Sunday, May 31, 2009

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy." ~ William Shakespeare

There is much use of Scottish slang in this. Some of the words I don't understand. I assume it would be funnier if I could.

Land o' the purple heather.
Land o' the dirty weather.
Land where the midges gaither, Scotland the Brave.
Land o' the Pakistanis,
Andy Capp and Saturday sannies.
Land where they sell their grannies, Scotland the Brave.

Used to say in faither's day,
You could hear the bagpipes play,
But now you hear the regal tones o' Elton John and The Rolling Stones.
Land that is full o' stinkers,
Wee fat Jews and VP drinkers.
Whisky put a lot o' stinkers, into Scottish graves.

Land that is full o' skivers,
Comic singers, deep sea divers,
Turbans on our bus condrivers, Scotland the Brave.
Land o' the brutal Bobbies,
Councillers wi' part-time jobbies,
Architects wi' paying hobbies, Scotland the Brave.

The tourists come here every year
To see all our historic gear,
But all they see is loads o' navvies, high rise flats wi' concrete lavvies.
Land o' the artic' lorries,
Andy Stewart and ra Corries,
Land where everybody borries, Scotland the Brave.

Land o' the Kilt and Sporran -
Underneath, there's nothin' worn!
How I wish the wind was warm! Scotland the Brave.
I must admit it's pretty gruesome,
Walking about wi' your frozen twosome!
It's all we've got - we musn't lose 'em - Scotland the Brave.

Conservatives try to assure us,
Labour's hard-put to endure us,
The Kirk puts curbs on our enjoyment, Government makes unemployment.
Never mind - the day is near,
When independence will be here!
We'll drink a toast in Younger's beer to Scotland the Brave!

I awoke with the humorous version running through my head. This is the correct version, as far as I know:

Scotland The Brave

Hark when the night is falling
Hear the pipes are calling.
Loudly and proudly calling
Down thro’ the glen
There where the hills are sleeping
Now feel the blood a-leaping
High as the spirits of the old highland men

Towering in gallant frame
Scotland my mountain hame
High may your proud standards glouriously wave
Land of my high endeavour
Land ofthe shining river
Land of my heart forever
Scotland the brave

High on the misty Highlands
Out by the purple islands
Brave are the hearts that beat
Beneath Scottish skies
Wild are the winds that meet you
Staunch are the friends that greet you
Kind as the love that shines from fair maidens eyes

Towering in gallant frame etc.
Far off in sunlit places
Sad are the Scottish faces
Yearning to feel the kiss
Of sweet Scottish rain
Where tropic skies are beaming
Love sets the heart a-dreaming
Longing and dreaming for the homeland again.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Memorial Day 2009

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." ~ Winston Churchill

Celebrate Memorial Day 2009 with reverence.

Sunday, May 24, 2009


Written by George Gershwin. Which version do you like better?

This version performed by Billy Stewart:

Or this version, by Janis Joplin:

Or, for AOW, this version, performed as it was written, by Cecily Nall:

Saturday, May 23, 2009

What's In My Head

I've failed to mention this before, but I stole the idea of posting "What's in my head" and "What was in my head when I awoke", which is a variance of the same theme, from Lone Ranger. To his credit, and my gratitude, he has never objected. At least, not to me.

Thursday, May 21, 2009


“The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama

I have a question:

Is Obama a moron, or does he think Americans are morons?

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Obama's March To Socialism

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ John F. Kennedy

Now, Barack Hussein Obama has announced his plans to take over the auto industry. His plan is overt Socialism. In fact, it is the definition of Socialism.

According to a Reuters story, "General Motors Corp's (GM.N) plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company's healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government."

Do you get that? Owned by the U.S. Government!

The definition of Socialism, according to the dictionary, is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

It goes on to say, "(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles".

If any of my readers don't know why Socialism is undesirable, go back and read my History of Communism.

Normally, news articles quoting anonymous sources are suspect in my opinion, so I will qualify my remarks with this statement:

If this story is accurate, Obama is implementing his nefarious plan to socialize the United States before our eyes. He needs to be stopped.

Yes, it's true that the rest of the article points out that the ownership of GM by the U.S. Government is only temporary, but really, who is Obama kidding?

Anyone who thinks the Government, under Obama will eventually relinquish control of GM back to private ownership is delusional.

This is only the beginning of Obama's plan to change The United Sates of America into the United Socialist States of America.

There will be more. Much more.

And remember. I warned you.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Immorality Is Not A Conservative Value

"All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God." ~ Voltaire

Before I offer my rant, I want to pat myself on the back (If I don't, no one else will) for a comment I left over at TOTUS's blog, in the comment thread of this post.

The post dealt with a "poetry jam", as they say, so I submitted the following original poem:

A teleprompter called TOTUS
Was relied upon often by POTUS
When it got in the way
Obama did say,
"Can we move this when we take the PHOTUS?"

OK. Fun's fun, but let's get serious.

Regarding the current big Beauty Pageant scandal, I am not surprised at the level of rancor displayed by the Liberals toward Ms. Carrie Prejean, AKA Miss California USA.

I am, however, surprised that Conservatives, who normally champion Judeo-Christian morality are rushing to her defense.

Ms. Prejean drew no small amount of fire from homosexual activists and their Liberal enablers for her incredibly sweet response to a question posed to her in the Miss USA pageant by a snarky little homosexual worm who calls himself Perez Hilton.

I won't elaborate further. All of us, unless we've been sleeping through the last week or so, undoubtedly know the details. She gave her honest opinion on the subject of gay marriage, which apparently was not the response Ms. Hilton (Yes, I said it!) wanted to hear.

Predictably, homosexuals and Liberals across the country raced to discredit and embarrass her a la "Joe the Plumber". After all, It is an absolute Liberal sacrilege to suggest one believes Homosexual marriage is wrong, and Liberals are honor bound to do their very best to totally destroy her.

Apparently, Carrie isn't too bright. And I don't say that because of her less than erudite "opposite marriage" reference.

Once the Liberal attack machine is set into motion, it will not stop until some years after the attackee is completely and utterly discredited.

Did Ms. Prejean not know this?

Perhaps if she had stopped talking immediately after her honest, albeit unfortunate answer, she might have avoided the inevitable finger pointing and accusations of hypocrisy.

Oh, but not our lovely Miss California.

She just had to complain that her answer was the reason she lost the contest. Then, if offering that excuse wasn't bad enough, she went on to announce to the world that she is a Christian, and was raised with the accompanying "Christian moral values".

Now, when I hear someone say they have Christian moral values, I would like to believe they eschew immorality of all kinds.

Then comes the revelation that Ms. Prejean had posed for some photographs some time before she entered the Miss California pageant.

Not just any photos, mind you. These particular photos were semi-nude. However one chooses to describe these photos upon seeing them, certain words that don't leap immediately to mind are "moral", "Christian", "innocent", etc.

Now, maybe I am showing my curmudgeonly side, but in my humble opinion, Ms. Prejean has done an enormous disservice to Christianity and her Christian witness by her poor judgment in agreeing to pose without her top.

All her protestations about morality and Christianity are meaningless if she doesn't at least attempt to live her faith.

I don't buy the excuse that she was only doing her job as a model, either. Many young ladies who model professionally have not agreed to be photographed naked, and they still manage to be successful.

She could have, and should have refused, if she is truly trying to follow Christ.

As it is, she has become a caricature of hypocritical Christians in the mode of Jimmy Swaggart and Elmer Gantry.

As I said, it surprises me that Christian Conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have defended Ms Prejean. I part ways once again, with my Conservative colleagues on this point.

Oh, I understand that when anyone is attacked by Liberals, it is incumbent on Conservatives to defend them.

But, if we call ourselves Christian, we must be consistent in our views of Christian morality.

Either posing for pornographic photos (regardless of how soft core) is immoral, or it isn't.

Sexual immorality is condemned by God in the Bible. I sincerely doubt there is anyone who denies that fact.

When a self professed Christian willfully engages in sexual immortality, it is shameful, not just for her, but for the whole of Christianity.

Moreover, if one calls himself a Conservative, he must espouse Conservative values, which means, to me, accepting personal responsibility.

Ms Prejean should, now that the cat is out of the bag, admit she made a very bad choice in allowing herself to be photographed naked, and fade quietly with all due humility, back into relative obscurity before she damages Christianity's reputation permanently.

I pray it's not too late.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Obama's Flip-Flop

"We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." ~ Abigail Adams

Recently, Barack Hussein Obama reversed his earlier decision to release some photos to the press. The photos reportedly have images that show some rather harsh interrogation techniques being performed on terrorist detainees.

And now the pundits on all sides are speculating on why.

Well, not all the pundits. The ones who follow Obama religiously and think he can do no wrong aren't questioning his motives.

Some Conservative commentators have decided, grudgingly, that he made the right decision this time. Even Hannity thinks Obama did the right thing.

Why? Obviously, many feel the release of the photos could somehow endanger the lives of our troops in the field, or possibly even innocent civilians.

On a certain level, I understand the concern. There has indeed been evidence that releasing photos of inhumane treatment (Abu Ghraib) in the past emboldened the enemy and helped provoke an escalation of attacks. If that is really Obama's concern, I could get behind him on that, as well.

But I think the pundits are leaving out one very important detail.

Obama never does anything that is good for anyone other than himself.

In order to reach this hypothesis, we need to try to think the way Obama thinks.

Remember, Obama is a pathological narcissist. As we have seen repeatedly, Obama does nothing that isn't politically expedient to advance his own personal interests.

So. I am thinking there must be something in those photographs that will either advance or derail Obama's train. And, I also think it must be something that is, in effect, borderline, or else his decision to release or not to release would be much easier.

So lets all speculate about what the photos depict, shall we?

Thinking like Obama, I'm thinking the first impression, to Obama, must have been that the pictures show acts of torture. I can just see him rubbing his hands together in delight, thinking he has finally found proof of what his administration and his adoring fans in the media have been saying all along. What better way to advance his agenda of appeasing the terrorist and undermining America's security than finding and producing evidence of morally repugnant interrogation techniques, that he can spin as torture?

Obama, having been born into privilege, and never having to endure any discomfort his entire life, would no doubt look at images of a detainee being restrained, pushed against a soft wall, confronted by a caterpillar, or similarly innocuously discomforted, and assume (at first, not realizing those interrogation techniques are actually quite mild) they constitute torture.

But then, after the media frenzy regarding what the photos might contain, and speculation from all sides on what actually constitutes torture, Obama had another look.

Now, looking at them in a much more reasonable light, Obama sees there is nothing in the photos that would merit concern. The photos indicate nothing that could be construed as torture, except by the most rabid peace-at-all-cost zealots.

This could be a devastating setback to Obama's lofty aspirations. How could he continue to demonize the Conservatives when the photos prove we have been correct (and the Liberals wrong) all the time?

So, he changes his mind and decides not to release the photos.

Now the inexplicable has happened, and probably quite by accident. Even his opponents are praising him for finally making a prudent decision.

When you hear pundits praising this decision, don't be fooled. Sometimes we the people are smarter than the experts.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Hate Crime Legislation Makes Thought Illegal

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~ U. S. Constitution, fourteenth amendment

Over at our team blog, American Descent, Marshall Art has posted an entry referencing a couple of articles he read about a hate crime bill. Both of the articles' authors indicate a belief that the latest hate crime legislation enacted in the U.S. House of Representatives includes a prohibition against hate speech, ostensibly making it unlawful to voice an opinion that could be considered hateful to certain groups.

Particularly, groups of a certain race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

I've read all four versions of this bill, and I see nothing that could be construed to mean hate speech will be made illegal.

Perhaps some reader who is more of a legal expert than I can copy and paste the part of the bill that specifies that speech will be determined a hate crime. As I see it, it only adds a couple of other minority groups to the original wording of the two decade old original bill.

If I am proven mistaken, I will be appreciative.

However, what I do see in the bill, is a superfluous and unnecessary added penalty for violent crimes if the accused is ascertained to have been motivated by hate for the above mentioned "minority" groups.

This determination of motive is problematic at best.

Aside from the obvious fact that adding the appellation, "hate crime" to a crime of violence is superfluous because violent crimes are already illegal, and thus, haven't any need for an addendum based on motivation, just how will a prosecuting attorney determine what could possibly be in the mind of the accused during the commission of a violent crime?

Has some kind of mind reading contraption been invented recently that "Popular Science" doesn't even know about?

If it hasn't, aside from a perpetrator willfully admitting "I did it 'cause he was a homo", or some similar self incriminating statement, there can be no way of knowing, beyond a reasonable doubt, what is in the mind of a criminal during the commission of his crime.

Since I am not an attorney, I will again ask any attorneys reading this if I am accurate when I maintain that motivation is not necessary to obtain a conviction in a court of law. No doubt, knowing the motivation helps determine guilt in some cases, but it isn't necessarily needed to obtain a conviction.

And, unless I'm mistaken, according to the rules of jurisprudence (ideally), the guilt of the accused needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in any court of law in this country before a guilty verdict can be reached.

The way I understand it, under hate crime legislation, motivation is itself a crime.

Additionally, as Art and the two authors indicate, hate crime legislation expressly violates the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, specifically, word for word, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

If race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability is a criteria for determining a harsher sentence, whether it be in favor or against any individual or individuals representing any of these particular minority groups, it is, according to the fourteenth amendment, unconstitutional.

If any legislation would create "Thought Police", it is this legislation.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

I Was Born In The Wrong Decade

"I'm not posing, nor am I in pain. I'm thinking. It doesn't cause me pain to think." ~ J. C. Pidgeon

Before I post today's entry, I want to post the following tribute to, and for Lone Ranger:

Thursday, in the mail, I received a DVD I had ordered a few days before from a place called Movies Unlimited. The Movie I ordered is called, "The Cheaters". It is a Christmas Movie filmed in 1945, and up until recently, was unavailable on DVD.

I remember watching that film every Christmas season for many years on TV, but they only showed it during Christmas season, so when television stations stopped showing it, I didn't even notice it's absence. I have mentioned the fact that I missed it since then on some of my previous blogposts.

As soon as I opened the DVD jewel case, I sat down and watched the movie in it's entirety. It was better than I remembered. I remembered it wrong, by the way, but nonetheless, it was better than I remembered. If anyone is interested, you can find a detailed synopsis of the film, here.

Friday, I received another DVD set in the mail. It is the entire 5th season of "Make Room For Daddy", starring Danny Thomas. I really am not a big fan of Danny Thomas, but this DVD set included the original pilot show of "The Andy Griffith Show". The Andy Griffith show was a spinoff of the Danny Thomas show.

I had never seen the pilot episode of the Andy Griffith show, and I couldn't find any DVD's that included it, except for this one. I did, however, find a deleted scene from the pilot on youtube which I include here:

I think the deleted scene is better than what they left in, but that's just me, I guess.

In this scene, Henrietta Perkins, who they are discussing, was played in the pilot by Frances Bavier, who later played Aunt Bea. There is a town drunk, but his name is Will, not Otis, and he is not played by the same actor. Andy has an Aunt but her name is Lucy, not Aunt Bea, and she is not seen. Aficionados of the Andy Griffith show will no doubt notice the store owner in the deleted scene is the same actor that later plays Old Ben Weaver in the series. Opie is seen and played by Ronnie Williams.

I have been watching my new DVD's all weekend, and I am having a ball!

Friday, May 08, 2009

National Day Of Prayer...To Obama

"I’m rooted in the Christian tradition...I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." ~ Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Hussein Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

This is the same Barack Hussein Obama who went to such great lengths to prove his Christianity to the nation during his Presidential campaign. Efforts that were politically expedient. He could not have Americans believe he is a Muslim, could he? If Americans had believed him to be a Muslim, he might not have been elected.

Yesterday was the National Day of Prayer, but one wouldn't have known it from information gathered from media resources. And one also wouldn't know it based on Obama's participation.

Because Obama didn't participate.

For any Obama worshipers who may have accidentally stumbled across this site searching for gems of wisdom from your messiah, the National day of Prayer is a day set aside to remind all people of faith, not only Christians, but Jews, and even Muslims, across the country to stop for at least a moment to ask God to bless our nation and her leaders.

Traditionally, the sitting American President at least attends a prayer breakfast to commemorate the National day of Prayer.

His excuse for his refusal to acknowledge the role of God in government was weak. Something very much like the weak excuse he had to queries about his refusal to wear a flag pin, and refusal to salute the flag.

One might ask why Obama, who emphatically declares himself to be Christian, wouldn't participate in such a noble commemoration.

Because, the way Obama sees it, he is God.

Why pray to himself?

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings

"To be true to its constitutional role, the Supreme Court should refuse to be drawn into making public policy, and it should strike down legislation only when a clear constitutional violation exists. When judicial activists resort to various inventions and theories to impose their personal views on privacy and liberty, they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution and undermine the role of the other branches of government." ~ Mark Levin

Well, the moment has arrived (and in only 102 days) that Conservatives have dreaded since Barack Hussein Obama was elected. Associate Supreme Court Justice David Hackett Souter has announced his retirement, and now Obama has the opportunity to appoint his successor.

Already, speculation has arisen about whom Obama might appoint. The consensus view in the media, is that Obama has already expressed his intention to appoint an Hispanic woman to the post.

If this is truly what Obama intends to do, it will be a blatant, intentional abuse of his office. His job is not to fill Supreme Court vacancies based on gender or ethnicity.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution. Period.

Obama's job is to appoint Justices based on their ability to fairly dispense justice, regardless of their gender or ethnicity.

If Obama appoints an Hispanic woman simply because she is female and Hispanic, he is being a racist.

Obama has also stated, "You know, Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire. But the issues that come before the court are not sport. They're life and death. And we need somebody who's got the heart to recogni-- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges".

This is in direct juxtaposition to the U.S. Constitution.

Empathy has no place in a Supreme Court decision.

The mandate of a Supreme Court Justice is to decide only on the Constitutionality of a law. That's all. A Supreme Court justice is mandated to base his decisions on the U.S. Constitution regardless of feelings.

Regardless of gender.

Regardless of race.

Regardless of age.

Regardless of choice of sexual preferences.

Obama has vowed to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Appointing a Supreme Court Justice on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or feelings does not protect the Constitution.

It does not preserve the Constitution.

It does not defend the Constitution.

If Obama bases his appointment on gender, ethnicity, or feelings, not only will he prove he is a racist, he will be violating his oath of office.

And, if he does that, he must be brought up on articles of impeachment.

Friday, May 01, 2009