Recognizing Cultural Differences Versus Racism

"Facts is facts" ~ Larry the Cable Guy

Probably the only thing I agree with Barack Hussein Obama about is the fact that his skin color shouldn't have any influence on his worthiness to be President. I personally have never considered his race to be a factor for making a decision on whether to vote for him. It is the content of his character, not his color, that concerns me.


And, in my humble opinion, his positions on the variety of vitally important issues disqualifies him from being a capable leader of my country.

I don't dislike him because he is black. I dislike him because he is completely wrong for this country.

My personal opinion notwithstanding, B. Hussein's campaign has made it crystal clear that his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to lead.

Or does it?

Over at Obama's official web site, the words color, race, minority, etc, pepper all of his media offerings. See for yourself. It would appear Obama intends to ride the wave of racism and white guilt all the way into the oval office. (for a laughable definition of "white Guilt" see Wikipedia's Liberally biased offering, here )

For someone who continually insists that his skin color doesn't make a difference he certainly expends a lot of energy attempting to point his ethnicity out to potential voters.

I have avoided discussing race in general because to do so would automatically bring accusations of racism and bigotry against me and anyone who might appear to agree with me, but since Obama's campaign has brought the subject up, I might as well toss in my two cents worth.

A couple of days ago, I heard a talk radio host ask a caller if he was black or white, and it occurred to me that we as a society have become politically correct to the point of absurdity.

Here's the impetus for the previous statement:

The caller had an unmistakable "black" accent. Even the best white impressionists cannot "fake" a black accent that well. The caller was black. That fact was obvious to even the most passive listener. The host didn't need to ask. And yet, he did.

No matter how a black man tries to hide a black accent, anyone who listens closely can detect the inflections of a black accent in his voice. With the exceptions of non-American blacks, such as British blacks, one only has to listen to know that whomever is talking is black.

I will never refer to any black person as "articulate". That is a term many racist white people use to avoid being called racist. It is a subtle racial epithet. It implies that most black people are not "articulate".

Listen to Alan Keyes, or Colin Powell, or Condaleeza Rice, or Bill Cosby sometime. Really listen. The accent is there.

That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.

As much as we wish to deny it, there are differences in black and white cultures. There are differences in all cultures, and it extends well beyond the obvious differences of skin color and accents in speech. There is no shame or honor in being different in any way.

All men, as God and the Declaration of Independence have so ably pointed out, are created equal.

But, as much as we would like to, inherent differences in racial cultures cannot be denied or even ignored.

And it's not racist to point it out. It is simply fact. It isn't an insult or a compliment.

In my estimation, pretending not to notice the obvious differences between race and culture is racist in and of itself. A couple of years ago, a black lawyer published an article in several newspapers in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday entitled, "America Should Honor The Teaching Of King", in which he equates poverty with being black. This is, of course, an opinion based on a racist viewpoint. Obviously, blacks are not the only people in America who are poor, but if one reads the essay, one gets that impression from the author.

On the other hand, whites, as a society, have become so race conscious that the pendulum has swung from blatant, mindless racism to oversensitivity about offensiveness well past the point of absurdity.

Differences in cultures create stereotypes. Stereotypes have basis in fact, or at least in our perception of the things we observe. For example:

In my dealings with the public throughout my life, I have observed certain behaviors that appear to be inherent in the black culture. They are not bad things. They are just inherent differences. Many black people stay up late at night and sleep late in the mornings, often into the afternoon if they don't have to work the next day.

That is not a negative or a positive. It is simply fact based on my personal observations over the years. And it's not exclusive to the black race. It is just more prevalent in the black race than in the white race from what I've observed.

There are more cultural differences between blacks and whites I've observed. Blacks seem to use the telephone more than whites. I don't know why, but they do. Again, it isn't a bad thing. Maybe they just have more friends than white people. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

Blacks appear to be more emotionally demonstrative and passionate than whites in general. This is not true of all blacks and it isn't true of all whites, either, but it appears to be more prevalent in the black culture. Again, these things are based upon my own personal observance.

Blacks, for the most part, dress up for church more (and better) than whites. And, in my opinion, they are generally more respectful of God in the way they dress. It is a positive cultural aspect of growing up in an environment that teaches their children to dress up out of respect for God.

That is definitely not a bad thing.


My bride says she prefers white hairdressers over black hairdressers because black hair is different and requires different styling and cutting techniques. White hairdressers are usually better at styling white people's hair and blacks are usually better with black people's hair. That isn't racist. It is just fact.

It is not a coincidence that manufacturers of menthol cigarettes, malt liquors, and certain clothing designs place advertisements for their products in predominately black neighborhoods and publications. These advertisements are results of market research, which tells the advertisers that targeting the black market will generate more profit for their clients.

This targeting of the black market is based on cultural observation. It is intelligent marketing, not racism.

When someone points out there are differences between black and white cultures, it doesn't make that someone a racist.

It is time we stop pretending that noticing those differences somehow makes one a racist.

Just Married

"I love being married. It's so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life." ~ Rita Rudner

I haven't posted lately, or even moderated because I have been on my honeymoon.

Yes, I've remarried.

My new bride and I.
Check out my tie. It is my clan (Gunn) tartan plaid, ordered directly from Scotland.

I am woefully behind on my blogging, and it will be a few days yet before I can return to more than a comment or two on my favorite blogs.

I have created a new post on my other blog, Gods way/My way concerning a disturbing video about Oprah Winfrey my brother e-mailed me.

I'll see you later.

More Questions

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane

So, either DT or one of his com padre's anonymously left a new comment (which I rejected) questioning the assertions made against B. Hussein Obama in my post "Obama: Bad For America":

(Anonymous' comments and questions are in Bolshevik red and my responses in Patriot blue)

"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."

So, most of the country has liberal values. why shouldn't they support the candidate who most agrees with them?

Because they are bad policies. Duh.

DT (and/or anonymous)thinks most of the country agrees with him, so there must be some nefarious reason why his candidates always lose.

"...raise our taxes...military weakness...Mr. Obama is promising all those things."

This, of course, is an absurd lie.

A Lie? USA Today, certainly not a bastion of Conservatism, reports, "Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits."

According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.

Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.

(Note: This is only one of the tax increases Obama proposes. There are many more. Too many to list in this post)

As to being weak on defense, let Mr. Hussein Obama speak in his own words:


"Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan"

This is not true. He talked about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if we had the hard intelligence. This is quite different from "invading Pakistan." Furthermore, McCain has said the exact same thing.

Not true? The Washington Compost (another Liberal Media outlet) reported: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (note: He says America is "less safe" since 9/11, yet he wants to repeal the Patriot act, and outlaw electronic surveillance of known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers)

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Partially true I guess. He said IF Pakistan wouldn't go after the terrorists, he would go into Pakistan. The problem with that is that Pakistan is our ally.

"nuclear option was off the table against terrorists". What terrorists are you going to nuke and where, exactly?

No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does.

"Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks." Yet many others agreed.

Yes, there are other Democrats just as stupid and foolish, but they are not running for Commander in Chief.

"For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world." This is an absurdity, of course. The US is rated 37th in the world for total quality of health care.

Anonymous is no doubt referring to the World Health Organization's Report. The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States. The rest of the US's poor report is a direct cause of the Liberal influence in the over regulation of health care providers in America.

"He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing." This is an obvious smear. Put up the citations or take it back.

OK. You want citations? How about citations in Margaret Sanger's own words?

A quick google search produced this result: While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

For the record, Webster's Dictionary defines "Eugenics" as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed".

Now here's some questions for the Obamaniacs:

Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?

Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?

Because that is the only two negotiables to which they will ever agree.

Does Obama has some other non-violent plan to end the war besides total surrender? If so, what is it?

In fact, what is his plan for anything he promises to do?

When he taxes the company you work for into bankruptcy and you lose your job, will you still believe in his policies?

When he orders the killing of babies to prevent them from being the "punishment" for mistakes, will you happily sacrifice your baby for the cause?

When he increases your taxes to the point where you can no longer afford even the most basic of essentials will you smile and say, "It's all for the good of the common man"?

When he dismantles the military, leaving America completely defenseless against attacks by foreign powers, and outlaws all guns regardless of their purpose, will you feel safer?

When he packs the Supreme Court with Justices who will legislate un-Constitutional Liberal policies from the bench, will you still back him?

When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens, will you then be able to see him for what he really is?

Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid.

Obama: Bad For America

"Everyone rises to their level of incompetence. " ~ Laurence J. Peter

I don't have time to write my own blog entry today, but I received this in an e-mail earlier this week and Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun, says it almost as good as I could, except he is much nicer than I would be:

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since w e created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by you r paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Best Damn Comedy Show Ever

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers

I know I've used the above quotation before but up until now,it hasn't been more appropriate than it is today. All of the news about the two Democratic candidates for President just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Seriously.

First, it has been revealed that Barack Hussein Obama is not only a racist but also a liar, and now the "smartest woman in America" has proven she is not only a liar, but a very bad liar at that.

B. Hussein Obama seriously expects us to believe he didn't know his "spiritual advisor" was making such racist, hateful statements over the last twenty years. Not only that, but he has now added a whole new phrase into the English language that is now synonymous with discrimination:

"Typical white person".

Now, instead of calling white people "crackers", "White Devils", "peckerwoods", etc, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Lewis Farrakhan, and Barack Hussein Obama can just say white people are "typical".

Has it occurred to anyone that the word, "typical" happens to be the suffix in a longer word: "Stereotypical"?

And now, the "smartest woman in America" is beginning to look more and more like the "stupidest woman in America".

Any way you look at it, she looks stupid. Either she's making up stories that require a "willful suspension of disbelief" because she doesn't know any better, or she is just so arrogant that she expects clear thinking Americans (that's all Americans except Liberal Democrats) to believe her fantasies, it makes no difference. Either way, she's stupid.

This is funnier than watching a one-legged man in a brewery making hops.

Her newest lie is that she was "mistaken" . She just forgot she wasn't really shot at in Bosnia. Oh yeah, that's an easy thing to forget. I know I'd probably forget that something didn't happen. Especially when the thing that didn't happen would have been so memorable if it had happened.

And if that isn't improbable enough, The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."

Add to that, Send the President's 15 year old daughter, too. I mean, what the heck? If Hillary can handle it, why can't Chelsea?

What kind of President--actually--what kind of man would send his wife and daughter into potentially dangerous situations? The more one examines Hillary's bizarre statements, the more ridiculous they become.

And Liberal Democrats continue to support these phonies.

Maybe that's the funniest thing of all.

It's absolutely side-splitting!

Do you know what's not funny, though?

There are so many empty headed Liberal Democrat morons in America, that both of these two idiots still have a legitimate chance of becoming President of the United States!

Thoughts From A Typical White Person

"Unless man is committed to the belief that all mankind are his brothers, then he labors in vain and hypocritically in the vineyards of equality." ~ Adam Clayton Powell Jr.

After creating several posts wherein I pointed out Barack Hussein Obama's multiple shortcomings and lack of qualifications to be President, I was all set to, as our Liberal Democrat friends say, "move on". Even after Obama's latest gaffe, in which he called his white grandmother a "typical white person", I was still ready to discuss other subjects. That is, until I listened to Glenn Beck's radio program this morning.

I'm still chuckling.

A caller called in and explained that, as a typical white person, he was terrified of black people. So terrified, in fact, that the only thing that would ease his fear was the playing of music by Air Supply.

Of course, it was a comedy bit.

They played the fear of black people act way too long, but it hammered home an important point.

I must not be a typical white person since I wasn't offended by Obama's description of his grandmother's fear of black people. I'm still not offended.

How can one be offended by ignorance?

I've never been offended by the appellation "cracker", or "whitey", or "peckerwood". Why should being branded as "typical" offend me?

Because it carries the same connotation to me, a white man, as using the phrase, "you people" does to blacks.

So, I should be offended.

Beck reminded his listeners of Jimmy the Greek, a former bookmaker and commentator on some television sports program. For those who don't remember the story, Jimmy was fired from the sports program because he committed the unpardonable sin of voicing his belief that black athletes are stronger and faster than white athletes because it was "bred into them" . You know, just as Obama's grandmother's racism was "bred" into her. Jimmy the Greek was fired for making a personal observation. He may have been wrong or he may have been right. It makes no difference. In today's politically correct environment, he still had to be fired.

Obama has not been fired, or even questioned, for using the same language to describe his racist grandmother.

Then I realized if I had described any black person as "typical", I would have likely been arrested, tried, and thrown into the clink for committing a hate crime before I had time to spit.

And yet Hussein gets a pass by his Liberal Democrat Obamorons.

Jesse Jackson once said he would have felt afraid if he was confronted by a group of black men in a dark alley at night, and wouldn't have been as afraid if the same group were white. Does that make Jesse Jackson a "typical white person"?

Exactly what is a "typical white person"?

Apparently, Barry Hussein Obama would have us believe a typical white person cowers in fear at the sight of black people.

Just after listening to that segment of Glenn Beck's radio program, I was in a jewelry store when a FedEx driver entered and dropped off a package at the counter. He was black. I wasn't afraid of him.

I guess I'm not typical.

You know? I see black people every day. Sometimes I see them in large groups. Up until now, it never occurred to me to be afraid of them. Up until now, I've rarely taken note of the color of a person's skin. Unless they are specifically drawing my attention to their skin color.

Now, walking down a dark street through a gauntlet of people dressed and behaving like thugs makes me a little nervous, I admit. But that's because they are thugs. Skin pigmentation has nothing to do with how I react to their presence. Thugs can be white, too, and often are.

So now, Obama, who has been running as the candidate of "unification", has proven himself to be just as divisive as say... David Duke. Or Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Are the Liberal Democrat Obamorons ready to recognise his hypocrisy yet?

Happy Easter

"Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!" ~ Charles Wesley



When I was a child, my family celebrated Easter by going to a sunrise service at church, then coming home and having an Easter egg hunt, usually in the house, because the weather was rarely conducive to having it outdoors. I don't remember having a special Easter meal, other than eating the colored eggs that we children found.

I have since learned that other families have much more elaborate means of celebrating Easter. Many of these include gift giving and traditional Easter meals, usually ham or turkey, served with all the trimmings.

In whatever way each of you celebrate Easter, it is important to remember why we celebrate the most significant event in history. The resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead.

Christ the Lord is risen today. Alleluia!



Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

Love’s redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Lo! the Sun’s eclipse is over, Alleluia!
Lo! He sets in blood no more, Alleluia!

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ hath burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!

Hail, the Lord of earth and Heaven, Alleluia!
Praise to Thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail, the resurrection, thou, Alleluia!

King of glory, Soul of bliss, Alleluia!
Everlasting life is this, Alleluia!
Thee to know, Thy power to prove, Alleluia!
Thus to sing and thus to love, Alleluia!

Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!

But the pains that He endured, Alleluia!
Our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
Now above the sky He’s King, Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!

Happy Easter!

A Disturbing Promise

"The greatest mistake is trying to be more agreeable than you can be." ~ Walter Bagehot

In previous posts, I have asked questions and made unfounded accusations about Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the accusations were made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

I made them intentionally just to anger Liberals. They have no sense of humor, as their responses indicated.

But the fact is, Obama is in a lot of hot water because of his association with his minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who Obama refers to as his "spiritual advisor". Certainly, if Obama wasn't in agreement with the hateful, racist, inflammatory things his minister has preached sometime within the last twenty years, it would seem prudent for him to have searched out and joined another church. One whose minister preached a less controversial and divisive message.

Except, now he claims he wasn't present when these things were said. (which is a lie)

And, by the way, it is a divisive message. All men are created equal. Contrary to what Reverend Wright apparently believes, black men are not more equal than white men.

I know I wouldn't continue to go to, or support a church if my minister was continually preaching such non-Biblical doctrines.

It just goes to show. If you have skeletons in your closet, or questionable associations, you'd better not run for public office.

Your sins will find you out.

Personally, I am not so concerned about Barry Hussein Obama's association with his minister as I am about his promise to end the war by negotiation. The only things with which the terrorists will agree are:

1. All Americans convert to Islam.

2. Those who don't convert must be executed.

There is no third choice, thus, unless Obama agrees to these stipulations, the violence will continue until we wipe them out or they wipe us out.

If this is the kind of "change" Obama is talking about, we are better off not changing at all. That is, unless you want to either become a Muslim or die.

It's not that I believe he would actually negotiate a surrender, it's that he is, in fact, making that promise, and that may actually be the most frightening aspect of his candidacy of all.

That he is willing to promise to literally destroy all that America represents. Our freedom, our independence, our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness.

All so he can be President.

What kind of President would make that kind of promise?

St. Patricks Day

O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that's goin' round?
The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!
No more Saint Patrick's Day we'll keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a cruel law ag'in the Wearin' o' the Green."

I met with Napper Tandy, and he tuk me by the hand
And he said, "How's poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?"
"She's the most distressful country that ever yet was seen
For they're hanging men and women there for the Wearin' o' the Green."

"So if the colour we must wear be England's cruel red
Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed
And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod
But never fear, 'twill take root there, though underfoot 'tis trod.

When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin' as they grow
And when the leaves in summer-time their colour dare not show
Then I will change the colour too I wear in my caubeen
But till that day, please God, I'll stick to the Wearin' o' the Green. ~ Traditional Irish Folk Song


The above Irish song is perhaps the best known of all Irish songs. It is usually played with an upbeat tempo as if it were a celebratory song, however, as you can see by the lyrics, it is a mournful expression of grief over the loss of freedom. I've always believed it should be played much more solemn in reverent memory of all the innocents who lost their lives under the cruel thumb of the British.

I could only find horrible, out of tune renditions of it on youtube, so I could only post the lyrics.

Here are some Irish songs that I enjoy all through the year. I was hoping to find some others of my favorites, but couldn't find them on Youtube. I only wish I had the equipment and know-how to create videos of my own. I would post a great medley of "MacNamara's Band" that I have on CD, as well as several other Irish folk songs that I believe are more representative of Irish music. Oh well, enjoy these songs by authentic Irish musicians:

Celtic Woman:


The Irish Tenors (I actually prefer their rendition of Danny Boy to Celtic Woman's but, alas, it is not on Youtube):



Happy St. Patricks Day!

Et Tu, Brute?

"Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry "Caesar!" Speak, Caesar is turn'd to hear.
Soothsayer:
Beware the ides of March.
Caesar:
What man is that?
Brutus:
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March."

Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2, 15–19

On this date in 44 AD Julius Caesar was assassinated by several members of the Roman Senate, including his best friend, Brutus.

Since that day, March 15, the Ides of March, has been associated with bad luck. I don't believe in bad or good luck, although I seem to have had, in past years, more bad luck than my share. Just about everybody would say the same.

I don't remember any particular "bad luck" days on the Ides of March in my own history, except for once, when I was fired from a job. It wasn't a very good job. That was so long ago, it could well have happened on the Ides of March, 44 AD. At least it seems that long ago to me.

I don't expect any more "bad luck" than I've already had this week. Tuesday I had a painful encounter with gravity when a ladder I was perched on suddenly fell out from under me. I fell approximately 8 feet and landed flat on my back. I've been in substantial pain since, but it's getting better. The doctor said I tore a ligament that had previously been attached to my pelvis. Something about a sacroiliac or something.

So, I'm going to work, anyway.

Good luck today.

Questions With Obvious Answers

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

Up until now, I've been giving Barack Hussein Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how closely he agrees with the pastor of his church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I had, and still have questions about whether B. Hussein even knows much about his "spiritual advisor".

Like: How often does Barry Hussein actually attend this church? How long has he attended this church? How much of what Rev. Wright says does Hussein agree? How much influence does Rev. Wright have over what Mr. B. Hussein Obama himself believes?

I don't know how many of his beliefs B. Hussein got from his pastor, and I won't make the supposition that he indeed goes along with everything Rev Wright preaches, and I won't automatically assume his pastor is a hateful, bigoted, racist, nor that B. Hussein Obama shares these extremist anti-American, anti-white views. I'll let Rev. Jeremiah Wright speak for himself, and, by Obama's refusal to distance himself from Rev Wright, vicariously, for Barack Hussein Obama:



Then, I discovered this:



Now, I have additional questions about Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Does Obama share his pastors views? If not, why is he still a member of this racist, hate-mongering, anti-semitic, anti-white, anti-American congregation? If so, is he the kind of man we want as President of the United States?

If Obama and Jeremiah Wright are "poor black men" what, pray tell, is the definition of a rich black man?

Yesterday, I heard on the radio that Obama went to the most expensive private school in Hawaii when he was a child, He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, neither of which are affordable to a "poor black man". His wife, Michelle attended Princeton and makes a reported $300,000+ a year as an attorney in her own right. So once again, Exactly how poor is poor Obama? For that matter, how poor is the pastor of a church with a membership of 8,ooo?

I made five figures (That's somewhat less than $100,000)last year. What is the criteria for determining who is a "rich white man" in comparison with "poor black man" millionaire Obama and his Millionaire Pastor?

More questions:

When did Jesus, who was an Israeli Jew, become black? Where in the Gospels do they say Jesus was black? Where, for that matter, does it say Jesus was poor? How does Rev. Wright's rhetoric, when he said, "He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness", square with his message of hate, bigotry, and smallmindedness?

Does this mean only blacks can be discriminated against? Or does it mean it's acceptable to spew racist hate speech as long as it is being directed to whites only?

Does this mean Barack Hussein Obama is a racist? Or does he simply turn his head when he encounters racism against anyone but black men? If so, why?

And yet more questions:

Why hasn't Obama condemned his racist pastor and his extreme hate-filled racist rants? Why does Obama say his church is "not particularly controversial"? Does he actually believe his church's pastor wouldn't have been locked up in prison for hate crimes if the aforementioned pastor were white?

Remember, all that is necessary for whites to be arrested and tried for hate crimes is to hang ropes tied into nooses from trees on college campuses. Ropes don't scream hatred for other races from lofty pulpits, do they? Why is Reverend Wright not languishing in Cook County Jail right now for advocating and supporting racism?

More questions:

If Barack Hussein Obama becomes President of the United States of America, will he work actively to make blacks the ruling class in America? Will he attempt to relegate the white people in America to the figurative "back of the bus"?

If B.Hussein believes and agrees with the hateful rhetoric espoused by his pastor, will he make peace with Islamic Jihadists by throwing white Christians and Jews to the Islamic lions?

Are Democrats who support Barack Hussein Obama stupid, ignorant, or anti-American, or are they just so consumed by "white guilt" that will they ignore the possibility that Obama and his pastor hate white people? If he becomes President will he work to exterminate white people? Will white Democrat supporters of B. Hussein Obama die defending him?

It could be that the conclusion to be drawn by the answers to these questions, depending on what the answers are, is this:

Barack Hussein Obama doesn't represent America. He represents hate, racism, and bigotry.

Obamalot

"All we've been through, for nothing but an idea! Something that you cannot taste, smell, or feel; without substance, life, reality, memory." ~ King Arthur (From "Camelot")

If Barry Hussein Obama's speeches are to be believed, he will save the world from evil America. He will stop Global warming, or Global cooling, or whatever catastrophe the consensus of scientists on Al Gore's favor list are pushing at the time he recites the oath of office.

Incidentally, when he recites the oath of office, will he place his hand on a Bible or a copy of "The Communist Manifesto"? Will he salute the United States flag at that time or use it as a torch? Will he face Mecca as he takes the oath?

As I mentioned in my previous post, he also intends to end the war by apparently promising the terrorists something that will make them discard their arms and bombs and lovingly embrace the Jews and Christians all over the world.

It is not known what he will promise them, but if it's anything short of surrender and converting the entire world to Islam, it won't work. The terrorists have repeatedly stated at every opportunity that they demand total submission to their God and their laws. They have promised to wipe out everyone on Earth who doesn't convert to their particular brand 0f Islam.

Nevertheless, B. Hussein Obama promises peace. The Lion will lay down with the Lamb, and all will be right with the world.

He promises to deliver free health care for every man, woman, and child in America whether they want it or not. He has even suggested that everyone in America will have to submit to periodical physical exams even if they are healthy. And amazingly, his health care system will not result in long lines of sick people waiting forever for drastic medical procedures. He will presumably rush them right through just like a General Motors assembly line, except with no mistakes.

He has not said how he intends to pay for this extravagant health care plan, but I am sure he has a plan.

All of these things carry an exorbitant price tag, but B. Hussein promises the majority of Americans will not have to pay for them. Only wealthy Americans. One would have to assume he plans to create everyone equal.

In short, Mr. Hussein Obama will bring us his version of Camelot.

Obamalot (with apologies to Alan Jay Lerner)

A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Obamalot.

The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Obamalot.

Obamalot! Obamalot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Obamalot, Obamalot
That's how conditions are.

The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.

In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Obamalot.

Obamalot! Obamalot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Obamalot, Obamalot
Those are the legal laws.

The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.

In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Obamalot.

More Catching Up And Obamalot

"In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves." ~ R. A. Butler

Many Republicans in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday registered as Democrats and voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton in an attempt to help her defeat Barack Hussein Obama in the race for the nomination of President. The supposition is Clinton would be easier for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain to beat in the general election.

From what I understand, Rush Limbaugh is the mastermind behind this nefarious plan.

I could be wrong about this, because I didn't hear the program in which the plan was hatched. I only heard bits and pieces from subsequent programs which would seem to indicate he did. Anyway, it worked. Hillary won both primaries. Which only goes to prove how much Rush influences his listeners.

Rush is usually right, but I don't think he is this time.

I don't think Hillary would be any easier to beat than Barack Hussein Obama. Especially not by John McCain. He is not that much different than either of them, and, to borrow an oft repeated phrase from Sean Hannity, "There's not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Clinton."

Whether Hillary might be easier for McCain to beat or not, I think Republicans should stay out of the Democrats business, and let the candidates succeed or fail on their own. I don't much care who wins the Democratic nomination for President at this point.

It's a lock for McCain on the Republican side, and that's the only thing Republicans should be concerned about right now.

Republicans need to focus on beating whoever the Democratic nominee is and let the Democrats fight their own battles.

I just can't imagine the horrors a Clinton or a Barack Hussein Obama administration might inflict on America. Both of them are Marxists.

Incidentally, my resident moonbat, Dan Trabue, says he doesn't believe any black person will vote for Obama solely because of his skin color. I just want to point out that I heard a black caller on Hannity's radio program admit he intends to vote for Barack Hussein Obama because he is black. There was no other reason offered.

So, I'm guessing Dan is wrong on this one.

I'm not drawing comparisons, you understand, but when you see one cockroach, you can bet there are thousands more hiding behind the baseboards. The analogy holds true. If one black man admits he will vote based on skin color you can bet thousands more out there will do the same. The same goes for women who vote for Clinton because of her gender.

Once again, let me make this crystal clear. I am not comparing black people with cockroaches.

Personally, I prefer judging Barack Hussein Obamas viability based on his record. My concern with the possibility that he might become our next President has nothing to do with his skin color, but instead, the content of his character. In my humble opinion, his lack of character is disturbing.

Speaking of cockroaches, one caller to Hannity's program likened Hillary to a cockroach. I appreciate the analogy. His point was that no matter what happens to Hillary, she will always bounce back. Cockroaches have the same traits. They will be the only survivor of an all out thermo-nuclear holocaust.

Cockroaches and Hillary Clinton.

Barack Hussein Obama is promising things he can't deliver. He is promising Utopia if he is elected President. If he is to be believed, and many deluded Democrats do, he will bring about a peaceful end to the war on terrorism without any more bloodshed. The lions will lay down beside the lambs and all will be right with the world. He will negotiate with the Islamic Jihadists and somehow, without promising to convert every American to Islam, they will in turn, promise to never murder anymore innocent people ever again.

It is not known what he plans to promise them in return.

He hasn't yet said how he will accomplish this miracle, but millions of Democrat, Liberal moonbats all over this country swallow this convoluted logic hook, line, and sinker.

He has been hailed by some as the next John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Kennedy had Camelot. Obama, presumably, will bring Obamalot.

Obamarama

"When the Jews return to Zion
And a comet rips the sky
And the Holy Roman Empire rises,
Then You and I must die.
From the eternal sea he rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning man against his brother
'Til man exists no more."
~ Father Brennan (From "The Omen")

Barack Hussein Obama?

Catching Up On The News

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers

Due to illness in the family, I've been too busy to post a new entry lately. I've either been straightening up the house, cooking the family meals, or spending my free time visiting a loved one in the hospital.

Everyone is fine, thank you. Thanks for your thoughts.

I've mentioned in the past that I'm not a news junkie. I will watch almost any other kind of television program before I'll watch news. So, readers will forgive me, I hope, for missing some stories about which other bloggers have already posted and moved on while I have been otherwise engaged in more important pursuits.

While I was thus engaged, I understand Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Michelle) giddily announced that she is finally proud to be an American, a comment for which she has been widely criticized. Did she really mean she hadn't been proud to be an American up until that point?

I don't think so. I think it was an unfortunate, though Freudian slip. Maybe I am just giving Mrs. Obama the benefit of the doubt but, in my humble opinion, I see no reason to assume she is any less proud to be an American than any other whiny blame-America-first, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister Democrat.

She is at least as proud as any one of them.

Also, Apparently some of Obama's campaign workers displayed a flag on the wall of their Houston office. It was a flag of Cuba upon which a picture of Cuban mass murderer Che Guevera was superimposed. Does this mean Barack Hussein Obama is a disciple of Che and/or a supporter of anti-American Communist regimes?

I don't think so. Of course, one could argue that if they support both Che and Obama, there must be some significant similarities in the political ideology of the two. But, just because some of Obama's campaign workers are obvious fans of brutal fascist revolutionaries, it doesn't necessarily mean he himself supports anti-American governments above our own.

However, the most anti-American voting record in the Senate might.

By the way, anyone who believes Bill Cunningham isn't intentionally trying to imply Obama is an Islamic Jihadist sympathizer when he continually refers to him by all three names (Barack HUSSEIN Obama) is either stupid, ignorant, or willfully suspending ones own disbelief.

And finally, good news for Republicans. Perennial losing Presidential candidate Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy for President once again. This is good news for Republicans because Nader is a "consumer advocate", which in layman's terms, means he's a environMENTAList wacko. And environMENTAList wackos vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

He, along with Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who appears to have more respect for flowers and bugs than she does for Capitol Police authority, could actually siphon enough Democrat votes away from Hillary or Obama, that the Republican candidate could very well win the election by default.

It worked for the Republicans when George Wallace ran, and for the Democrats when Ross Perot ran.

Although, come to think of it, Nader didn't garner enough votes to make a difference in his previous attempts, did he?

Then again, the Democratic candidates then had more substance than the two running in this particular campaign. Some Democrats are less than enthusiastic about their choices this time around.

Third parties are often the spoilers.

The Democrats who vote for Nader or McKinney might even offset the percentage of Republican voters who will refuse to vote in protest over the Republicans selecting a Liberal as their candidate in the upcoming general election.

What's In My Head

Anonymous Sources Say Hillary Will Have Obama Killed

"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." ~ Joseph Heller

The New York Slimes is doing it's Liberal best to smear a Republican candidate. So, what else is new?

They say they have been working on this (non)story for three months. Why?

I don't mean why work on the story for three months. I mean why should it take so long to sit down and write a story filled with so many holes one could drive a semi through? I could sit down and dash a story out with more credibility in about an hour or less.

What's the first sign it isn't factual? The ubiquitous "anonymous sources", of course. Whenever the Slimes or any Liberal news organization wants to do a hatchet job on someone, all they have to do is dredge up a few "anonymous sources", and Voila! They have muck! And they really don't have to dredge them up. All they really have to do is mention anonymous sources. There doesn't have to be any.

Anonymous sources are the perfect source. They don't even have to exist to make a story appear credible.

Ok. Point made.

I've been listening to the talking heads speculate about who the Presidential nominees will choose for their running mates. We hear these rumors every election cycle, and there's nothing wrong with discussing the subject, but I've never seen a Presidential nominee choose a running mate from the pool of Presidential contenders that didn't win.

For instance, Everyone thought Howard Dean would be chosen in 2000, or was it 2004? No matter. It didn't happen. Go down the list of Presidential candidates in the last several elections. None of the candidates from either party ever chose a running mate that experts said they would choose.

Offhand, I can think of Nixon's choice of Spiro Agnew, George W Bush's choice of Dick Cheney, and some one's (I can't remember who) choice of Lloyd Bentzen. These are all Vice Presidential candidates I had never heard of before the nominee chose them.

So, if you're expecting to hear McCain choose Huckabee or Romney as his running mate, it probably won't happen. He would more likely choose Senator Lieberman, but I doubt Lieberman would accept. Who knows, though? Stranger things have happened.

But the one speculation that really amuses me is "Will Obama choose Hillary to be his running mate?" Well, I won't commit myself to saying no, however, in my opinion, he would have to be either fearless, stupid, or crazy to pick her.

The Clinton's have such a lust for power, they have left a long trail of dead bodies strewn behind them (if "anonymous sources" have any credibility to them at all) in their quest for political power. Or to stay in power.

Here is one example from an article (the first one I accessed in a google search of "Clinton's criminal record") entitled "Clinton Lies and Criminal History":

"[C]ritics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster’s death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one. Other conspiracy theories claimed that she had killed Foster herself or had him killed."

If there is any truth to any of those aforementioned rumors, Obama would be in danger of being assassinated by any of the Clinton's thug pals, or thug pals of their thug pals, if she were placed in the position of "heiress to the throne" so to speak. Anonymous sources speculate she would literally stop at nothing to reach her ultimate goal of attaining the title of "Commissar for life of The Socialist States of America".

Including assassination.

But it doesn't matter. Obama, should he win the Democratic nomination for president, will never choose Hillbillary for his running mate.

You'll see. History will bear me out.

Altruism or selfishness?

"Once, in a spirit of altruism and generosity, I filled a rental car with gas!" ~ Emo Phillips

Lone Ranger posted a link to this web site a few days ago, and after reading some of the testimonials found there, I was left feeling strangely disturbed. I don't know why I'm disturbed. Maybe it's because I don't see these testimonials as examples of altruism, but rather as examples of a pitiful display of self importance. I've been thinking about this since LR posted it, but so many thoughts have run through my head about it that I have difficulty deciding what I want to say.

Read some of them. Really. Go read some of them, and you'll see what I mean.

The old phrase, "Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back" seems appropriate to me.

It's just that I see, instead of unselfishishness in the testimonials, a lot of pride. I am reminded of Jesus Christ's admonition, "But when you do merciful deeds, don't let your left hand know what your right hand does" found in Matthew 6:3. (That's the World English Bible translation, which is not really my preferred version, but it speaks more directly about acts of kindness rather than simply giving money to the poor) I think this applies to letting other people see what you do as well. At least people other than the ones you help.

A genuine random act of kindness is an act that doesn't come with any kind of reward in mind. Not even the reward of receiving accolades from friends or strangers. Again, the words of Jesus come to mind. "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5

I suppose it's long been a pet peeve of mine when I see people do something nice, and then announce to everyone how wonderfully unselfish they are being. The way I see it, as soon as one tells someone else, ones attempt at generosity becomes disengenous.

I posted something on this subject before. Read it here, if you're so inclined.

It is difficult indeed to do some random act of kindness and then be silent. I have done them, and have, for the most part kept silent, but doesn't even disclosing that much lump me in with those who expect some sort of praise? I don't want to seek praise for whatever acts of kindness I do. But at the same time, I want people to know.

It is a dilemma.

I recently wrote about a time when I took the initiative to bring Thanksgiving dinner to a girls group home simply because my heart went out to the girls. Many of the girl's own families had effectively abandoned them and they faced the prospect of enduring Thanksgiving alone, with only their peers for company.

My reason for recounting that incident wasn't for self aggrandizement, but merely to point out the true meaning of Christian charity. I feel guilty to this day about sharing. I could have easily found other examples, but I wanted to draw an example from my own experience. In retrospect, I suppose using another example not from my experience would have sufficed.

In the comments of that entry, I said, "I have my reward".

Those testimonials that seem to point to a desire for attention are not the only ones that disturb me.

For instance, one entitled "Give it away", recounts a story of the author giving away tickets to a concert because essentially, she had 3 tickets her family couldn't use after she had found better seats. I'm sure the beneficiary of the tickets was grateful, but the offer of tickets in this case seems more about throwing the cast offs to the beggars than genuine kindness to me. Kind of like letting the homeless guy have your last couple of bites from the burger you couldn't finish.

Then there's the one entitled, "Stuck in the snow" that is disturbing in more than one way. Not only did the author of this testimonial admit that he didn't even attempt to help until it became obvious no one else was going to, but then he readily admits he did it in hopes that someday someone would help him in a similar situation.

I get the distinct impression that these people who write these testimonials so rarely do anything altruistic, they feel a need to massage their own egos, probably out of guilt for not doing so more often.

What's In My Head

A BB In A Boxcar

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." ~ Albert Einstein

The Virginia Primary is over and John McCain won again. The Liberally biased AP gleefully reports that his lead is now officially insurmountable. Of course, Republicans knew that already.

Although McCain has the nomination all sewn up, I went to vote anyway. I am angry at the Republican party, which is traditionally the standard bearer for Conservatism, so I was hoping the Virginia election commission(or whatever the governmental agency that regulates such things is called) would allow write -in votes, but there was no place for write-ins on the ballot.

Since McCain has already secured the nomination, a vote in the Virginia Primary makes no difference other than as a statement of principle. I wanted to write-in Duncan Hunter in protest against the party that abandoned it's Conservative base.

After I received my Republican ballot, I overheard the election workers discussing the fact that more Democrats were showing up to vote than Republicans, which came as no surprise to me because, as I mentioned, there really is no reason to vote in the Republican primary. I am sure many Republicans didn't bother coming in.

But it was important to me to vote to lodge my personal protest.

A vote for a candidate that has no chance in winning makes a statement with less impact to the Republican party than the sound a BB makes rattling around in a boxcar.

With that realization, as I filled in the dot beside the name of Fred Thompson, I felt a minute sense of satisfaction.

I had cast my vote based on principle.

Apparently I wasn't the only one who voted on principle. McCain's margin of victory over Huckabee was slim. And the other candidates received thousands of votes, too. I am reasonably certain that many Republicans only voted for McCain because he is already the nominee.

Perhaps when he looks at the results and sees how many "protest" votes other candidates received it will send a message to him that the Republican party is not wholly behind him in this race. At least, that's my thinking.

Probably not, though.

When the general election arrives in November, I will vote for the Republican nominee, although it will be McCain. Then I will go home and take a shower.

As I remarked to the people at the polls yesterday, it's a pity there isn't a space on the ballot for "Anyone else."

Government By The People

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." ~ Abraham Lincoln

In October, 2005, President Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcry of dissent from Conservative Republicans was deafening. The party faithful was not so faithful to the President on this one. Eventually, bowing to the pressure from Conservative Republicans, Harriet Miers took the initiative away from Bush by withdrawing her nomination.

In February 2006 President Bush approved the sale of ports to the United Arab Emigrates. Again, Conservative Republicans let their disapproval be known. The sale was never consummated. Conservatives, by voicing their opinion, cancelled the transaction.

Now, Conservative Republicans are again faced with an unpleasant choice. We may have to vote for Senator John McCain for President in the general election. We can not vote at all, thereby handing the election over to the Democrats. Or we can vote for the Democratic Candidate.

None of those choices are appetizing as far as I'm concerned.

Many are decrying this dipleasing turn of events, and suggesting the Republican party is, for all practical purposes, finished.

But we still have voices, and we still can, by using them, influence Presidential policies, as we have in the past.

Having John McCain as President of the United States is not the end of the world. It is somewhat frightening in many ways, but it will not destroy American Conservatism, especially not if we make ourselves be heard.

We can make a difference.

Remember, ours is a government by the people, as much as of and for the people. A President McCain must abide by the Constitution in all matters of policy. If he doesn't, there are millions of people across this nation that can and will voice their displeasure.

This is an example of what Liberals refer to as "Checks and Balances". Usually they use the term to support legislation by the courts, which is unconstitutional. But in this case, the term applies to public opinion, when a President gets out of line or oversteps his bounds.

We can make McCain change his Liberal leaning policies. If we sound off loud and often enough, we the people can dictate policy.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I appeal to all Conservatives who are threatening to either not vote at all or vote for the Democratic candidate instead of for McCain.

Don't throw away your vote! The alternative is much worse.

There is a greater of two evils and it is any Democratic Presidential candidate. Let's all unite behind our Presidential candidate and get a Republican elected. We can make this work to our benefit.

Trust in God and Conservatism.

Personal Responsibility

"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin

The following is just something I was thinking about yesterday while driving.

(Uh, still no spell check available with Blogger, so bear with any spelling mistakes you see. I accept responsibilty for my mistakes and if you correct me, I will gratefully oblige, and will not place blame on anyone but myself.)

Liberals need to get over the fact that some people have wealth and some people don't. It is a fact of life that some people are just better at making money and keeping it than others. These are people who take advantage of positive opportunities and don't give up when adversities happen.

Then there are those who just don't care. They are the ones who don't accept responsibility for themselves, and expect--nay--demand the Government give them money for free and with no strings attached. This is the result of well-meaning Liberals, who believe they can solve all problems by throwing money at them.

They have, through their misguided sense of altruism, created in many people an entitlement mentality.

Libs assume that we are stupid, and since we are incapable of taking care of ourselves, the elites in Government must take care of us. The inescapable problem with this assumption is this:

The money to pay for these has to come from somewhere. Liberals apparently think that the Goverment coffers are bottomless. Or more accurately, they think the taxpayers (That's us. The working people) pockets are bottomless. They reason, "If we don't have enough money in the budget, all we have to do is raise taxes until we do have enough."

The entitlement mentality will insure that there will never be "enough".

Welfare has been bastardized. It was never intended to be used to support thousands or millions of lazy people who won't accept any responsibility. It was originally intended to help people who genuinely needed help when they find themselves in seemingly hopeless situations.

It was intended to be a hand up, not a hand out.

I believe in personal responsibility. If I make numerous mistakes, and by those mistakes make myself poor, I take responsibility for the consequences of my mistakes. I do not expect, nor do I demand help. From anybody. I will not allow myself to depend on America's taxpayers to bail me out when I do something stupid.

Admittedly, if someone offered to help me when I have problems, I would gratefully accept, and then do everything in my power to repay the debt, even if my benefactor insists I don't have to repay him. I feel small and inadequate if i am unable to take care of myself due to stupid and irresponsibile mistakes or bad decisions that I, personally, have made.

If I succeed, I take the credit. If I fail, I take the blame. That is what personal responsibility means.

The wealthy are generally wealthy because of they work hard, take calculated risks, and make wise decisions. Those few who were born into wealth cannot stay wealthy by being irresponsible and/or lazy. So, even they have some sense of responsibility.

Those who became wealthy by sheer luck and chance--like those who win a lottery-- usually lose everything because they have never learned personal responsibility.

Remember that man in West Virginia? He won the biggest single lottery prize in history and blew it all with horrendous decision making. Instead of investing his winnings wisely he began spending like a drunken sailor. He used his money up on drinking and gambling, etc. He left large bundles of cash in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the local strip bar, and was surprised to find it gone when he returned. Twice.

I find it disturbing that some people resent those who are wealthier than them simply out of envy. If it upsets you so much that others are wealthy, do something to create your own personal wealth. If you aren't ambitious enough to do what you have to do to make that happen, shut up.

People who resent the wealthy because they themselves feel they were dealt a bad hand are misguided. Wealthy people are to be respected for their ability to create and keep wealth.

People who sit on their duffs and complain that the Government doesn't hand them enough are not to be pitied. They are to be despised.

The Bigger Problem With Illegal Immigration

"Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex"
(The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.) ~ Cicero

On a previous post, I copied the results of a quiz that I took which supposedly matches us up with the Presidential candidate's ideology most closely resembling that of our own. I was disconcerted to find the quiz matched my ideology up more with John McCain that any of the others.

Even more disconcerting than that to me was the fact that none (NONE!) of the candidates agreed with me on the subject of illegal immigration.

For those readers who don't know, or have forgotten my solution to illegal immigration, here's a brief summary:

1. I believe we need to first secure the border. Build a fence or a wall, and if necessary, man it with armed guards as needed, air surveillance, radar, and whatever else is necessary to stop anyone from sneaking across the border. We need to implement this as soon as humanly possible.

Start yesterday.

2. Eliminate any incentives for illegals to remain here. That means prevent, by any means necessary, all businesses from hiring anyone who is in this country illegally. Punish the companies with fines or removal of tax benefits, etc, if they refuse to cooperate.

Eliminate welfare and medical benefits for illegals.

Remove the reason for being here and the illegals will leave by themselves. If they can't make money here, they won't stay here.

Start that yesterday, too.

That, of course, only applies to the illegals that are here to make money.

The most difficult solution of all, but one that needs to be accomplished:

3. Round up as many of the illegal aliens as we can find and deport them. Immediately and finally.

I know many say that is impossible, but, as has been pointed out in several e-mails circulating the net, if we can track down one cow in this whole country with mad cow disease, we should be able to find 12 million illegal aliens.

We all know of the serious strain illegal immigration puts on our nation's economy and if that was the only problem caused by allowing illegals to migrate here unchecked, that would be more than enough reason to get a handle on the problem.

I believe the more serious problem here is the threat to our National security.

Think about the millions of illegal aliens that pour across our borders, both northern and southern, each year that go unnoticed and untracked.

Not all are Mexicans.

They come from every country on Earth, many of the inhabitants of those countries are hostile to America, our American values, and our religious beliefs.

I am speaking specifically about terrorists.

Millions of illegal aliens, and it only takes a few to wreak major havoc on our country. It only took 19 to murder almost 3,000 innocents in one day. Think what could have happened if 19 more had participated.

Think what still can happen if we don't stop illegal entry into our country.

Millions of illegal aliens stroll nonchalantly across our borders and any one of them could be carrying a bomb or some other kind of weapon into our country with them. In fact, every one of them could be potentially dangerous to our National Security.

If the candidate for President you support doesn't take this threat seriously, and, if he/she supports any kind of "amnesty for illegal immigrants" policy, he/she probably doesn't, we could be in serious jeopardy.

If John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama is going to be our next President, it is imperative that we make sure they each hear our voices on this all important issue.

Start yesterday.

Black Wednesday

"Look out, ol' Mackie's back!" ~ Bobby Darin


I've asked this before, and I'm still asking. Has the Republican party in this country gone crazy? Is there a worse Republican candidate than McCain? Is he really a Republican? He doesn't bear much resemblance.

Is he some kind of Svengali? Why are so many voters so infactuated with this man?

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a President McCain is a President Clinton. Any President Clinton. Especially Hillary.

The Virginia state primary is next Tuesday, and although it is probably an exercise in futility, I will cast my vote for Romney.

I think.

At this point, I'm not sure which of the several evils to choose. I really don't trust Romney. Something about him just doesn't seem right to me.

It could be that he managed to get himself elected Governor in a state which is arguably the most Liberal state in the union. There's something wrong with that picture. I figure he must have misrepresented himself to the people of Massachusetts to get their vote.

Is he misrepresenting himself to the Republicans now?

I don't know, and what's more, I think I'm becoming completely disgusted, disgruntled, and apathetic about the whole thing.

I suspect many Republicans feel the same way. I feel like just not voting out of protest.

That's a dangerous thing. The only thing that would more insure a victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, would be to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I would encourage all Republicans to vote Republican, regardless of the candidate.

This country would have difficulty surviving under the Socialist regime of Hillary or Obama.

Are You Kidding Me?

"You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." ~ Aristophanes

Here is yet another of those quizzes that supposedly match you and your ideology with those of the current Presidential candidates. It was created by Minnesota Public Radio, so one would think the questions are Liberally biased, but aside from the question on enviromental policies, it is pretty straight. At least I think so.

Here are my results:

John McCain
Score: 84

Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Education

Disagree:
Immigration
Marriage


Mitt Romney
Score: 63

Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Environment
Education

Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Social Security
Energy
Gun Control


Mike Huckabee
Score: 63

Agree:
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Education

Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy
Environment


Ron Paul
Score: 49

Agree:
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Gun Control
Environment

Disagree :
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Education


Rudy Giuliani
Score: 49

Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Death Penalty
Environment
Education

Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control


Barack Obama
Score: 14

Agree:
Death Penalty
Education

Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment


Mike Gravel
Score: 7

Agree :
Education

Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment


Hillary Clinton
Score: 7

Agree:
Death Penalty

Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Education

How did you do? And how fair are the questions, in your opinion?

Terrorists Cross The Line

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Finally, the Democrats have a reason to get behind the war on terror. From the Liberally biased AP, we learn that the terrorists are now using retarded women (excuse me. I mean women with "special needs") as human bombs.

But that's not the reason Democrats will finally support the war in Iraq.

They are also using young boys with Down's Syndrome.

But that's not the reason for supporting the war either.

The real reason they may finally start expressing outrage over the atrocities commited by Isamic Jihadist terrorists is this:

Terrorists are now starting to murder animals!

They can fly airliners into buildings, killing thousands of innocent humans, and the Libs call them "Freedom Fighters".

They can shout "Death to America" and call for the murder of our people and our leaders, and the Libs think they are just misunderstood.

They can detonate bombs in crowded marketplaces, killing hundreds of their own people, and the Libs demand that we sit down with them over tea and crumpets to ascertain why they don't like us.

They can announce to all the world that their sole mission in life is to kill Jews and Christians and everyone else that isn't Muslim, and the Libs insist America is to blame.

And, as Lone Ranger reminds us, they can cut off heads and the Libs call us war criminals for pouring water in their face.

But now, they are targeting pets, as well as Humans. Now that they have started terrorizing wildlife, Libs must finally recognize they are indeed terrorists.

Now, they have crossed the line.