How goes the war?

So quick post on the war on terror. I was checking out the news feeds via google reader (great re-design by the way) and saw this story coming from AP - "Two U.S. soldiers charged for abusing Afghans". The gist of the story is once again, American troops are abusing detainees and how this will "further erode public support for international troops, now fighting a war in Afghanistan that has entered its eighth year."

Ok - I got it. But why isn't there any good news coming out of these wars? Is there anything that should be praised or highlighted as exceptional or worthy of commendation because the US has taken it upon themselves to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Thanks to the folks at blog.americasnewstoday.com we at least get a reminder that there is some good coming out of our troops presence. The story is entitled 'What the Media Won't Show You: The Face of Freedom" and is short story with this caption:

A grateful refugee camp resident in Kabul, Afghanistan, kisses U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. (Dr.) Yevsey Goldberg, who helped bring more than 550-kilograms of rice and other supplies, Dec. 6, 2008. Goldberg is deployed to International Security Assistance Force Headquarters.

The pic is below and one has to wonder why the AP and other news outlets don't highlight the great work that is being done by the troops.



OS

Take the Civics Test!!

Thanks to a reader for this link to the website for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute that was (according to their website) "...founded in 1953 to further in successive generations of American college youth a better understanding of the economic, political, and ethical values that sustain a free and humane society.". In reading some of their press releases it seems (no surprise) that Americans don't know thier civics.  From their summary of findings:

Of the 2,508 Americans taking ISI’s civic literacy test, 71% fail. Nationwide, the average score on the test is only 49%. The vast majority cannot recognize the language of Lincoln’s famous speech.

The test contains 33 questions designed to measure knowledge of America’s founding principles, political history, international relations, and market economy.

I urge everyone to take the civics test and see where you score. The test is online at http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx. I am really disturbed by the findings and hope this serves as a call to action to students and to parents that we are losing our heritage as a country, a culture and a people (Americans) regardless of your specific race.

A few of the major findings:

1. Colleges Should Teach America’s Heritage (but America's heritage isn't diverse enough)


2. College Adds Little to Civic Knowledge


3. Television—Including TV News—Dumbs America Down (no surprise there!!)


4. Elected Officials Score Lower than the General Public

So what does a failing grade as a society mean? The Intercollegiate Studies Institute conludes that:

Jefferson and Madison hoped to persuade decision-makers in their era to found a college. ISI hopes to have success in re-founding Jefferson and Madison’s vision for higher education. And there is plenty at stake.

If we fail to teach our children how American freedom was established and preserved, we cannot expect them to pass it on to future generations.

How true! Take the test! See how well you score.

By the way, the Outspoken Roman scored a 90.91%. I guess I have some work to do.

OS

Update: Deroy Murdock over at National Review Online has a nice article on the crappy performance of folks taking the online civics test offered by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Murdock also has a nice quote from Thomas Jefferson that I wanted to quote here “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be.”

Truly stated.

OS

If you are not with us, you are against us

So we have the new blacklist being prepared and it is being developed by folks who cry McCarthyism and are defenders of free speech. What do I mean? Case in point - Scott Eckern who is the artistic director for the California Musical Theatre. The Miami Herald reports that Eckern "resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California."

The full story, found at the Sacramento Bee stated that "Despite support from many in the local community who valued his contributions and championed his right to free speech, Eckern decided he could no longer be effective as the creative force behind the area's largest producing and presenting performing arts organization."

So after finding his dream job, Eckern followed his conscience to donate to a cause that he believed in (the preservation of traditional marriage). He obviously did his job well but with all the clamor that erupted after his donation was broadcast on many anti Proposition 8 websites, he decided to resign to "to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theater-going and creative community" as reported in the Sacramento Bee story. This was after a boycott of the theater was called for by some in the arts community. Real tolerant!!

So what do we learn from this? A purge is going on to attack anyone who doesn't toe the party line. In this case it is not anti communists who are pushing some agenda but the gay activists and their supporters who are trolling through communities looking for signs of "intolerance" and "homophobia" and "anti-progressive" ideas. Instead of accepting differences (diversity of thought) the gay activists and their brethren and forcing their agenda down the county's throat with violence and of course with intimidation. I already wrote about the elderly woman who was attacked by gay activists for her opposition to gay marriage. Where will this end? Well it will end one of two ways, gays getting their way through intimidation, judicial fiat or violence or it will end with communities at each other's throats with the traditional values and beliefs being the spoils of the "war". This is a war and one that is being pushed by the extreme homosexual groups who should be wary of the fights they choose to pick.

By the way, Scott Eckern has a sister who is a lesbian but that didn't buy him any consideration from the opponents of Prop 8. The battle for the hearts and minds of this country continues.

OS

The Left - Defenders of the common man except for Joe the Plumber

Ok, the election is over but the fall out continues. I was catching up on the news over the last week and saw a story over at Yahoo that mentioned our old buddy Joe the Plumber that became a debate topic and a follow on focus of a media anal exam. I was always surprised how much the media was able to find out about Joe the Plumber and never make any real connection between Obama and Rev Wright or Obama and Bill Ayers.

So the Yahoo story by way of AP is titled "Report: Records search on Joe the Plumber improper". The crux of the story states that a state computer was used to access Joe's personal information by the Department of Job and Family Services Director (who had used a state computer or e-mail account to support fund raising efforts for Obama's campaign for which she was placed on paid leave). The story states:

An agency director improperly used state computers to find personal information on "Joe the Plumber," a government watchdog said in a report released Thursday.

There was no legitimate business purpose for the head of Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services to order staff to look up the records, Inspector General Tom Charles said.

Investigators weren't able to determine whether the searches were politically motivated, the report said.

"All these searches were done in the midst of a national political campaign," the report said. "But we did not find any evidence that shows the data was accessed or information released in response to media requests in an effort to support any political activity or agenda."

Not politically motivated? There was no evidence found that the agency in question has policy dictating that background checks are done once an individual "emerges into the limelight". This was a private citizen who had 18 background checks done on him by an agency that is headed up by a Obama supporter. Yeah - no conflict there.

The agency director (Helen Jones-Kelley) was suspended by the Governor after this report was released (a month with no pay) but this woman needs to be fired. This was clearly an abuse of the position that Helen Jones-Kelley held and has betrayed the public trust. We cannot have officials supporting the public with such questionable ethics. I call upon Gov Ted Strickland to fire Helen Jones-Kelley and restore faith in his public servants. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The findings of this report have been forwarded to the appropriate  prosecutor's office in Columbus, Ohio. Let's hope justice is done.

OS

Tolerance on display

Thanks for Worldnetdaily for showcasing this display of tolerance and love for each other.

To set this up, California had on the ballot a voter initiative to amend the California Constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. It passed on Tuesday with 52 percent of the vote.

What the opponents of this initiative - Proposition 8, noted was that gay marriage is about love. Ok - well if that is the case, how do explain the following story? (hint - the opponents of Prop 8 and the radical gay lobby hates traditional folks and their religious beliefs and wants to tear them (and the current society and its norms down).

From the WND story:

An angry mob of homosexual activists in Southern California attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross, then shouted her down during a live TV interview as she tried to explain to a reporter her defense of the state's new marriage amendment.

What was the real kicker was this encounter was caught by a local Palm Springs TV news crew (KPSP-TV) and they posted the video on their website. Including when the "elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross" was attacked by protesters and the cross she was carrying was stomped on the ground.

If you don't believe me, the video was posted to the San Francisco State University College Republicans' website. After a brief ad - watch the video around 2:27 in. You actually see the women accosted, shoved and the cross hatefully smashed into the ground.

These are the same people who preach tolerance, love, and of course "free speech". Oh - except for speech that they disagree with (they being gay activists). We should always be on guard as to what these "folks" have in store for us. The Prop 8 opponents had signs that talked about stopping hate. Hah...does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

This is evil.

OS

Where is John McCain?

So the media is rife with stories about the unruly Sarah Palin and her ignorance, lack of experience and demand for fine clothes and I have not heard John McCain actually defend her at all against these slanders from "anonymous" campain sources.

I watched a little of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Palin last night and it struck me that there is another narrative missing to this story - John McCain. This is the same man who attacked Repubblican supporters who developed an ad linking Obama and Rev. Wright (you know..."not God Bless America but God Damn America..." that guy). This is the same man who spoke up at a rally and talked how "We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House". Where is he now when his VP choice is being slammed?

If Palin is ignorant or inexperienced, isn't the issue here McCain's vetting process for a choice of running mate? Doesn't the responsibility for bringing Palin to the national ticke lie with this same campaign who is now disparaging her? Where is Mr. Straight Talk now?

By the way recall it was the selection of Sarah Palin that put McCain in the lead (according to Zogby Poll) over Obama. So is the real problem Sarah Palin or the crappy campaign that McCain ran?

OS

Looking ahead to an Obama Presidency.

Well, this should be a real interesting 4 years. I wonder if we could all take some sort of morning after pill and wake up from this radical change in America's direction.

Anyway - the Boston Globe has a story titled "Checking racism's postelection pulse". The gist of the story is since we now have elected an African American president, is racism dead. My response - of course not. Sorry to say this but there are too many people who make money off of racial racketeering and fear mongering and maligning this country for racism ever to be declared dead. What would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do with themselves?

The story quotes Demetrius Calhoun, a resident of Roxbury as saying "You think because he's president, automatically black people are going to have plenty of jobs and plenty of money? He can't just go and do that."

Did I miss the speech where Obama noted he was going to give out money and jobs to black people? I heard the spreading the wealth around comment but this was new. Secondly, is racism the only cause for anyone not to have money and a job?

So as we are all navel gazing and trying to understand why racism is not dead recall that according to the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (the nation's leading think tank on African-American issues) "84 percent of African Americans prefer Barack Obama over John McCain." Why aren't there stories about the surge in racism against the white candidate (John McCain) in the black community? Hello - CNN? If 84% of White America had voted against Obama, not only would we be electing a different president, we would not be having these conversations about the possible death of racism, but about the continuation of this sordid practice.

I am waiting for the stories as to why Obama enjoyed such popularity? Was it about race? Does Fox News, ABC or CBS have the guts to look at that question? Probably not.

Change is here.

OS

Thomas Sowell on the right to approval

Yeah it is election day and hopefully everyone is going out to vote but articles like this just need to be discussed.

Dr. Thomas Sowell, writing on National Review's website has it once again - just dead right. Writing about gay marriage Sowell notes:

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative-action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

Sowell is right!! This country was not founded on the guarantee of equal outcome, just equal rights and equal opportunity under the Constitution. And there is no 'right to marry'. He continues:

The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

Sowell them takes to task the misconstrued fact of equality and what it does and does not mean for the gay community.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined — and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

This is the real issue that no one wants to talk about. There are plenty of sexual deviants who will be just waiting to take advantage of this legal loophole to push their personal agenda on America. What is wrong with polygamy that the arguments for gay marriage don't address? What is wrong with pedophilia that the same arguments don't apply?

I agree with Sowell. There is a functional structure that is traditional marriage that was based on the foundation of raising children (you know how the human plumbing works?). Anything else should not get nor deserve any sort of sanctity by the US Government.

OS

Sir Alexander Fraser Tytle warns against liberalism

Scottish jurist and historian, Sir Alexander Fraser Tytle had a prescient observation on Athenian Democracy that I am sad to say, seems apropos to today's political climate. This quote is actually brought to us by way of Terry Paulson's commentary over at Townhall.com.

Paulson quotes Sir Alexander Fraser Tytle as noting (with regard to the natural rise and fall of every democracy):

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence; from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."

So my question is - where is the United States in this ebb and flow? What do we hear from the centrist McCain and the liberal Obama but more edicts to give out to the people more goodies to give out and more promises of ensured prosperity. God forbid one of them says no to something (and encourage the individual to provide for him or herself) or as Paulson notes "We've gone from protecting the unfortunate to supporting the irresponsible.". I love that line.

This is why the Ralph Naders and the Pat Buchanans or the Ron Pauls have no real chance of getting elected. There is a large segment of the population that knows it can vote iteself more goodies and more Government largess. It is like having a credit card that they personally never have to pay. Again quoting Paulson - "In America, all citizens are guaranteed "the pursuit of happiness," not happiness given to them by a controlling government." 

We should all as we pull the lever on 4 November heed Tytle's words or ignore them at our peril.

OS

Does the left still believe in checks and balances?

I had my political maturity develop in the 90's under Clinton and the great election in 1994 when Gingrich took over Congress and had a 54 seat swing, giving control of the House to Newt. To be honest, I liked the Contract with America and thought it was a great idea to nationalize local elections and provide a platform that a person was voting for regardless of the local nuances of the election. Brilliant in my opinion. And what were we told – that Americans like balance and checks against an overarching executive branch.

So where do we stand today? Well there is a potential for one party dominance that scares the crap out of me. Reuters by way of Yahoo News is reporting that:

Due largely to the unpopularity of President George W. Bush and the worst U.S. economic crisis since The Great Depression, Democrats may expand their control of the Senate and House of Representatives to the highest levels in decades. They even have a shot at a Senate majority big enough to prevent Republicans from blocking legislation with procedural hurdles.

So the democrats have a chance of getting a filibuster proof majority. Anyone have a problem with this? Basically whatever Obama (if he wins) gets and/or Pelosi or Reid (if they get this majority) wants, gets signed by a (gasp!) President Obama. This does not bode well for this country. But not to be outdone, Howard Dean, talking to Roll Call stated ""Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it's time to give the other party a chance," in an article entitled "Dean: One-Party Rule Would Rule". I have a basic problem with Dean considering a party "rules". That is a term that is reserved for some sovereign entity and isn't it interesting that he (a noted leftie and a Democrat candidate for president) considers government (by the will of the people) as ruling. One more over he sees how great it would be to have no checks on the democrats. Scary stuff but revealing.

So Keith Olbermann noted back in 2006 was on one of his crazy rants about Bush (you know Keith – Mr Fair and Balanced) made a case during the 2006 election as to why it was important to check Bush's power (by electing democrats). He writes on the MSNBC web site (again in 2006):

"Those vaunted Founding Fathers of ours have been so quoted up, that they appear as marble statues: like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore. But in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most was a government of men and not laws.

They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

No one man could run the government the way he saw fit -- unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes.

A Senate would be the corrective force on that House.

An executive would do the work, and hold the Constitution to his chest like his child.

A Supreme Court would oversee it all.

Checks and balances." (Keith Olbermann - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/)

So I am waiting for Keith to write another rant about how we need to ensure a potential President Obama is balanced. But I guess just like "diversity" balance is a term that is used only when someone is not getting what they want. Democratic rule does not need any balance right Keith?

OS

Trying to figure out taxes

Ok, so it doesn't look so good for McCain. Obama has assured everyone that he won't raise taxes (even checked out his website). What his website states as one fact is that "The Obama Plan Provides Generous Tax Cuts for Almost All American Families – and will not raise any tax rate on families making less than $250,000 per year, period!" This is part of the complete Obama tax plan found here - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Facts_FINAL.pdf)

Ok – so what do you pay in taxes? I did some looking and found the 2008 Tax brackets here. There are six tax rates - 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. So a person making a respectable 100k/yr would pay $21978.25 in taxes, around 22% when all is said and done. But recall that Obama is going to probably let the Bush tax cuts expire (as they are supposed to do in 2010) which would increase the rates. Obama states this again on his website – "Under the Obama Plan, No One Will Pay Higher Tax Rates Than They Paid in The 1990s." So what was the rate in 1999 (before the Bush Tax rates). My source is http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/1999_i1040trs.pdf

A person making 100k in 1999 would pay $25779 in taxes. That is a savings of around $3800 – not!!! So if I read the plan right, Obama is actually going to raise taxes on folks making 100k by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Isn't it fair to say that is part of his plan? So how the hell can he say that families making less than $250k will not see their taxes raised?

Don't believe me – check out this story on the USA Today Website. Entitled "Rolling back Bush's tax cuts will pay for proposals, Obama says" Obama is quoted as saying:

"During an hour-long talk, Obama promoted eliminating some of the income tax cuts enacted under President Bush, but resisted characterizing them as a tax increase."

"The Illinois senator said that as president, he would roll back income tax cuts for higher incomes to pay for his policy proposals."

But ok folks – drink the Kool Aid and cast your ballot for Obama. As Jesus said on the Cross – "… forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)". What scares me is that folks know what they are doing and are actually pulling the lever wanting this yahoo in office and his socialist and extreme leftward policies. But what is really important is focusing on Sarah Palin's wardrobe right?

OS

Throwing money at what ails us

Yahoo News has a story on what the World Health Organization (WHO) on the top three killers of mankind. They are (drum roll please) - heart ailments, infectious diseases and cancer. So I went over to the CDC website to see how the US stacks up against this and the CDC reports that the top three killers Heart disease, Cancer and Stroke. So, the next question I had to ask is what do we spend our money on (i.e. what does the US spend money on to combat)? So I went to the National Institute for Health and found that the US spent (this year):

on Cancer 5652 Million = 5.7 Billion
on Heart Disease - 2122 Million = 2.1 Billion
on Stroke - 340 Million

So I say to myself - hey that is respectable - but why is AIDS funding so high?  Currently the US spends 2913 Million in AIDS Funding (that is 2.9 Billion) and that does not include what we kick in to fight Global AIDS. Is this disturbing at all to anyone else? I started poking around and came across the FAIR Foundation (or Fair Allocation in Research) online at http://fairfoundation.org/index.html

FAIR advocates a better allocation of funding for bio-medical research rather than the current favoritism that is given AIDS research as there are more deaths attributed to so many other diseases than the politically charged AIDS. The Fair website also notes:

The amounts spent on the “Health Effects of Climate Change,” "Global Warming Climate Change" and "Climate Change" are greater than the funding for each of these: brain cancer, cystic fibrosis, autism, Down Syndrome, SIDS, child leukemia, cerebral palsy, COPD, Huntington's Disease, Hodgkin’s Disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, uterine cancer and over six thousand other illnesses. 

Why make a disease political? Because AIDS has so much star power behind it I guess. I would much rather see our money going to Alzheimer's research but that is me. FAIR's Mission seems reasonable - "fair and equitable distribution of research funds by our government for all diseases. A disease’s mortality rate shall be given emphasis in determining allocations, and other secondary factors shall be utilized to insure diseases that cause great suffering but have low mortality rates will also receive significantly increased funding." Again - seems reasonable but I guess when we discovered all these nasty little diseases, the researchers didn't bet on the fact that they needed to have Hollywood buy in to their cause to get all that Government Green (aka cash).

And one more thing...President Bush had pledged more than 15 Billion to fight AIDS in his 2003 State of the Union Address. !5 Billion. Well heads up - Obama in 2006 while speaking at the 2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the Church stated:

But our third priority should be to actually boost our contribution to this effort. With all that is left to be done in this struggle - with all the other areas of the world that need our help - it's time for us to add at least an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to places like Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic will soon reach crisis proportions.

Of course, given all the strains that have been placed on the U.S. budget, and given the extraordinary needs that we face here at home, it may be hard to find the money. But I believe we must try. I believe it will prove to be a wise investment.

So in case anyone is counting - that is another $5 Billion. But only those "rich" people are going to get a tax raise. Yeah right.

OS

Quick weekend note on politics and economics

Thanks to Drudge for this great story out of the SouthCoastToday.com that quotes one of our many local embarrassments, Rep Barney Frank. Frank states that the Dems want to have another stimulus package post a presumably Obama win. Stimulus package = bribe for folks to go out and spend money they don't have on things they don't need so the economy looks like it is improving. This new stimulus package would include "... money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday."

So extended unemployment benefits? And why would we need those...well if you continue to read the story it seems that Frank also wants a 25% cut in the military budget. He (Frank) is qouted as saying "... the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay."

Heads up you military contractors as well as "upper-income taxpayers". First off, the focus on a democtatic administration will be on cutting the military budget that pays for a lot of the high tech work that is going on in the industry. Good thing there will be extended unemployment benefits. And of course there is the swipe at those upper-income taxpayers. I read the story and didn't see anywhere what the upper income was according to Rep. Frank but the story did end with this quote: "And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said."

Note - not upper bracket but upper brackets [plural]. There is no flipping way Obama can pay for all the social engineering and government programs he wants to implement by taking only those that make $250000 or more. And in doing so, what he telegraphs is his lack of appreciation for the workers out there that bust their hump to make more and to give their family more (I count myself among them at least with my attitude). What Obama is doing is removing incentive to hard work and applying incentive to vote democrat for more hand outs. Why would I want a raise and take on more work or responsibility if the net outcome is me actually paying more to the Government? What is this...Bizarro world?

All you people that think that it is ok to take from someone else so you get a little more are actually promoting and supporting a socialistic Government and view (unfairly in my opinion) the "rich" as folks who have gotten their wealth by somehow cheating you and others like you. In 2007 37.3 million people which is 12.5 percent of the total U.S. population were reported living in poverty. Is it due to Bill Gates or the other "rich folks" in America? Unfortunately that seems to be the message coming from Obama - economics is a zero sum game where for one person to get rich, someone else must lose. But don't worry!! Obama wants to help out...as he is quoted from Fox News below after his now infamous encounter with Joe the Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There you have it folks - let's spread that wealth around but we need the Government to help out. What - so wealth is like jelly on an English Muffin? Actually what I think is true that if the economy is good for folks from the top down, it is good for everybody because the top folks have the money and are taking the risks and are hiring employees, truly spreading the wealth around. The only thing Government can do in this model is get in the way.  I can't believe this guy is so close to the Presidency. 

OS

The persistence of racism?

So let me get this straight - Obama is a heart beat away from the Presidency and instead of celebrating this, some in the media want to focus on the persistence of racism in the US. Case in point - Reuters reported yesterday that "Ugly election incidents show lingering racism". The evidence -

"A cardboard likeness of Barack Obama was found strung from fishing wire at a university, the Democratic presidential nominee's face was depicted on mock food stamps, the body of a black bear was left at another university with Obama posters attached to it."

I didn't see any mention in the article about the halloween display that showed Obama running from John McCain dressed as a KKK Klansman. 



Thanks to http://www.whudat.com/for the image. Wouldn't this be considered Racism? What about the fact that "84% of black voters identify themselves as Obama supporters". Isn't this a little racist? Shouldn't the media do some investigating and ascertain why Obama has such a high level of support from the Black Community and why McCain does not? I am sure it is not due to race. 

To make matters a little more confusing, there is an article today that states "Surging Obama campaign suggests US racism on the wane" on the Christian Science Monitor website. The article quotes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter as saying “The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States would be the greatest thing for racial reconciliation and racial understanding that we could have happen in this country,”. This country should not elect a president to send a message about racial reconciliation in my humble opinion. We should elect the person who can best lead this country for the next four years given the uncertain nature of our economy, culture and the world. To cast a vote for anything other than that seems foolhardy and quite frankly racist.

Newsweek Magazine had a story that was entitled "What if Obama loses"? The story focused on the African American community and their reactions if (a big "if") John McCain is elected President. The story notes that "(t)here's not a lot of anger—yet—but you can start to sense the potential for it." Nothing like a little threat to get the blood pumping right? The story continues with a quote from Daetwon Fisher, 21, a construction worker from Long Beach, Calif. "I'm going to be mad, real mad, if he doesn't win" Fisher states "Because for him to come this far and lose will be just shady and a slap in black people's faces. I know there is already talk about protests and stuff if he loses, and I'm down for that." 

So what can we take from this? That if Obama loses it will be shady and not fair? What message is being communicated to these people? That the establishment is against them and that they can't expect a fair shake. This is truly sad for me to read as it is indicative of just how far the racial divide is and how it is continuing to be reinforced. What if Obama loses because a majority of voters reject his socialist policies? What if Obama loses because of his inexperience? What if America doesn't want an extreme liberal agenda pushed on it and most Americans were proud of their country even before Obama came onto political scene (remember Michelle Obama's remark "“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change").

In any event, if Obama loses it will not be because he is black, it is because he is the lesser of the two candidates. Hey - someone had to say it.

OS

Why relationships matter.

So like a lot of people, folks in my circle of friends are wondering why Obama's relationship with a terrorist is a big deal? They cite that Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers did all those bad things and it isn't indicative of his (Obama's) feelings.

Well why did Obama (and his wife) continue to be friends with Ayers and his wife? Shouldn't folks like that be ostracized by civilized society? Isn't it illustrative that Ayers has not repented. Fox News (The Oreilly Factor) reports that Ayers stated in 2002 that:

"I considered myself partly an anarchist then. I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist, which is to say, you know, I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing. "

Does anyone have a problem with this sort of person being someone Obama, potentially our next President is friendly with? Do we want Ayers sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom? A person is not allowed to join the military if he or she has been  involved with a group who advocates the violent overthrow of the government. Given that Obama will be Commander in Chief (God Forbid) - shouldn't that at least give us pause and demand a full accounting by the lapdog media as to who this terrorist is?

Does anyone remember Trent Lott? Trent Lott was the Senate Republican Leader when at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond (who ran for President in 1948 as a Dixiecrat)  stated "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." So some remark at a party referring to a Presidential race in 1948 was enough for the media, the left and some republicans to call for Lott's resignation. He eventually resigned his Senate Leadership post. 

Relationships matter and who we associate with matters as it reveals much about ourselves and what we cherish. Look to the people who are associated with Obama and McCain and the other politicians that we are choosing to lead this country in November. Better yet, imagine you are looking to enter into a relationship with someone, possibly long term. Doesn't his or her friends, associates as well as his or her character matter? Shouldn't we at least have a similar metric for our President?

OS

Opening Salvo

I am a transplant from Google's Blogger site (my old site is here - http://outspokenroman.blogspot.com/) and since I didn't want Google to control everything, I thought I would shift my musings/rants to WordPress. So far, it has been a smooth transition.

So what do I write about? Usual comments on the culture and political scene. I am not a fan of Liberalism and Liberals in general as plans that call for more government control over our lives just strike me as the opposite of freedom. I believe in the Constitution and feel it has served this country well for more than 200 years and doesn't need to be a "living" document to maintain its relvancy for our society today. I believe our rights as citizens do not come from Government therefore Government can't take them away - a great provision put in place by the founders of this country. Too many people want to sacrifice their freedoms for a measure of security - an idea I find shocking. 

Living in Boston offers up many opportunities to rant about the senseless and the innane and for that I am thankful. This state is full of loony folks and offer me more than enough ammunition to keep me amused and to keep this blog full.

Final thought - P.J. O’Rourke said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. Thoughts like that keep me warm at night. 

So away we go.

Gas prices today

WBZ TV has a story noting that gas has dropped below $3.50 a gallon. Some folks would say "yahoo" but this actually reflects that the debate about gas prices is over and the middle class lost. The story states that last year, gas was at an average of $2.67 a gallon and I believe that our focus will not be on what it used to be but the discussion will move to either what gas was at its highest so far or how much other countries are paying.

My point is that once again, we are being fed a line of crap about how much gas has dropped (8 cents lower than last week) but we are still paying incredbily high prices that are do not support or sustain current lifestyles. We are supposed to be "happy" that gas is only $3.50 a gallon which is still alomst a dollar more than last year. Where will the extra $ come from from your or my budget?

Congress doesn't care. They probably write off their gas budgets or get driven around and don't have to write a check to pay these high fuel costs. We are supposed to bow down and thank them for doing nothing basically when they represent a disconnected segment of our society. Presidential candidates debate about giving a gas tax holiday when we have lost the debate already about our dependence on foreign oil. This is a real security crisis and one that hits the weakest and poorest among us.

So whopeee - we have low gas!! Actually we don't. We have turned the corner and will forget the days when $2.67 was expensive and we will all need to realign our budgets to address fuel costs that will never go back down again (global warming and all that), trade in our SUVs and buy Honda Civics (great cars by the way) and listen to stories that crow about how great we have it and be prepared to pay more and get less. While somewhere the Sierra Club is laughing as they have gotten their way - changing the culture and society of this country - without firing a shot (in a manner of speaking of course).

OS

Some sensibility coming out of Laredo

AP via Yahoo News has a story I have been following regarding a homeowner who shot and killed an intruder during a break in to his home. From the story:

It took the jury of eight men and four women three hours Friday to find Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, not guilty of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends broke into Gonzalez's trailer to rummage for snacks and soda one night in July 2007.

So let us start with a little correcting. Who cares why Anguiano and his friends broke into the trailer. Like it should be ok since they were just looking for 'snacks'. So what should Gonzalez have done - point them to the pantry and said "help yourselves to some Twinkies"? Anguiano was a thief and broke into Gonzalez's trailer to steal..isn't that all that needs to be known?

The story also states that "Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property". I better check the laws here in Massachusetts as I wonder why that is only a Texas law - that should be a US law...but I digress.

So the Attorney General (Uriel Druker) believed that this was a case of vigilantism. He is quoted in the story as stating "A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged." Again, this is actually not true. A 13-year old boy was killed because he decided to break into a private residence and steal. Cause and effect?

We should have the right to protect and defend private property. If we don't then it really isn't private and we are noy the country that the founders built.

OS

From National Review - "Why 9/11"

I didn't do a post on 9/11 but obviously it is never far from most minds. Having friends in NYC make it seem a little more real to me or maybe it is a little more personal but it still remains an open sore for this country [and I reject the phrase "tragedy" and don't use it as 9/11 was an attack and assault on our country that resulted in the deaths of 3000+ innocent Americans].

So I was over at National Review and just read a great article that was posted on 22 Sept 2008 written by Larry Franklin, a counter terrorism specialist and an Air Force colonel entitled Why 9/11?

Mr. Franklin lays out the historical significance of the 11 Sept date with facts I at least had not heard before. First off, he mentions a passage from the Quran (Surah 9, Part 11) that:

"is the only chapter of the 114 chapters in the Quran that does not open with the salutation “In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.” This is a purposeful elision, as there can be no mercy, no compassion for us infidels."

Mr. Franklin also notes that "9/11/1683 that the forces of militant Islam pressed their jihad critically close to achieving the continental conquest of Europe". These Islamic forces were defeated by armies led by the Polish King John Sobieski and German and Austrian forces under the Duke of Lorraine in Vienna and the flag of the victorious forces still fly over the site.

Other 11 Sept dates Mr. Franklin shares with us

• September 11, 1481, that Venetian sailors turned back the Ottoman Caliphate’s fleet off the shores of Otranto in southern Italy.
• 9/11/1990 was the date that President George H. W. Bush declared a “New World Order.” Franklin notes that "(in) the speech’s opening paragraphs, (President Bush) spoke of our troops arrayed in Arabia. This assertion was anathema to many Muslims — who remembered the Prophet’s admonition that no infidel troops should ever occupy any land on the Island of the Arabs (al-Jazirah al Arabiyah)"
• 9/11/1979, Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin at Camp David [under President Carter]. He was later assassinated. Interesting to note that the assassination had a religious opinion approving the act issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It was a great and insightful article were Mr. Franklin makes the case that Muslim fanatics know their history and the significant events that have transpired in the past and the defeats that their "global jihad" have experienced. In concluding the article Franklin states:

"It would be prudent for our policymakers and intelligence czars to become more sensitive to the Islamic radicals’ worldview and sense of history. They believe their hour has arrived. They remember the incredible defeat of two empires by Muslim armies in Islam’s first century."

Why wouldn't Allah help them with their attack against the West? Franklin continues:

"It is time for our political leaders and their national-security advisers to better educate themselves and our citizenry so that we can mobilize our population for what will prove to be our longest war, one that may determine whether the last best hope on earth will endure."

Great article and well worth reading.

OS

Thoughts on the debate

McCain and Obama are going at it in Mississippi and CNN HD is doing a great job with the coverage. Jim Lehrer seems to want to candidates to fight or at least bicker back and forth but my impression is that McCain is taking Obama to school. McCain seems reasoned and experienced and Obama seems like a petulant child. There is a distinct difference between the two.

I like how Obama when asked about his spending he noted that "he" was going to pay for it. Yeah right - we will be paying for his spending plan.

One thing that irks me is the way Obama keeps referring to McCain as "John" and I haven't heard McCain once call Obama "Barack". Obama is trying to marginalize McCain and it is not working.

This is good TV.

Thank God for Health Officials

On the front page of Boston.com today is a story that trans fats are now verboten in Boston thanks to state health authorities in Massachusetts. What is even more interesting is the story states that the (the afore mentioned health authorities) are looking into a statewide ban of trans fats.

"Instead, a spokesman for the state's public health commissioner said a review of the agency's powers suggested that only the Legislature can impose a statewide prohibition on trans fat, long a staple of french fries, doughnuts, and other food sold in restaurants and corner stores."

So to ensure all the restaurants in Boston are complying there will be a slew of investigators checking Boston's 5000+ restaurants for compliance:

"City inspectors will check for evidence of trans fat during their routine visits to restaurants, and while health authorities said they do not intend for the regulations to be punitive, violators can be fined as much as $1,000."

So with everything else this state is dealing with, this is what our tax dollars are going toward? Don't the state health officials have something better to do than play "daddy" to restaurants that are frying up french fries in non approved oil?

What is next (yep - here comes the slippery slope argument)? If the motivation is "everything to do with health" according to Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, think about what sort of things fall under that very general statement? Why not mandatory physical training? Why not state inspectors to ensure all menus on the 5000+ restaurants conform to the Government Recommended Daily Allowance of specific food groups? Why not ban sugar? This reminds me of the abuse under the "general welfare" clause that Washington has used to basically throw a big Government solution to all of this country's aliments.

Be warned folks. This country has already changed dramatically towards a socialist like direction. No longer are there really two distinct views between the two major political parties, instead there is a diluted servitude and indenturement against a political philosophy that wants to impose it "now". The argument for rugged individualism has been abandoned. For those of us who are looking at the current national political climate, what we see in Boston is what we are seeing in the nation. Government can not guarantee a paycheck, no crime, no war, economic prosperity, and decent, family friendly shows on TV so why should it be in the business of trying to guarantee everyone makes the healthiest choice when eating out? We do not need nor should we have Government run lives. We are a better people than that, and a better country.

At least that is my opinion.

OS

McCain choice for VP is a "conservative"

Fun times are being had at the NY Times, Boston Globe and other entrenched leftist outfits with the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President on the Republican Ticket. My thoughts on the Palin choice I will hold for another post but if anything it is a politically brilliant move by McCain. But here is the thing...Palin is a conservative. She is pro-NRA, pro-life and religious...uh oh. The media are having a field day with this...

Brent Bozell's newest column on this subject states (in part):

When Palin was picked, the (Washington) Post couldn’t stop pounding away on her conservatism. The lead story underlined: "The self-described 'hockey mom' brings a blue-collar conservatism and strong antiabortion views to the ticket." Another story on the front-page called her "the pro-gun, antiabortion governor of Alaska." The caption under her picture noted Palin was "a conservative with strong antiabortion views."

Palin is also taking flack for seeking such a demanding position (VP) with a baby with Down's syndrome (yeah - why didn't she just have an abortion...what sort of role model is she?) and other disturbing accusations (yes I know her 17 year old daughter is pregnant). But did you know Gov. Palin was a conservative?

Rush Limbaugh recounts a story in one of his books about when he got famous. He noted that he gained additional names - no longer was he "Rush Limbaugh" but "conservative Rush Limbaugh" or "right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh" as if the media that was writing about him had to qualify their description of him with that amplifying information. As he notes...no one ever introduced Larry King as the "liberal talk show host Larry King".

So with the Palin stories, her conservatism is put in the forefront of stories about her. Fair you say? Ok - but how was Joe Biden introduced?

Boston Globe Online, in their story "Foreign policy got Biden the VP nod" reported some glowing praise for Biden (some quotes were from Obama introducing Biden):

"Biden could also attract former supporters of Hillary Clinton, who yesterday praised Obama's choice of Biden, calling him "an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant.""

"After weeks of speculation, Obama settled on Biden because of a combination of personal chemistry with the Delaware senator (and) Biden's foreign policy résumé"

""For decades, he has brought change to Washington, but Washington hasn't changed him."

"He's an expert on foreign policy whose heart and values are firmly rooted in the middle class."

"He has stared down dictators and spoken out for America's cops and firefighters."

"He is uniquely suited to be my partner as we work to put our country back on track."

But the National Journal Online reports that "His composite liberal score of 94.2 placed him as the 3rd most-liberal senator in 2007, two ticks behind Barack Obama, who was the most liberal senator last year with a score of 95.5." The Boston Globe didn't think to mention that?

A similar story in the online Boston Globe from 2 Sept 2008 entitled "Palin provides a striking alternative" mentions Palin hunts, fishes, opposes abortion and a lifetime member of the NRA. Ok, just so we are clear, Palin is not "one of us" the Globe seems to be saying. Or as Maureen Dowd so snottingly put it recently, she hasn't even been on Meet the Press - what is this country coming to?

Stories on Palin and her 'conservative ideals' will be plastered all over the place as an attempt to discredit her and those that may "swing" to support John McCain rather than Obama. The media don't want people voting for the "woman", they want people voting for the Democrats. How silly...What you are getting with Obama and Biden is the most liberal ticket so far and the media are so worried about this Governor from Alaska that they are throwing their objectivity out the window...I know - "what objectivity".

Say it with me folks - "there is no media bias"....yeah right.

OS

TV continuing to weird me out

Catching up on my reading and I see Brent Bozell's column over at Townhall.com has a particularly horrifying subject with his usual spot on commentary. It seems that the show America's Next Top Model has as a contestant a transgender which is a person who diverges from the normal gender role (i.e. a man dressing up and acting like a woman). The contestant "Isis" can be seen on the show's website here - http://www.cwtv.com/shows/americas-next-top-model11/cast/isis

Bozell writes:

Us magazine is treating "Isis" like some sort of courageous pioneer for civil rights, as if she was the Martin Luther King of cross-dressing, or perhaps the new Rosa Parks of castration. (The "girl" still has male genitalia.) They asked, "Will she be a role model?" The contestant would only promise: "I like to help people, but I'm here to follow my dreams."

Bozell is spot on but there is more to this story. What happens when (my prediction) she/he (?) doesn't win? I am sure there will be charges of bias and some sort of phobia and how America is so backward that it can't accept a transgendered person as its (supposedly) next top model. I have no experience with transgendered folks but it seems to me that we are continuing to shave off any specific differences between the genders and between roles and forget about asking if we have gone too far..I am worried about what is the next cultural violation TV will foist upon an unexpecting public - who watches this crap anyway?

Just like Obama will lose because of his policies (not because of his race) "Isis" will lose not because of transphobia but because deep down he looks wierd. Men were not made to be women and vice versa. If this show really looks for the potential models to "...demonstrate both inner and outer beauty as they learn to master complicated catwalks, intense physical fitness, fashion photo shoots and perfect publicity skills..." I just can't believe that a man can compete on the same level as "real" women who I would guess have no small amount of (at least) physical beauty - which after all is what sells the product these models are shilling for in the first place right?

Sadly (not really) I will not be following "Isis's" journey but unfortunately too many other people will. And they say there is nothing good on TV anymore...

OS

Duke case - again

Fox News is reporting that the woman who accused (falsely) three Duke Lacrosse players of raping her is writing a memoir.

The story quotes from the official release:

The press release for the memoir says that Crystal Gail Mangum has been "called an exotic dancer and a prostitute, and the public was led to believe she wanted to frame some 'good college students' from Duke and put them in jail. ...

Uhh - didn't she accuse three innocent students of rape? What was her intention? Wasn't she an exotic dancer (the reason she was at the Duke Lacrosse party to begin with)? This really takes gall to come out now and tell this story.

The press release (that you can see up at Free Republic) states that 'she never spoke publicly, that is until now. ' and why is that? Why would someone stand on the sidelines and let three innocent students get pilloried in the press, get attacked by professors at Duke and forced to defend themselves against bogus charges?

The press release notes that "Crystal Magnum is donating one dollar from the purchase of each book to help battered women. " How about donating the money she makes to the three students who suffered because of her? Too harsh? How about donating the money she makes to the police who had to handle her bogus claims rather than pursue real crime? Again, too harsh? How about donating the money to Duke University so it could run a seminar on how not to "pre-judge" just because the accuser is black and the defendants are white. I suppose I am beating a dead horse here.

The real crime of this issue is that it is off the front page but we have learned nothing from it.

OS

Swiftboating Obama?

Jerome Corsi has a new book that is doing quite well in book sales called "The Obama Nation". Corsi was the author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry for which our culture got the term "swiftboating".

Well the Obama campaign has issued a 40-page rebuttal to Corsi's book "arguing the author is a fringe bigot peddling rehashed lies." Ok, that is fair. But in reading the AP story I saw this quote:

The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.

So, why does Obama need to release a rebuttal? The Associated Press has already pronounced the book false. Isn't that good enough? I like the unbiased reporting (i.e. commentary) in a news story. Note the sarcasm there. The AP story also takes a swipe at WorldNetDaily.com that publishes Corsi's column noting :

Corsi writes for World Net Daily, a conservative Web site whose lead headline Thursday was "Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice."

So a indirect (or direct) link to Corsi's "false rumors" and a report of Bigfoot on ice. Hmm - no bias there either. For the record, Worldnetdaily is a great site that offers a range of diverse opinions and impactful and at times "off beat" news. What site doesn't - Yahoo offers an Odd News section that has these nifty stories:

King penguin receives Norwegian knighthood
Man banned from girlfriend's home after noisy sex
Winnie-the-Pooh held for robbery?

Also there is a link to ABC News story entitled "Legend of Bigfoot: Discovery? Try Hoax." I guess the AP needs to ensure that anyone who writes for ABC News gets the same type of derision that Corsi has gotten.

Final question for the AP - why is "The Obama Nation" a best seller? Maybe the AP should try reporting the news rather than telling us their opinion of it. Obama is lucky to have such willing accomplices in the media to do hit pieces like this one on authors and commentators who are not in line with Obama's ascension. Next time you hear someone on the left talk about how great diversity is, take a right-wing position (even for "kicks") to see a reaction that is not in line with their supposed appreciation for diversity. AP should be ashamed of this "report".

OS

What is the standard in religion these days?

Although I am not an Anglican I can sympathize somewhat with the current Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The AP reports Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, struggling to hold together the troubled world Anglican family, urged church leaders gathered Sunday in England not to consecrate another gay bishop, saying the fellowship will be in "grave peril" without a moratorium." He has got that right. Not only is this denomination in "peril" but so many of the other religions are facing the exact same challenge and usually choosing the "wrong" one in my opinion.

The story also states that "The 77 million-member Anglican Communion has been splintering since 2003, when the U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire." That is worth noting - a 77 million member community is breaking up due a gay man was consecrated as a Episcopalian Bishop. So this community is being fractured due to the dictates and desires of one man. Can we get any more selfish? This new bishop by forcing his defining characteristic (his sexual orientation) to the forefront of the church community has actually threatened the faith that he has been sworn in to serve.

What is more telling is that what is the standard now? I have always maintained that for religious folks, the church and the teachings of God is the standard which they measure themselves and their religion against. The Church is the standard that society meets (again for religious folks) not the other way around (Society is the standard (cultural mores) and the Church changes with the winds of society). So a religion has a certain belief about homosexuality and instead of the congregation and potential bishop abiding by the teachings of the church a change is forced to 'adjust the church' the personal opinions. I have a problem with this not because I feel one way or the other about sexual orientation but because I believe in some guardrails and standards that are a little bit bigger than someone's personal proclivities.

My feeling is that a person joins a religion because he or she wants to answer some of the questions that we all deal with - questions larger than ourselves. I am sure Catholics find specific affinities for Church teachings and dictates of the Pope. If a person is out of step with the religion, why should the religion conform to that person instead of the person conforming to the Church teachings? Did Moses distill the Word of God to conform to his personal beliefs or did it begin and end (Alpha and Omega) with God?

To expect a church to dilute or change their teachings on specific instances of cultural issues due to a small minority is at a minimum suspect (so the church appears more "in tune" with society) and in grander scale, actually a potential death knell of the religion. Which is not far off from what I would suspect, many cultural elites who sound off about the anachronistic teachings of one religion or the other would desire (the end of religion in general that dare "judges" someone's personal behavior). Religion is changing and trying to be more culturally hip and with that move, becoming something different than what drew so many people to its pews to begin with?

I wonder if Radical Islam is having these discussions within its congregations?

OS

Is the country on the wrong track?

More politics coming at you. Yahoo has a story courtesy of the AP that reports that at a recent campaign stop Obama criticized McCain for thinking the country is on the right track.

"These anxieties seem to be growing with each passing day," Obama said on a campaign trip in this economically ailing battleground state. "We can either choose a new direction for our economy or we can keep doing what we've been doing. My opponent, John McCain, thinks we're on the right track."

The audience booed and hissed at such nonsense but thank goodness we have Obama offering up "something new". Like middle class tax cuts (that almost every politician including Bill Clinton was for). Obama is also for the ever popular "change" which is always a crowd pleaser. It worked for Bill Clinton against Bush playing on the country's need for change from the status quo (Republican Presidents for 12 years) and Obama is using the same ploy, hoping for similar results.

The Yahoo Story also noted that when asked (based on an AP-Ipsos poll) "77 percent said they thought the country was on the wrong track. The same poll set President Bush's approval rating at 28 percent." So of course Obama is also linking McCain to President Bush and the President's low approval numbers. But heads up Obama. You may want to check your own party's approval numbers for its leadership. A similar AP-Ipsos poll has Congress' approval rating at 18%, actually better than the current President. Seems like the "public" wants change also in Congress. I didn't find that mentioned in the AP Story. So the question is, will Obama make a break with the current Democrat leadership like Speaker Pelosi?

Seems like McCain may have at least a nice rebuttal as opposed to a good political platform.

OS

McCain does not offer much originality but then neither does Obama

Ok, so here we are in full swing of the campaign season. I don't understand the fascination with Barack Obama - what are Obama's credentials for President? Is the fascination with Obama that he is something new and fresh? Or is it something a little more "on the surface". Something to explore in the upcoming months.

So thanks to Yahoo News we get a story that McCain is promising to cut Government spending. Wow - how original. I think even John Kerry mentioned something about cutting out the waste in Government. I think he was thinking of focusing on the non essentials like the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies but maybe I have that wrong (sarcasm...).

So does the story think this is a good thing? Well news is supposed to be unbiased right - (there is no liberal bias according to Helen Thomas). Well Yahoo states:

"In just about any election, candidates promise to save money by cutting waste. It’s a pledge line in a speech that draws cheers from conservatives, but can become white noise to voters who’ve seen too many elected officials pledge fiscal responsibility, only to fail to deliver. Indeed, the path is so strewn with broken promises, there is little risk for candidates making the pledge because expectations are so low that they’ll make good on it."

So McCain is probably lying about this right? And more so, since expectations are so low there is little risk to McCain for such a pledge. I wonder if Yahoo and other news stories will remember this if McCain is elected or will they dodge him at every step asking how he has reduced the size of Government. I will leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Second thing I would like to highlight is this quote:"It’s a pledge line in a speech that draws cheers from conservatives,...". Let me get this straight...liberals don't want to cut waste? Why does a line like this draw conservative praise only? I just checked Obama's website and saw at least two major sections under his "Fiscal" Issues.

1. Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient
2. End Wasteful Government Spending

And as far as I know Obama's rhetoric is not only intended for conservatives. Oh, and one more thing. Part of Obama's platform is to "Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington". I seem to have read something similar in John McCain's platform. Yep, I did.

So color me confused. John McCain is not the conservative candidate, he is the candidate that the Boston Globe and the New York Times wanted because of that exact reason. McCain has a lot more to worry about then his urge for fixed-price contracts (which aren't always a good thing). But I find it funny that the Yahoo Story is telling the reader how difficult it may be for McCain to sell this plan since he admits that economic issues are not his "strong suit".

So noted Senator McCain. You have plenty of other issues that you are "strong" in. It was nice for the Yahoo story to point that out. Just what issues are not in Obama's strong suit? Where is he weak? I am sure that will be part of the next glowing portrayal of the Democratic contender.

OS

McCain is right about something

Not too jazzed about the race for the White House as the differences between the candidates are not as distinct as I would like them to be - but no one is listening to me anyway.

McCain is reported (at ABC News' Political Radar Blog) as suggesting:

"...Sen. Barack Obama may alter his promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months after meeting with US. General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq.

"I'm glad that he [Obama] is, for the first time, asking for a sit down briefing with Gen. Petraeus and I'll be very interested in what his position on Iraq is when he returns," McCain said during a satellite interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson Wednesday from Pittsburgh."

As I noted in my previous post Obama cannot (IMHO) hold to his current timetable to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months or less. Welcome to the party Senator McCain. Here is another softball for you - USA Today (and others) are reporting that Obama said "that the nation's chief priority should not be for immigrants to learn English, but for American children to learn Spanish". Any chance you want to chime in on this asinine statement? This is an easy one. Sure he said "immigrants should learn English" but my question is what policies is he putting in place to support that? Stick up for America Senator McCain - recapture some of your conservative credentials that so far in this campaign have been lacking.

YouTube video is here.


Outspoken Roman

Obama begins to get real on Iraq

I wrote previously on a story that came out of CNN back in September 2007 about the Dem candidates not willing to vow a pullout of Iraq by 2013. My feeling is that cold realism would hit the new president in the face come Jan 2009 and he (or she) would realize that this issue is a lot more complex than the right or the left thinks it is (like the lefties who think a President Obama will sign a withdraw order the first day he is in office).

So MSNBC has a story (this is also all over the news) that Obama has opened the door to potentially changing his Iraq Policy. So what is his policy - well if I can trust Obama's own website I get this info:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq."

So I think that is a load of crap but at least it seems clear to understand. So the MSNBC story had this quote from Obama when asked about his upcoming trip to Iraq. When asked Obama stated "“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll have more information and continue to refine my policy.” So his policy may be refined? Does this imply that he fully didn't grasp the issues before he chose to criticize Clinton and the President? Probably.

The MSNBC story also states:

"But later in the session, he said it is possible the 16-month timeline could slip if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. “I have always said ... I would always reserve the right to do what’s best,” Obama said."

Nice to give yourself a back door isn't it Obama? Yahoo News, following up on the probably shift in Obama's policy stated why Obama is different than President Bush:

"I'm not somebody who, like George Bush, is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions. I want to pay attention to what is happening on the ground."

That is rich!! In my opinion it is the left's preconceived notions about Iraq that has driven Obama to strike his course to the extreme left on this issue and to garner their support he has been unwilling to examine the issue himself (he has not even been to Iraq - something McCain has called him on). I can see the front page when/if he gets elected - "To do the best for the troops and because President Bush's inability to plan I am extending the Miltary action in Iraq". You left wingers are actually trusting this guy.....?

We will see.

OS

A thought on the passing of Jesse Helms

Yahoo News by way of Reuters reports on the death of Jesse Helms:

Former Sen. Jesse Helms, a die-hard anti-communist firebrand who championed a wide range of conservative causes in his 30 years in the Senate, died early on Friday, aged 86, a foundation dedicated to his legacy said.

Helms was a leader in many of the issues critical to this country and its survivability as the nation it was set up to be in my opinion. But he of course had his critics. I love it when someone who apparently wants to be non-judgmental criticizes the deceased senator since he just can't help it.

Note this entry by David Waters over on the Newsweek Blog "Under God". Entitled "Judgment and Jesse Helms" Waters begins with this:

"Most of us have strong opinions about public figures, especially politicians and especially those we've never met. But my grandfather taught me never to speak ill of the dead.

So I'll pass on passing judgment on the late Sen. Jesse Helms, who seemed to spend so much of his life passing judgment on anyone who didn't fit his narrow view of what is right and good and Christian."

So while avoiding passing judgment on Helms, Waters does call Helms "bigoted" and "mean-spirited" and a "product of a particularly exclusive, judgmental and nationalistic strain of Christianity."

This is the liberal view of being non-judgmental. I love the hypocrisy!! Waters starts off describing how magnanimous he is going to be out of respect for the deceased and then starts to rip into Senator Helms because he was mean to certain groups and misconstrued the teachings of Christ. If only we all had the insight that Waters has!!

Well my father taught me never to speak ill of stupid hypocrites who want to explain to me how misguided we all are on the major issues of the day - so in my most non-judgmental way I will ask Mr. Waters to have the courage to own up to the fact that you couldn't resist taking a few last potshots at Jesse Helms to demonstrate your witty repartee (especially your closing line).

One more thing - Waters has a quote that "Helms saw atheism, socialism and liberalism "infecting" his Christian nation." Obviously this nation is mainly Judeo-Christian but guess what - Helms had that right!!

OS

Yes Virginia, there is a Right to Bear Arms

I wrote back in March about the Supreme Court taking up the issue of the Second Amendment. I admittedly was somewhat optimistic given the current make up of the court. Well I am happy to report that the Supreme Court goes this one right.

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER the Court decided that the District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Nice!!!

The ruling actually went further by noting that the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense violates the 2nd Amendment as well.

This is not to say that there can't be reasonable gun laws - there can. What this does say though is that there is a true right to bear arms and we don't have to be part of a militia or any other nonsense that the Left throws out. We Americans have a right also for self defense and my general feeling (to quote John Lott) is More Guns, Less Crime.

The Court's opinion and dissent can be found here.

Now if only the Court could get decide that child rape is crime worthy of the death penalty.

OS

John McCain is not entitled to free speech

I am reading Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" and it is instructive to get the history lesson of the Left actually advocating what can only be called fascist solutions to many of the issues that the United States has dealt with since Woodrow Wilson and WW I and carried through to present day.

Anyway, I saw this article when I was reading Yahoo News and was specifically reading the local news section for Lexington, Bedford and Concord. The local news website for towns in this area has been renamed "Wicked Local" and admittedly I don't "get" the nature of the name. Wicked Local? This isn't some stupid attempt by the web site authors to sound "hip" and appeal to the young? Not sure but I digress.

So the local news for Lexington has a story about John McCain's solution to breaking the US' dependence of foreign oil called "The Lexington Project" which apparently is irritating many of the locals of Lexington, Ma where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4 to 1. John McCain has named the project "for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."Sounds good right? Does anyone not think we should cut the cord with respect to foreign oil - especially as it relates to our national security?

Well not the residents of Lexington. At the local Lexington news site a "consultant" who works in Lexington is quoted as saying:

“I don’t think he should be able to do that, I don’t see the correlation. It has nothing to do with Lexington.”

So let me get this straight - this person (a Chris Peaden) missed the correlation to the fight for independence and the fight we need to take to secure our national security and future by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Secondly this person also notes that John McCain shouldn't "be able to do that" (assume that he means use the name "Lexington" in his energy policy).

I wonder how the same proposal by Obama would have been met by the residents of Lexington, MA? I can only surmise that it would be been an honor for the name of Lexington to be used in such a proposal by the leftist (liberal) candidate. But more importantly the quote that I used above also reveals an interesting fascist tendency (limit rights based on what they agree with as outlined in Goldberg's book). Now I have no idea what sort of political ideology the person quoted subscribes to. But I do find it interesting that John McCain isn't entitled to the 1st Amendment based on Chris Peaden's opinion. I assume it is because Mr. Peaden (I am assuming it is a male) does not support Mr. McCain but since when are the freedoms/rights as outlined by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution so fluid? Mr. McCain can call his energy policy whatever he wants bascially. It is instructive and revealing how some people so willingly would remove rights that are "god given" based on a personal disagreement.

Scary indeed. Let's hope Chris Peaden and his ilk never rise to political postions as who knows what right would be next on the chopping block based on their personal opinions.

I wonder what the residents of Lexington, Kentucky feel about the McCain choice of name for his energy policy?

OS

Checking in

Yes I know it has been awhile since I have posted. And so much to cover - most importantly Hillary effectively removing herself from the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, giving Obama the nod (predicted here - but I also thought Giuliani would take the nomination so you see how far that got me - 50% so far). Hillary will not be the VP pick as I believe the Dems want the Clintons to just go away.

Also in the news is Gay Marriage which of course has become legal in California. In reading the blogs and news today I am struck by how trite some of the supporting ideas for gay marriage is and in fact how devious the actual deconstruction of words everyone knew 10, 20 years ago are now open for re-interpretation.

For example - marriage used to mean a man and a woman uniting as one (whether or not it was religious or before God or not). Now it means whatever a state court wants it to mean. It could mean a man and a man, why not a man and a dog? Why not two men and a woman? Who am I to apply my own sensibilities to a word such as marriage.

Having something that was moral meant measuring it against some sort of metric and judging whether it was good or bad (an action, a attitude, etc.). What was moral or "good" could be applied to all of society as natural guardrails. Now what is moral is defined by individual choice and there are no great moral truths out in the world to know. Everything is relative.

Change used to mean a difference from the norm. Now it is a slogan used by an inexperienced candidate for President to gloss over his own inexperience in pursuing the highest office in the land and his complete lack of grasping the major political issues of our time. Change is now a dodge to basically avoid answering any real questions on specifics and instead obscure the real facts that we, as citizens, have a real crappy choice in November.

Back to Gay Marriage - one thing that really stinks is that this decision also forces adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities to deal with Gay Couples who want to adopt due to these charities accepting state and federal funds. Instead of having the protection to exercise religous beliefs, adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities have decided not to offer adoption services rather than compromise on their religous beliefs. While many see this as cruel, why should a church bend on some of its core beliefs just because a secular entity such as a court makes a decision that is in opposition to it? Why can't Catholic Charities be left alone to do the Lord's work (no pun intended) and let homosexual couples pursue adoption from other venues. Maggie Gallagher has a great article on this at Townhall.com here.

Another word that used to mean something that now has a different meaning - Freedom (religous and otherwise). Now it means what the Left allows it to mean (i.e. anything that the Left agrees with).

OS

He should have claimed he was making "art".

With some humor I read the stories of the American sniper taking some shots at a copy of the Koran. For example SanDiego.com has this story which states:

The U.S. military said Sunday that it disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used Islam's holy book for target practice May 9 in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad. The book was found two days later by Iraqis on a firing range in Radwaniyah with 14 bullet holes in it and graffiti written on its pages, tribal leaders said.

This was such a serious offense that President Bush apologized to the Iraqi Prime Minister as was mentioned on Al-Iraqia television as reported at Yahoo News here. There is another wrinkle though as the story reports:

However, the Sunni Muslim Iraqi Islamic Party headed by Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on Monday demanded government action against the soldier.

The desecration of the Koran was also strongly condemned by the Association of Muslim Scholars, which claims to represent more than 3,000 mosques, and which held both the US military and Iraqi government responsible.

It said the "heinous crime shows the hatred" that the US military and American leaders had for the Koran and the Muslim people.

It was a heinous crime? Have any of these members of the Association condemned the beheadings of Americans that took place in the past while we helped out their backward country? I think I need to research that. And it is so nice to see that people want to make a bigger deal about this than it deserves.

If only the sniper claimed he was doing "art" in the vein of "Piss Christ" which was photograph by Andres Serrano that depicted a crucifix submerged in a glass of Serrano's urine - Source was Wikipedia.

But oh well - in America we know what Art is...what is wrong with the Iraqis? We need to "modernize" their antiquated notions of reverence to 'sacred objects'. Maybe one day under President Obama.

OS

Follow up to California Gay Marriage ruling.

In my last post on the California Supreme Court overturning the voter approved ban on Gay Marriage I noted how really huge a cultural shift this is. Well Dennis Prager (as usual) says it better than I did over at Townhall.com.

Prager writes:

"Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: ... And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this ... This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made."

"Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex."

This is required reading and as always, Prager is spot on. This is not about gay marriage or being anti-gay. It is about the price generations of our children and future generations will have to pay for what amounts to judicial arrogance, hubris and general tunnel vision and stupidity dealing with what is not a simple subject.

The full article can be found at Townhall.com.

OS