clinton’s economic policy, told the House democrat Caucus yesterday that it needs to continue to ‘hold firm’ in its opposition to President Bush’s effort to reform Social Security and advised the democrats not to introduce their own plan” –Hans Nichols, “Rubin Urges democrats Not To Reveal Their Hand,” The Hill, May 26, 2005.

The Social Security issue was certainly not the least of the democrat oppose-all plan. Let us recall the democrat effort to lose the war in Iraq:

“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.

“[The Iraqi elections are] going to be ugly.” –Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Charlie Rose Show, January 5, 2005.

Good call, Mr. Vice-President. Those Iraqi elections went so poorly…

“[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.

I’m sorry, that was incorrect. Thanks for playing. Not to be outdone, let us recall the words of the most ethical democrat in the most ethical Congress evah:

“[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.

Hey President Teleprompter – which party is the “Party of No”? I know this wasn’t on your pre-approved list of questions, but do you think you can muster an answer without your speechwriters?

Guess not.

A Monument To Media Bias

2009-03-16T22:57:00.000-07:00

Once again, courtesy of the indispensible Doug Ross:

Politics or Poppycock has a series of photos depicting a monument to the victims of 9/11 in Bayonne, New Jersey. He writes, “I’m stunned. I have never heard, seen or read anything about this. Isn’t it wonderful to live in a country where the media controls what we should know?”

Folks, this amazing memorial to the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was a gift from the people of Russia. It stands in New Jersey right across the river from the Statue of Liberty. Today is the very first I have even heard of it. It was dedicated on September 11, 2006, and one would think it to be newsworthy! Alas, not so much for the Deathbed Media Complex. Here is what they were spoon-feeding the masses:

NBC News Talking Heads:

MATT LAUER: “In the years since 9/11, the nation has spent billions of dollars to improve its defenses against ...”

ANN CURRY: “Up in space, a successful docking today for the shuttle Atlantis, hauling a huge addition of the ...”

ANN CURRY: “Saddam Hussein’s second trial resumed today after a 19-day break. He’s accused of genocide in the ...”

ANN CURRY: “Today, Japan successfully launched an intelligence gathering satellite into orbit. Japan says it’s ...”

ABC’s The Note failed to note the gift...

CBS pontificated of the progress made with Iran and its nuke program, citing Iran’s notion that, “Many of the misunderstandings were removed.”

CBS did mention Russia on the day after their gift:

“It was the Material Girl’s first concert in this formerly communist country — and nearly 50,000 fans got into the groove as Madonna performed in Russia for one night only.”

Much more newsworthy!

Granted, I admit that I have not done a full and complete search of every newspaper and local media outlet, but I was not able to find much of anything about this from the Bringers-Of-All-That-Is-News. Here is what I did find:

A NYT article from March 6, 2009 in the Real Estate section.

That’s it. Media bias? You be the judge.

trackback

Factoid Of The Day

2009-03-16T10:48:00.000-07:00

Did you know that President Obama signed the stimulus package at the same desk where President Clinton got his package stimulated?

Love It!

2009-03-14T20:55:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Hot Air:

Sorry, I Don't Have Photoshop

2009-03-11T18:27:00.001-07:00

1000:1

2009-03-09T00:11:00.001-07:00

Shoe thrown at President George Bush – 1000 media reports.

Shoe thrown at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – 1 media report.

Perhaps we can blame Rush Limbaugh?

“Yes We Can”

2009-03-07T19:31:00.000-08:00

This is Uncle Hugo. Some consider Uncle Hugo to be a dangerous, socialist nutjob. Others consider him to be a visionary leader. You be the judge:

This is Uncle Hugo hanging out with Rhodes Scholar and Constitutional expert Sean Penn. Nutjob or visionary?

This is Uncle Hugo embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another “visionary” leader. Face it, embracing the notion that the Holocaust was a big con-job and that it should be done for real could be considered by some to be “visionary”.

It’s rumored that this ex-President considers Mahmoud’s ideology to be visionary. Also, let us remember what a stellar job old Jimmy did on both domestic and foreign fronts.

So now, Uncle Hugo has some advice for Our Beloved Leader:

“I recommend to Obama -- they’re criticizing him because they say he’s moving towards socialism -- come Obama, ally with us on the path to socialism, it’s the only road.

“Imagine a socialist revolution in the U.S. Nothing is impossible.”

For some reason, I keep hearing Obama’s voice in my head responding to Uncle Hugo with, “Yes We Can”.

Change!

For Those Of You Who Wanted “Change”

2009-03-02T22:43:00.000-08:00

You got it! Via Instapundit courtesy of the indispensible Doug Ross: a great chart showing the disastrous nose-dive the Dow Jones has taken since the passage of Our Beloved Leader’s Stimulus Bill. I wouldn’t call this Change I Can Believe In – rather, I would call it Change We Conservatives Predicted.

Yet, with our economy swirling the bowl, I am still concerned even more about this Change that is leaving me with little Hope. Again courtesy of Doug:

“The most dangerous leaders in history are those like Hitler and Ahmadinejad, fueled by totalitarian ideologies and mystical belief systems. Ahmadinejad believes in the imminent return of 12th Imam, which he further believes he can hasten. He also senses that he has a personal responsibility to expedite the return of the Mahdi and is therefore preparing Iran for the apocalypse.”

Fabulous, considering:

“Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.”

Because hope and change are more important than experience and wisdom.

Not to mention:

“The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 ... The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.”

Because politics are much more important than security of the nation.

For all of you that were suckered into the Hope and Change sales pitch, thanks for nothing.

It Occurs To Me…

2009-02-23T21:00:00.000-08:00

OK, so not a full article, BUT…

I’m about to go to bed and there’s nothing on TV. I happen across an old ‘80s movie (“Weird Science”) that features a Time Magazine cover from the era. The cover headline reads:

“Nuclear Poker”

So, it occurs to me: whose hand do you feel better betting on? Reagan’s? Obama’s?

Not sure if I will sleep tonight.

Letters … We’ve Got Letters

2009-02-15T08:12:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all that have left comments and sent emails. Things are improving on my end, but finding time to write here has been near impossible. Between my new job, Critter, and everything else, I haven’t been able to sit and write anything salient on the myriad of issues from our new administration.

Hopefully, as things settle down a little more, I will be able to return with a weekly installment. Again, I thank you all for your concern.

Taking Another Break

2008-12-27T16:30:00.000-08:00

A quick hello to anyone still tuning in. I have way too much on my plate to write anything of substance right now, but I hope to return soon. I will try and update as quickly as possible.

Happy Holidays to all!

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

2008-11-17T17:28:00.000-08:00

I am thankful that I was not born a Lions fan.

Week 11

2008-11-16T13:34:00.000-08:00

Well, at least the Cardinals are doing well.

Week 10

2008-11-09T18:40:00.001-08:00

Rex Grossman, ladies and gentlemen! Ugh.

Change

2008-11-05T09:19:00.000-08:00

Last night, I saw something I haven’t seen in twelve years: an election night concession speech. Unlike democrats, I have seen Republicans congratulate the President-Elect and wish him well. Make no mistake that the well-wishing is genuine. Unlike democrats, we do not wish to see troubles in our future. We do not hope for the worst so as to gain political points.

Personally, I am flabbergasted. Two years ago, democrats gained control of Congress. They brought with them bitter partisan politics and economic ruin. I cannot fathom how America could vote for more of what they bring. Since Bush was elected, we have been hearing the litany of complaints from democrats. Their claims of having plans in which to solve the nation’s (and the world’s) ills have been steady but without detail. No longer – now they must present their plans in full. My prediction is that their plans will be the socialism in which we conservatives have been warning.

So, the two year journey has finally and thankfully come to an end. I do not foresee the Republicans jumping right in for 2012 as the democrats most certainly would have. Hopefully, the Republican Party has learned the lesson it should have learned twelve years ago – don’t run an old codger against a young and charismatic opponent.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we face change – for better or for worse.

Week 9

2008-11-02T13:38:00.001-08:00

For a team at mid-season at the top of their division, they shouldn’t have run into this much trouble with a no-win-yet team. But, I guess I can’t complain too much. A win is a win. I am worried about Kyle Orton, as I haven’t heard any updates on his condition yet. If we have to rely on Rex Grossman, I fear the worst for the rest of the season. We’ll see.

Another Brilliant Idea Buried

2008-11-02T10:02:00.000-08:00

Here’s a great idea for energy independence and the economy from The One. Courtesy of Newsbusters:

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Bankrupt an entire industry? Fabulous idea, Barry! However, the real story here isn’t that Obama has dangerous ideas for our country. The story is that his adoring media covers his butt at every turn.

NewsBusters’ Tom Blumer has found out that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama’s willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio.

Vote accordingly.

Happy Halloween!

2008-10-31T11:49:00.001-07:00

Happy Halloween from Critter and the rest of us here at Rants.

What If? - Updated

2008-10-30T17:31:00.000-07:00

Imagine this scenario:

It comes to light that John McCain attended a 1992 party which was to honor a former member of the KKK. It further comes to light that McCain actually takes to the podium at this event to make statements in support of this former racist. Then, we find out there is a tape of McCain’s statements and the people at Fox News have it. However, Fox News says they won’t release it to the public.

The outcry?

UPDATE: Speaking of double-standards and Obama supposedly being The One to unite the nation:

An effigy of Sarah Palin being hanged in West Hollywood has been taken down after days of display and media attention. No arrests have been made.

An effigy of Barack Obama hanged by a couple of jerkoffs in Kentucky has garnered the arrest of two men.

The major difference: the Palin Hangers proudly did so. The Obama Hangers expressed remorse.

Note from the author: I do not condone this sort of display of hatred. It is fully counterproductive. However, I do believe it falls under the umbrella of free speech. I find the decision to make no arrests in the Palin case proper and the decision to make arrests in the Obama case despicable. Yet, not nearly as despicable as the way in which these Americans decided to use their precious free speech rights.

Pillar Of Integrity - Updated

2008-10-28T23:49:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times – stalwart of integrity – has been sand-dancing like mad about a video tape of The Chosen One lavishing praise upon a terrorist apologist. The indispensable Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been keeping track:

Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:41:24 pm PST

In response to an LGF reader demand for release of the video tape (a response that I never received from Reader’s Representative Jamie Gold, whom I specifically emailed):

“The Times did write about the tape, so I’m not sure what you mean about suppressing the video or information from the video.”

Um, not sure what was meant? These are the elite and intelligent of the media Superior? Real simple there, Jamie. You have a video tape. You refuse to release it to the public. Sounds like suppression to me.

“It sounds as if you don’t find “mere reporting” to be enough, but The Times is not suppressing anything.”

Um…

sup•press:
1: to put down by authority or force
2: to keep from public knowledge: as a: to keep secret b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

It seems that, according to Merriam-Webster, The Times is doing exactly what they first claim to not be doing. Take two:

Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:57:21 am PST

Apparently, The Times told Bill O’Reilly that there is an “ethical problem” with not suppressing the tape. Would that “ethical problem” be that they cannot bring themselves to damage their Savior one week before the election? Take three:

Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:38:11 pm PST

The McCain campaign finally decides to enter the fray and demands that our free media stop suppressing information about The democrat Messiah. Apparently, since the first two takes weren’t flying, The Times fell back on an old favorite for those caught with their pants down:

“No comment.”

In my experience, this is the fallback position until either the hand is folded or the final and “official” stand is taken. Take four:

Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:42:04 pm PST

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

Three days, four lame excuses. From an obviously bogus memo to illegally obtained details of an Ohio plumber, news sources (including The Times) have not been concerned about such trivialities. Apparently, promises only exist when protecting democrats.

On Election Day, we must look inside ourselves and ask if we are really willing to elect a leader who is so beloved and revered by the media watchdogs that they will act in congress with him. A President who isn’t kept in-check by our media isn’t a President.

UPDATE: Take five:

Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:38:36 pm PDT

“The reporter agreed with his source not to release the tape in return for getting acess (sic) to it.
…
“To break that agreement might put the source of the tape in jeopardy.”

So, if I get all this correct, The Times suggests that they don’t have to release the tape because they “reported” on it (saying you have it isn’t reporting). However, even if they didn’t want to suppress this tape as they are doing, their hands are tied because of the “ethical problem” of breaking an agreement …and now… possibly putting the source of this tape in “jeopardy”.

Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin. If there was nothing of note on this tape, why in the world would the person who gave it to The Times be in jeopardy? Additionally, why would someone give a tape to a newspaper if they didn’t want it released? This is akin to making a doctor’s appointment, but only on the condition that the doctor not actually see you.

Cry foul! Contact The Times. Contact their advertisers. Be sure to vote on Tuesday.

Brownshirts And Jackboots - Updated

2008-10-26T17:34:00.000-07:00

Last week I noted an eerie similarity between symbols used by Hitler and Obama. The article was titled, “I’m Not Sayin’, I’m Just Sayin’”. Well, enough is enough. I am saying it.

Over and over throughout this election we have seen blatant abuses from the Obama campaign and the mainstream media (pardon the repetition).

First, we must note the outrageous attempts by ACORN to stack this election in Obama’s favor. As noted by Ace of Spades:

30% of ACORN’s 1.3 million registrations are fraudulent.

And that's the figure they themselves admit to.

If they are admitting to 390,000 fraudulent voters, one must wonder what the actual number could be! This is toxic to the nation and undermines the electoral process in total. Furthermore, the media has been totally absent on responsible reporting of these abuses, let alone their lack of outrage. I can only imagine the fist-banging we would see from our beloved talking heads if there were even the faintest whiff of impropriety on behalf of the Republican Party or the McCain campaign.

Next, we must note the egregious fraud occurring from the fundraising arm of the Obama campaign. From Gateway Pundit:

While the American media continues to focus on what Sarah Palin is wearing the Barack Obama Campaign continues to pull off the largest campaign donation fraud in history.

By turning off their Address Verification System, or AVS, at the Obama website, the Democratic candidate was able to raise a record $150 million in donations last month from millions of donors from all over the world.

Very illegal and almost totally ignored by the media-at-large. Once again, I must note that it is toxic to the nation for our media watchdogs to be complicit in the illegal activities of our leaders. Enter the Brownshirts.

The date: July 2, 2008. Obama outright suggests creating his own army of Brownshirts:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

There’s been lots of talk in the blogosphere about this statement, with Obama supporters doing their usual “clarifications” for their Messiah. Whether or not we find out if this statement is what it sounds like to me depends on time and circumstance. Knowing what I know about history, the mere suggestion of such a “security force” should scare the living daylights out of every single American. Nothing good can come from such a notion, and the Obama campaign must know this as the quote was omitted from the official transcript. Now, add to this sentiment the actions of Obama’s unofficial Brownshirts and the idea becomes more frightening:

Intimidation of voters by Democratic law enforcement -- (St. Louis): Missouri Truth Squad: St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama. The officials, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

Intimidation of GOP donors by Obama attorneys -- Politico: The [Obama] campaign demands a criminal investigation into the organization and donors to the infamous Ayers ad that broadcast heavily in Texas and Ohio: “We urge and expect the Department of Justice to fulfill its commitment to take prompt, vigorous actions against criminal violations of the campaign finance laws. We ask that it begin here, by initiating an investigation into the American Issues project; its officers and directors; and its anonymous donors, whoever they may be.”

Encouraging intimidation of undecideds and Republicans by Obama himself -- San Francisco Chronicle: At a Nevada rally Obama said, “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Organized reprisals for examinations of ACORN’s role in vote fraud -- The New York Times: The Obama campaign sent a letter to the Attorney General requesting they “look into the whether F.B.I. investigations of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, were politically motivated.”

Illegal voting by the Obama campaign -- Palestra: Obama campaign staff and volunteers illegally voting in Ohio (video report).

Illegal theft of handicapped voter identities -- (Atlanta): Obama supporters steal mentally-handicapped people’s votes

I am thankful for Doug Ross, as he does some of the most complete gathering of information out there. I skipped one of the above examples courtesy of Mr. Ross because it is so egregious that it needs to be highlighted separately:

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.

To clarify: Obama had been blocking the release of documents which prove he was outright lying about his associations with a domestic terrorist, and when a conservative writer finally forced these public documents to be released, the Brownshirts went to work on him as well as the Chicago radio station that dared to speak with him. Furthermore, they refused to simply have anyone from their campaign appear on the show to offer their take on the subject. Dare to question the Messiah? You shall be harassed and outcast.

Enter a poor fellow who ended up face-to-face with the Messiah on his front lawn. Joe Wurzelbacher didn’t invite Obama to his home. Obama showed up and Joe asked a salient question. Joe’s question wasn’t the problem – the problem was Obama’s Marxist answer. So, what happens?

“State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about “Joe the Plumber.”

To clarify: state and law-enforcement computers were accessed to get information on the fellow who asked the Messiah a decidedly inconvenient question. The investigation is whether or not the computers were accessed illegally.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver’s license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

How convenient that it hasn’t been determined who checked on this fellow that dared to speak out against oppressive tax policy. Perhaps some in the media consider checking him out to be “legitimate law enforcement”? If we go by the unspoken law that nobody is allowed to question the Messiah, then that would be so. Enter the Jackboots.

While it is common knowledge that the media is substantially stacked to the left, I have been continually asking myself how it could be possible for Obama to practically own them as he does. The coverage of Bill Clinton’s troubles was certainly skewed to the left, but it was nonetheless covered. One indicator is the previously mentioned Brownshirt attack on WGN, but this one instance is hardly conclusive evidence of widespread media intimidation. Much to the surprise of many (including Joe Biden), one reporter boldly strayed from pack and asked some very pertinent questions of the vice-presidential candidate:

I highly suggest watching the whole video. Biden’s rage is obvious, lending to the laughable answers he provided. The fallout?

Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.

“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.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”

Ask tough questions? Your access to the campaign is completely cut off. You be the judge and tell me if you thought the questions were mean-spirited or irrelevant. I think not – I found them to be salient and to the point. Considering the softball treatment of the Obama campaign by the media-at-large, perhaps they are angry simply because salient questions are an unexpected occurrence. The WFTV response:

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, “When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes.”

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

“Mr. Biden didn’t like the questions,” Jordan said. “We choose not to ask softball questions.”

Journalistic integrity is punished. Congratulations to WFTV for not allowing themselves to be crushed by the Hope And Change Jackboot.

When I started writing this article, I was only going to write about today’s outrage from the media. However, it seemed to me that the Brownshirted, Jackbooted past of the Obama campaign required iteration to give this situation context:

In 2003, Barack Obama attended a party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Also in attendance were domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. The event was videotaped, and the Los Angeles Times has obtained a copy of the tape. This, my friends, is newsworthy. This, my friends, is something the American public should see before they cast their votes. However, The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release this video. In a word: outrageous.

I, as have others, encourage you to contact The Los Angeles Times and demand that they release this video immediately. Here is what I sent:

It has come to my attention that you are in possession of a video tape featuring presidential candidate Obama attending a party with Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. It has also come to my attention that you are refusing to release this video. In the interest of the American electorate as well as the American public at large, you must release this video. Your refusal to do so is an indictment of your journalistic integrity. Failure to reverse this decision indicates a willingness to act as part and parcel of the Obama campaign, which is contrary to your mandate to report the news.

In this full-court-press for the presidency, the Obama campaign has thrown all rules to the wind and the media has thrown all pretense of objectivity in the same direction. However, when considering all of the information above, I must wonder what the circumstances at The Los Angeles Times truly are. Are they in the tank for Obama or do they fear retribution from Obama?

Do we Americans really want someone this toxic in charge of our future? Have we Americans really lost all context of history in terms of how dangerous this much power is? Will we Americans allow the sacrifices of our forefathers to be negated in one swift move? We will see in less than two weeks. However, this American will not go quietly.

UPDATE: Bookworm Room has a list of LA Times advertisers. Contact them! My message to them:

I understand that you spend money advertising your company in The Los Angeles Times. I have attempted to contact the editor (to no avail) regarding a serious situation concerning the legitimacy and integrity of this news outlet. As I am sure you are now fully aware, The Los Angeles Times are in possession of a video tape featuring presidential candidate Obama attending a party with Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Contrary to their mandate as an honest source of news, they are refusing to release this tape to the public.

Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, my voice means little to the editor of this once esteemed news source. This is why I am asking for your assistance. You have a choice regarding whether or not to advertise with an organization that has thrown their objectivity and integrity to the wind. Will you be complacent, as have so many others, in this travesty? I urge you to contact the editor and let them know that your association with them will affect your business.

Is the integrity of your company worth risking? If so, disregard this message. If not, urge The Los Angeles Times to do the right thing. It is shameful that the public should even have to ask.

Please speak up. It seems daunting to be one voice against such a monumental force of Jackbooting, but you are not alone. Our future depends on all of our voices, as it always has.

Also: to the anonymous tool that has once again graced my site with blazing wit – if you follow my simple instructions in the comments, you will find that “BMV computers” belong to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Seriously – is that the best you can do? Truly pathetic!

Careless, Outrageous Comments - Updated

2008-10-21T07:52:00.000-07:00

Our journalistic institutions need just as much revamping and reform as Congress. I could sit and list the egregious bias all day long – the list would be comparable in size to the blatant lies Obama has told along this extraordinarily long campaign season. Yet, I saw something The One said yesterday and found the timing to be comical:

“In the final days of campaigns, the say-anything, do-anything politics too often takes over.”

This, of course, is in reference to the McCain campaign which has (in my opinion) been doing too much talking softly and not nearly enough carrying of the big stick.

“We’ve seen it before and we’re seeing it again -- ugly phone calls, misleading mail, misleading TV ads, careless, outrageous comments.”

Is it just me, or is Obama speaking of his own campaign and party? I, as have many others in the blogosphere, have extensively covered Obama’s outright lies (both regarding himself and regarding his opponents), let alone “misleading” assertions. What struck me funny was his notion that Republicans have been making “careless, outrageous comments”.

Perhaps the Senator was referring to his colleague from Massachusetts who just suggested that John McCain wears adult diapers?

Perhaps the Senator was referring to his colleague from Pennsylvania who has, in recent days, referred to his own constituents in traditionally Republican voting areas as “racist” and “rednecks”?

Perhaps the Senator was referring to his colleague from Georgia who suggested McCain is akin to a segregationist? Notable is Obama’s implicit agreement to this suggestion.

Should I go on? I believe an entire book could be written about the “careless, outrageous comments” that have been made about Sarah Palin. How about the caring, understanding and inclusive left and their handling of a plumber who dared to disagree with Obama’s tax plan?

As noted by Richard Baehr at American Thinker, there is something more damaging than either the perceived “careless, outrageous comments” from the right or the actual ones from the left. There are Obama’s lies. There have been lots of them. Baehr notes the two most consequential:

1. In 2004, when asked about the possibility of running for highest office, Obama tells a whopper:

“Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.”

He then followed that up with a sentiment about which Republicans are now being accused of speaking carelessly:

“Guys, I’m a state senator. I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Tell me about it! I’m still baffled. More important than this lie, which is made all too often by many politicians, is the biggie lie.

2. Obama promises to accept federal funds for the election if his opponent does also. This is the big one, folks. McCain is limited to $84 million in spending. Obama has raised over $600 million this year. Being the only candidate to opt out of the federal system since it was conceived in 1976, Obama has an unprecedented ability to outspend his opponent. Combine that with the all-around favorable media coverage, and you have the lie that possibly steals the election.

Yet, Obama still gets front-page for bloviating about the “careless, outrageous comments” regarding his ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist. His lies don’t even make the Style section.

UPDATE: Thanks to the boldness of an anonymous comment, I have corrected the error in spelling above. It is always refreshing to have salient and constructive criticism on these articles. Tool.

Week 7

2008-10-19T15:22:00.001-07:00

Sure wish I could have watched this one.

I’m Not Sayin’, I’m Just Sayin’

2008-10-19T15:09:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to American Thinker for locating this bit of terrifying similarity:

“The hands of the Führer organize his speech. This picture captures Hitler’s hands as he speaks of the unity of the National Socialist and socialist ideas.”

Look familiar?

I Am Joe

2008-10-18T11:08:00.000-07:00

Per the suggestion from the usually comical Iowahawk, I am happy to share a little personal information with my readers and proudly declare that I Am Joe.

But, before my story, here is a little from Iowahawk about the real Joe:

Politicians -- Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. -- obviously have to put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it’s right there in the jobs description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the cable news cameras. Joe simply had the temerity to speak truth (or, if you prefer, an uninformed opinion) to power, for which the politico-media axis apparently determined that he must be humiliated, harassed, smashed, destroyed. The viciousness and glee with which they set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative Deathrace 3000, and Web 2.0 turned into Berlin 1932.0.

Emphasis mine. The events that have transpired in the past several days regarding the now-famous (or infamous if you’re a liberal) Joe the Plumber have been nothing short of perverse. The behavior exhibited by the media is not only deplorable, but it should scare the living hell out of every single American. If this is what we can expect for daring to question this presidential candidate, what can we expect if he were actually to become President Obama? What would happen to Joe if he dared to question this man and his media while actually in power?

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Yet, I digress. I would like to illustrate Joe’s concern, along with illustrating why Joe’s concern is also my concern. It’s one thing to say “I Am Joe”, but it is another to show why. This is my intent.

Only yesterday, we heard from Senator Obama regarding Joe, and the message is one of a mocking elitist (to no surprise). Yet, while Obama sneers at the notion of a mere peon like Joe aspiring to own a business and (God forbid) actually make money, nobody seems to notice that Obama is, in fact, sneering at The American Dream itself. Since none of the media is willing to do so, I will say it: shame on you, Senator.

However, the magic number of $250,000 for a small business isn’t as large as Senator Obama suggests it to be. Picture, if you will, Joe the Plumber, Inc: a small business that would perhaps employ a mere five people, not including himself (three plumbers, someone to handle the financials, and a receptionist).

Average plumber’s salary in 2007: $47,350 (x3)
Average bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerk’s salary in 2007: $32,780
Average general office clerk’s salary in 2007: $25,960

So, before vehicles, tools, office space, supplies, office equipment, utilities, advertising, and any other ancillary business costs are factored, we have a total of $200,790 every year that this small business must generate simply to meet payroll. This is before Joe the Plumber makes dollar one as the business owner. According to Senator Obama, this is the person who is obligated to help those behind him.

Now, that is a hypothetical five-employee plumber business. What about your humble author? I have spent the past fifteen years in the technology sector. I have always worked for small companies (never less than 5 and never more than fifteen employees). These companies were more like families than companies due to the small amount of people in them. In the technology sector, dealing in used gear as I did, $250,000 will barely begin to cover one month worth of inventory investment. Unfortunately for me, my last job went away. That was more than one year ago (and an explanation of my erratic posts through the past year). Because of the sheer fear of business owners that Obama might win this election, jobs are a rare commodity. Right now, I am crossing my fingers on an opportunity to work for a company making a salary that is roughly 35% of what I used to make.

I am not rich. Yet, I have paid taxes under Bill Clinton and I have paid taxes under George W. Bush. One considered me rich and the other did not. Side-note: I never got close to $250,000. I, like the real Joe, was aspiring to own and operate a business in my field. That dream is on hold, and if Obama has his way, that dream is gone.

I Am Joe.