Obama Waffles

"Obama Waffles" were sold at the Value Voters Summit in Washington, DC. The image of Obama on the box is being described in news reports as a "racial stereotype." The question I have is, what's the difference between a "racial stereotype" and a caricature? As you can tell by the photo of Obama, the cartoon on the box is a pretty good caricature, much like what you'd see in a political cartoon.
.
The problem is not that the Left immedately yells "racism" at any perceivied criticism of Obama. That's expected. What is bothersome is that the Associated Press story characterized the image as a "racial stereotype" rather than a caricature, and all the media are repeating the AP accusation.
.
Let's compare the Obama pictures with these images with John McCain:


















.
Is the Obama caricature any more stereotypical than that of McCain?
.
The accusation of racism is one that everyone is sensitive to, and the choosing of a black candidate by Democrats gives them that charge whenever they want to use it. The Forum organizers apologized, dropped the waffle mix sales, etc., out of fear of being smeared as racists.
.
It seems to me that the only way that any group can claim equality with another is when they can accept criticism, even ridicule, without relying on the "victimhood" argument. By being ridiculed with a caricature, clearly Obama in the above image is being treated as an equal to McCain or any other politician. To try to protect him from such ridicule by claiming racism is demeaning to anyone, regardless of race.
.
The media have successfully labeled the image as racist, but that doesn't mean we must allow such a charge to stand. There are too many examples of real racism in the world which need to be corrected for a false charge such as this to attract any attention at all.

They Must Think You're Stupid

Ken Blackwell's great column "Words Obama Will Regret" lists several situations which could prompt Barack Obama to eat his words. Check it out.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part XIV

UK Environment Minister:

Green Activism is a "Hysterical Pseudo-Religion."

Couldn't have put it better meself.

MSNBC Slap Down

Newt Gingrich gives MSNBC reporter Ron Allen what-for when he asks a stupid Democrat-talking-point question:

The Hammer Speaks

From the Politico:

Delay to media: "Keep it up"

"The media has done more for John McCain in the last two days than he’s done for himself in the last year and a half."

Read the post here.

By the way, remember all those indictments that Democrat fundraiser and Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle (now retired) brought against Tom Delay? Those may very well be dismissed.

It's alarming how much damage a Democrat prosecutor can wreak with trumped-up charges.

Obama's Campaign of Intimidation

This is one you'll want to e-mail people about.

Obama supporters -- like Liberals in general -- not only oppose Obama critics, but also are determined to silence them. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of Obama on the Milt Rosenberg show.
.
Stanley Kurtz is a Conservative (generally) writer whose work often appears in National Review. As part of his research, he has been investigating the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers (see an earlier post.) In particular he wanted to research papers at the University of Illinois at Chicago detailing Obama's work on the Annenburg Challenge, a foundation of which Obama was the chairman. William Ayers had a position on the board of that foundation. The University at first agreed to let Kurtz do research, then suddenly withdrew their approval. After Kurtz challenged them legally, they relented and allowed him access.
.
Kurtz found information which shows pretty clearly that Ayers was more to Obama than simply "someone who lives in my neighborhood," as Obama said in a debate during the primaries. The video of Obama's comments about Ayers is below, starting at about the :40 mark.




Kurtz emphasizes in his interview that he focused on Obama's relationships in the 90s, not on Ayers's terrorist acts in 1971. Interestingly, no one from the Obama campaign was willing to go on the air to rebut Kurtz live. Instead, they started a campaign of intimidation against WGN for allowing Kurtz on the air at all. For the final hour of the interview, callers were invited to respond, and none of them could disprove any of Kurtz's points. Instead, they followed the talking points from the e-mail they were sent.
..
This is the candidate that the Democrats are so proud of.
..
You can listen to the interview here.

The Obama Nation

I'm about finished with the book "The Obama Nation," written by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Corsi was the co-author of the book "Unfit for Command" that undermined John Kerry's Presidential bid in 2004.
.

With "The Obama Nation," Corsi creates an alternative story to that given by Obama in his book "Dreams from My Father," and to the narrative the Obama campaign has tried to push on the American electorate. Corsi depicts Obama as an angry young black man -- angry for no reason other than, as a black man, he felt he should be angry.

.

Obama's father was from Kenya, and appeared to have come from a fairly well off family (by Kenyan standards.) Obama Senior attended school in Hawaii, where he married Obama's white mother. He then went to Harvard, leaving his wife and son Obama Junior in the process. Obama Senior then returned to Kenya and became a Marxist-leaning economist working for the Kenyan government. He began to drink heavily because of loss of his position due to tribal conflicts, and eventually died in an auto accident while driving drunk.

.

Our Barack Obama, meanwhile, lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, attending school and there receiving regular instruction in the Koran. (This was a public school and not a madrassas, an Islamic religious school. So while true in spirit on some points, those e-mails making the rounds are technically incorrect.) Obama attended an elite private prep school in Hawaii, paid for by his affluent white grandparents. At no time is there an indication that Obama encountered any racial discrimination like that historically suffered by typical black Americans.

.

Corsi then goes on to list the various people with whom Obama has been associated over the years, and who Obama has distanced himself from since starting his Presidential campaign -- Communist poet Frank Marshall Davis, terrorist William Ayers (see last post,) convicted felon Tony Rezko and the infamous Reverand Jeremiah Wright.

.

Corsi makes no bones about his oppostion to Barack Obama and his "cult of personality." The book's attacks were so savage that the Obama campaign felt compelled to issue a 40-page rebuttal of Corsi's charges. In addition to their "rebuttals," they also felt compelled to call Corsi "discredited," a "bigot," "liar," and "racist." -- familiar terms for those of us who dare to disagree with Liberal Democrats on any point.

.

There's no question that Corsi's book contains inaccuracies, as well as omissions and phrasing that, while technically accurate, paint Obama in the worst possible light. At the same time, the Obama rebuttal does not address many of the charges in the book, and often twists Corsi's words or meaning so that they are answering accusations that Corsi never made, while not answering the underlying point. Both documents are propagandist in nature, with neither one going for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

.

After reading both publications, however, I am left with the picture of Obama as a leftist politician who uses the techniques advocated by leftist philosopher Saul Alinsky (also a hero of Hillary Clinton's, who wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky.) Michelle Obama used some lines from Alinsky's book in her speech at the Democrat convention. One of Alinsky's pieces of advice was to avoid telling truth, or even lying, when necessary. Obama has also shown that relationships are to be sacrificed when it is politically expedient to do so.

.

While "The Obama Nation" contains a lot of inaccuracies and should be considered anti-Obama propaganda, the author's main point -- that the American public really doesn't know enough about Barack Obama to make an informed decision -- stands as the truth.

.
***
.
INTERVIEW WITH DR JEROME CORSI, AUTHOR OF "THE OBAMA NATION"

The Ad That Outraged Obama

The American Issues Project, a 527 group, ran a TV commercial addressing Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol in Washington D.C. in 1971. The Obama campaigned responded quickly and savagely, threatening television stations that ran the ad.

In the name of keeping the public informed, here's the commercial:

You Might Be A Liberal If...

John Hawkins has a great column today listing indications of "You might be a Liberal if..." It's pretty funny. Some samples:

You might be a Liberal if:

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.

* You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states.

* You couldn't care less about what Americans in states like Kansas or Virginia think of you, but you would be greatly upset if a Frenchman gave you a dirty look because you're an American.

Pretty funny.

Confrontations

In light of Russia's invasion of Georgia, are you comfortable with the abilities of this man

To confront this man?

It Made Me Laugh

An Insightful Analysis of Obama

Victor Davis Hanson has written a clear, basic analysis of Barack Obama and his faltering campaign. Obama is a deeply flawed candidate, and the more media exposure he gets, the worse he seems to look to voters.

I may wind up being right about Hillary Clinton, after all.

Good for America = Bad for Democrats

Republicans in Congress put on a bit of political theater last Friday (to be continued today.) Despite being in the minority, they raised a protest to try to force a vote on offshore drilling. The Democrats shut down all debate and closed the Congress, sending it to recess without having to vote yes or no on drilling. Democrats killed the C-Span cameras, silenced microphones and even turned off the lights.

Democrats know that the majority of Americans approve offshore drilling. If they allowed a vote, they would either a) have to vote against an issue most Americans approve, or b) vote for the issue, thus alienating their environmental base. The only solution was to prevent any sort of vote....and the benefit to America be damned.

Once again, Democrats have demonstrated -- despite what they campaigned on in 2006 -- that they are willing to put politics above the welfare of the country. They prove, once again, that what's good for America seems to always be bad for Democrats.

Republicans finally got the lights turned back on, but had to bring their own video cameras. Here's a long-awaited video of Republicans showing some backbone:

I Learn From My Betters

If you want to read somebody who does what I do, only better, go to Letxa.com. Some of the most insightful arguments I've ever seen. I don't agree with all his positions, but enough of them so that there's a good amount of overlap. Plus he does an extraordinary amount of research to back up his points.

This is How It's Done

Michelle Malkin writes about a Pennsylvania candidate who is running as a pure Conservatve, and trouncing his oppostion -- incumbent Democrat Jack Murtha.

From candidate William Russell, Republican:

"I am a Conservative. I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. … I believe that no one owes me anything just because I live and breathe."

Maybe there's hope for Republican politicians after all.


Learn more about William Russell's campaign at http://www.russellbrigade.com/

Unfairness Part Deux

Two additions to the "Outrageous Media Bias" file today:

1) Regarding Obama's sightseeing trip to the Middle East -- his first -- NBC News substitute anchor Lester Holt referred to the trip as Obama's "tour of duty." That pretty much makes his trip the equivalent of McCain's years as a POW in Vietnam, right?

2) The New York Times rejected an Op-Ed piece from John McCain a week after publishing one by Barack Obama. The Times public response said that McCain (in his article) would have to go into detail about his plans for Iraq before they would accept it. Apparently McCain's real sin was when he pointed out that Obama declared in early 2007 that the troop surge in Iraq would not work -- which turned out to be completely wrong. (McCain supported the surge, which he pointed out in his article.)

Once again, the biggest sin to Liberals is when you criticize Obama by telling the truth. (Detour: A very nice column about what makes Obama angry in this article by Guy Benson.)

Because Somebody Should Say Something

Unfairness as a Doctrine

There has been a lot of discussion about what would be the effect on talk radio if the Fairness Doctrine were reimplemented. Political talk radio is overwhelmingly Conservative, anchored by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Supposedly, the Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations to give as much airtime to Liberal viewpoints as Conservative.
.
Since Liberal radio has proven to be unprofitable -- apparently almost no one wants to listen to it -- radio stations would be forced to either accept lower profits or do away with political talk radio. This would, in effect, silence Conservative talk radio.
.
The mainstream media, on the other hand, which is overwhelmingly Liberal, would not have to provide "balance," because they are supposedly objectively reporting the "news." What they refuse to acknowledge is that their bias is evident in the choice of what stories they choose to cover and the emphasis given to different stories. The preposterousness of their claim is evident as seen in this article discussing Obama's first trips to Afghanistan and Iraq. (These trips will show that he has foreign policy experience, you see.)
.
The anchors of the three main networks are traveling to the Middle East to interview Obama in that context. By giving such emphasis to their coverage they are amplifying the importance of Obama's trip. It takes on much more weight than it really has. Viewers will come away with the message and the image of Obama as an expert in foreign policy because of a single short visit to the Middle East.
.
McCain, on the other hand, has made numerous trips to the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq, without the fanfare or press coverage. His foreign policy credentials are solidified by his obligation over a number of years. Yet in the minds of television viewers, with a single short trip Obama will have equaled McCain's experience and expertise.
.
The article also says that Obama has benefited from a huge gap in the amount of media coverage he has received compared to McCain. The media spokesmen shrug it off. "We're just trying to do our jobs," said the president of NBC News.
.
Meanwhile the Democrats are wating until a Democrat is in the White House to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. They will legislate away Conservative voices while benefitting from the Liberal media machine's one-sided campaign.
.
All in the name of "fairness."

Latest Reading List

A list of some of the reading I've done over the last eighteen months or so -- in addition to the hundreds of documents I've looked at online. I've got to get outside more.

.

Tocqueville in America, by George Wilson Pierson. Reading in progress. With 852 pages to read, I'm not rushing to finish. I'm trying to find out more about the man who wrote so perceptively about America nearly two hundred years ago.

.

The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. An in-depth analysis of the roots of Conservatism from a historical perspective. I want to understand why I believe the things I believe. (Basically, the "latest fashionable idea" (e.g., reflexive government action on "manmade global warming") doesn't carry as much weight as centuries of collective wisdom.

.

The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D and William D. Danko, Ph.D. An analysis of how millionaires got to be that way. One salient point: Income does not necessarily equal wealth.

.

Powers of Mind, by Adam Smith. Re-read for about the fifteenth time. One of the best-written non-fiction books of all time. It happens to be about all the mysticism and science surrounding the abilities of the human mind.

.

The Key, by Joe Vitale. For research on self-help books.

.

You Were Born Rich, by Bob Proctor. Ditto.

.

Rain Fall, Hard Rain and Requiem for an Assassin, all by Barry Eisler. Eisler spoke at a writers conference I attended, and I wanted to familiarize myself with his work before I heard him speak. He was very cordial and encouraging to all participants, including me. I think I became "That Guy" by accosting him in the hallway a couple of times with questions. If you ever read this, Barry, I apologize.

.

Finding Your Voice, by Les Edgerton. Another book on writing. How to put your own personality into your writing.

.

The 101 Habits of Highly Successful Screenwriters, by Karl Iglesias

Rebel Without a Crew, by Robert Rodriguez.

Filmmaking for Teens, by Troy Lanier & Clay Nichols.

Lew Hunter's Screenwriting 434, by Lew Hunter.

Setting Up Your Shots, by Jeremy Vineyard.

$30 Film School, by Michael W. Dean

Screenwriters on Screenwriting, by Joel Engel.

Filmmaking for Dummies, by Bryan Michael Stoller.

Adventures in the Screen Trade, by William Goldman.

.

All of the above because of my intense, but brief, interest in writing, producing and directing a film. Ultimately, I had to admit that I can't be a filmmaker. Hopefully the knowledge I gained will come in useful at some point, but I don't have the drive to actually make films. Life is too short and I have too many other more compelling interests that take up my time. I had to choose something to sacrifice, and filmmaking was it.

.

Low-Carb Dieting for Dummies, by Katherine B. Chauncey, Phd, Rd. Chauncey is an Associate Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at Texas Tech University School of Medicine. Not really an Atkins-like approach to carbohydrates, but more of a "whole foods" diet. Designed to encourage the eating of "good" carbs like fresh vegetables and fruit. Common sense dieting, which I need to do more of.

.

Scene & Structure, by Jack M. Bickham. Another book on writing, re-read for about the fifth time. The most amazing approach to how to get from point A to point B in writing fiction, based on a simple cause/effect sequence.

.
The Compleat Gentleman, by Brad Miner. The subtitle -- The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry -- pretty much says it all. How to translate the lessons from all the stories about great men into our own lives..

.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Solar Power for Your Home, by Dan Ramsey. More research for the "dream home" that I'm designing and hope to build in ten or twelve years. Big challenge I face: How does one go about being water self-sufficient in arid west Texas?

.

On Writing, by Stephen King. A writing book by the author voted Greatest Living American Writer by the readers of Writers Digest. A few nuts and bolts on writing, lots of biography, with details about the accident that almost killed him. Best part: the section on his and his wife's reactions when his novel Carrie made them rich.

.

Picks & Shovels, by Dee Burks & Liz Ragland. The writing book that put me on course to my current career.

.

Gettysburg, by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen. An alternative-history novel about the Battle of Gettysburg. What if Lee's Southern troops had won that battle? This book stimulated my interest in the real battle, even to the point of buying the DVD of the movie Gettysburg.
.

Mobocracy, by Matthew Robinson. A book which documents what I've understood for a long time -- the mainstream media use polls to create news, rather than report it.

.

Crucial Conversations, by Kerry Patterson and others. Fantastic book on how to talk about subjects which are hard to discuss. As much as I talk, I'm guilty of avoiding hard discussions sometimes. This book gives tips on how to talk about things without destroying relationships.
.

Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms, by Ed Rollins. The architect of Ronald Reagan's 1984 presidential campaign talks about his life.

.

Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. An unusual use of economic theory and techniques to analyze issues facing American society.

.

All seven Harry Potter books, by J.K. Rowling. Actually, I listened to the first six on mp3 and then actually read the last book. I avoided these books for years because every time I started the first one it came across as juvenile. Once I began listening to the first one, however, I got hooked on the story -- which got progressively more mature as the story progressed. Amazing phenomenon.

Can Racism Save America?

The New Yorker recently ran an issue with a controversial cover drawing of Barack Obama and his wife. This cover has raised a lot of questions about the perception of Obama in the popular mind. (The New Yorker's point was how Conservatives supposedly think of Obama.)

At the same time, Jesse Jackson made a remark that he thought was off-mic. He talked about doing to Obama what I had to do to pigs when I was a member of FFA in high school. (And no, that is not comparing Obama to a pig. Get over it.) Jackson's remark apparently reflects the feeling of a lot of the black power brokers in America, at least according to this article in the UK Mail online. The article goes on to analyze how this black backlash could hurt Obama in the Novermber election. (Coincidentally, Obama's remarks that generated Jackson's wrath are some of the few with which I can agree.)

In the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors discuss polls and racism. When white citizens are asked their opinions about a black candidate, they will often lie to pollsters, saying they will vote for the black candidate, so that they will appear "color-blind" to the pollsters. In the privacy of the voting booth however, where no one can see their vote, they will then cast their ballot for the other (supposedly white) candidate.

In other words, either conscious or unconscious racism prevents many whites from voting for a black candidate, even though they claimed that race didn't matter in their choice.

With apparent race-based prejudice from both blacks and whites against Obama, is it possible that the polls as we see them now are inflated for Obama? Could it be that this fall's Presidential election will be much different than we have been led to expect by the polls and the media? Could a whole lot of people who claim to support Obama now secretly vote against him in November? (In addition to all of those voters who are against Obama for purely political, philosophical or issue-related reasons.)

Something to think about.

The Myth of Consensus Explodes

The American Physical Society, which has a membership of nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on global warming/climate change, and now says that many of its members don't believe in manmade global warming.
.
Would someone please tell Congress? (Al Gore already knows.)
.
The APS is also sponsoring public depate on the whole charade. One paper published by a member of the APS concluded that the United Nations IPCC report and its claims have been "grossly overstated by IPCC modeling."
.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called the paper an "exposé of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors."
.
I guess fifty thousand skeptical scientists are all "deniers" also. Is it too late to stop global warming legislation?

Best Served Cold

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Why habeas corpus for Terrorists is a Mistake

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) -"An accused September 11 conspirator told the U.S. military war court at Guantanamo on Thursday that he should have access to classified evidence against him."

I'm sure none of this "classified evidence" will ever find its way to our enemies via attorneys when the cases go to an American court. Right?

Read the entire article here.

Something For the Geeks

You know who you are....

Introducing the Jedi Gym.
(Watch to the end, it's worth it.)

Liberal Daughter vs. Conservative Father

Latro Ergo Sum #3

"Latro ergo sum" - "I rant, therefore I am."


Obama the Unifier?
Barack Obama has made a big point about “unifying” the country. Actions speak louder than words, as they say. So what has Obama ever done to show that he can unify anything?
.
The Democratic Party? He appears to be unifying that by crushing Hillary Clinton. It’s interesting that this “unifier” who wants to “reach out” was identified as the most Liberal member of the Senate in 2007. There were no cases of him breaking from voting strictly along party lines.
.
This un-vetted candidate is fooling some of the people all the time. Let’s hope enough of the rest of us go to the polls in November.
#
Supreme Court & the 2nd Amendment
The SCOTUS ruled that the Washington D.C. gun-control law was unconstitutional. Kennedy was the swing vote, this time voting on the right side. (In contrast to his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, where he based his opinion on the approval of a European panel.) Think the Presidential election doesn’t matter? Do you want Barack Obama to choose the next Supreme Court Justice?
Democrats are Nasty CreaturesHave you seen all the Republican websites and ads making fun of Barack Obama for being black?
#
No? That's because there aren't any.

Well, Democrats have websites and videos devoted to referencing John McCain’s age. Apparently racism is out of bounds, but age discrimination isn’t.

For those Republicans who wish we had a better candidate, here’s how the Gipper handled the same issue:







Cigars
My everyday cigar for the last few years has been the Hoyo de Monterrey Excalibur III. I’m always looking for a new cigar, and on the recommendation of Robert Pratt, I tried the Don Kiki. I have to say, the White Label was pretty good, and the Green Label wasn’t bad, but the Brown and Red Labels left something to be desired. Sorry, Robert. [6/30/08 Edit: I wrote this opinion after trying the cigars, but realized that I had neglected to smoke the Don Kiki Brown Label torpedo, and it was fantastic. I change my answer about the Brown Label, and Robert Pratt was correct.]


On the other hand, I tried the Primos toro (received as a Father’s Day present) and really enjoyed it. My wonderful wife & kids also got me a new hygrometer for my humidor – and my old one turned out to be malfunctioning. They also got me the coolest humidifying device, the Drymistat tube with crystals in it that control the humidity. They’re regular crystal-looking rocks until you add water, then they expand, releasing preset amounts of humidity into the humidor. They’re similar to what are in Pampers. They are amazing. No wonder America’s #1.




Clint Eastwood
I recently watched Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josey Wales again. Phenomenal movie, maybe Eastwood's best. It’s interesting to see character actors in it who appeared later in Every Which Way but Loose. (Easter Egg alert: During the scene where the comancheros assault Sandra Locke’s character, there’s a split second when the camera is whirling around crazily, and you can see Eastwood in a t-shirt and jeans and the crew watching the action.)

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part XIII

An interesting observation by Robert Novak:

"Although the 2006 elections were widely considered at least partially a protest against GOP conduct of the war, little has changed, policy—wise, since then. On Capitol Hill, Iraq is like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. Democrats have a made a habit of fiercely debating Iraq, pushing legislation that would impact the war, but then retreating to symbolic measures, at most."

RINO Hunting

Peter J. Wirs wrote a column recently discussing the problems and choices facing Conservatives this election season.

Congressional Republicans and the national Republican party have more or less forsaken their Conservative base. While the Republicans controlled Congress under President Bush, government spending -- outside of the Iraq war -- exploded (pardon the pun.) Entitlements went up. Earmarks became part of the political vocabulary.

Meanwhile, there was no progress in advancing the Conservative agenda socially or politically.

Republicans faced the consequences of their actions in 2006 when they suffered massive defeat at the polls. Conservatives shunned Republicans because the Republican party had abandoned Conservatives.

Now the Republican presidential nominee is a perfect example of the recent RINO (Republican In Name Only) control. Through media manipulation -- The New York Times endorsed McCain in February, only to savage him after he secured the Republican nomination -- and party politics, we have at best a second-level RINO candidate in John McCain.

To quote my February post: "With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments."

Wirs points out that Conservatives have choices:

1) Abandon Republicans completely at the polls so that Democrats can take total control. This is with the hope that in four years Republican politicans will have hit bottom and realized the error of their ways. This is the equivalent of letting the burning house burn to the ground then rebuilding from scratch.

2) Support all Republicans at all levels, with the idea of regaining control of the party -- even though those who betrayed Conservatives would still be in control. This is the equivalent of fighting the fire vigorously in the hope of saving the building.

3) Support McCain while ignoring Congressional RINOs. This would prevent Obama from winning but still leave Reid/Pelosi in power. (No "burning building" analogy comes to mind!)

My own thought is to support McCain as much as possible. An Obama presidency would be disastrous for years, with Democrats also controlling Congress. The possibility of him appointing Supreme Court Justices -- which the next President may have the opportunity to do -- is terrifying, given the crazed decisions of recent courts. (e.g., habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees; expanded eminent domain interpretation.)

We must then be selective in our support for Republicans. Conservative candidates must be supported with all the energy and resources we can muster. RINOs can look to their Liberal supporters for votes. Find key issues that are important to you -- illegal immigration, national defense, global warming, for example -- and see how candidates have voted on those issues. (Remember with RINOs you can't always go by what they say.)

At the same time we have to force local Republican politicians to toe the Conservative line. We must form the farm system that will supply future Conservative Representatives and Senators. At every level we need to evaluate where candidates stand philosophically. We have to start thinking long-term so we can avoid having RINO candidates as our only choice.

The Nemesis Tree

Okay, so I'm fighting this invasive species of tree at the home compound. Every time I cut one down, half a dozen others sprout up. The stupid things have thorns and resist every technique I can think of to get rid of them. I'm no rocket surgeon, and one of the many things I don't know about is trees. Even though we have a national park inside the compound.
.

Based on internet research, I originally thought it was a Russian Olive tree. All the descriptions fit my plant nemesis until I noticed that my trees did not have....olives.

.

I then, with complete confidence, decided it was the Tree of Heaven. All of the descriptions, especially those describing its hardiness and aggressive growth, fit. Unfortunately, once I really looked, the leaves did not match.

So I have an unknown species of aggressive, intrusive tree on my property that defies identification and obliteration. Any arborolgists out there?

Leaf comparison:
The Nemesis Tree:

[7/9/08 Update: We're hiring landscapers to come out and work on the grounds of the compound. They have no idea what the Nemesis tree is, and moreover, they've never seen anything like it before. No one else in our town has anything like it. We may be making first contact with an alien race -- if we all disappear, contact the government. On the other hand, we may be eradicating the last survivors of another planet.]

Two Gore-y Stories

Story #1

A new report indicates that Al Gore's energy usage over the last year increased by ten percent. Gore, whose gluttonous use of energy was chronicled earlier, consumes twenty times the amount of energy to light his mansion as the normal household. He of course is forgiven by Liberals for his -- umm....inconsistency -- because he is wealthy enough to purchase "carbon offsets." Each day, of course, more of his wealth comes from brokering "carbon offset" purchases by other rich Liberals, who can then feel good about themselves. Meanwhile, he admonishes everyone else to reduce their energy usage.

Story #2

One headline pretty much says it all:

Gore Endorses Obama

Once again Obama associates himself with someone of questionable character.

***

How does Al Gore maintain any credibility whatsoever with any thinking person? I actually had to edit myself to keep from using coarse language to describe him.

"Hello, Al Gore..."

"Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated." -- John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, rebutting the claims of manmade global warming in a speech to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce.

Nothing New Under the Sun

I thought I'd made up a really good word today - illiterati. I meant to insult some people who I didn't believe were particularly well-read or literate. Kind of a take off on the word illuminati ("enlightened ones.")

Rather proud of myself after I wrote it, I googled the word and found the definition in the Urban Dictionary. Almost exactly the same as mine. With the addition of the fact that illiterati "take pride in the fact that they are ignorant and in their refusal to learn."

So much for my attempt at originality.

Obama Back in the Day

The Chicago Reader published an article in 1995 called "What Makes Obama Run?" Mainly a kiss-his-ring tribute to Obama, the article reveals details about Obama that he tried to sweep under the rug in 2008.

"We have some wonderful preachers in town--preachers who continue to inspire me--preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be." - Barack Obama in 1995, while he was a member of Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ.

In 2008 Obama claimed he didn't know what Wright was saying. Eventually he disassociated himself from Wright and finally resigned from the church.

The conclusion that would logically be drawn is that Obama was not only aware of what Wright was saying, but idealized him and used him as an example. Just to refresh your memory, review what Obama's inspiration said.

Two points:
1) Obama's vision of the world as it should be embraces hostility and resentment toward white people; and
2) Obama will lie to get elected.

Stonehenge - Built by One Man

This is just too cool to believe. Some people are really, really smart.

AIDS Pandemic Claims "Misdirected," Says WHO Expert

I've posted before about the overblown claims "scientists" made about the so-called AIDS epidemic. Now the story comes out that the risk of an AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals was wildly exaggerated. Essentially, unless you live in sub-Saharan Africa, or engage in homosexual sex, or use intravenous drugs, or work in the sex industry, the chance of contracting AIDS is about zero.

Let me reiterate this point -- for twenty years or more we have been blasted with the message that "all of us are at risk" when it came to AIDS. Massive campaigns were mounted to scare us into changing our behavior or face possible extermination. "Experts" were paraded through the media endlessly, repeating the same thing over and over: AIDS was killing huge numbers of people, and it was only going to get worse. One might say that there was a consensus of opinion about the dangers that AIDS posed to the world.

And now, after billions of dollars have been put into the pockets of AIDS activists and researchers, they shrug their shoulders, say "We were wrong, sorry," and walk away. The similarity to the global warming scare is remarkable. Opportunists cash in on the fear of the unknown -- I'm talking about Al Gore, of course, but also any scientist who receives a paycheck for global warming "research" (read "confirmation"). Any scientist who finds evidence contradicting the manmade global warming liturgy is in danger of killing the golden goose and must be destroyed.

In five, ten or twenty years, global warming scientists will do what they have done with the AIDS scare -- say they were wrong and walk away without a backward glance. Meanwhile, millions will have starved from food shortages, economies will teeter and collapse, and billions of people will have their lifestyles turned back a hundred years -- because of "misdirected" alarmism.

Ooooohhh Yeaahhhhhh

Any doubts about which country is #1?

$45,000,000,000,000

Senate Democrats dropped legislation for a global warming bill that they had introduced. Apparently, the idea of introducing new government programs that would increase the cost of energy lost its appeal when gas hit $4 a gallon.

Little by little, maybe our side is winning. The Democrats may be waiting for whoever the next President is so they can be more confident it won't be vetoed.

Apparently "the most imporant issue facing the planet" (as bill sponsors like to call the global warming theory) can wait until Democrats can profit politically.

By the way, the estimated cost to meet all the global greenhouse emission standards is $45 trillion.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part XII

Because sometimes I get a little.....overwrought...about politics, this quote struck a chord.

Commentator Ben Stein, on CBS News Sunday Morning:

“In a free society, what we are and who we are depends on us -- except for the very most poor among us, where the government can indeed make a difference. But for the huge bulk of us Americans, no matter what any Republican or any Democrat promises, it’s up to the people in our house, not the White House. For most of us, what the politicians say is just sideshow barking, and when the circus leaves town we’ve got to get back to basics: work, save, and teach your children well, and enjoy the political sideshow. But it’s just show business, not real business.”

Bad News for Democrats

Washington Post editorial:

"The Iraqi Upturn: Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war."

Burning Food

Jerry Bowyer recently wrote a very interesting column called "How Al Gore is Getting Fat Off of a Starving World." Contrary to what the title might indicate, it's not about Gore's latest prodigious weight gain. It's about how people such as Gore are profiting off the high price of foods.

The article goes into a lot of detail, but essentially it's this -- the recent increase in food prices is due to the government's policy to increase ethanol production ("...as an alternative to fossil fuels, which add carbon to the atmosphere, which causes global warming, which we're all gonna die from, yadda yadda yadda....") Agricultural product prices have risen sharply recently -- feed grain is up 41% in the last year -- and the government has blamed it on, variously, the problems with the weak dollar, higher fuel prices, general inflation....something.

During that same time period, though, fruit and nut prices are down 3%. And all the "reasons" the government gives for the high food prices also apply to these products, yet prices went down.

Coincidentally, different types of agricultural products rose in price as they got closer to the ethanol production process. We turn corn into ethanol, but we don't do the same with walnuts and bananas.

From the column: "It’s not a general inflation problem; it’s a problem of political corruption. America’s first presidential primary happens to be in Iowa. That gives ethanol first dibs at the pork barrel. Add Republican farm voters to Democratic environmentalists, shake vigorously and you get a brew called ethanol. The farmers get rich on taxpayer subsidies, the venture capitalists who focus on alternative fuels (I’m looking in your direction, Mr. Gore) get fat on profits. Good deal for everybody, except people who happen to eat food. "

It Ain't About How Hard You Hit

I'm researching a lot of motivational material lately. Maybe because of nostalgia, one of my favorite movie characters of all time is Rocky Balboa.

In the movie of the same name, there's a brief motivational speech by Rocky to his son. It could have come straight out of Toastmasters. Would this guy have won the international speech contest?

Maybe not, but it sure moves me.

Ira Glass on Storytelling

I found these videos mentioned on mental_floss. They made such a strong impression on me that I wanted to include them here.

There are four videos -- #3 is my favorite. Glass makes a great point about our abilities not keeping up with our tastes.

The Slippery Green Slope

The government's prosecutorial powers are vast and, more importantly, flexible. Many crimes or regulatory violations can be prosecuted because they involve "interstate commerce" in some way.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has upheld decisions based on this clause for violations that otherwise had no bearing on "interstate commerce." Note: Some of the decisions were the right thing to do, but not based on an expansive definition of "commerce."

One landmark case involved an Atlanta hotel that refused to rent rooms to blacks. The court ruled that this practice interfered with interstate commerce and that the owners could be prosecuted under federal law. Another decision involved a California law that prosecuted anyone who brought an out-of-state "indigent" into the state. The state law was overturned by the SCOTUS because it affected "interstate commerce."

Although the SCOTUS in recent years has shown a tendency to interpret the law so as to actually involve commerce that is interstate, the precedent has already been set. An expansive interpretation of a law or regulation is the prerogative of the government.

Recently there has been a flood of legislation introduced to fight "global warming." (Read 80% of my previous posts if you want to know my opinion on global warming.) Polar bears have been put on the "threatened species" list, not because there's a shortage of polar bears, but because of the threat that global warming supposedly poses to their habitat.

Now there's a story headlined "Obesity Contributes to Global Warming." Given the broad and spreading interpretation of laws shown previously by the courts, it's not unreasonable to anticipate future prosecution of criminal charges against people the government deems overweight, because of their violation of "global warming" laws.

As with the "interstate commerce" clause, global warming laws can be expanded to prosecute any type of offense, based on what someone, somewhere says contributes to global warming. Politicians (including judges) pander to public opinion constantly, and lack the moral courage to resist the latest political fad whether it makes sense or not.

The global warming theorists have inserted themselves like ticks under the skin of politicians. The regulation of exhaust emissions by automobiles is the least of our worries these days. Soon, Americans will have every aspect of their lives controlled because of craven politicians and global warming profiteers.

Obama's Trump Card

The Washington Post recently ran a story about the racism that Obama volunteers are running into while campaigning for the candidate. According to the story, "field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season." They've been called "racially derogatory names" and endured "malicious rants and ugly stereotyping."

There are numerous anecdotes of what you'd expect, including one person telling a campaign worker to "hang that darky from a tree." (Note: I have known a lot of bigots in my time, and I can't think of one who would use such a phrase. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it sounds like something from a poorly-written old movie.)

Then, an incident of racism occurred when a campaign office was vandalized, and comments like "Hamas Votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns and religion" were spraypainted on the walls.

Huh?

As stupid as vandalism is, and as much as the criminals should be punished, could those phrases really be classified as "racist?" I don't believe they are -- but the Washington Post used them as an example of the racist tendencies of many white Americans.

Think about that for a second. A major newspaper has classified spraypainted phrases against the black candidate as racist, even though there was no mention of race in either remark.

Do we see a template of how the campaign for the general election will be covered in the media? Any negative statement against Obama will immediately be designated as "racist," and the content of the point can be discounted without being answered.

The Post story goes on to say that Obama "has struggled to attract white voters who didn't attend college and earn less than $50,000 a year." Read that as "ignorant, poor white people." You know, the only group that is racist (merely by virtue of being poor, non-college-educated, and white.) The clear implication is that these people are not voting for Obama because he's black.

Meanwhile, Obama's support among black voters is a given. Political pundits blithely predicted Obama's victories in states such as South Carolina, Louisiana and North Carolina because of the large number of black voters in those states. (Obama received 78% of the black vote in SC, 90% in LA, and 91% in NC.)

Yet although much has been made about the blatant racism Obama faces among white voters, there is absolutely no outrage over the racism shown by 1) The huge percentage of black voters who support Obama, presumably because of his race, and 2) The "given" nature of that fact by political pundits, as though it were normal and expected, and 3) The lack of any sort of comment on the hypocrisy shown by all involved.

Apparently racism in favor of Obama is acceptable and the norm, while racism against Obama is to be abhorred and condemned in the strongest possible language.

A person with any sense doesn't use race as a factor in making decisions such as electing a candidate. That includes those who vote for a candidate based on his race. The problem is that not only is there a double standard regarding racism when it comes to Obama, but the definition of racism has been broadened to include almost any remark a person can make about him -- unless it's a glowing endorsement.

To avoid being labeled a racist myself, here are some of the reasons I am against Barack Obama:

• He's a Democrat.
• He's a Liberal.
• He has no clue about the war on terror.
• He wants Americans to pay a tax to the United Nations.
• He is pro-abortion.
• He wants to take away the Bush tax cuts.
• He voted "no" (twice) to reduce the federal deficit.
• He believes global warming is caused by humans.
• He believes government has the right to ban handguns.
• He's a Liberal Democrat.

Okay, you get the idea. Go to ontheissues.org to see more of Obama's positions and votes.

My thought is this: there are so many other reasons to vote against Barack Obama that his race isn't even an issue.

When You're a Geek, You're a Geek

(This one's for Keith.)
Note: adult language (mild) toward the end.