When One Door Closes, Another Opens

"Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder." ~ Laurence J. Peter

Just a couple of short (hopefully) comments today. First, does anyone remember when this happened? Bush was at a conference in China, and, upon conclusion of a news conference, attempted to leave through what proved to be a locked door. Undaunted, he made a humorous comment about it, and moved along.

But the Liberally biased media didn't move along, did they? For weeks afterward, Liberal reporters and blogs guffawed at the image of a President who was so stupid he wasn't even able to Divine the door was locked before he tried it.

I mean, after all, no Liberal has ever made the obviously stupid mistake of trying to open a locked door, have they?

Now, has anyone seen this article from the New York Daily News?

It seems, "On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right."

The article goes on to state, "Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans' icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support."

Yeah, that's right. Bush is stupid because he didn't know a door was locked. But Barack Hussein Obama was simply distracted and confused by those big 'ol mean Republicans and, while trying to get away from their merciless, unwarranted attacks, tried to exit through a window, mistakenly confusing it for a door.

Well, at least Bush knew it was a door, eh?

Whoever said in my comments recently that Bush and the Republicans will be blamed for any failures of the Obama administration must have been correct. Or so it seems.

In other news, Illinois Democrat Governor Rod "Show me the F***ing money" Blagojevich has been removed from office after a State Senate unanimous verdict of guilty in his impeachment trial.

In addition, he will no longer be allowed to hold any public office anywhere within the state of Illinois.

There's still hope for 'ol Roddy, though.

Perhaps President Barack Hussein Obama will appoint his Chicago buddy to the new position of Secretary of Ethics in his administration.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." ~ Christina Baldwin

I've updated my blogroll recently. I've deleted some and added others. The reasons I've made these updates vary almost as much as the different styles of the sites listed.

Since blogger started the "followers" feature (at the left, on the sidebar), some bloggers have added themselves as followers of my blog. I was flattered that they count themselves among my regular readers, but I've found some who say they follow, don't. At least, there is no indication they do. This is perplexing to me, to say the least. Why click on "follow this blog" if you have no intention of ever returning?

In the beginning, I added everyone who became a follower to my blogroll (except those followers who were already on it), and made a conscientious effort to read their blogs as regularly as I could, which is difficult, as I have a life outside the blogospere, and not as much time as I need to visit every one's blogs on a daily basis.

Which, incidentally, is another reason I deleted some of them. Too many to read regularly.

The first casualty was a blogger who clicked the "follower" button one time, and when I went to his blog, and informed him that I saw he became a follower of my blog, he in turn informed me he only did it so he could return later if he needed for a reference for one of his future post. In other words, he had no intention of actually following. I was just a possible "idea creator" for him, I assume, in case he ran out of ideas of his own.

And, he has never commented on my blog, either.

Anyway, after waiting for some sign that he actually reads my entries, and finding none, I deleted him from my blogroll. He is, however, still listed as a follower. So what? It looks good.

Then, there are a couple, still listed as followers, that seem to have no reason at all for following. One site consists of nothing but bad insults. Weird.

Another has a blogsite entitled, "Impeach Obama", a sentiment I can get behind, but the subject matter leaves little room for variety. He has a total of two posts since November, and neither of them is very insightful nor interesting. Consequently, he is not on my blogroll.

One blogger stopped visiting after we had a disagreement concerning the Republican primaries. Many of my regular readers may remember when I chastised the self named "Reagan Conservatives" for supporting very un-Reagan like near-Liberal candidates for President such as Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, etc. I blamed them, along with the majority of Republicans, for handing the selection of candidate for President to Liberal John McCain by default, instead of my choice, true Conservative Duncan Hunter.

Apparently, my criticism insulted her. She said, and I quote, "OK, Mark. I'm done with you." I lost her at that time as a visitor, though I continued visiting her blog for several weeks afterwards. And still do, on occasion.

Besides that, her blog often goes off into what I feel are un-interesting diversions such as who won "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars", and other similar yawners. I care absolutely nothing for these television shows, but that is my burden to bear, and I don't blame her choice of subjects for deleting her blog. I blame the fact that she abandoned me because she couldn't stand a little constructive criticism.

I said the same about Mike's America at the time, also, but as far as I know, he didn't hold it against me. Hence, he is still on my blogroll.

Another one lost his place in my blogroll after calling me a whiner, simply because I was being honestly humble about my parenting ability. I don't think any father is perfectly satisfied with the way he parents at all times. I was just honest enough to admit that I make mistakes. And, I wasn't whining, nor do I ever.

For the record, the particular blogger referred to is not even a husband, much less a father. He isn't a very good writer either. He uses way too many mixed metaphors for my taste and his punctuation and sentence structure is maddening. Not that mine is much better, but at least I understand what I write.

Others are simply blogs I don't get to very often and bloggers who rarely post anything. A couple were deleted because after I left comments at their places several times, I never received any response at all. I can only assume they don't appreciate my patronage. So, they are deleted now.

I need to delete some others, too, but I have a soft spot for the rest of them. They are old buddies. Can't seem to bring myself to dispatch them to the recycle bin.

As for additions, I am quite happy with the new blogger buddies I have accumulated. I have added everyone on my followers list except the aforementioned "Daily Insult", "Impeach Obama", and one blog that doesn't fit into the type of blogs I regularly read. I have no animosity for the lady who calls herself "Haft's Happenings", but it's more of a personal web blog, and I prefer blogs that deal with current events and politics. No offense intended, Haft.

There's Pamela D Hart, a refreshingly insightful blogger, and Miss T C Shore, a remarkably intelligent young lady who renews my faith in the younger generation. Kris, Krystal, and Kirsten all have interesting blogs.

Then, there's a few I'd known about from other blog comment sections but only recently began reading their blogs. These include DD2(Debonair Dude), and Always on Watch. Rounding out the rest are Conservative and Elephant Man, two who mysteriously became followers who I checked out and since, have thoroughly enjoyed reading.

Finally, the most recent blogroll addition is not really a blog, but a website that can best be described as the Conservative alternative to the Liberal humor site, "The Onion", a really funny satire site called "The Endive" . This one came to me in a different fashion. The administrator of the site sent me an unsolicited e-mail inviting me to check his site out and let him know if I like it or not.

I like it. Check it out.

On Obama's Agenda: The Destruction Of The Traditional Family

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." ~ William H. Borah

The following discourse is another comment I began to leave at our team blog, which was a short comment that linked to a Town Hall piece by Alan Sears, founder and CEO of The Alliance Defense Fund, but it became so long, I decided it would make a good subject for a post on it's own:

The subject of the aforementioned article by Mr Sears is an analysis of parts of President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda according to his official web site. Mr. Sears' position is that Obama's agenda is "a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior."

The first commentary was on Obama's agenda of "Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, 'hate' crimes".

This is my opinion about hate crimes legislation:

I am a little confused about hate crimes legislation, and have been ever since hate crime legislation was first introduced. As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.

Already this requires a judgment call. Who can say what anyone thinks about anyone else during the commission of a felony? Who can read minds?

Very few violent crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim, if any.

Now, if person A admits that he committed a violent crime against person B because he hates person B, there is indeed just cause to prosecute, however, original hate crimes legislation was introduced to protect those victims who are considered minorities, and in particular, homosexuals.

But even in that scenario, isn't the fact that a violent crime was committed enough of a reason to prosecute? Why is labeling any violent crime a hate crime even needed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was already a crime to assault, batter, and/or murder someone else, and whatever reason, except in cut-and-dried instances of self defense, motive isn't even required in the determination of guilt or innocence. It often helps to know why, but it is not necessary.

I've mentioned before that hate crimes legislation is an perfect example of what I call "government overkill". Which means the government spent a lot of time, energy, and tax payer money to pass a law that was essentially already on the books.

Government overkill happens when some one sues some government entity over some perceived negligence, justified or not. That's when government goes into full blown CYA mode, and over-reacts by proposing some legislation that creates some new law that is neither useful nor necessary.

Like hate crimes legislation.

Where the state used to prosecute the crime of murder, they now have to spend additional time and money to determine if said murder is a hate crime or simply a run of the mill murder.

I say, what's the difference? The victim is still just as dead, and the perpetrator is still just as guilty.

The second part of the article quotes the Obama website as follows:

Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

I agree with the author that this is simply an attempt to place the decision of who to hire into the hands of the government. According to Mr Sears: "...[T]his is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see 'Hate Crimes' above."

Let me add here, this is an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Third, and fourth, Obama declares, "Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples."

And, "Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples."

This third point is where Mr. Sears and I part company. While I agree that allowing same sex couples to marry is disgusting and sickening, I really don't have a problem with it if they choose to do so. Whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't try to shove their immorality down my and my children and grand children's throats, they can marry each other as many times as they want.

They are welcome to the same feeling of hopelessness and entrapment that married couples have had to deal with since time began. And, since homosexuality is depravity, they no doubt deserve it more.

But I draw the line at allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.

In my opinion, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is child abuse. Let them play house if they want to. More power to them. But leave innocent impressionable children out of the picture.

Give them a chance to grow up mentally healthy without all that additional unnecessary trauma.

Fix The Environment, Bankrupt The People

"Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status." ~ Laurence J. Peter

Not too long ago, I posted a blog entry about my new found expertise in mechanical repair. In the piece, I casually mentioned the problems caused by all these new-fangled emission control devices auto makers are forced to put into new cars now.

There is the EGR valve, which, if it goes bad, costs somewhere around thirty-five dollars to replace, and that is if you do the job yourself. Then there is the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAF), which costs well over $150.00. That's the price of only the part. If you hire someone to do it for you that price goes up. And up. And up.

Then, there's the PCV valve. And the catalytic converter. I'm not a mechanic, but I'm fairly sure these two items were among the first pollution control additions that the Federal government foisted upon automakers.

And there's more. Much, much more.

These "improvements", in turn, have spawned a host of additional expensive and unnecessary additions that have done little besides drive the cost of automobiles far past the point of affordability, at least for Obama's beloved middle and lower classes.

Now, Barack Hussein Obama is removing the restrictions on states to impose further "green house gas" reducing devices on automobile manufacturers and mechanics.

This, in the name of protecting the environment. Who's going to protect my bank book?

In the meantime, someone has to cover the additional expenses to comply with further Government meddling with the private sector.

Who do you think will benefit the most from these new regulatory changes? Hmmmm?

Well, it certainly won't be the middle classes.

Last night, a guest commentator on some TV news program said he knows of a trucking contractor who complained that implementing these new changes would cost him $20,000 just to be in compliance, putting him effectively out of business.

This legislation proposal would allow California and 17 other states to set stricter limits on auto emissions, according to this article, "That has provoked considerable anxiety in the auto industry. Carmakers fear that they will be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007. The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles a gallon by 2020."

"The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 m.p.g. by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 m.p.g.

To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000".

Get that? That's FIVE TH-TH-TH-THOUSAND dollars MORE than it already costs them to manufacture a car!

Anyone here want to pay $5,000 more dollars for your next new car?

That's the minimum.

Rest assured the automakers will add to that amount to realize that much more profit. I have often stated I could never be mistaken for an economist, but you don't have to be head mechanic at Jiffy Lube to understand that is a s**tload of money.

I have heard, though I'm not sure, that most companies of any kind make a profit on their goods and services an average of 2.5% over costs. What is 2.5% of $5,000? Does anyone here wish to pay that much more for their next new car? $5,000 PLUS Profit?

Aren't automoble prices already over the top? Have you ever wondered how much less expensive new cars would be if there were no emission and/or pollution control devices installed in them at all?

And there is, again, as I mentioned previously, the additional costs of repairs to these devices.

Is this how Obama is going to fix the economy?

Could someone please explain for me how raising and spending more tax dollars and driving up the costs of goods and services precipitously will solve the country's economical problems?

I'm now fifty-seven years old, and I have never seen a time when spending my money to repair my cars ever made me rich.

The First Amendment: Obama's Next Victim?

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," ~ Barack Hussein Obama

*Cross Posted at American Descent*

Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?

I'll wait while you search your data base.

Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?

But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.

But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.

This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!

This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.

Focus on the word, "defend" here.

Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office to attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.

Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.

This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?

Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?

Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:

Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.

The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!

He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.

I'd say he has made a significant start.

Part 2:

On a lighter side:

Ever since the economy tanked, and consequently my income has dropped to about 1/5 of what I was making previously, I have been seeking other sources of income.

I was told long ago, (back when the earth was cooling) by many people who I respect, that I should try to obtain an occupation doing something at which I'm good.

I'm not really good at much. I often say "I know something about everything, but I don't know everything about anything". But I believe I am good at writing. So, with that in mind, I've been submitting articles to the local newspaper in hopes that they will not only publish my opinion pieces, but actually pay me for them.

So far, not one penny.

And what's really been aggravating, they haven't even published anything of mine in their "letters to the editor" section. I consider that personally insulting, since some of the letters they publish appear to have been written by idiots.

After submitting several (to my mind) exceptionally Pulitzer prize deserving articles without results, I got frustrated and just stopped sending articles. I also stopped checking the opinion pages to see if, by chance, they might have actually published something of mine.

So, Imagine my surprise when my wife alerted me to a letter written to the editor responding to an article I wrote! I know it was one of mine because the writer mentioned me specifically by name. First and last.

I never saw it published.

But, since the newspaper indicated which issue it appeared in, I was able to search the archives and find my article online on the Fredericksburg website.

To my disappointment, not only did they edit some of my best lines out of it, they also published it under "letters to the editor", hence, I will receive no compensation for my efforts. None except pride that I actually was published.

The letter that referenced me began, "Stores are paying the price for assault on Christmas, Christians

In his Jan. 11 letter titled "Happy 'holy day'! Not so secular, after all," Mark ****** states that he is more saddened than angry that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas."

Mr. ****** goes on to say that the omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during other holidays appears to bolster the point that there is a specific assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas..."

He went on to equate the loss of revenue this Christmas season to stores not saying "Merry Christmas", a stretch of logic to say the least, but at least he seems to agree with my premise.

The entire article I submitted can be found in my blog archives. I wrote it on this blog first, and then, after editing parts out that pertain only to my blog readers, I divided the entire post up into two separate articles and sent them both to the paper. They in turn, edited it down further, leaving out what I consider the best line in the piece, which read, "So, I guess the joke's on them."

Although annoyed that they consigned this excellent opinion piece to the humdrum "letters to the editor" section, I am nonetheless revitalized to resume my efforts in earnest.

Wish me luck, and if motivated to do so, offer me constructive advice and/or suggestions of some publications that publish unsolicited articles for syndication.

The Freedom of Choice Act Offers Neither.

"The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." ~ Barack Hussein Obama



In the comments of my last post, Father Gregori wrote, "Mark, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act into law today (sometime this morning)".

You are wrong, Father, but you aren't far off. He hasn't signed it yet, because it hasn't been passed yet. According to the Library of Congress web site, The last major action is this:

"1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary".

If Democrats succeed (and they may already have, I'm not sure) in achieving a filibuster-proof Senate, that means it's only a matter of time before the FOCA becomes Federal law, and it will be signed by President Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

But what does the passage of this law mean? How will it effect Americans?

Opponents of the law say it will, among other things, force health care providers to perform abortions even if they are opposed to abortion for moral and ethical reasons. While there is no direct reference to this in the bill, it does indirectly appear to make that particular provision.

Basically what the bill does, is remove all restrictions to all abortions in the United States of America.

All of them.

That would appear to give credence to the opponent's argument.

The bill prohibits any local, state. or federal government from restricting any woman from getting an abortion.

There are no exceptions.

Therefore, it is implied, but not specifically stated, underage girls can obtain an abortion without the knowledge or approval of their parents. After all, if, as the bill states emphatically, any woman anywhere, at any time, can obtain an abortion if she so desires, she can get one without her parents approval and knowledge with the blessings of the federal Government.

Women can cross state lines to get an abortion under this law, although, if all states and all localities have to provide abortions, there would be, of course, no reason to cross state lines.

Will Catholic hospitals and other health care providers who have moral and ethical objections to abortions be forced to abandon their principles to comply with this new law? Well, that question is not specifically addressed in this legislation, but, again, if any woman, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason will be legally allowed to abort her baby, it would appear that any and all health care providers will be federally mandated to provide the facilities and staff necessary.

Regardless of religious convictions and ethical concerns.

Does this sound like freedom or liberty to you? It doesn't to me.

Why not? You might well ask.

What of a parents right to raise her child as she sees fit? Doesn't a parent have the right to admonish and correct the child if such parent believes the child is preparing to do something that is, to the parent, morally reprehensible?

Has the federal government become the parent? What of the parents rights? Are they gone?

What of the health care providers? Never mind any moral or ethical objections. What if they simply don't want to perform abortions whatever the reason?

Is that Freedom of choice?

Don't Health care providers and Parents have the freedom to choose how they want to govern their lives?

And then there's the babies. Babies have no choice either way. They neither choose to be born or choose to live. If you were an unborn baby, how would you choose? Life or death?

As Trader Rick observed, The Freedom of Choice Act is a "mis-named piece of filth".

There is neither freedom or choice in this legislation.

It is contrary to the very freedoms upon which this country was founded.

Obama's First Presidential Mistake

"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." ~ Charles De Gaulle

One day in office and Obama has already broken one campaign promise. Remember? He promised Planned Parenthood the first thing he would do as President would be to work towards passage of the Freedom Of Choice Act, a particularly horrific piece of legislation that would make it legal for underage minor girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge or permission of their parents. It would also force Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals to provide abortions against their religious principles. And many more equally egregious provisions.

Anyway, Obama hasn't whispered a word about FOCA so far. Hence, he has broken one promise already. How many more promises has he broken and how many more broken promises will be forthcoming?

But, I will not focus on his broken campaign promises. Everyone knows candidates make many promises they can't keep while running for office. I only mention it here because it further illuminates the fact that Obama is a mere man, not a God, as his followers appear to believe.

What Obama has actually done is much more egregious, and, potentially dangerous for every American citizen, including Liberals.

He signed an executive order which suspends all trials of "alleged" terrorists currently being held at GITMO in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This suspension is supposed to last a period of 120 days, I believe, during which the process of trying the detainees will be reviewed as to whether they are legal or not.

Regardless of the conclusion of the reviewing panel, Obama has sent a message to every terrorist organization in the world. That message is:

America is weak.

America, under her new President Barack Hussein Obama, will hesitate before retaliating for any future attacks. America will become again, the "Paper Tiger" that Osama bin Laden said we were.

Obama's executive order, which on the surface, appears gracious, fair, and benign, will embolden our enemies, and invite more attacks on America.

What's next?

Suspension of the Patriot act?

Perhaps he should just order an air strike on America. The result would be the same.

The Real Racism In America

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Now that the party is over, and the adulation of the Almighty Obama has abated somewhat, and little remains but the shouting, one thing has become painfully clear:

Racism is alive and thriving in the United States of America.

I listened to NPR radio over the weekend. I listened to news report after news report, all NPR commentators absolutely giddy over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President.

Well, not exactly.

They were actually expressing a euphoric excitement over the fact that a black man had been elected President. Judging by the level of the fervor, and the sheer number of times his race was mentioned, it wouldn't matter to them if a drug crazed mass murdering gang leader had been elected, as long as he was a black drug crazed mass murdering gang leader.

Dr. Martin Luther King, black civil rights leader (and Republican), once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

On the surface, it would appear that this nation has now achieved Dr. Kings goal with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who is at least half black.

But, look deeper. That doesn't appear to be the case, after all.

Obama has, throughout his lifetime, surrounded himself with, befriended, and associated with men and women of deplorable character. Men like William Ayres, an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist.

"Reverend" (and I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semitic, America hating, racist, so-called pastor.

Tony Rezko, a convicted corrupt real estate swindler and slum lord.

Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying member of the Communist party, who Obama reveres as one of his primary mentors.

Radically Liberal Catholic minister Father Michael Phleger, another America hating cleric.

Many, many other people of at least questionable character, several of whom are now part of Obama's cabinet.

Obama's own wife, Michelle, who stated on at least two occasions publicly, and who knows how many times privately, that she wasn't proud of America until her husband was considered worthy of a Presidential run. She also said America is a downright mean country.

Now she's America's first lady.

For shame, for shame.

A man is judged by the company he keeps. Obama keeps bad company.

But, if that isn't enough, what about Obama's own character?

After those same associations with men and women of questionable and unquestionably bad character became a political liability, he discarded them like a used condom. A man with character stands by his friends regardless. Especially if he believes they have been misjudged and/or impugned, as Obama has repeatedly stated.

How did Obama react to the criticism of his associates again?

Four times he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIP) as a State Senator in Illinois. That, in a nutshell, means he voted to allow newborn babies to die alone and untended. Four times!

He supports infanticide. I doubt Dr. King would have advocated that. A man of character doesn't kill babies.

Then there's the issue of Obama's courting and accepting campaign contributions from foreign contributors. Accepting contributions from foreigners (as in, not American citizens) is bad enough (and illegal), but many came from nations that actively support terrorism. Terrorism against America and her allies. A man of character would reject those contributions.

He trained workers for ACORN, an organization that not only practices voter fraud, they perfect it. A man of good character would distance himself from an organization like that, but not Obama. He embraced them.

Obama has advocated Marxist principles and suggested that America's Constitution is outdated. He has equated our Constitution with Nazi principles. An American President that espouses Marxist and anti-American philosophies is a President without character.

I am going to leave out the various subversive organizations and people that he represented as an attorney at law. Legal representation of scum is not automatically evidence of bad character.

But it has been, and can be argued that accepting those kinds of cases on a regular basis constitutes such evidence. And he has accepted many.

Now we come around again to my stated point:

Racism in America.

Barack Hussein Obama was not elected because of the content of his character. He was elected because he is black.

That is racism.

Many people would call that reverse racism, but that term would suggest whites are the only race capable of discriminating against other races. That is not true.

Racism is racism. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2. racial prejudice or discrimination.

See? Blacks are as capable of racism as whites.

I'll repeat. Obama wasn't elected because he had good character. He was elected because of the color of his skin.

I don't think that was what Dr. King had in mind.

Too Big To Succeed

"The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none." ~ Thomas Carlyle

This weekend in Washington, DC, the media's love-fest with their Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, manifested itself in a giant celebratory act of contrition to the Great and Powerful One by people from all across the globe.

Not just Americans, either. Our enemies are rejoicing, as well. Countries like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. And organizations such as al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas. (I wonder, do Liberals see anything suspicious in that at all?) They all are simply ecstatic over the election of a man who they no doubt believe will acquiesce to their demands of capitulation.

The Obama faithful gathered on the mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial and the crowd stretched all the way to beyond the Washington Monument. They came from all walks of life. They came as Baptists, Catholics, Atheists, Muslims, Jews. They came as citizens and non-citizens alike. They came as blacks, whites, and every hue in between. Young and old, rich and poor. Famous and infamous. The powerful and the destitute. All came to prostrate themselves at the feet of The One who will heal all the world's ills.

On Rush Limbaugh's show today, Rush suggested that the media has made Obama "too big to fail". Although I usually agree with Limbaugh's opinions, this time I'll have to respectfully disagree.

I believe the Liberals and their willing cohorts in the media have created a president who is too big to succeed. They have created a hero who cannot meet their lofty expectations.

In short, They have created in Obama, a God who cannot meet expectations.

Even if he ended Global warming, (as if such a thing actually existed) it would not be enough. The people would shout, "It's too cold!"

Even if he brought peace to the world, it would somehow be too little, too late. The people would complain, "We are bored!"

Even if he ended all unemployment in America, still that would not be enough. The people would insist, "I didn't get the job I wanted!"

Even if he made every man, woman and child in the United States instant millionaires, (through redistribution of wealth) the people would cry, "We want more! You promised us more!"

The press and the Democrats have convinced the average American that Obama is bigger than life. He will solve all the worlds problems. He will bring everlasting joy and happiness to America. He will right all the wrongs perpetrated upon us by that scoundrel, George W Bush.

America will be loved by the world once again.

All hail Barack Hussein Obama!

All hail!

But he can't do those things. No mortal can. And --although I am sorry to be the one to break the news to Liberals-- Obama is merely mortal.

Yes, I know. Sad but true.

The media, in their zeal to get The Chosen One elected, have only set America up for one huge disappointment.

Right now, before Obama has had a chance to start making his promised changes to America, the Liberals and their willing accomplices in the media are gloating. They believe they have won a great victory.

Let them gloat.

Once Americans finally see what the man, Obama, is really able to accomplish, they will see him as nothing more than a man. And, possibly worse than that. A very fallible, mortal man who makes things much, much worse than they were before.

That is, of course, if he actually follows through with all his lofty promises.

More likely, he will do what his Democrat predecessors have done:

Absolutely nothing of significance.

Then, once the people have seen what their hero worship hath wrought, I will gloat.

A Hiccup

"I could never think well of a man's intellectual or moral character, if he was habitually unfaithful to his appointments." ~ Nathaniel Emmons

Years ago, I found myself in the position of owing the IRS about $3,000 dollars. After filling out my income tax form one year, I realized I was going to have to pay the IRS almost a thousand dollars, and I didn't have it. So, I simply didn't file my taxes.

The same thing happened the next year. And the next. After three years the IRS sent me a bill for the back taxes and the penalties, including interest owed, and I eventually paid it in full.

Now. I knew I was delinquent. I knew I was wrong. I knew I would have to pay someday. There was absolutely no misunderstanding about what I was doing.

It was not an accident. It was not, as Harry Reid would say, a "hiccup". It was a willful decision on my part to avoid paying taxes.

If an ordinary citizen (and an admitted economic moron) knows not paying taxes is illegal, how could anyone believe a man who should be somewhat of an expert on money matters, could "accidentally" fail to pay his taxes?

Al Capone spent the rest of his life in Prison for the same thing Tim Geithner did.

How could we trust a man like that to be the Secretary of the Treasury?

Is it any wonder a party that would nominate, promote and celebrate the election of a Socialist as President would overlook the obvious flaws in his choice of a tax cheat for Treasury Secretary?

Actually, he's a typical Democrat. He thinks taxes should be paid by everyone.

Everyone but him.

UPDATE:

I was listening to NPR radio today, and the newsbabe was already offering excuses for Mr. Geithner. She said it wasn't surprising that Mr Geithner was confused as it's easy to be confused with all the changes in the tax laws.

She actually suggested Geithner was simply confused!

I would think Mr Geithner, being the chairman of New York's Federal Reserve, would be able to successfuly navigate the tax laws, even if he doesn't have an accountant doing them for him.

How Much Is That Burris In The Senate?

"Crime does not pay ... as well as politics." ~ Alfred E. Newman

So now, Roland Burris will be allowed to serve as United States Senator for the state of Illinois, occupying the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Hussein Obama.

Other than being appointed by soon-to-be-ex Governor Rod "show me the G**D***** money" Blagojevich, I haven't heard anything about whether Burris is actually qualified to serve.

Certainly he has as much qualifications to serve as Obama did.

So, apparently, Mr Burris is relatively untainted by the corruption that typifies Chicago politics. The press hasn't dug anything poisonous up on Burris yet, and they probably won't.

After all, he is a Democrat, isn't he?

But, what I want to know is this:

How much did Burris pay for his appointment?

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"Tears are in ol' Jerry's eyes..." ~ Jerry Lee Lewis

A Response To Comments Read Elsewhere

"America is therefore the land of the future, where, in the ages that lie before us, the burden of the World's History shall reveal itself." ~ Georg W. Hegel German philosopher (1770 - 1831)

Over at Marshall Art's blog, an interesting comment thread is lengthening, as I write, originating with a post by Marshall regarding Christmas in Bhagdad.

I started to add a couple of observations to the thread, but, as I am wont to do, my comment became so wordy, I decided to post my comment over here. Not to steal Marshall's thunder, mind you. It's just that the comment became so lengthy, I feared the word limit would be reached before I finished my thought. Here is my comment in it's rather verbose entirety:

I wouldn't say I (as a Christian) am "hacked" (Marshall's word) that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas".

I'd say I'm more saddened by that than angry.

The problem so many Christians have with it is they see it as a direct assault on Christianity by non-Christians on one of the two most holy days of the year, namely the advent of Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity.

As an aside here, non-Christians and Christians alike celebrate a decidedly non-Christian holiday and neither seem to have a problem wishing each other a "Happy Halloween". In fact, that so-called "holiday" has increased in popularity the last couple of decades to the point where it is celebrated with almost as much fervor as Christmas.

But, on the subject of secularizing Christmas, I have two points:

First, it might be appropriate to point out (as I have already on other blogs) the very word "holiday" consists of a contraction of the two words, "Holy Day". Thus, when one is wishing you a "Happy Holiday", they are, in effect, wishing you a "Merry Christmas".

So. I guess one could say, "The jokes on them".

Second, I find it interesting that other holidays aren't treated as if they are offensive to anyone. Even Easter, which is even more holy than Christmas (in my opinion) isn't regarded as particularly offensive to non-Christians. Nobody wishes you "Happy Holiday" on Easter. Neither do they wish you "Happy Holiday" on St Valentines Day, St Patrick's day (two other holidays, which, like Easter, have their origins in Christianity), Memorial Day, Independence day, Labor day, Halloween, or Thanksgiving. This omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during these other holidays would appear to bolster the point that there is indeed an assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas.

Should Christians start promoting St Patrick's day and St Valentine's day as specific Christian holidays, I have no doubt the non-Christians would bring up similar objections to the specific greetings.

In addition to comments centering around the secularizing of Christmas, the thread also addresses America's support (or lack of support) of Israel during the latest flare-up of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

(If you don't get the connection, go to Marshall Art's blog and follow the argument).

Israel has been accused (by some commenters in the aforementioned thread) of being the aggressor, and of initiating the hostilities between the Palestinians and Israel. They have also suggested America should not be allies with Israel.

It is my contention that the Israelis are retaliating for years, if not decades, of hostile unprovoked attacks on them. They are simply defending themselves and their homeland.

Although, whether that statement is true or not is a moot point. Regardless of Israel's culpability, even if Israel is completely in the wrong to attack Gaza. It would not be a precedent in Israel's long history.

As a (some would say "fundamental") Christian, I believe any country that turns it's back on Israel loses God's blessing.

Even the United States.

God has made it clear that the Israeli's are His chosen people, and has promised to bless them and protect them forever.

Any country that does not support Israel becomes the enemy of God.

The fact that Israel is not a "Christian" Country has no bearing on the fact that the Israeli's are still God's Chosen people.

Currently, Israel is no more a Jewish country than it is a Christian country.

Israel is about 90% atheist now.

But this also doesn't change the fact that the Israeli's are still God's Chosen people.

If one reads through the history of the Hebrews found in the Old Testament, one will see the Hebrews were continually rebelling against God, and, as a result of that rebellion, enemies of the Hebrew children would sweep into Israel and conquer them, often decimating much of their population, and carrying captives off into slavery. Over and over again, the Hebrews (now known as Israelis) rebelled against God, were punished by God for their rebellion and, after repenting, were welcomed back into God's favor.

It was, and is, a cyclic behavior.

The following is an important observation:

Never were the Hebrew Children completely wiped off the face of the earth, as their enemies usually were, eventually.

Not that the elimination of the Jews hasn't been attempted many times throughout history. As recently as the last century, Hitler tried to annihilate them.

Like Hitler, all the other tribes and empires that have attempted to destroy God's people have failed. At the same time, most, if not all of Israel's enemies, have been relegated to the waste bin of History. Most are now non-existent save in the dust covered chronicles of history.

Radical Muslims are in the process of trying to destroy them now.

Mankind never learns, it seems.

Listen:

God will protect His people regardless of whether they follow Him or stray. They will continue to abandon Him, and they will continue to repent, and He will continue to welcome them back into His grace. That is His promise to them.

He has not made that promise to America.

Any country, including The mighty United States of America, that fails to understand this concept will eventually lose God's blessing. And will be destroyed.

If America abandons Israel to embrace Israel's enemies, it will ultimately bring about the end of The United States, and the beginning of the end for the rest of the world.

That is not opinion. It is God's promise.