Thursday, January 29, 2009

Inauguration Day Psalm

PSALM 2008-2012


Wednesday, January 28, 2009

PETA's ironic Google Ad

These are people who want us to eat like we lived under the rule of Pol Pot, then they can impose that sort of rule upon us--all for our own good, of course.
I used to think these people were naive bambi-ists who never had a pet cat. (Seriously, cats will teach you just how cruel and carnivorous nature is). And for some of these liberal dupie-dupes, that is the case.
But as for the ringleaders like Ingrid Newkirk? She and her kind are not dumb. They know perfectly well that Mother Nature can be a real bitch. They like it that way. They want everyone (except themselves) to be poor. They hate humanity. Really, they do.
Talk to an "animal rights" liberal. Talk to many people on the Left, for that matter. See if they can get through two minutes of conversation without making some kind of insulting remark about Americans or some self-loathing remark about humans in general. Liberals hate the world as it is, and hate other people. They have their own fantasy of how things should be, and loathe the real world because it isn't their fantasy.
Think of how often they fantasize about American defeat in Iraq, which would mean the death of millions. You doubt that? Remember how the older ones among them cheered American defeats in South Vietnam and Cambodia, which meant the deaths of millions.
Think about how they prefer plants and animals to people. Think about how much contempt and hatred they have for every aspect of modern American life.
They are pure, distilled evil. They want you to die. And sadly, they are now in control of many levels of government and the media in our country.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

California is dead last in respect for life

At least according to "Americans United For Life".

Their criteria is not just based upon abortion, but also upon other factors, like the stem cell hulabaloo.

But what about those of us who just oppose state funding of foetal stem cell research because 5 years later it has proven to be nothing but a corporate welfare pipe dream?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The real Bush legacy: Why the Left hates him so

So today is President Bush's last day. Gee, I thought Chimpy Bushitler was supposed to have a coup by now.

I have always wondered about the visceral hatred shown toward Bush by the Left. Was it due to his very narrow victory in 2000? Possibly. Was it due to his religion? Perhaps, although one wonders what these militant atheists are so afraid of?

Certainly, it WASN'T because he thwarted their schemes to increase the nanny-state; heck, he joined in with Ted (Glug-Glug-Drunk-Drunk) Kennedy to expand the Federal Department of Education, which once upon a time we were *supposed* to abolish and send back to the state governments where it belonged. Bush also signed onto bogus and fraudulent "Comprehensive Immigration Reform."

So what was the reason behind all the Bush hatred exactly? William McGurn has an idea: it was because Bush didn't lose in Iraq like he was supposed to:

Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.

Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it's easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago -- and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn't he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?


For many of these critics, the template for understanding Iraq was Vietnam -- especially after things started to get tough. In terms of the wars themselves, of course, there is almost no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq: The enemies are different, the fighting on the ground is different, the involvement of other powers is different, and so on.

Still, the operating metaphor of Vietnam has never been military. For the most part, it is political. And in this realm, we saw history repeat itself: a failure of nerve among the same class that endorsed the original action.

As with Vietnam, with Iraq the failure of nerve was most clear in Congress. For example, of the five active Democratic senators who sought the nomination, four voted in favor of the Iraqi intervention before discovering their antiwar selves.

As in Vietnam too, rather than finding their judgment questioned, those who flip-flopped on the war were held up as voices of reason. In a memorable editorial advocating a pullout, the New York Times gave voice to the chilling possibilities that this new realism was willing to accept in the name of bringing our soldiers home.

"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.

Worse still, Bush turned the Vietnam analogy around on the leftists, and then they *really* started squealing....

This is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different lessons from it.

Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do with a failure.
And I suspect Obama's action is what *really* gets them steamed.

Meanwhile. Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen claims that in the end, Bush will be vindicated and thought better of by history, like Harry Truman was.

My own scorecard on President Bush the Younger:

Big minuses, in this order:

1. "Hispandering" and a mixture of romantic naivete and tone deaf greedheadedness on the immigration issue. Indeed, if Bush The Younger was really serious about being a "Compassionate Conservative" who would reach out to constituencies that Republicans normally are accused of not caring about (read: BLACKS / AFRICAN AMERICANS--that's why he appointed quite a few of them), he wouldn't be hell-bent on importing another underclass that crowds them out for entry level jobs, public assistance, etc. And then that new underclass turns around and votes down the Republicans anyway!

The once solidly Republican Southwest (AZ, CO, NM, NV) has largely been lost because of this foolish Hispandering. California may have been lost as an ironic outcome of the Cold War (defense industries decline, arts and entertainment industries increase, leading to weenie liberal gains), but Hispandering made matters worse in this state as well.

2. Caving in on the auto and bank bailouts. Bush's lack of spine in this sets the tone for the rest of this auto bailout saga and any other bailouts, particularly where TARP money is involved. Bush is handing Obama a precedent - using the largely unsupervised TARP funds for any random pet project, special interest pandering scheme, etc. that he chooses - that the GOP will be hard-pressed to fight now that Bush has used it.

Not only could have Republicans argued that it was bad economics, but they could have screamed bloody murder that that was not what that money was there for and it was being used as a dirty slush fund to bail out Obama's Democrat union campaign contributors. Now that Bush has already done it, the GOP will have a harder time opposing Obama's inevitable misuse of TARP money when he gets going in office.

3. "No Child Left Behind". He didn't create the bogus Department of Education (which we all know SHOULD be a state and local matter), but he did give the Frankenstein's monster new life.

4. Signing off on "McLame-Feinbrass". "SarbOx" is a nuisance, but it's not damaging to liberty in the way that "McLame-Feinbrass" is.

5. Inability to articulate and communicate just about *any* vision at all, making even his good ideas (like Social Security reform) crippled from the outset, although I still give him kudos for even *daring* to touch what has been "the third rail" of politics.

Valiant Tried But Fails:

1. Social Security reform. Yes, it failed, but to even TOUCH the 3rd rail of USA politics was gutsy, no doubt about that.

2. Reform of Fannie and Freddie, shouted down by Barney Frank and the Professional Minority Malcontents, back in 2003 and 2005. McLame, believe it or not, also sounded the alarm early on this too.

Big pluses:

1. Roberts -- a REAL judge, in the mold of Scalia

2. Alito -- ditto

3. Iraq, which, when it is all said and done, he WILL be vindicated. Reverse Domino Theory.

4. Afghanistan, ditto. Then again, the Demunist Party Line is that this is the "Good" War, which Iraq supposedly diverted from. Which is bullshit, because Iraq is frankly a far easier task than Afghanistan, as it is not landlocked, not linked to the utterly unstable Pakistan, and has a literate population and oil revenue.

5. A new alliance with India, which I think will be very beneficial in the decades to come.

6. This was the first Administration whose Justice Departments, under both Ashcroft and Gonzales, fought for the 2nd amendment as an *individual* right, not a phony collective commie one. You can't get more libertarian than *that*. Which is also a reason why the hysteria about the Patriot Act is overblown to me. The federal "assault weapons" ban is DEAD, and I really don't think Barry O will touch it, as he doesn't want to reinvigorate that lobby and he would rather win battles elsewhere than spend political capital there.

(And I think is another reason why the lib media really hated him---here, he really did roll back their commie agenda)

For all the hysteria about Chimpy Bushitler, I don't recall anything remotely like the Waco Massacre under Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Gonzales, do you? As wacky as David Koresh and his cult may have been, the gov'ment had and still has yet to prove its case.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

"Generation X" is back

Kathleen Parker thinks she has spotted a "new" trend:

...two young old friends are catching up and comparing notes over breakfast.

Anyone seated nearby quickly learns the story. They met in graduate school; both hold MBAs. Both recently joined the swelling ranks of America's unemployed.

Their shared tales, if once unthinkable, are becoming increasingly familiar. First, blue-collar jobs disappeared. Now white collars are fading. The young and briefly affluent, accustomed to earning more than $75,000, suddenly have time on their hands, the latest victims of the economic crunch.

Now what?

The young woman has some consulting work "kind of lined up." Her severance package is too large for her to qualify for unemployment, and she's not sure how long her funds will last. She might head home to visit her dad, whom she hasn't seen in a year — "too busy." Or, she always wanted to drive cross-country.

Her male companion, similarly laid off, is freelancing real estate development projects but looking for a permanent job.

Something has gone terribly wrong with the American dream. No longer is a college degree — or even an advanced degree — a guarantee of employment or job security. Suddenly, there seem to be an awful lot of "consultants" floating around, lingering longer than usual over coffee because there's no office to get back to.

Kathleen Parker obviously wasn't paying attention 14-18 years ago, when those of us who were "Generation X" were experiencing the exact same situation.

My 28-year-old niece, with whom I am staying (the rate is unbeatable), is similarly and suddenly "consulting" — mostly through the want ads on Mediabistro and Craigslist these days. The magazine for which she's been a marketing strategist is suffering financial woes and has had to cut several positions, including hers.

"Consulting" and "freelancing" are old euphemisms for a new demographic, the upscale terms for "outta work." Down on their luck, these newbies to the unemployment lines aren't living paycheck to paycheck. "We're living gig to gig," says my niece.

At least they HAVE Craigslist these days. But the euphemism "consulting" is not new either. Those of us who actuallly DID "consulting" and could not stomach the euphemism used to call it "temping", and it involved work through agencies like Adia (now Adecco), Manpower, Kelly Services, and a whole host of others. I am surprised she didn't note how people well into their twenties are moving back home to Mom and/or Dad to save money.

How many consultants can dine on the dime of a tanking economy? A new poll by Tina Brown's Daily Beast and Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates confirms that the Sarabeth's pair and my niece are not isolated anecdotes but are part of a trend no one would have imagined a few years ago. "Gigonomics," Brown calls it.

For a supposedly educated Englishwoman, that term seems awfully lame.

The poll, conducted online among 500 employed Americans over 18, found that a third are working as freelancers or in two jobs. Of those who call themselves freelancers, 58 percent previously had a staff position with the company for
which they're now doing "gigs."

This not-so-rosy scenario raises questions for which there are no ready answers. How long will it last? What if they can't find even temp work?

Well, maybe they will have to "do the jobs American's won't do", and all the goo-goo nonsense about illegal immigration will stop.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

In a few short days, an African American man will...

In a few short days, an African American man will move from his private residence into a much larger and infinitely more expensive one owned not by him but by the taxpayers. A vast lawn, a perimeter fence and many well trained security specialists will insulate him from the rest of us but the mere fact that this man will be residing in this house should make us all stop and count our blessings - because it proves that we live in a nation where anything is possible.

Many believed this day would never come. Most of us hoped and prayed that it would, but few of us actually believed we would live to see it. Racism is an ugly thing in all of its forms and there is little doubt that if this man had moved into this house 14 years ago, there would have been a great outcry - possibly even rioting in the streets. Today, we can all be both grateful and proud that no such mayhem will take place when this man takes up residency in this house.

This man, moving into this house at this time in our nation's history is much more than a simple change of addresses for him - it is proof of a change in our attitude as a nation. It is an amends of sorts - the righting of a great wrong. It is a symbol of our growth, and of our willingness to "judge a man, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character."

There can be little doubt now that the vast majority of us truly believe that this man has earned both his place in history and his new address. His time in this house will not be easy - it will be fraught with danger and he will face many challenges. I am sure there will be many times when he asks himself how in the world he ended up here and like all who have gone before him, the experience will age him greatly.

But I for one will not waste an ounce of worry for his sake - because in every way a man can, he asked for this. His whole life for the past 14 years appears to have been inexorably leading this man toward this house.

It is highly probable that that in the past, despite all of his actions, racism would have kept this man out of this house. Today, I thank the Lord above that I am an American and that I live in a nation where wrongs are righted, where justice matters and where truly anything is possible.

"Who is this man?" you ask.

You think you know, don't you?

Well, guess again.....

Post sent to me courtesy of Patrick Boll, The Poemdog.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

If you are going to vandalize a church....

....make sure it's the right one, says a Catholic "Liberation Theology" scumbag!

Sadly, a lot of these sorts of creeps have infiltrated the Catholic Church. Yes, they tend to be the ones who also molest the boys and mollycoddle the illegal aliens (yes Cardinal Mahony, I'm talking about you). I have to vomit at how KCBS spins it:

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) -- Vandals may have marked up the wrong church Saturday night in an apparent revolt against Proposition 8 supporters.

Black spray-painted swastikas marred the front of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco's Castro district. Though the church itself is gay friendly, the proposed ban on gay marriage had support from prominent Catholics up to and including Pope Benedict.

Pastor Steve Meriweather told KCBS his parishioners actually share the vandals' sentiment against Prop 8. "I think it's unfortunate that they selected our community to attack," said Meriweather, "because it's the wrong one."

Some attending mass at Holy Redeemer in the heart of the Castro are calling it a hate crime. San Francisco Police have been called in to investigate.

Gee, you think? But "hate crimes" only happen when white heterosexuals are involved. Silly me, I forgot my Commiecrat Rules Of Justice.