Monday, June 30, 2008

Obama News

  • Obama plans to disarm America:



    (Longer version can be found here -h/t Macranger)


  • Is Blogger really shutting down Anti-Obama sites?

    As I was reading this story posted over at Stop the ACLU it hit me that this same thing happened to me about two weeks ago. I went through about 6 days where Blogger was telling me (after four years) that my site had been identified as a SPAM site and I'd have to do through the word verification process even to view posts or save them as a draft. After many emails the situation was resolved...but this post made me wonder...

    Read the story and see the list of "frozen" sites:
    Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama Sites on its Blogger Platform


  • Down in OBX (The Outer Banks, North Carolina) there were OBXama pins...ugh. Just what I needed to see while attempting to enjoy my vacation...


  • And if that wasn't bad enough --my nine year old had on the BET awards while we were down there (Well how else could a kid rebel against punk and metal head parents but listen to rap?!) and it was an Obama-fest. I mean the show ended with a blatant "Vote for Obama just because he's Black."

    "If we all register and vote, we will have the first black president in the history of America," Sean "Diddy" Combs told the crowd Tuesday at the Shrine Auditorium before chanting "Obama or Die" — a declarative remix of his neutral "Vote or Die" motto from the 2004 presidential election, when he attempted to boost the youth vote. (source)
  • Caption It...

    Saturday, June 28, 2008

    Best of BS: GPS Implants

    *Originally posted on 9-29-04. To this day the biggest Google search to get to my site is "GPS implants for kids."

    GPS Implants for My Kids Please


    This morning I was listening to Michael Smerconish on the radio. I think I have talked about him before…he is a Philly talk show host (former lawyer), does occasional commentary on CNN and just wrote a book called ‘Flying Blind –How Political Correctness continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post 9/11’ (he testified in front of Congress about this also).

    During the brief part of the show that I caught today, Michael was talking about the possibility of implanting GPS chips into CIA officers, soldiers etc. Subsequently, if they were captured Special Forces could swoop right in –save them and kill the animals who took them. Those of you who know me in real life can attest to the fact that I have been saying this about children FOREVER. If we have LoJack for our Jeeps…why wouldn’t we have it for our MOST valuable possessions?

    I guess one of the major drawbacks of being a news-junkie is the ‘missing children’ stories that always haunt me… Actually, they don’t even have to be children –I sent a card to Lacey Peterson’s mom soon after she ‘disappeared’. (She was 27, pregnant with her first child –who was a boy and already named Conner…I was 27 when I was pregnant with Justice –my first child who was a boy and already named Justice….I felt a connection with her). If there is ANY chance in the world that your child could be abducted, raped, dismembered or tortured --why wouldn’t we be doing more to prevent it from happening? The LoJack commercials promise your car will be located in 30 minutes (and they boast a 90% success rate) –and with ‘missing persons’ they say that the first 24 hours are crucial –so couldn’t this technology virtually eliminate the horror of child murders outside the home? Why don’t we have GPS for humans?

    I know –the conspiracy people will say that the Government could then track your movement…but I say, so what? They wouldn’t be mandatory. You don’t have to get your kid one –but I want it and would implant it in them myself if need be. This is my biggest fear as a parent. I watch family after family cry on Larry King and wonder how they possibly go on after something like that…knowing your child died scared to death in some horrific fashion.

    I had never expanded this train of thought to include soldiers…then again before the past year I was never cognizant of the sacred ancient Muslim practice of beheading either… With this technology Daniel Pearle, Matt Maupin, Nick Berg, Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong could all still be alive and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could be very dead…

    Why aren’t we doing this yet? Do Americans value their Audis more than their children and their soldiers –or could it be that we haven’t made this technological leap...or are people so paranoid that they would keep their privacy over their lives?

    Who Knew My Fridge Could Talk...




    What Your Fridge Says About You



    You like to be surrounded by things you love. You aren't exactly greedy, but you can be materialistic at times.



    You tend to be a fairly thrifty person. You splurge occasionally, but you're mostly a saver.



    You are a very adventurous person. You love to try new things, and you get bored very easily.



    You try to be responsible, but you don't always succeed. Your heart is in the right place though.



    You are likely to be married - and very busy.

    Friday, June 27, 2008

    Best of BS: Yikes...'05 Thoughts on McCain

    *Originally posted on 7-12-05.

    Being a honorable person doesn't make someone a good politician. That's the conclusion that I have come to. I have always had problems criticizing John McCain because his personal story awes me. Awes. That's a hard thing to do. He is a war hero. He is an honorable man (normally an oxy moron). BUT, I have realized that these things don't automatically make him a good politician...

    The general public seems to have the same trouble that I do. It's hard to criticize a war hero. People claimed that in the run up to the election conservatives were smearing Max Cleland --we weren't. It was the same phenomenon --he may be a good person and a valiant soldier, but he is a crappy politician (and by the way, we were criticizing the fact that he was capitalizing on his injuries --something McCain never does).

    I can't forgive McCain for campaign finance reform. How could he be strong enough stand up to torture, yet allow himself to be used as a puppet for the liberal left? The more I read about it the more incensed I become.
    Where did the financing to get McCain-Feingold passed come from you ask?
    "The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from just eight liberal foundations.
    These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros' Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million)." (source)

    So, Senator McCain... I think you are a marvelous person. Your story humbles me. Your politics often piss me off. I can finally say it and I feel like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I hope that you are not the nominee in '08 -because thanks to McCain-Feingold and your flagrant disregard for Free Speech and blind trust in far leaning left...I would have A LOT of trouble pulling the lever for you...

    Best of BS: Questioning All Religions

    *Originally posted on 12-3-05 after being accused of singling out Mormons for my religious disdain.



    Born Again Christians:
    From my knowledge of Jesus, who he was and what he wanted, he would've disdained judgment. The Bible expressly says hate the sin and not the sinner. I don't think the au-natural crowd has the market on Christ's forgiveness. I don't think God would care if someone had tattoos/piercings or green hair...so why all the puckered noses, the condensation and the judgment that turns SO many away from God when your charge is to bring them to him?

    Jews:
    You don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and you still wait for Savior to come... So how can even one of you support abortion rights?

    Catholics:
    You do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, so I trust you also believe that in the New testament it says that because Christ came and died we no longer need an intercessor...we can go straight to God ourselves --so why are there still Priests and confession booths (or recited prayer for that matter)?

    Muslims:
    Just not understanding why any woman would choose to worship a god that allows women to constantly be degraded and subjugated. Would a fair and loving god require women to live this way? Would a man that loved you want you to live that way?

    Atheists:
    The food chain, the endocrine and reproductive systems, purple orchids and David Beckham...all an accident or cosmic coincidence?

    Mormons:
    Magic underwear?

    Scientologists:

    ...

    Caption It...

    ...or better yet -just explain it.

    Lookin' Good!


    Check out the boots!


    Pro-life, life-time member of NRA, pro-drilling, son in the Army. Oh, and a pretty hot chick to boot.

    But did she really have to name her kid Trig Paxson Van Palin? Probably, when you figure she named her older son Track and her daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

    I wouldn't cry if she were the VP.

    And don't miss this.

    While I am pleased that the Court in Heller found support for an individuals right to keep and bear arms, that is not the most pleasing result of Heller for me.

    What I like most about this case is that the majority and the minority opinions are based on the concept of original intent or, at least, a strict reading of what was actually written.

    I found it amusing that Justice Stevens, writing the dissent, noted, "the Court proceeds to “find” its preferred reading in what is at best an ambiguous text". Frankly, I find this hilarious in view of the "rights" found in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. At least, if you agree with him, the Court relied on "an ambiguous text" instead of just yanking it out of their collective anuses (ani?).

    Read SCOTUSblog and the original opinion for more.

    Thursday, June 26, 2008

    Who Decides?



    Of course Alex can't go into the military. He's just a little bitty baby, for goodness sakes.

    OTOH, woman, why do you think you have the right to tell Alex, after his 18th birthday, whether he gets to join the army? And, frankly, that'll be about 2016 and I really doubt John McCain will have anything to do with it by that time.

    Why do the anti-war crowd try to make this about the "Alex's" of the world? Last time I checked, we had an all volunteer military and the only people trying to change that were the Dems. Why doesn't this woman tell Charlie Rangel he can't have Alex?

    My biggest problem with this is not the anti-war or anti-McCain message. It is a very poorly done ad in that it doesn't provide any information or discuss and specific issues. Logically, it doesn't make sense. I mean, do these people just throw this crap together without any advance planning. Ever hear of a storyboard?

    Best of BS: Our Military

    *Originally posted on 11-25-05 in response to some DNC politicians and the MSM's insinuations about sub-par intelligence in the Armed Forces...


    Caught up in the fervor of the anti-war/anti-Bush movement, some prominent democrats (Namely Charlie Rangel) and Michael's Moore's Fahrenheit 911 made claims that the military is primarily made up of undereducated, poor, urban minorities. This notion somehow took hold and many Americans cling to this belief. It's not true.

    A new study done by the Heritage Foundation, that was meant to counter calls for a draft, is long but a fascinating read.

    "Representative Rangel’s theory is that if all citi­zens faced equal prospects of dying in a conflict, support for that conflict would have to pass a higher standard. This theory assumes that the priv­ileged classes would be less willing to commit the nation to war if that conflict involved personal, familial, or class bloodshed. It also assumes that the existing volunteers are either ignorant or lack other options—that is, they are involuntary participants. One way to test this thesis is to explore the demo­graphic patterns of enlisted recruits before and after the initiation of the global war on terrorism on September 11, 2001." (source)

    "A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most priv­ileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." -Charlie Rangel, NY (D)

    According to this in-depth study, the troops of the United States Armed Services are actually higher educated than the general public. 98% have high school diplomas or higher, whereas in the civilian public only 75% have this level of education. Recruits were also found to be from primarily rural and not urban areas. House income levels of the troops matches that of the general population for the most part, but in direction opposition to what has been said by anti-military opponents --"There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistee."

    Addressing claims that minorities (and specifically blacks as shown in Fahrenheit 911) are carrying the burden of the WOT..."We found that whites are one of the most pro­portionally represented groups—making up 77.4 percent of the population and 75.8 percent of all recruits—whereas other racial categories are often represented in noticeably higher and lower propor­tions than the general population." (source)

    Due to statements like those that have been made by top Democratic leaders and the propaganda in Moore's film, many Americans have erroneous ideas about our military. They believe they are of inferior intelligence, yet their education level is higher than the general public. They believe the military is made up of minorities while "rich, white, educated" kids never enlist...this also isn't true (actually since 9/11 the Army has a higher recruitment of enlistees from high income brackets with Bachelor Degrees. Wouldn't you think the media would be reporting this, breaking the story of our above-average military?

    Linked at Stop the ACLU

    Best of BS: Gay Marriage

    *Originally posted on 10-18-05.



    Civil Unions for All...

    The ONE thing France does right (aside from the shoe shops that is) is their policy of civil unions for all and religious ceremonies only if one so desires.

    Do you know how many problems this would solve here in the U.S.? The "gay marriage" debate is off the table (taking a 'flame' point out of the political debate), two old ladies -that are straight- could get a civil union so they could make medical/financial decisions for each other and no one that isn't adhering to church wishes would be married under a religious pretense.

    Many on the right Scream about gays being married as the Bible is clearly against it. I get that argument, but you can't be hypocritical about it...why aren't you screaming about Scientologists getting married? I don't know any gay men that believe in the powers of clay tables and magic underwear. Or how about all the atheists and agnostics that are married? Does it make sense that you would rather an Atheist than a religious gay man is married?

    Truthfully, I'm not really comfortable with gay "marriage" either. The Bible is pretty clear about that. I often wonder why any gay person would want to be married. Why label yourself with a religious term that doesn't want you. I know the feeling. The Man and I couldn't get married in a church. My religion wouldn't "unequally yoke" anyone. I respected that because the Bible also says that's a no-no. We went to a JoP.

    This doesn't mean that I don't think everyone should have all the same legal rights. I DO. This is why civil unions for all would solve this dilemma...then you guys will be sorry you got what you wished for when you're hit with the marriage penalty too...

    Best of BS: Playgirl & the GOP

    *Originally posted on 3-10-05

    Playgirl's editor-in-chief, Michelle Zipp, has outted herself...as a REPUBLICAN. Zipp says that Republicans are better in bed --and that Democrats waste so much time talking about everything they want, that by the time they get to the bedroom they can't DO anything...

    Some of her quotes:
    “Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed – two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they’ll do anything to get it. And I’m not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I’m talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all.”

    “The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?”


    Tell us something we didn't already know Michelle...!
    This story will appear in the April 2005 Issue of Playgirl.
    (source)

    Every Vote Counts

    If only.

    Obama has so much money, now that he has flopped opted out of public financing, he's going to campaign in states he's sure to lose to draw voters to the polls for the "down-ticket." He may not be competitive in Texas, but there may be mayors, congressman and state office holders that will benefit from any excitement he can create in the state.

    I live in Tennessee. We didn't even go blue in 2000 for savior of the world, AlGore. When I get e-mails and mailings from the state and local Republican party reps, I tend to ignore them. I shouldn't. Campaigning for McCain will help local and state office candidates even if I don't do anything directly for the local candidates.

    I need to go vote in November, even if my vote won't do anything because McCain is sure to win this state anyway. Why? Well, besides the down-ticket elections, I don't want one of those "won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote" elections.

    Every vote counts. Even if all you do is cancel out your next-door neighbors ignorant vote, at least you have done something.

    Wednesday, June 25, 2008

    Guest Post by KMacGinn


    Bush Never Lied About Iraq

    James Kirchik, assistant editor of The New Republic and frequent target of Newsbusters' monitoring of liberal bias in the media, offered a surprising opinion piece yesterday in the L.A. Times. Breaking from the pack, Kirchik penned an independent-thinking piece, laying out the arguments against the frequent claims of those who suffer from BDS -- Bush Derangement Syndrome. In an era where many blindly recite the mantra of the Far Left, opting not to check into the facts themselves, it is refreshing to see a member of the Left have the cojones to speak against the current of unfounded ideology that permeates our society these days.

    Here are some of the highlight's from Kirchik's piece. (Go here for the full version.)

    Bush never lied to us about Iraq
    The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.
    By James Kirchick
    June 16, 2008
    Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

    "When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

    Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

    The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

    Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

    Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

    In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

    Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

    Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

    Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

    In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

    This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.


    James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.


    A free, independent thinker. A pretty rare bird these days in an era of too many people who are caught up in BDS rhetoric.

    Best of BS: Kindergarten Peace Pledge

    *Originally posted 11-4-04 as a response to a 'Peace Pledge' that was sent home for my then-kindergartener at the time (authored by a woman named Dr. Cheryl Landy). This was the school's formal introduction to me :)



    This is the letter I sent to school in his folder--attached to the aforementioned and unsigned 'Peace Pledge':

    Dear Mrs. B___________,

    I am returning this pledge unsigned on Busta's behalf. I do not disagree with the notion of a peace pledge. However, I feel this pledge is not age-appropriate and furthers a political and sociological agenda that dishonors our military and therefore my family.

    We espouse the notion that everyone should be treated fairly and equally and champion the ideals of a non-violent world, however, this material does not address the very real necessity for security in a world such as ours. These are selfless positions of sacrifice that are undertaken by the members of our military and domestic law enforcement with the ultimate goal of peace in our midst.

    Our country is currently at war and it is my belief that we need to stand firmly behind our troops.

    I have read the author of this pledge's work and while I appreciate the notions that you are trying to further in school children, I disagree with the fundamental ideological tenets of the author's position. This is not kindergarten-level material and should not presented as such.

    I am available to discuss this further at your convenience.

    As Always,
    ALa

    Caption It...

    Tuesday, June 24, 2008

    Best of BS: Guest Post by Mr. Nimbus

    *originally posted on 1-24-06

    Is The Left Wrong About Intelligent Design?

    Lately, I have been going toe to toe with my progressive friends on the subject of Intelligent Design. In the course of my debates with them, I have discovered two very disturbing facts: Not only are they completely illiterate with the science of Intelligent Design, their knowledge of Darwinism isn't much better.

    The sad reality is that they see Intelligent Design as a clever ploy to bring creationism and religious influence back into the mainstream. So they ridicule, they put on false airs of knowledge and simply refuse to look at the scientific realities that back up this concept.

    To be fair, I understand the reasoning.

    Darwin and macroevolution basically drove a stake into the heart of Judeo-Christian creationism, which, in turn, drove a stake into the heart of religious influence and power. In all reality, it was a huge win for humanity on many levels.

    Unfortunately, Darwinian macroevolution is also fatally flawed, and to continue to prop it up as reality goes against everything that true science represents.

    First, to clear any misconceptions, let me qualify my beliefs. I fully reject the Judeo-Christian story of creation. I fully reject all religious systems as a divine imperative. In terms of believing in a super power who created us, the jury is out. As far as I am concerned, we could be the product of an acne riddled geek who worships Satan and lives in another dimension. Finally, I am no fan of the religious right or Republican policy, thus, I have nothing to gain by advocating Intelligent Design.

    Now that I have that out of the way, why do I seriously entertain Intelligent Design as a viable theory?

    Simple, the science behind it has teeth.

    The most important concept of Intelligent Design deals specifically with irreducibly complex systems. The blood clotting system is a perfect example of an irreducibly complex system. There are a slew of biochemical reactions that must take place in order to bring about the final result of stopping blood flow. If any part is missing or if any reaction fails to take place, blood will not clot. If blood does not clot, well, you die.

    Taking the aforementioned example one step further, what do birth and menstruation have in common ?

    Varying degrees of blood loss.

    Do you see the chicken or the egg paradox?

    Therefore, the blood clotting system had to be in place from the beginning.

    Some may say "Well, maybe there was a different system in place, maybe radioactivity zapped a bunch of spare biological parts and it all came together".

    Not likely. This would be like taking a watch, breaking it down into component parts, throwing it in a box and giving the box a shake every million years. Even if, by some gigantic fluke, all of the pieces came together correctly, how would it start - what would wind it up?

    In addition to the irreducibly complex argument, Darwinian macroevolution has never been proven, despite years of research

    In layman's terms, macroevolution is a large scale change that creates new species. While there is plenty of evidence that supports microevolution (speciation - like the finches on the Galapagos), there is not one shred of evidence that suggests that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into mammals. The fossil record itself does not support macroevolution. In fact, the fossil record supports the theory that living things appeared fully equipped to eat, survive and reproduce.

    So is the left wrong about Intelligent Design? In my opinion, yes... big time.

    I believe that Intelligent Design needs to be taught in conjunction with evolution. Teaching it will raise questions; raising questions will stimulate research; research will eventually find a breakthrough that may provide more clues about our origins. To run away from it for fear of reversing social progress or harming the scientific method is cowardly and violates every scientific precept known to mankind. If you don't believe in it, then at least have the intellectual honesty to read up on it before offering a second hand opinion. Let the evidence, not your fear, be your guide.

    Best of BS: My Religion

    *Orginally posted on 1-15-2006 after numerous emails inquiring about my personal religious beliefs.



    I realize that many of you don't know what my religious proclivities are. I have gotten emails assuming that I am a religious freak and others that I am an atheist. Maybe that's because I myself am unsure how to publicly label myself.

    I don't want to be one of those terribly cliché people that proclaim that they are spiritual but "they don't believe in organized religion"...but that's kind of where I am in my life.

    You have to understand that I had a strict evangelical upbringing. Christian school for 12 years, Christian girl scouts (called Pioneer Girls), Christian summer camp, Christian youth group and Christian after-school activities... I realize that no one is perfect, but through all of this I saw so much hypocrisy and personal insecurity. Especially throughout my high school career. The result being that neither of my children has ever seen the inside of a church....or been baptized...

    The one thing I think I may have done differently than others disillusioned by "the Church" is-- I didn't take it out on God. It's not his fault people pervert his Word. I've never understood people that blame God for man's foibles. I've always assumed he's just as sad when man does ridiculous things.

    I believe in a Supreme omniscient, omnipotent God. I believe Jesus is his son that died to save us. I believe in Creation (with subsequent evolution). I believe the Bible is God's word. I don't believe God cares how we dress, or if we're pierced and/or tattooed. I don't believe God wants us to be ashamed of sex or our bodies.

    I probably won't ever go to "a church" again. When man dabbles in God's word it becomes perverted. It's very personal to me. I read my children the stories, but I don't want them to grow up with the strange and confusing contradictions that I had. When I was young I used to tell my parents that "my God was a lot cooler than their God" and I tell my kids that too. Isn't it an insult to think God would care or judge someone with a 3 ft. Mohawk or 20 tattoos as people in the Sudan were being slaughtered...?

    To all those that have questioned just where my loyalties lay in the religious realm...that's the best way I can put it. I guess it boils down to the fact that though I consider myself a "born again Christian" I hate that most born-agains' judgmental nature and tendency to hate the "sinner and not the sin" drives people from the God they are charged with bringing people to. We are to lead by example and not by words. I can only hope that my life, my acceptance and helping hand will show others that have been disillusioned that "Christian" doesn't have to mean "judgmental stuck-in-the-mud".

    Monday, June 23, 2008

    Guest Post by KMacGinn

    Obama The Post Turtle

    While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

    Eventually, the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President. The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

    The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle.'"

    The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb asses put him up there."

    [Source: Death By 1,000 Papercuts]

    (submitted by kmacginn via Hummers & Cigarettes)

    Best of BS: My Kinda Man

    *Originally posted on 9-2-04 (after Zell Miller's RNC Convention speech)

    The liberal media is freaking out! They have no idea how to handle Zell Miller’s incredible speech last night except for claiming, ‘Women will be turned off by his angry and forceful tone’.

    Who are these women? These supposed women whose genteel Jane Austen sensibilities will be turned away? I don’t know any of these women. I loved Zell’s speech –I actually thought it was the best of the convention. There were enough sound bites to last a life-time and the ‘challenge to a duel’ with Chris Matthews afterwards left me in need of a Depends...

    Did you ever hear the old adage about women liking a man in uniform? Military, Policeman, Fireman...why is that? It’s because these men symbolize strength, courage, honor and a ‘manly’ quality that the stock-broker-in-the-suit-that-just-got-a-manicure will never embody. Even when women marry the suit –they dream about the uniform. We want our men strong –we want our men forceful, and we want to feel like they can protect us….even if we are quite capable of protecting ourselves. Zell Miller is a manly man. I like a manly man –I want someone that fixes his own toilet, mows his own lawn and changes his own oil.

    So who are these wall-flower women that the media keeps referring to? Is there a woman who wants her man soft and submissive? Manicured and clean? Coiffed hair and un-calloused? Take a stroll down a romance novel isle in the book store…any suits on the covers? No... it’s dirty mechanics, sweaty cowboys (ah…the Marlboro Man), Confederate soldiers, Marines, Firefighters, Tanned Indians with black flowing hair and a buffalo skin loin cloth. The say latte-drinking, brief-case toting men are not there...the Birkenstock protesters crying about the evils of SUVs aren’t there –Why? Because women don’t fantasize about them... There is nothing sexy about dictating a letter to your assistant (well maybe in that weird James Spader movie…), but –as sick as it sounds- there is something very sexy about killing those who will kill us! Now, that’s a man!

    Don’t believe the women’s magazines...I don’t want a ‘feminine’ man –I don’t want to see my man cry over a movie or a card –I don’t want my man to be afraid of anything (and if he is I don’t want to know about it)…and I don’t want my politicians soft either. I want them to fight to win –fight hard, fight often, fight dirty if you need to –but win!

    So those women who want their men sensitive, pedicured and hair sprayed –please, vote for Kerry. You won’t find those men in our camp... Our men ride Harleys not windsurfing boards. We conservative women like our men like Zell Miller –loud and, yes, even angry when it comes to protecting his family and what he believes!


    “Senator Miller, do you really believe that Senator Kerry would only equip our troops with spit balls?”

    “That was a metaphor…do you know what a metaphor is?”

    I think I'm in love...

    Caption It...

    Do I dare? Hell, I'm 5 states away and no where near a computer...have at it:

    Just Get Over it, Ya'll!

    Man, BO is the gift that just keeps on givin'!
    According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."
    Get over it? What the heck? Hasn't this dude been married long enough to know better.

    Everybody talks about the Democrats taking the black vote for granted, how's this for taking the female vote for granted?

    I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of women voted for McCain this November thinking he would only be around for 4 years. Hillary's best chance is for Obama to continue to step in it and for her to step in as the Democrats' savior this year. Second best, McCain wins and she gets the nod in 2012. Worst case, BO wins the general election this year.

    Shut up, Woman!



    I have been saying for years that the problem with boys in primary grades is not a problem with the boys, but a problem with the school system in the primary grades. Boys at that age don't learn the same way that girls that age do. Boys need movement, need to burn energy, learn through activities. Some girls can learn this way, but primarily they can sit still and listen to the teacher.

    I am a strong advocate that students, regardless of gender, should be separated by learning needs. Instead of sedating a "hyperactive" child with drugs and forcing a square peg into a round hole, why not design a square hole?

    I had a patient one day ask me about her son and the school's request that she consider Ritalin. I told her to ask the school reps what they were doing to accommodate her son's special needs. She stared at me like I was speaking Martian. It never occurred to her that the school was required to meet his needs, not the other way around.

    Women teachers fail to engage with boys because they talk too much in high-pitched voices, according to a parenting expert.

    Celia Lashlie, an education adviser and author, said women should 'step back and shut up' in the classroom. (source)
    I loved this response:
    Her remarks angered teachers. Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT union, said she was talking 'a load of claptrap'.

    Mrs Keates said: 'It is disappointing that a woman has felt the need to pander to the views of a tiny group of men who present themselves as the oppressed minority.'
    Of course the teachers' union would object. Ms. Lashlie wants the school system to attend to the needs of the students. What does that have to do with running a school?

    Saturday, June 21, 2008

    Best Of BS


    Since it's been hard for me to post lately (at first I was getting 'night sickness' and since that's passed I've been getting swollen feet around the time I would be writing posts) my friends and family have been questioning why I am still writing for the blog four years after its inception. I've been thinking a lot about that. Why.

    Being 100% honest, the main reason is any time I have seriously contemplated the blog's demise I get an email within a day or two from a Soldier or Marine in Iraq or Afghanistan thanking me for what I'm doing. For what I'M DOING!? What the hell am *I* doing --thank you for what all of YOU are doing! Anyway, if reading this site on their FOB helps then in even the tiniest way to get through the hell that is their reality...how could I ever stop?

    NO, there's no money in it...but there's been lots of cool perks:

    -I guess first would have to be appearing on FNC.
    -Getting two emails from John Bolton.
    -Getting an email from Aaron Brown.
    -Meeting Big & Mean, PunkRock Mommy, Desultory Butterfly, Mr. Nimbus, Pax Romano, She Who Will Be Obeyed, CW4BillT, Army Girl, Russ from Winterset (and his lovely wife Janis), Dan Rubin, Courtney, CBFTW (Colby Buzzell), kali, Zelda & Jethro!
    -Being asked to be on a Blogger's panel for The Philadelphia Inquirer and Temple University journalism students.
    -Getting to know some of the A-list Bloggers like John Hawkins (RWN), Jeff Goldstein (Protein Wisdom) and Matthew Sheffield (Newsbusters) and Pat Dollard.
    -Being asked to write the introduction for a book.
    -Being featured in quite a few Philly publications.

    And being forced to be abreast of what's going on in the world --even in times when it would be easier to slip into calming apathy.

    While I'm away this week I have set up a Howard Stern-esque inspired line up of "Best of..." posts. The Best of BS. Yes, I get the double entendre...

    And speaking of 'old posts' --so many bloggers mentioned in my One Year Blogiversary post are no longer around the Blogosphere...

    Have a great week all. I'll have some Hush Puppies for ya :)

    But Blogthings Said So...




    You Should Vote for John McCain



    Where you and John McCain agree: Abortion - Cuba - Education - Health Care - The War in Iraq



    Where you and John McCain disagree: Global Warming - Immigration - Taxes

    Friday, June 20, 2008

    Which Energy Plan Would Work?


    From an editorial at IBD entitled: McCain Needs to Add ANWR to Energy Plan:

    "...Gas is $4 a gallon. Oil is $135 a barrel and rising. We import two-thirds of our oil, sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

    And yet we voluntarily prohibit ourselves from even exploring huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas.

    At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40% in the last 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years..." (Read the whole piece)

    Newt Gingrich is spearheading the 'Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign and petition (using Brazil as an example):



    Apparently the Dems don't think things are bad enough yet and are dreaming of the government owning the refineries!

    "...The itch to control the U.S. oil industry is spreading among Democrats in Washington, with Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., adding his voice to a recent threat to nationalize the energy companies' assets.

    "We (the government) should own the refineries," Hinchey said today, according to a Fox News alert. "Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

    WND earlier reported when U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., during a grilling of oil executives by a panel of U.S. House members, threatened to nationalize the industry if executives were unsuccessful in bringing pump prices for gasoline down..." (source)

    As I embark on a five state driving excursion tomorrow morning...I will be cursing the Sierra Club and their ANWR opposition. In 2001 the drilling was estimated to take 10 years --which means we'd be less than two years away and OPEC would be well aware of it...And the caribou can move a few miles.

    More Broken Promises From Obama

    First we learn of the strategic race placement at campaign events --after Barry told us his campaign was going to "transcend race"...and now we learn that despite his pontificating earlier in the year to the contrary --Obama will not be using public funding for his Presidential bid.

    "...Last year, Obama filled out a questionnaire where he vowed to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." But since clinching the Democratic nomination earlier this month, Obama has not broached the subject with McCain. The only discussion occurred about two weeks ago between Obama's and McCain's lawyers,

    That meeting, Potter said, "was not part of any negotiation" on public financing.

    "There was no aggressive pursuit of negotiations with the McCain campaign, there was no pursuit, period, of negotiations with the McCain campaign," Potter added later in a conference call with reporters..." (source)

    Maybe the only thing that came of the Al Gore endorsement is some of the Alpocrisy rubbed off... And it seems those that thought Hillary would be the Veep choice were wrong --as Obama hired a former (fired) Clinton staffer with whom there is bad blood...

    Pilfering from the Little Guy



    I too have been the victim of the plagiarism of an idea from a larger entity. An entity with cash and lawyers. An entity that denies the theft the same way Chris -Mr. Paltrow- Martin is. It sucks. ...Almost as much as Coldplay.

    Caption It...

    Thursday, June 19, 2008

    My daughter



    Isabel
    Born 6/17/08
    6 lbs 10 oz
    20 inches

    Mother and daughter doing well.

    P.S. She's an awesome burper. World Champion for her age group, I think.

    Obama Editing Campaign Appearances...

    There were rumors many months ago about Obama's wife and his staff hand-picking who would be on the stage behind the candidate. Who makes the camera shots with the Presidential hopeful. Here in PA it was an all-white crowd on the stage, along with campaign commercials where not a single Black person was found. I am sure the stage was predominately African-American in areas were the "Black vote" was needed. I realize all the candidates probably do this, but it just seems so unseemly spelled out like this. All this premeditated pandering is just so untoward...

    "...Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

    The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

    “This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.” (source)

    I don't care what the 'campaign' claims now...you know Obama was like, "get those hijabs OFF the stage, that's all I need is more association with Islam."

    The Lost Art of Reading

    TimelessAs stolen from JustRose:
    MEMO
    These are the top 100 or so books most often marked as "unread" by LibraryThing's users. Bold the books you have read, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish.
    *****

    Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell
    Anna Karenina
    Crime and Punishment
    Catch-22
    One Hundred Years of Solitude
    Wuthering Heights
    The Silmarillion
    Life of Pi: A novel
    The Name of the Rose
    Don Quixote
    Ulysses
    Moby Dick
    Madame Bovary
    The Odyssey
    Pride and Prejudice
    Jane Eyre
    The Tale of Two Cities
    The Brothers Karamazov
    Guns, Germs, and Steel
    War and Peace
    Vanity Fair
    The Time Traveler's Wife
    The Iliad
    Emma

    The Blind Assassin
    The Kite Runner
    Mrs. Dalloway
    Great Expectations

    American Gods
    A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
    Atlas Shrugged
    Reading Lolita in Tehran
    Memoirs of a Geisha
    Middlesex

    Quicksilver
    Wicked: The life and times of the wicked witch of the West
    The Canterbury Tales
    The Historian: a novel
    A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
    Love in the Time of Cholera
    Brave New World
    The Fountainhead
    Foucault's Pendulum
    Middlemarch
    Frankenstein

    The Count of Monte Cristo
    Dracula
    A Clockwork Orange

    Anansi Boys
    The Poisonwood Bible
    The Once and Future King
    The Grapes of Wrath
    Angels & Demons
    Inferno
    The Satanic Verses
    Sense and Sensibility
    The Picture of Dorian Gray
    Mansfield Park

    To the Lighthouse
    One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
    Tess of the D'Urbervilles
    Oliver Twist

    Dune
    The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
    The Prince
    The Sound and the Fury
    Angela's Ashes: A memoir
    The God of Small Things
    A People's History of the United States: 1492-present
    Cryptonomicon
    Neverwhere
    A Confederacy of Dunces
    A Short History of Nearly Everything
    Dubliners
    The Unbearable Lightness of Being
    Beloved
    Slaughterhouse-Five
    Eats, Shoots & Leaves
    The Mists of Avalon
    The Scarlet Letter
    Oryx and Crake
    Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed
    Cloud Atlas
    The Confusion
    Lolita
    Persuasion
    Northanger Abbey

    On the Road
    The Catcher in the Rye
    Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
    The Hunchback of Notre Dame
    Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An inquiry into values
    The Aeneid
    Watership Down
    Gravity’s Rainbow
    The Hobbit
    White Teeth
    In Cold Blood: A true account of a multiple murder and its consequences
    Treasure Island
    1984
    David Copperfield


    I guess my list could be better (I was an English Major after all), but I feel this is a fairly decent showing...

    Caption It...

    Wednesday, June 18, 2008

    Haditha Charges Continue to Crumble...

    "...A military judge dismissed charges Tuesday against a Marine officer accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis.

    Col. Steven Folsom dismissed charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani after finding that a four-star general overseeing the case was improperly influenced by an investigator probing the November 2005 shootings by a Marine squad in Haditha..." (source)

    When John Murtha first accused troops of "killing in cold blood", there were eight Marines charges in the "Haditha killings". Two and a half years later only ONE still faces charges. The last Marine is Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich (who spoke to 60 Minutes last September).

    You have to wonder if Murtha, and countless on the left that touted Haditha as an example of the ills plaguing the American military, feel an ounce of remorse for their assumptions...or if they just feel these Marines caught a lucky break.

    The New Michelle Obama?

    It seems Barack's wife Michelle Obama (like her or hate her, she can't just be Barack's wife when she makes over $300,000 a year) feels the conclusions about her have been way off track. She claims she's not unpatriotic and not a racist...and the person that penned this article (that literally contains three pages of the likable traits of Michelle Obama) definitely likes her:

    "You know, if someone sat in a room with me for five minutes after hearing these rumors, they'd go 'huh?' " [Michelle Obama] says. "They'd realize it doesn't make sense."

    She extends her long arms, her voice plaintive. "I will walk anyone through my life," she says. "Come on, let's go."


    She will be showcasing the 'new and more likable' potential first lady on Wednesday as a guest host on The View. I wonder how much the MSM would be doing to repair Cindy McCain's image if the campaign felt that's what was needed...

    I hate that I'll have to watch 'The View' now...that show is painful.

    Finally...



    Frankly, I think this is the death nell for the anti-war freaks. PROOF, ya hear me, PROOF, ya feel me, PROOF of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    I mean, what else could this be?

    Fun Activities!

    ...or maybe not. Maybe little favors for your hostess...? :)

    First, a friend of mine is competing in an important photography competition. If she wins, she will get a gallery show in NYC! You can check out her profile here and vote (click on the last star to vote). All of her pictures rock (she shot me, The Man and Busta when I was pregnant with the little Ninja), but this is definitely my favorite...titled 'Tribute':



    I believe the contest closes at 4pm today...so if you should feel so moved --go vote for Monica!

    Second, I wanted to alert anyone interested that any GUEST POSTS sent to me before Friday night would be greatly appreciated. I am going away from Saturday to Saturday (and there will most likely be no internet on this trip as our laptop decided to go gently into that dark night).

    So instead of yelling at the TV, or burdening your friends and co-workers...write a guest post and send it to ME before Friday night...

    Tuesday, June 17, 2008

    Is Race Stronger Than Gender...?

    ...and shouldn't ideology prevail over both?

    I was reading an article yesterday about how "even Black republicans" were contemplating a vote for Obama:

    "...Just as Obama has touched black Democratic voters, he has engendered conflicting emotions among black Republicans who are far fewer in numbers. They revel over the possibility of a black president but wrestle with the thought that Obama does not sit beside them ideologically.

    "Among black conservatives," Williams said, "they tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November." (source)

    But this REALLY shocked me:

    "J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the Republican House leadership, said he is thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he is still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them."

    As many of you know, J.C. was one of my top Veep picks for McCain.

    Now, as a fellow minority, I certainly have the right to weigh in here. Was I excited a woman was running for President and a viable choice? Of course I was. Did I for one second consider abandoning all that I believe in to vote for her in some blind estrogen pact? No. What I said (and thought) was 'Damn! I WISH I could vote for the first woman that has a shot at the Oval Office...but I'm not a socialist.' My beliefs supersede my uterus...I'm disappointed to learn beliefs take a back seat to melatonin for some.

    Depressing Article and Worse Realization

    "...One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.

    Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.

    This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980..." (Source)

    My first reaction to this article was 'Good! It'll be a Dem-controlled White House AND Congress and there will be no more Blame Bush.' Wouldn't it almost be worth the sacrifice to be spared their infantile placards and frothing rants?! BUT, then my smile is replaced with a grimace when I remember why these elections are so important --when the ONE thing the President does that actually matters...SCOTUS.

    The Supreme Court nominees ensure that I never exercise a protest vote or abstain from a general election. Damn life-time appointments!

    Republican VS. Conservative

    Michael Savage has this list in his site:

  • Republicans are for AIDS money to Africa. Conservatives are for aid to working American citizens.

  • Republicans are for letting the free market decide that $5 a gallon gas is OK. Conservatives are for compelling foreign oil producers to increase production and reduce prices, by force if necessary.

  • Republicans are for bailing out billionaire money manipulators on Wall Street while you wait in line at the hospital behind an illegal alien. Conservatives are for letting Wall Street hucksters pay for their own mistakes and sending the illegal back to Mexico.

  • Republicans are for letting market forces decide if your food has fecal matter in it. Conservatives are for enforcing basic food safety standards so that Mexican farm workers can't crap in the fields and make you sick.

  • Republicans think bringing in illegal aliens is an amnesty. Conservatives think brining in illegal aliens is a travesty.

  • Republicans want a strong global economy. Conservatives want a country. Republicans think that child porn on the internet is freedom from government. Conservatives know that smut is a poison that must be snuffed out.


  • Do you agree...and what would you add to the list?

    Caption It...

    Monday, June 16, 2008

    Guest Post by Salt1907

    How the "strawman" argument goes unnoticed.

    The news of Tim Russert's passing has dominated the television for the past day.

    Many conservatives have praised Russert and conducted themselves with more class than the left ever did at the death of a non-leftist.

    I noted from watching Russert's old interview with Charlie Rose last night the real difference between Russert and someone like Keith Olbermann. Russert was not a one-trick pony. He could speak about a variety of topics with conviction and thoroughness. Olbermann seems to have nothing to talk about except for his hatred of the Republicans. Even when Oblermann hosts the NBC Sunday football program, the viewer expects that he is about to drop the football talk and explode into a "Bush is Hitler" rant. Regardless of ideology, there is more to Russert than Olbmermann or Chris Matthews or many others.

    That being said, conservatives are fooling themselves if they believe Russert was unbiased or did not advocate the leftist cause. The rest of this post is necessary and is not meant to detract from our thoughts of sympathy for the family on the occasion of this untimely tragedy.

    Russert's bias was much more subtle than that of most MSM/DNC employees, and therefore escaped notice by most conservatives. I know of no examples of Russert engaging in the outright lie.

    Russert, instead, used the strawman(#15).

    (1) Reverend Wright. In one of the last efforts of his life, Russert was recording an interview with MSNBC about Obama and this campaign yesterday. He summarized the arguments against Obama with a mythical conversation:

    I remember being in Indianapolis covering the Indiana primary and a man came up to me and said he wasn’t going to vote for Senator Obama because he was very concerned about the comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor. I said, “That’s interesting. As a reporter, I’m curious what comments particularly bothered you?” He said, “Well, I can’t think of any that come to mind, but I also read on the Internet that he’s a Muslim.” And I said, “Now wait a minute. You can’t have both. You can’t be offended by his Christian minister and then say he’s a Muslim. You’ve got to pick one.”

    Had this been a real conversation, Russert's nemesis would have had no trouble remembering what particularly offended him about Wright. The only people in this country who don't remember "AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service" are apparently Barack Obama and Tim Russert. [And even Obama threw Wright under the bus long before Russert was apparently trying to argue, yesterday, that no one could identify what Wright had done wrong.]

    And no, we don't need to choose between our legitimate reservations regarding Obama's judgment over the Wright affair and our concern with what Obama's own Kenyan brother has referred to as Obama's Muslim background. The fact remains that Reverend Wright is repellant and Obama has a Muslim background. Both facts can be and are true. Russert's strawman story cannot disprove these facts.

    (2) John Kerry - 2006. Just before the 2006 elections, John Kerry insulted all American servicemen while campaigning for the Democrat congressional candidates, thus jeopardizing the Democrats' attempts to retake the House and Senate. Tim Russert attempted to ride to the rescue with an invented Kerry "apology" that explained away the insult. In this case, Russert had to invent a strawman apology from his own side in order to diffuse a problem created by John Kerry.

    (3) Obama - "smears." Russert's final interview also promoted the Obama website whose stated goal is to refute "smears" against Obama. Russert alleged that Obama's opponents were going to create a new website to "spread the rumors, so that people that go to the Internet to get clarification will go to the wrong web site and get confused." Legitimate criticisms against Obama are thus dismissed as "rumors" designed to "confuse" people.

    (4) Scott McClellan. Two weeks ago, Russert discussed Scott McClellan's book on the Today Show. While not explicitly endorsing or agreeing with the book, he subtly defended the book by stating "This is not Moveon.org" (George Soros' organization) even as it was being revealed elsewhere that a Soros' company published the book. While Russert may not have known of the Soros' connection, he never retracted that statement and he was eager to build up the book's credibility. In attempting to knock down a straw man argument ("moveon.org is behind this book") he accidentally hit upon the truth.

    (5) Hillary - drivers licenses - the 15 year drought. Tim Russert took 15 years before he finally asked the Clintons a tough question. It was great that Russert helped Hillary trip herself up on the illegal alien/drivers license question last fall, but he waited until a more leftist viable candidate appeared on the scene. This was not a "strawman" example, but it shows that Russert is willing to be tough on the leftist standard bearer only when a more viable leftist replacement exists. Russert's toughness thus becomes the real strawman in this situation.

    (6) "Historic" - Russert never explicitly said "vote for Obama." But as much as anyone else, Russert has referred to the 2008 election as "historic." Even yesterday's blurb at MSNBC states the following - "Tim Russert spent a lifetime preparing to cover the historic 2008 primary elections." As strange as that statement is, it points up the subtlety in the use of the word "historic." Russert used that word "historic" since the primaries began. Translation - a black man is going to be elected President for the first time. That is the only possible meaning of "historic" in this context. There would be nothing "historic" about a mundane Republican victory, so the continued use of that word implies that the Republicans will lose. If you don't vote for the Democrat, this election will lose its historic flavor. The use of the word "historic" allows Russert (and many others) to promote Obama without being explicit.

    Russert demonstrated the most dangerous kind of bias. Everyone can ignore the raving lunatic like Olbermann. But a politician is more effective when he sits behind the news desk and refuses to endorse or openly advocate but, instead, boxes in one side with strawman arguments that take the form of "reporting" and "journalism."

    The battle is not won or lost with the actual arguments pro or con. The battle is won or lost when the issue is framed. Russert framed the issues for the public, thus allowing the Democrats the simplicity of fighting strawman arguments. In the courtroom the parties begin each legal filing with an identification of the "issues" before the facts are even argued. The court accepts one lawyer's (or the other's) definition of the "issues." The party that gets to define the issues usually wins the battle - in court or in politics.

    Russert was a lawyer (having graduated law school in the 1970's). It is telling that the MSM/DNC's most effective advocate was not really a journalist, but a lawyer. The MSM/DNC advocates - it does not report. Russert defined the issues, while Olbermann and others made factual arguments based on those definitions.

    This is how the MSM/DNC really works. Understanding the MSM/DNC requires us to understand Tim Russert more so than we understand the more obvious leftists. Otherwise, we will be reduced to perpetually praising those who would box us in with strawman arguments.

    (You can read Salt daily at The Cassandra Page)

    Friday, June 13, 2008

    Guest Post by Odin


    The Supremes decided to give our Guantanamo guests the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Good guys: Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, bad guys: Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (source)

    Since the vote was split 5:4 there must be some controversy over hugely ambiguous language in the constitution or else some one never bothered to read it. How could 9 intelligent grown ups not agree on what was written long ago in Philadelphia? It seems to me that someone is making things up. It is true that the Supreme Court judicial power shall extend to all cases between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. That phrase mentions foreign citizens, but not explicitly people waging war on the US with out the sponsorship of a foreign government. True it is also that the Constitution does not explicitly mention disputes between the US military and foreign enemy combatants. Well, I take it back perhaps there is some ambiguity there. So the Supreme Court should not consider such a case as the constitution does not say any thing about such a case, let congress make any laws it do desires and let the administration apply any rules it sees fit under those laws. But do not try to rewrite the constitution!

    Who are those 5 people that have taken upon themselves to invent history: Stevens appointed by Ford is very liberal and surprisingly did not attend Harvard as the other bad guys did but did work for the government on anti-trust. Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, is a swing voter but sat on the 9th circuit so probably got his brain fried there. Souter was a surrender option by Bush 41 after Bork got borked, which should be a reminder to do a good job even if you are sick of the job. Breyer: Clinton, Harvard, San Francisco and yet another antitrust lawyer -- need I say more? Ruth (buzzy) Ginsburg has a resume which must of impressed Clinton, but not me: fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, was instrumental in launching the Women¢s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU¢s General Counsel and on the National Board of Directors.

    Given that we abide in the rule of law, most, and I predict, all Americans shall abide by this decision. To contest it by force of arms would be foolish. Places were rules are decided by force are really bad places to live. Consider Afganistan. I did not choose it for any political reasons, it just happened to be the first country at the bottom of the list that was not in Africa and I did not want to be accused of racism. It has a gross domestic production per capita of $1000. The US as one of $45,000. For a very crude comparison the rule of law is worth $44,000 per year per person to us.

    ~Odin

    For Your Consideration: Weekend Question


    There was a dispute over an impromptu family dinner at my mom's the other night...

    If you flip the chip, does it still count as a double dip?

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008

    Oh, yeah!



    Except for the sex thing, I could so vote for this guy!

    I would love to hear a candidate stand up for something. Just tell the reporters, "Yeah, I know people might not like that, but that is who I am. There's plenty of other reasons to vote for me!"

    U.S. Citizenship: First McCain, Now Obama

    McCain's citizenship was brought into question a few months ago because he was born in the Panama Canal zone. Even though McCain was born on a U.S. military base and to two U.S. citizens, some claim an amendment would be needed to clarify his status and ability to be President.

    Now similar questions are being posed about Barack's candidacy:

    "..."If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen … because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"

    He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

    Geraghty continues: " (Interestingly, apparently there isn't much paperwork on Obama's parents' marriage. 'Obama: From Promise to Power,' page. 27: 'Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.' Also note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)"

    Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that..." (Read the whole article)

    I was more interested to learn he was a product of polygamy (maybe he should choose Romney as his running mate) than to hear about his possible non-citizenship...