Politics and Life

10 Degrees of Misinformation

2008-11-17T13:42:00.000-08:00

by Nathan Mathews

As you may have noticed, it has been rather cold lately. In fact, record cold temperatures and snow falls have been recorded worldwide. So it came as a suprise to learn that October was the hottest month on record. Ever.

This astounding piece of information came from your friend and mine, James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Al Gore's friend in science, and all things globally warm.

Well, as it turns out, October wasn't the hottest month ever. It was a mistake. Hansen had used September's temperature data in place of October's. Once this was discovered, several revelations came to light.

First of all, the error was not discovered by Hansen, or anyone at GISS, or any "climate scientist" at all. It was discovered by two bloggers who run warming-sceptic blogs. What should we make of that? The idea that the scientists make fairly serious mistakes, and it's up to the general public to keep an eye on them.

Second, we heard what's been called an "astonishing admission" from a GISS spokesman. It seems that the temperature data GISS is provided with is not "quality checked". They admit they don't check the data to make sure it's correct. They get the data from various sources, and don't have the resources to even check if it's accurate, or even current! So how's THAT for an institution that is only one of four used by the IPCC to set global economic policy? How much of their past data was also inaccurate? Sort of fills you with warm fuzzies, don't it, though?

Third, it would seem that when confronted about it, they initially tried to play it off and state the numbers are higher than expected because of a newly discovered hot spot in the Arctic. You can almost hear them thinking, "it was worth a shot".

Also, remember that Hansen has been widely recognized as pushing false conclusions and using erroneous data, and has consistantly given the worst of all scenarious to the IPCC of all climate researchers. He is most infamous for his notorious "hockey stick" graph, which seemed to show a sharp increase in worldwide temperatures in the last few decades, after what he claimed was a steady and non-changing worldwide temperature for a few thousand years. For a long time, Hansen refused to release his data on how he came up with his model. When it all finally came to light, it turned out that any data input, even random numbers, would still generate the same hockey stick graph.

Incidentally, this hockey stick graph was debunked by Steve McIntyre, one of the analyst bloggers who just revealed this latest blunder by Hansen and GISS. I suppose Hansen now considers McIntyre as his nemesis. "Curse you, McIntyre!", or as Ace of Spades puts it, "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling bloggers!"

More Police Brutality For Obama

2008-11-15T12:17:00.001-08:00

by Nathan Mathews

Although this incident occurred on election night, it shouldn't be ignored or forgotten.

Police arrested a man for wearing a McCain t-shirt. Yes, this is true. I recommend watching the video, it is disturbing. The police claimed the man was drunk and disorderly, which in the video you can see is a lie. And besides, we're not sure why the entire crowd wasn't arrested for being extremely disorderly. No one will honestly believe the man was NOT singled out and arrested for his political beliefs, it's simply that it's okay, because..well, because it just is.

One of the problems, aside from police breaking the law, is the public reaction to this. For the most part, the media, as usual, ignores stories like this, since it doesn't fit the known agenda. But the public at large really needs to understand where this is going. We are looking at a time when police protection is offered to one group of people, while police harassment is heaped on another, for nothing other than political reasons.

This is the very definition of a police state.

Some people have said that the police probably saved the man's life. I find that to be not only irresponsible, but very dangerous speech. To allude to the idea that police would be allowed to break the law, and deny citizens their constitutional rights on the grounds that they may or may not somehow be helping them is the same as saying there are no constitutional rights for citizens, and the police are allowed to, at will, do anything they want to anyone at any given time, with the claim that it's for their own good.

The constitution exists for a reason, so that things like this do NOT happen. The police in this video are the guilty culprits, they are the ones who should be arrested. The crowd was harassing this man, that is obvious. But the police refused to stop them, instead choosing to join the crowd, single this person out for his political beliefs, and use their own authoritarian powers against him. The only difference between the police and the out of control mob was that the police had authority to commit their crimes.

The line of reasoning being used is the same as saying police had the right to arrest peaceful protesters in Selma, Alabama and later claim they probably protected them from harm.

That is not the job of the police, to arrest the peaceful with the false claim that they are somehow protecting them, while letting the actual criminals roam free. If the police are too afraid to confront the mob, it's time they looked for another career. They should have been protecting this man's constitutional rights. But they were afraid of this mob, because they are cowards. They were either cowards, or they themselves are criminals for abusing their authority to push a political agenda and stifle opposing beliefs.

Newsflash! The Left Is Intolerant...?

2008-11-14T14:10:00.001-08:00

by Nathan Mathews

So the story is that an 8th grader, Catherine Vogt at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School, conducted this experiment, where one day she wears a pro-McCain t-shirt to school, and the next day she wears a pro-Obama t-shirt to school. As can be imagined in this liberal suburb of Oak Park, they were less than kind to her during her pro-McCain day.

Well, duh... I mean, come on people, when on earth are things like this NOT going to be newsworthy? I predict that Americans will finally realize that the left is intolerant about 10 years after the earth falls into the sun.

When has the left shown tolerance for the right? When? I realize you can't answer that.

And what's even more frustrating is how the left, instead of confronting their own inherent intolerance, will instead simply accuse the right of the same thing. It's called diversion, changing the subject. Also, they use moral-equivalency, bascially saying it's okay for them to be hateful if they can find one example of the right being hateful.

This illustrates a major difference between left and right of today. The left strives for the lowest common denominator, while the right strives for higher moral values.

I'll tell you what. Why not find yourself a nice, red state...say, Alaska, or Georgia, and find a nice, upper-middle class suburb school, and have a student wear a pro-Obama shirt and see what happens. Would you like to know what will happen? I'll tell you. Nothing.

Nothing would happen, because the right isn't interested in these sort of confrontations. That's the left's tactic, and it always has been. They have shown it from the social revolution in the 1960's right up until today.

Nothing would happen because conservatives, myself included, don't care if you support Obama, we don't care if you were against the war. That's your choice. Go ahead, vote how you want, think what you want. But show us that same respect!

What we don't like is when liberals push their views down our throats, and treat us with an attitude that we not only don't deserve respect, but instead deserve malice. Conservatives in this country are routinly treated by liberals as if it is commonly accepted that we are the enemy and it is perfectly okay to treat us that way.

The left will always give a few examples of how the right is intolerant, but the right can give their daily lives. It's just something we're used to. The right is fully aware of how the left feels, and so many on the right have experienced the hatred first hand. It's not newsworthy. Although every time something like this happens we act like it is.

Why is that? Why is it that everytime a public example of the left's intolerance hits the media, we act like it's something ironic. How is it ironic? Ironic would be if that were out of character for the left, which it is not.

It's the left's fault for being intolerant of other peoples' views, but it's everyone's fault for thinking they ever were.

Getting Ahead Of Ourselves

2008-11-13T15:26:00.000-08:00

by Nathan Mathews

We are only eight years into the 100 year period known as the 21st century, and yet people are already attempting to name global warming as the "defining issue" of this new century.

I have a feeling that the people of 40, 50, and 60 years from now will have their own ideas of what the defining issues of this new century will be, and it's highly unlikely global warming will come to mind for them.

Most likely, global warming will, within 10 years time, and more likely 5 years time, become synomomous with "where's the beef", "I pity the fool", and "yes we can" as meaningless buzz phrases and catch terms of times past.

There will come a time, very soon, when no one believed in global warming, and no one wants to talk about it.

Obama, The New Pied Piper

2008-10-28T09:38:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

From Obama’s website for kids:

The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.

That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"

After the coronation, perhaps he can annouce his plan for “Obama Youth”. After all, if we’re not careful, Republican parents may still have some influence over their children, and that would go against our plan for hope and change.

Perhaps he should have ended it with this:

And keep in mind kiddies, those years of life experience your parents and grandparents possess may have led them in the wrong direction, and it's up to you to "set them straight". Their love for you is a weapon, and it should be wielded for my purposes, to get me into office! Use their love, use it as I say to use it! I command thee!

On a serious note, this is a bit backwards, now isn’t it? Advice like this should be coming from parents and grandparents down to the younger ones. If my son were to give any advice, he’d say to vote for Spiderman, because “Spiderman fights the bad guys”!

via Van Helsing

Falling Out Of Love With Barack Obama

2008-10-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

How will it happen? Will it be quick, in his first trial? Or will it be slow, taking root over time? Will it be a single incident, or a series of realizations?

The fact that it will happen is hard to deny. The pendelum has swung so far towards near worship of the man that he must inevitably fall in the eyes of his followers. As it stands now, either we will, 2000 years hence, be reading ancient texts of the time The One healed the earth and smote corruption, or else people will be in for a rude awakening before he leaves office.

One of those two scenarios could happen, and I believe it will be the latter. I say this because our world does not produce anymore true gods. Not in its present form. We have too much access to free information, we have been bred for too long on the idea of free speech and ideas. We can no more universally accept him as either Messiah or anti-Christ than we can anyone else in modern times.

So what will it be? Another 9/11 style attack? Will he surprise us all by calling the attackers to visit him in the White House and negotiate? Personally, that's my belief. I think Joe Biden confirmed it when he said that not only will Obama be tested, but we are not going to like how he handles it, at first. Meaning that Obama plans to use that oppurtunity to show the world and to teach Americans all about how to peacefully settle problems. Actually, I believe Obama is hoping for just such an attack just for this purpose. However, since terrorists and Americans hold adverse opinions on solutions, this will likely fail very quickly.

Many people consider that his economic polices will be his downfall. I don't. We've had tax rates in our recent past that make Obama's plan look like Reagan's. 70% high end under Carter, and before that, the highest tax bracket had been over 90% for a while. Yes, there are many prominent Democrats who want us to go back to those days, but I believe Obama will start small, probably in the 50% range. He'll start small, let us get used to it, then move it up some more.

Or will it be his social policies that are his downfall? Or perhaps his stifling of free speech? I think this may play a part. There have been so many attempts to do this in recent years that have flown under the radar, so most Americans don't realize how close they've come to not being able to even post a blog like this. If proposed laws were to pass, you would be forced to obtain a special license to write what I'm writing, you could be forced to post opposing viewpoints, even on a personal website, you could be forced to not say certain things that others might find offensive.

Yes, this could be his tipping point. But there's a lot more to the left than people may realize, some things that most Americans can't stomach, that could become more accepted under Obama. Take for instance the complete personal denigration that the left has thrown at all of its opponents, from Sarah Palin to Joe the Plumber. Many Americans are already having a hard time dealing with this, while those on the left, for some reason, think that it's all okay to act this way. But it may be enough for Americans in general to suddenly stand up in mass and say "Enough! We're tired of your filth, lack of manners, general cruelty, and complete lack of sensitivity!"

Or will it be the double-standards for so many issues? Will it be how the press, the left, the feminists, etc, are all given a pass to say the most vile things about Sarah Palin, but even the slightest mention of a disagreement with Obama is considered racist heresy. The media has been consistent in its one-sided reporting on every issue that could influence politically. They simply will not report anything negative about Democrats or Democratic supporters, and the polar opposite for the right. However, although it's no longer a secret, and their bias is now completely out in the open, and they all but admit it, I still think this will continue and won't be the catalyst for change. I say this because it's gone on for so long, and the American people have been led around by the nose by left-leaning journalists for so many years, and nothing's ever been done about it. All through the 60's, through Vietnam, through the Carter years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years, and especially the Bush years, the media has not simply reported the news, but swayed opinion to the left and caused increasing harm in the world, and they are unrepentant and they don't show any signs of stopping. And judging by the vast numbers of people who still watch them, I see no reason to expect them to change, or be a cause for people to rebel in this late stage of the game.

However, I still do expect Obama's greatness to eventually come shattering down. He can't possibly live up to expectations. He certainly won't heal the earth, and he certainly won't spread peace and love throughout the world, and believe me, evil dictators will certainly not suddenly all have a change of heart because he shows up at the UN with a big teleprompter and gives a grandiloquent speech.

Fundamentally Unsound In Character

2008-10-20T11:13:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Barack Obama: He's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. How many plumbers do you know making a quarter million dollars a year?

Joe Biden: John continues to cling to the notion, the fact that this guy, Joe the plumber. I don't know how many Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year and are worried.

I want you to notice carefully the wording these two people used. Not once did they say a plumber cannot make that kind of money, not once did they say Joe the Plumber is a liar. What they did was give that implication and let the audience take it from there.

This is intellectual dishonesty. The fact is that Joe the Plumber was not referring to a single individual earning that much, but a plumbing company. Both Obama and Biden know that, yet they chose to ignore that and instead gave the implication that what they were talking about was a single plumber, for no other reason than to distract from the issue, throw doubt on the person asking the question, and avoid Obama's "spread the wealth" slip of the tongue.

Obama and Biden are not truthful, they are deceitful, and this is a perfect example of it. I'm not sure how any moral individual could vote for these two when the evidence of their dishonesty is in their very words. If Obama were honest, which he is not, he would admit to his ideas of spreading the wealth and expound on them, and try and convince the voters of their merit.

But they have no plans of addressing the actual issue that Joe the Plumber brought up. And whether or not Joe the Plumber actually ever owns a business that makes that kind of money, the fact is that plenty of other small businesses DO fit that category. Yet Obama and Biden refuse to address this, and instead simply try and distract eager followers with outright false implications.

How can the American people, in their hearts and in their minds, honestly and truly stand behind people that would be openly deceitful? How can you do it?

To me, even beyond ideological beliefs, capitalism versus socialism, there has to be something about character. It's like saying "well, I'm a Republican so I'll vote for Nixon. What could go wrong?" You KNOW Obama's character, you KNOW he will lie, he will deceive, he will make false implications, he will avoid issues, he will blame others. You KNOW that, without a single doubt in your heart and mind you know it's true.

I believe, sadly, that most people voting for Obama simply don't care. They are okay with his bad character. And any attack on him will simply elicit the standard "moral equivalency" response. They will start bashing Bush or McCain or Palin.

This, more than anything, reflects why people will vote for Obama. Because they are intellectually dishonest, themselves.

Who Pays, Who Gets It For Free?

2008-10-17T09:25:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

This is absolutely hysterical! The general idea seems to be that the wealthy people will go on producing wealth even when you take most of it away, AND that people who can afford to pay for things will continue to pay for them even if you’re giving it away for free to other people.

But wait, what’s this:

Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Mos.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

Hahaha!!! This chump gets the award for the stupidest socialist moron on the planet!! Who would have ever thought people would do such a thing. After all, they can afford to pay for it, so why don’t they?

But don’t worry, if we apply this same mentality nationwide I’m sure it would be different. And if we continue to tax people at a higher and higher rate when they make more money, I’m sure they’ll continue to make money, right? I mean, am I right? Hellooo?

Next on the agenda, all students who earn higher grades will now have some of those grades taken away to give to students with lower grades. The students with higher grades will continue to earn higher grades so that we can spread the grades around, and give everybody a chance.

If people have the nerve to stop earning higher grades, we can FORCE them to, and if people try to stop paying for things they can afford, we can FORCE them to pay. And if people try to move their businesses off-shore to avoid high taxes, we’ll build a big ol’ Berlin Wall and FORCE them to stay in this country and work hard, for the good of the proletariat…I..I mean people. The people.

Already, I can foresee the next dumbfounded statement:

“People who were already able to afford mortgage payments began to stop paying them so they could take advantage of the bailout,” said a very surprised President Obama, as he scratched his head and scanned the pages of Das Kapital in search of answers. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”

Explaining The Cult Of Obama

2008-10-10T16:15:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

I was actually discussing this issue with my wife the other day, the issue of why so many people actually seem to be "in love" with Barack Obama. It's a phenomenon that intrigues me, and, honestly, I can't remember ever witnessing anything like this in my lifetime.

Certain words have been used to describe him in jest, and then later we hear people actually use those words in truth, and then suddenly we feel we have to avoid those words. One of those words is the "One", a la The Matrix. Another (shudder) is the Messiah. When people first used these terms, it was meant to be derogatory, not towards Obama, but to his followers.

Then, before I realized it, there were actually people using those terms with sincerity. And then it all became a little scary.

After that, throughout the summer and right up to the present, there has been an increase on the left of people openly discussing the idea that Senator Barack Obama is somehow more than human, that he is god-like, that he is Messianic. How creepy is that?

But we're a free country, right? We have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and... Wait, back up a bit. Freedom of religion. Let's discuss this for a moment. America is the first country to truly offer a real freedom of practicing whatever religion you want without having to pay homage to any religion at all, if you wish. This is something that's never really happened before in history.

Remember those dratted middle ages? Remember the Inquisition? Remember how people were forced to believe a certain way? Also remember King Henry VIII, how he split the Church of England off of the Catholic Church? There were wars, there was bloodshed. Soldiers would show up in the dead of night looking for evidence that people were practicing Catholicism, while the priests hid in the priest holes?

And let's go back even further, to Roman times. You could be arrested for not paying homage to the correct gods and goddesses. In fact, throughout almost all of recorded history, having a specific religion forced upon people was the norm. Religion has been controlled by the government from time immemorial.

Religion is part of our psyche. The desire, or some may say the need, to worship or at least acknowledge a higher being, a divine entity, mother nature, earth spirits, some sort of enlightened ones, has been part of our genetic makeup for eons. And along with that has always been an idea of which religions were accepted, which religions were expected, and which religions were forced upon people by the state.

Even in America, right up through the 1950's, there has been a sort of expectancy of Christianity in our culture. We would respect other religions while at the same time considering ourselves to be Christians at heart, living in a Christian nation.

But now, for the first time, we have people who are not led by the state in any particular religion. People are completely free to follow any religious ideas they wish, or no religion at all, or to make up their own. And most importantly, and getting to the heart of this article, in the post-cultural revolution days, we have the first generation that has truly been raised with these beliefs.

Perhaps what we're seeing is the result of that. Perhaps what we're seeing is the first generation raised without any religion at all trying to find themselves, trying to find a sort of religious identity. All it takes is a hint, a suggestion that this person they themselves have elevated to almost a perfect being could actually be something more than that, and the phenomenon takes off on its own. Then we start hearing of Obama being called a "light worker", and it develops like a snowball down a hill.

People need religion. I know this is anathema to many on the left, but I believe there is something instinctive inside us, some sort of basic human reflex to assume an intelligence, a morality, and a supernaturality greater than our own. Atheist can clamor all they want that there is no God and no great supernatural being, but when it comes down to it, many Atheist don't actually believe there is no God; instead, they believe there IS a God and they hate Him. They hate God for all the evil that exists in the world, for all the bad things that happen, for allowing death and disease. They often NEED God as much as a Christian, but not to find answers, only to place blame for an imperfect world.

And when people are left without any structured religion, when they are not taught, when there is no one to show them the way, they will find their own way and create their own gods. In our modern high-tech world, you won't see them making golden calves, but you will find them lifting the ordinary to the level of the extraordinary. You will see them taking an ordinary man and imparting him with wisdom he doesn't possess. You will see an actual emotional attachment that appears abnormal.

This sort of emotional attachment manifests itself almost as a sort of love. There are actually people who are in love with Barack Obama. You won't often find this with people who have a religious foundation in their lives. This love is usually found in people who have been searching for something. And this doesn't mean they're weak minded. It simply means that spirituality is a basic human need and without guidance towards a mainstream religion, people will find their own spirituality.

To them, insulting Barack Obama is akin to insulting Jesus, because to them, that's all they have.

I realize this puts us all in a dangerous position. Suppose Jesus were elected president. We'd expected a heck of a great country, wouldn't we? And what if he didn't deliver? Well, you'd have disillusionment. This can lead to all sorts of terrible things, but in the end will lead to people looking for another Messiah.

And as for Barack Obama, he will never live up to the expectations of his most loyal followers. That is a physical impossibility. If he is given a chance (elected), and fails, the disillusion comes. If he's not given a chance (not elected), beware of his followers, because all's fair in love and war, and to them who love him, it could mean war for us to reject him.

Top Ten Reasons Why Obama Supporters Are Unintelligent

2008-10-09T18:34:00.001-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Update - 10/20/2008

My wife read this post and said it was very mean spirited. Therefore, I'm adding this update in an attempt to explain why some people honestly support the Democratic ticket. Since I never have, I can't be sure I'm hitting the nail on the head each time, but this is from a Conservative's point of view. The original list is still at the bottom.

1) What the parents' taught. I believe it's true that most people probably have a particular belief system based on what they were taught as a child. Democrats will naturally teach their children to be Democrats. And as Rhet Butler said, "Well, far be it for me to question the teachings of childhood."

2) "New Deal" Democrats. There are still plenty of people around who actually remember FDR's New Deal. They remember how he tried to infuse hope into the people, the masses. His actual intentions and results are hotly debated to this day, and I certainly have my own opinion. However, he was looked upon as a Democrat trying to help the little people.

3) Average working man. My wife, a former Democrat, explained that the Democrats are the party of the people, the average working person. This belief perhaps comes from a time about 30 years ago, when our government was facing one of the worst and most corrupt times in history. I'm talking of Nixon and Watergate. The notion of corrupt Republican officials wearing expensive suits, in the tank for big business, breaking the law to get their way...these things were so much in the public mind that we actually went off the deep end and elected a former peanut farmer, then Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, who actually had more experience than Obama, but turned out to be the cause of many if not most of the problems we face today. (I say former peanut farmer because I believe this earthy quality helped him, he was a "person of the earth", a "toiler of the soil".)

There is no real basis in fact that Democrats help working people any more than Republicans, but this myth still lives today. It's helped through a number of ways. One such idea is raising the minimum wage, not to keep up with the cost of living, but as a way to actually give people a raise, instead of letting them earn the raise from their employers. This is in spite of the fact that everyone gets that same raise, the ones who perform well and the ones who don't. When everyone in the country suddenly makes more, it trickles throughout the eonomy. Employers have less to spend on new employees, on benefits, on goods and services. Also, prices increase as a result. This is all based solidly on economics, not feel good ideas. Democratic leaders know that, but they do it anyway because it buys them votes.

The myth is also propogated by a variety of social services often pushed by Democrats. Well let's just add the "ism" to those social services and be done with it. We are so afraid that people will suffer as they did in the Great Depression that we seem to have gone overboard, making it actually easy to simply not work, and have the government completely provide your needs for you. Republicans, despite what the media says, do not want to get rid of welfare. They simply want to reform it, so that people won't stay on it permanently. Democrats also push for a variety of other socialist ideas, such as free health care, and also offering all these services to illigal aliens. This idea of buying votes from the middle and lower class is another reason why Democrats are thought to be the party of the people.

However, Republicans believe that living in a capitalist, free-market society enables people to earn all of these things. Time and again it's been proven that those who apply themselves can get ahead in this country, despite their backgrounds. Republicans believe laws should be in place to allow for fair competition and equal compensation, and to prevent working class Americans from being taken advantage of. But that doesn't mean they don't have to work.

4) Education, Entertainment, Media. Colleges today are very liberal, you don't need me to tell you that. The average college student is being bombarded by far left wing propoganda in the classroom. The goal has long been to indoctrinate people when they are young and the most vulnerable. I remember when I was in college. I knew everything. My parents were idiots. I was ripe for the picking of any professor who bothered to explain a radical idea in such a way as to make it seem both obvious and necessary. Fortunately I was an econ major, which is normally dominated by fiscally conservative viewpoints. (I guess there's really not much to teaching socialist economics, do what the state says, repeat. Heh.) However, three areas that are highly dominated by socially liberal viewpoints are education, journalism, and drama. Some state run schools actually will drop students from the curricula if they do not share the same beliefs.

The result, after decades of this, is that our education system, our entertainment industry, and our news media are openly biased towards left wing thought. There are many other reason why these three are predominantly liberal, but the point is they are.

One thing that I find odd is that liberals seem to honestly believe that a large percentage of Americans with liberal beliefs somehow actually justifies those liberal beliefs, without admitting that they simply hold those beliefs, not because they're valid, but because they've been taught to. Imagine if our education system taught students in a non-biased way, and if the news media showed the news in a fair and balanced way, and our entertainment industry were not so heavily left of center in all they say and do, imagine how few people would actually hold far left beliefs. The fact that they NEED these three industries to constantly bombard the people with propaganda should demonstrate clearly that people would not naturally gravitate in that direction. In other words, left wing ideology can't complete with right wing ideology. It needs this "edge".

5) Feminism/Abortion. In my view, there really is little difference between modern feminism and pro-abortionism. Sarah Palin is a prime example. She is a woman who has both raised a family AND become a state governor. She has shown time and again she's strong willed, she hunts, she's outspoken, and she's a woman. You would think that this she is a feminists dream come true, right? Wrong. Because she differs from modern feminism in it's one defining aspect. She's not pro-abortion. And because of that one, single difference, she is treated with complete disdain and disprespect. All ideas of leaving gender out of the debate are out the window. She and her family are now fair game to be ridiculed in every manner, because of abortion.

The myth of the modern feminist may come back to haunt them, someday, unless the three great teachers of our society (mentioned in number 4 above), can successfully distract the populace.

But the very idea that modern Democrats, who by word will proclaim themselves to be the standard bearers of feminism, can dare to use gender to denigrate a female political candidate, shows how very untrue is the idea that Democrats are the party of feminism. They are simply the party of abortion.

6) True anti-Americanism. There is a growing trend in this country, a growing number of people who honestly and sincerely hate America and want it to fall. Some of them want it replaced with a socialist utopia, some don't think beyond the fall of our government, and some are simply bent on hating and killing anyone with opposing viewpoints. Whatever is the case, these people are a valid part of the new Democratic base.

7) Civil rights. It is another myth that Democrats are the party of the civil rights movement. People tend to ignore the fact that Democrats started the Jim Crowe laws, that Democrats ran the new south since the end of Reconstruction (around the turn of the century) right up until the Clinton/Bush era. The Republican run north had blacks in positions of authority, professors, judges, etc, generations ago. The Democratic run south imposed segregation. It wasn't until things came to a head in the 1960's that JFK was forced to deal with the issue. And no, he wasn't fighting evil Republicans to get equal rights for blacks, he was fighting Democrats. JFK stated he never thought that he would be remembered for pushing civil rights, that's because it wasn't an issue for him or other Democrats until the issue was forced upon their administration by the people, lead in part by Martin Luther King, and others like him.

8) JFK Lovers. I know many people vote Democrat because they idolize JFK. You may have heard of him, he was a president half a century ago. That's right, people, he ran for office in 1960, nearly 50 years ago. Yet he is the pet of the Democratic party to this day. Whether was good, bad, or indifferent seems less important when you realize that probably half the people voting today were not even born when he died, in 1963. The party he ran resembles todays' party in name only. Could you imagine JFK learning of his party's current nomination? The complete lack of any experience at all, terrorist ties, the connection with voting fraud organizations, the far left voting record, the socialist ties, and on and on? But people will stick to the Democrats out of fondness for JFK, and the whole mythos of the Kennedys of Camelot.

*** Original Post ***

Lately something occurred to me about Obama supporters, something I've noticed before but couldn't quite put my finger on. Simply put, it's that they are really, really dumb.

Let's go over the qualifications for this statement. The reasons they support Obama, and Democrats in general, that make them dumb.

1) They support him because of the color of his skin. I can't imagine any circumstance that would make someone worthy of support simply by being Caucasian, but many Obama supporters believe it's okay to support him based solely on his skin color. That is identity politics, that is tribal collectivism, and it has no place in our society.

2) There are some people who believe that reason number one is a good reason to support Obama. These people are dumb. They have convinced themselves, and attempt to convince others, that skin color is now a rationale for awarding a scholarships, hiring someone, or electing a president. They state that because of historical reasons, this is okay. The very idea of this is so backwards from what true liberalism is all about that it pretty much wipes out all the good that came out of the civil rights movement.

3) Many people actually believe that Republicans and George Bush are responsible for the current credit crisis. They completely ignore the fact that six years ago Bush warned Congress about Fannie and Freddie yet Democrats voted 100% against regulating them. Then two years ago McCain helped introduce another bill to try and regulate them, and once again every single Democrat voted against it. Obama has the audacity to say that this is a result of eight years of failed economic policy, yet neither he nor anyone else can name ONE SINGLE POLICY of Bush or his administration that in any way added to this problem. Obama himself not only voted AGAINST regulation, but actually blamed McCain because McCain's bill didn't pass!! And yet Democrats and Liberals blindly believe Obama when he says it was the Republicans who caused this. Obama received more bribery money from Fannie/Freddie than anyone in history except for Democrat Chris Dodd (who, along with Barney Frank is the main person behind the credit crisis), and he did it in only three years. Yet this is all overlooked by dumb people who just want to blame Bush without having to think real hard about it.

4) Hollywood supports Obama. Okay, this simple fact alone should jar people into avoiding Obama like the plague, but for some reason weak minded people will flock to him because of this. These are the same people who read with interest all the goings-on of the Tinseltown elitists. The average person in Hollywood could never relate to the average person in America, and any thinking individual should realize this. Yet when someone like Matt Damon goes in front of the camera and starts bashing Sarah Palin over some phony internet rumors, there are people who actually listen to him and say "yeah, Jason Bourne is right, man! That Palin chick is weird and dangerous!!". People in Hollywood do not live normal lives. They are not normal people. They are anomalies in our culture. They represent a tiny fraction of a hundredth of a percent of the population. And guess what? They are mostly far-left liberals. Surprised? Why on earth does any working class person in American honestly believe we should listen to these people? Because they are dumb.

5) Global Warming. Okay, the simple fact of the matter is that most scientists say that man-made global warming is bunk. It's false. It's not happening. And this is easily proven. Practically any person in this country can look up all the information for themselves and read all about it. Yet the vast majority of Democrats believe it as if it were a religion, while most Republicans do not, McCain notwithstanding. If I were to tell you that nearly 2000 scientists signed on with a theory, but over 30,000 scientists said that theory is false, why on earth would you not believe the 30,000 scientists? Because you are dumb. Well, I have to also say that the media is entirely to blame for this. They are complicit in hiding the truth. This hard claim is also easily proven. Why not simply look up all the facts I've pointed to, and see which media outlets reported them, and which didn't. But if you are an Obama supporter, you will not look up the facts, because you are dumb.

6) Liberals and Democrats believe that Obama is a Christian. This, more than almost anything, makes you dumb for believing it. Why not tell us all what exactly Obama has done to show he is a Christian? The answer is simply, absolutely nothing. The funny thing is, people that support him and realize he's not a Christian are probably laughing their asses of at his foolish supporters who actually believe he's a Christian. Black Liberation Theology is his religion of choice, NOT Christianity. And never the twain shall meet. BLT has far more to do with politics than religion. The few times God enters into BLT, He is to be manipulated into supporting a specific belief. Doesn't that sound weird? Doesn't that sound bizarre to anyone? If I were to say that in my religion, God has to think a certain way or we should kill him, wouldn't you think that's a bit backwards? Yet there are actually people in this world who think Obama, a Black Liberation Theologist, is actually a Christian! These people are dumb.

7) Socialism is the way to prosperity. Socialists around the world have come out in support of B. Hussein Obama. People right here in this country who believe socialism is a good thing are all supporting Obama. Many of Obama's beliefs adhere to socialist policies, such as higher taxes for the wealthy, little or no taxes for low income people, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, state controlled education, state controlled financial institutions, etc...etc... Now Obama does not deny at all that he believes in all these things, but he refuses to go the extra step and say he supports socialism. First of all, we have his followers who somehow believe that although Obama supports everything that socialism supports, he's not a socialist. These people are dumb. Second, we have all the people who DO realize he's a socialist and like him BECAUSE of that. These people are also dumb. They are dumb because they actually think socialism will work. Yet they cannot name a single instance of it ever working anywhere in the world, any place, any time in history. Socialism has never been the way to prosperity, except for the people at the top. It is the way to Obama's prosperity. His socialist followers are dumb.

8) Blind followers of the media. Weak minded people, and, sad to say, older people, are prone to simply believe what they are told, whether it sounds right or not. The media throughout the free world has, for decades, leaned further and further to the left. In the past few years they have come out openly and unapologetically against all things Republican, all things conservative, all things Christian. To deny this is just dumb. Anyone interested in the truth can easily find it. In the age of the interenet, the media has become exposed. The media has all but said they want Obama to win, as well as all Democrats. The vast majority of Democratic voters will listen to whatever news station happens to be on, and simple-mindedly believe whatever they're told, and simple-mindedly be led by the partisan attitudes of the reporters. These people are dumb. They are dumb and they will blindly vote for Obama because they have been led to believe he is good and they have been led to believe George W. Bush is bad. They don't care that Bush isn't running for office, they simply vote against Bush by voting for Obama. That's the mentality of the average viewer today. They are dumb.

9) Haters of George W. Bush. As mentioned in number eight above, multitudes of people have been told through the media that all the worlds' problems are due to President Bush. People who believe this are dumb. They are dumb because they can't name specifically why all things are his fault, but they believe it. President Bush warned Congress six years ago about Fannie and Freddie needing regulation, yet people will actually believe the credit crisis is all Bush's fault. Our society today has been told over and over and over that Bush is the worst president in history, so they believe it. They are dumb. They have no concept of history, and they don't want to have a concept of history. They are happy in their bubble of ignorance. They were happy when Clinton bombed some little country that attacked us, and had no idea why. They were mad at Bush for 9/11 even though the attacks had been planned for years. They were 100% blissfully ignorant of all the attacks made against the U.S. during Clinton's time in office, and somehow actually believe the Muslims hate us because of President Bush. They ignore all facts, all historical evidence, everything. They simply use Bush for a punching bag, they blame all their ills on him without rhyme and without reason. They do this because they are dumb. The average Democrat has little or no desire to make this country, much less the world, a better place. If they did they would probably spend a small amount of time actually researching what makes the world bad, and might actually realize Bush has done a great deal to help our country and the world. But this is not what Democrats want, it's not what liberals want, it's not what Obama supporters want. They simply want to hate President George W. Bush, and they care little for the reason why. Any reason will do, they are not particular. In fact, the average Democrat will simply believe out of hand that you should hate Bush, and that Bush is a bad president, and what will be their reason? Simple, because "everybody knows that." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is actually their argument, because "everybody knows that." Anyone who cannot state exact non-disputable reasons for disliking Bush, yet still dislike him, they are dumb. Sadly, most reasons they give are false. They say bring up the war over and over again, completely ignoring the 12 U.N. sanctions Saddam Hussein broke and all the rest. They simply believe the media hype. Democrats and liberals and all Obama supporters are like sheep being lead to the voting booths by the media. They don't know the facts and don't want to know them. They are dumb.

10) Obama makes a good speech. Well, I guess there's no better reason to hand over the reins of government to someone than that they talk a good talk, right? I mean, am I right? Well of course that's right, as long as you're a Democrat, an Obama supporter. If so then that's all the reason you need. This is no lie, I have actually heard people use this time and again as as reason to like Obama. "He gives a good speech..." Well, good for him, I guess. But let me inform you of something you may not be aware of. A good speech is not actually the same thing as running a country. Not...quite. I know it seems close in the minds of the masses, but there's actually a big difference between that speech, and having the judgement, the character, the fortitude, and the right beliefs to run America. Do we really, honestly believe that speech making should be the reason for making Obama president? I know what you're going to say, you hated Bush's speeches. They were boring, they were forced, he messed up a lot. And McCain is also boring, and not charismatic. But substance should count for something, right? Look at the persons beliefs, look at their record, look at what they're actually saying and do some research on it, find out if it's true, or possible or what it will cost us. Flowery words and a fun turn of the phrase isn't enough. Just because he says what you want to hear, which for Democrats is nothing more than "Bush is evil", doesn't mean you are smart to vote for him. In fact, you are dumb. And you know it.

B. Hussein Obama Is NOT A Christian

2008-10-09T17:33:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Because of a moronic comment left by one of Obama's worshippers who claimed Obama is not only a Christian, but perhaps our next messiah, I've decided to take a couple of steps.

First, no more anonymous comments. Don't like it? Start your own blog. Offended? Good.

Second, it's vital that every person realize that the so-called senator Obama is NOT in any way, shape, or form a Christian.

Obama is no more a follower of Jesus Christ than are any of his brain-dead minions. I want everyone to please examine the facts. What has he EVER said or done that made him appear as a Christian? One of the FEW times he ever spoke of the Bible, he actually confused the old and new testaments!!! He actually believed that Leviticus was part of the teachings of Jesus!! He actually thought that old Jewish texts were something that Christians today actually followed. Hussein Obama is a moron, plain and simple.

But it goes far beyond that. Hussein is actually worse than useless, he's dangerous because he makes non-Christians actually think that Christians would believe what he believes. He is a dangerous person, because he incites leagues of followers to hang on his every word.

Hussein does not represent Christianity, he is AGAINST Christianity, and all it stands for. Hussein is for killing babies after they are born, if the parents didn't want them. Don't believe it? I'm not surprised. Most people are never told about his darker side, the side that revels in the killing of babies that were "supposed" to be aborted but survived.

Hussein is a follower of Black Liberation Theology, which has nothing to do with Jesus. A simple web search will provide you with all the information you need about Black Libertation Theology. However, I can guarantee that if you plan on voting for Obama, you will not look it up, because you simply don't want to know the truth.

Why is it that any brain dead liberal who claims they are a Christian will have the morons of America lining up to believe them as long as their brand of Christianity somehow matches the left-wing hippie way of thinking that so many non-thinking socialists today adhere to? There is a reason for that. It's because in the backs of their minds they still believe, at some level, that Christianity is a good thing, and so they try and twist their minds to the belief that what they believe is somehow Christianity.

Well it's not. Jesus clearly defined what it is to be a Christian, and Hussein and his devoted worshippers in no way follow that path. They are dangerous because they lie about Christianity. They are dangerous because they lead people away from true Christianity. They are dangerous because they realize they're doing this, and still purposely do it.

Let me be completely clear about this. If you think that B. Hussein Obama is a Christian, you are not only wrong, but you represent all that is wrong with this country and this world. You represent the stupidity of our race, the lowest level of non-thinking, the basest class of unintellectual reasoning. You believe what you believe with absolutely no proof or desire for proof. You believe it out of a sense of hatred for true Christians...a realization that true Christians are actually following Jesus and Obama is not and it's a very difficult thing for you to admit

It's a very sad world we live in when instead of perhaps reading a Bible to understand Christianity, people will listen to B. Hussein Obama, a known non-Christian. He is using Christianity to push his own marxist beliefs that have nothing to do with Christianity. Oddly enough, there's enough stupid people in the world to follow him. However it's unfortunate that they will drag the rest of the country into insanity and force us to call president a man who is not fit to walk my dog for a living.

The Palin Obsession

2008-10-09T13:34:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Okay, the rules to this game are simple. Try and choose the picture that's actually a Reuter's photo of Palin that they felt was newsworthy for a political story.

Ready? Go!
(scroll down)

(scroll down)

Why Republicans Will Lose

2008-10-02T15:24:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Dennis Miller, ladies and gentlemen:

There seems to be this etiquette that her and John are adhering to ... they’d better realize they’re in enemy country, for God’s sake. These people establish their bona fides, and indeed their seating positions at Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee’s Christmas party if they take her out. They’d better get it together.

Over the past decade or more, Liberals have created an atmosphere of extreme offense-sensitivity, so much so that Conservatives and Republicans now spend all their time trying to appease these people. They feel forced to couch everything they say into this little inoffensive bubble of nicety, instead of being able to speak truth to serious issues. But these are hard times, and realities dictate that we drop this charade before it’s too late.

The ones so easily offended are usually stoked into offense by victim mongers and race baiters, so now we have a whole generation of people who have developed the idea that the world exists for no other reason than to be nice to them. But it’s these same people that feel no compunctions against throwing offense at others, and whenever someone of the not-so-left persuasion cries offense, the hooting from the left about “oversensitivity” is deafening.

Newsflash Republicans: because of this, you will lose, and you will be blamed for every evil that has occurred over the past century, not to mention every gaffe, every slight, every minority who wants to bait you into not toeing the exact line that’s been laid out for you, every person who claims they were traumatized by a Christian who said Merry Christmas to them. They will do this because they are in charge.

Whenever any discussion takes place, whether it’s a live debate, an interview, or a simple political discussion, the person who is capable of being offended is automatically in charge of the person worried about causing offense, and will lead the discussion into the inane and nonsensical world of victimology.

Observe Whoopi Goldberg asking John McCain on The View if McCain's desire to follow the constitution meant that she would be a slave again. The question was bad enough and reflected the puerile level of discussion they were interested in. But McCain's answer solidified Whoopi's higher position. He said that was a good point. A good point?!? What? Did McCain think that being nice would win them as friends? That's insane. These people are not his friends. Her question revealed that. If she had asked a legitimate, intelligent question, that would dictate a polite reply. It simply begs the question of why on earth was McCain even on that show. It demeans both him and the party he claims to represent.

But since he did go on the show, why couldn't he have shown more strength of character and simply called her question out for what it was. Stupid. He could have taken the stronger position of authority by showing some cahonas and telling them in no uncertain terms that serious discussions require serious attitudes, and chastising them all for engaging in base tactics. The problem is that McCain knew that it was not a "good point". He only said it to acknowledge her victimhood, thereby awarding her some sort of authority over himself.

Because of this unnecessary and destructive desire by the right, and especially McCain, to tiptoe over and around sensitive issues, no one is even seriously questioning Barack Obama over his own involvement in the current credit crisis, namely his association with ACORN and any funds he's received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Are we so steeped in a need to be unoffensive that we won't even demand the truth of the man we would make president?

Until serious minded people can claim back legitimate discussion of very real and very important topics from people who would turn it all into a circus about who offended who, our country, and our world, will be run by the least common denominator. Politics is serious business, and non-serious minds shouldn't even be involved in it. These are dangerous times, and demand sober thought.

There may come a time, perhaps in our children’s generation, when adult debate returns. But until that happens, all Republicans, and Conservatives in general, have been rendered helpless by the masses of children who would dictate rules of etiquette borrowed from the nursery.

Stifling Patriotism In Our Schools

2008-09-24T19:50:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Okay, this school is certainly NOT winning any friends. Well, not any American friends, that is. Dos Palos High School in Dos Palos, California, recently had a BIG flare up because of a bizzare incident in which they forced a student to remove a shirt because it was colored to look like an American Flag!!!

Heather Ruiz, the Vice Principal, came across a sophomore who was wearing a t-shirt which was tie-died with red-white-and-blue. Okay, I guess that's fine. It was after all Hippie Day, during their Homecoming week, and everyone was wearing weird clothes.

Unfortunately there's weird hippie clothes, and then there's something that might be vaguely patriotic. And now you've just gone too far, buddy. Take that shirt off, and let's label you with a yellow shirt that says "I'm an evil patriotic American, and not worthy of our modern liberal school system." In other words, Heather Ruiz forced the student to remove the shirt and instead wear a yellow shirt that was labeled "Dress Code Violator". No, I'm not kidding.

So, the proverbial shiite hit the fan, the press shows up, the story is linked on Drudge, everybody knows about it. So of course the school says they're so, so sorry, and apologizes, and claims it was all just a misunderstanding.

Bullshit.

The school, along with Heather Ruiz, knew exactly what they were doing. Typical. School systems and criminals always repent...after they are caught. In any work or school environment, there exists a culture, an atmosphere. And people who work or go to school there will quickly pick up on that. This is true for any place of business, any school, any group anywhere. It's human nature to pick up on how others around you act, and react. Dos Palos High School is certainly no different. Their culture must have sent signals out, certain things are acceptable, certain things are not.

And no disrespect to any other cultures, but when you have a high Hispanic population in a California town, it's bound to result in a desire to "supress" any so-called "pro-American" feelings. I hate it, but it's true. And I'm sure not all Hispanics feel this way. Often it's a result of over-zealous liberal non-Hispanics who create victims out of normal, average Hispanics (or as I like to call them, people).

This incident happened on a Tuesday. Wednesday, word spread around the student body that they would all wear patriotic clothing on Thursday as a way to protest the school, which by now had already gone into grovel mode, and had already started pretending they didn't hate Americans. Unfortunately for Heather Ruiz, she ran out of yellow "Dress Code Violator" shirts, and had to run to Walmart and buy more. Okay, I'm kidding, Heather Ruiz didn't really run out to buy more. In fact, I have a real desire to understand the thinking of Heather Ruiz.

I was reading a report about this, and one of the commenters claimed to be a sister-in-law of Heather Ruiz, and said Heather feels really bad about it and blah blah blah. The post WAS at http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/462439.html but they have since started deleting certain comments, the more patriotic ones it seems. But they also deleted the comment by Heather's sister-in-law and all responses to it, which seems bizzare and unfortunate. Censorship prevails.

Anyway, I really, honestly wonder what Heather Ruiz was thinking. Now, I understand she's a mother and is new at this job. But really, what was her initial reaction to that shirt that made her feel that it was innappropriate? I would really be interested in knowing. And not to pick on some woman who's a mother and new at her job and whatever....but as someone who's affected by reading this story. What was her first reaction?

****

However, one thing that I CANNOT excuse, and that seems to have been covered up...there was another incident that happened. While the student in question was giving an interview, an "unnamed" teacher walked up to him, ripped off the microphone that was pinned to his shirt, and said "no interviews". This, to me, is the most appalling aspect of this. Even after the light of the media is shown on the school's dark deeds, and everyone in America is tuned into it, they have the nerve to pull something like this?!?!

If it wasn't for this microphone ripping/interview cancelling incident, I would not even be writing about it. What this shows to me is that Dos Palos High School is in no way sorry for what they've done, and fully intends to continue persecuting this boy after the media disappears.

Shame on you, Dos Palos High School!!! Shame on you for suppressing free speech! Shame on you for allowing this teacher to rip the boy's microphone off!!! And shame on you for not revealing who this teacher is! But let me say, it can't stay a secret forever.

Apparently, Heather Ruiz has been offered up as a sacrifice for her so-called "inexperience", but the culture that created that mentality is alive and well at Dos Palos High School, and will continue to cause pain, and suppress free thinking and free speech.

It outrages me that this teacher who ripped off his microphone, whoever it was, is an actual paid employee!! I've written to Dos Palos High School asking for information on this teacher, but I certainly don't expect a school like that to respond. Not bloody likely.

Another odd, and certainly false statement, is by the Principal, Terri Gill. In reference to the rule that Heather Ruiz used in enforcing her anti-American flag stance, Terri Gill says "the rule was actually written to encourage patriotism". Okay, how weird is that? She's claiming that they have some twilight-zone type rule that is designed to encourage patriotism, and to enforce it you have to prevent students from wearing patriotic shirts. I think the main problem with the rule and with Terri Gill's interpretation of it, is that it's not meant to encourage American patriotism. Okay?

At the time of this posting, this link:
http://www.dpol.net/dphs/administration/admin.htm

shows pictures of the apologizing principal, Terri Gill, and her wayward sidekick who started this mess. Now I don't endorse harrasing either of them. But to look at them, well they just look like normal people. I looked at those pictures, hoping to find something to hate, some sort of Michael-Mooreish, America hating, far-left weirdos. But I just see normal looking people. Scary, isn't it?

For their sake, and the future of our schools, I really want to believe this really was an honest mistake and these people don't hate America and don't hate the American flag. But I don't know. Given what we all know about the NEA, the public school system, the California school system in particular, and liberal teachers everywhere, and then with the teacher ripping off the student's microphone, I think we are in big trouble. I worry for the future of our children.

When The Bad-Guys Are In Charge

2008-09-12T13:22:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

I guess by now we've all heard the bizarre story from Hilton Head, SC, where a school, the Hilton Head Island International Baccalaureate Elementary School, suspended a student for having a broken pencil sharpener. This story is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the tendency of the authorities in cases like this to outright lie in a common effort to save their own skin.

A little background. A 10 year old boy was at school with a broken pencil sharpener. His mistake, by all given accounts, was that he continued to use it. The teacher caught him with the blade which was out of the broken sharpener, and all hell broke loose.

To say the teacher should find another career is an understatement. But all the other culprits, including principal Jill McAden, and the unnamed assistant principal, also should certainly not be working in a school. What kind of a society are we that we allow people like this to abuse our children? And PAY them for it?! Have we digressed so far as a society that we can no longer take back control of our childrens' lives from people who would abuse them? Personally, I believe criminal charges should be leveled at the teacher, the assistant principal, and principal Jill McAden, for abuse.

I would give anything to have the teacher's name, it would be prominently displayed here, and offered, to the "Idiots and Enemies Hall of Fame", for surely she/he was the original culprit in this sad tale. Had the teacher simply taken it away, all would be well, but the teacher instead chose to act on a Zero Tolerance policy which does or does not exist, depending on who you talk to and if they're currently trying to lie their way out of a bad situation.

So they took the boy to the principal, called the POLICE!!! on him, and had his mother brought in, and then he was suspended, for either one or two days, depending on which liar is giving the story at the time.

Do not ask for respect for either the teacher, or the assistant principal, or principal Jill McAden, or district spokesman Randy Wall, or Superintendent Valerie Truesdale, or Board of Education Chairman Fred Washington Jr. These people have all played a terrible role in this. After the story of what they did came to the light of day, they all began covering for each other, including retelling the story differently, and outright lying.

Let's start with Jill McAden, the principal. Jill McAden lied and said there were inaccuracies in the story that hit the news. What were those inaccuracies? First, she claimed, falsely, that the story in the news was that the boy was suspended for having a pencil sharpener. This is a lie. Jill McAden knows it's a lie, and she knew it when she said it. There were no stories on the news that the boy was suspended for having a pencil sharpener. The story was that it was a "broken" pencil sharpener, and they all described the blade. Jill McAden is trying to twist this to make themselves appear as victims. Well boo-hoo-hoo Jill McAden, it won't work. EVERY SINGLE STORY I read correctly stated that the boy had a broken pencil sharpener, and continued to use it, and was caught with the blade from that broken pencil sharpener.

The second Jill McAden lie appears to be that the boy was suspended for one day. Originally it was two, now it's one. Hmmm.... It seems this was simply "amended" afterwards.

There is nothing more sickening that a fully grown adult who acts like a child, an adult in an authoritative role who acts so childish as to cause harm to others, knowingly, and then will LIE to save their own skin.

Jill McAden knew what she was doing. Why she chose to do it is beyond reason. Even the police made it perfectly clear that this was obviously just a piece from a broken pencil sharpener.
Next, Jill McAden falsely claims the boy was being suspended for "inappropriate behavior", instead of what the police originally stated. Jill McAden claimed they were just "clarifying" it, but Sheriff P.J. Tanner said "If they modified it, they've modified it."

Inappropriate behavior...oh that wonderfully vague term that defines nothing but allows so much room for corrupt disciplinary maneuvering. Jill McAden obviously realized the first idea wasn't going to wash, so they'd better move fast if they wanted to ward off any light being shined on their preferably dark activities.

Next we have District spokesman Randy Wall who lied and said they were being accused of suspending the boy because his pencil sharpener broke. Once again, I read the news stories, and I know what they said. They stated clearly that the freaked out teacher saw the blade from the broken pencil sharpener, and instead of being responsible and just throwing it away, decided to abuse authority, which seems to be a common theme at this school. Yet Randy Wall claims the news stories were inaccurate, but nothing that either he, nor Jill McAden has now stated is in any way contradictory to the news stories, which are all still readily available and easily accessible.

Randy Wall stated, "We received many e-mails from people who believe the child had a pencil sharpener at school, that it broke and he got suspended. "The (Thursday) article implies that the pencil sharpener happened to break at school and that's what caused this predicament. And that is not accurate."

I have looked, and found not one single article that states that. In fact, the article I took his quote from, the IslandPacket.com, even stated plainly, "The Island Packet article never stated that the pencil sharpener broke at school."

So Randy Wall lied about that. I wonder who he thinks believes him. Randy Wall is simply trying to cover his and his school's butt, by saying "no, no, no, you've got it all wrong!! We're not suspending him for being 10 years old [or insert whatever made-up reason you wish], that story's completely false", and for some odd reason, Randy Wall expects the public to believe him. Randy Wall and Jill McAden must think that the general public was educated in their school, and is therefore not intelligent enough to grasp the BS and CYA occurring there.

Superintendent Valerie Truesdale had decided to sit this one out, and distance herself from the whole charade. Good move, because other than condemning the entire thing, there's really nothing that Superintendent Valerie Truesdale could do to make things better, and she's certainly not up for that. Surprise, surprise.

Board of Education Chairman Fred Washington Jr. had enough sense to realize something terribly wrong had occurred. However Fred Washington Jr was quickly made aware of how bad they would all look if he didn't play along, so he changed his tune and said the district acted responsibly.

Now, there's something else I'd like to mention, something far more ominous. Fred Washington Jr also made this comment:
"Given what we know, I think we handled it appropriately. There are some things, based on student confidentiality, even board members should not have access to."

This troubles me. Just yesterday, before writing this article, I began to think that the best way for the district to cover their collective butts is to go with the standard lie and say the child had had other offenses that we can't name, there's more to it than we can say, he did some awful, awful things that we're not allowed to speak about. That's the usual lie that school districts and employers give when cornered on their own disciplinary incompetence. And sure enough, Fred Washington Jr. is playing right into that train of thought. If all else fails, hint at the boy being a real trouble-maker. Truth, at this point, is irrelevant, right Fred?

So here's the prediction. Expect to see them next claim that the boy was NOT suspended for having a broken pencil sharpener blade, but for some terrible deeds done, or a pattern shown, or some such crock.

A troubling thing about insect authorities like these is that they get the idea, after lording it over children for years, with no fear of recourse, that they have power and authority to do as they wish. Then when they really get into a mess like this, they still believe they are immune, to the point where they believe it's okay to lie, to twist the truth, and to hurt a child, as long as they maintain their power.

But for me, with children of my own, I think of a 10 year old boy sitting in the principals office, the police there because of him, his mother, the assistant principal, and who knows what other authority figures...how scary is that? Of course he cried, I certainly would have.

But I wonder something. I wonder what was going on in the minds of the teacher, of Jill McAden, and of the assistant principal, all sitting there in judgement of a little boy. They become transformed into the ultimate evil trio. What were they actually thinking as the boy sat there and cried? At what point did it dawn on them, did they ever think to themselves "what have we done?" How awful that poor boy must have felt, how scared. I can tell you, scars like that can last a lifetime.

And the teacher, and the principal Jill McAden, and the assistant principal, and the District spokesman Randy Wall, and Superintendent Valerie Truesdale, and the Board of Education Chairman Fred Washington Jr....there's something else I'm wondering. What were they thinking as they fell asleep that night? For their own sakes, I hope they were deeply troubled by what they had done.

The End of the Era of "Two White Guys"

2008-08-29T19:33:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

For those who care about such things, it is officially the end of the era of two white guys being President and Vice President. We now officially will have either a black guy and a white guy, or a white guy and a white woman.
Hurrah, I suppose.

However, I am looking forward to a different future, where we don't think like that. It may be long after I'm dead, but it will hopefully come. A future when we don't say a black guy and a white guy or a white guy and a white woman. I long for a time when both race and sex simply don't matter. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine seeing a nominee for the first time and not saying to yourself "he's black" or "she's a woman", but instead saying "what are their beliefs" or "what experience do they have" or something else that's actually relevant.

Don't you have a problem with the idea that elections are now made or broken on the color of someone's skin or whether they hold the penis card?

I'm no trekkie, but one thing I liked about the Star Trek series was that race was never mentioned (as far as I know, I never watched after Enterprise). They didn't say "he's black" or "she's green" or...whatever.

You know, we're not a bunch of children here. We can deal with people who are different from us. We don't have to think that they are exactly like us to listen to them. We're not living in the freaking dark ages. So why can't we have a presidential election where we don't care about race or gender? Well, I know why, I understand the situation, so you don't have to answer that question.

But someday, someday I hope it won't matter anymore. Someday I hope we can get beyond prejudices and stereotypes and phobias and hangups and all the rest. I hope that, if not my children, then maybe their children can interact with people of all different types NOT because they're being hip or trendy, but for no particular reason at all.

Obama On Abortion

2008-08-27T20:19:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

It's important to know what your candidate believes. And one of the biggest differences between left and right today is the subject of abortion. Everyone knows the subject, and the more you move away from center in your thinking, the more steadfast you are in your opinion of abortion.

Therefore, I expect that Barack Obama actually has an opinion on it. What I can't figure out is....what that opinion is. And even more bizarre, as good a speechmaker as he is, why on earth wouldn't he have had some sort of answer in mind to this question that even he must have known would be asked of him at some point?

I think that no other incident in Obama's short career underlines more than this, the fact that Obama will not, under any circumstances, be pinned down in front of the American people on any issue.

And what's frustrating is that we already KNOW how he feels about abortion. He is the most liberal senator we have. Biden is third. Doesn't that tell you he's pro-choice? If not, then here's what he said at a speech to Planned Parenthood:

"...we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate..."
...
"There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

This is not secret knowledge. It's available for the world to read or listen to. Obama is pro choice, he's pro-abortion.

So why, then, did he give this answer at Saddleback church to the simple question of "at what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

"Well, I think that whether you are looking at at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

He then hemmed and hawed some more, and simply refused to answer the question.

What's frustrating is this...he will rationalize abortions, he will say it's absolutely okay for a mother to abort her baby. He will say it's not okay for a mother to kill her baby after birth. He obviously has a viewpoint on at what point exactly it becomes okay to kill the baby, why won't he say it?

If anything could define Barack Hussein Obama, it's his ability to not be defined, on anything.

"Change We Refuse To Define"

Summer of Love '08

2008-08-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Here we are, at the end of the most fabulous summer since, well since 1968, the original "Summer of Love". It culminated with the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. These are good times, people, good times.

Protesters were ready. They'd collected urine to throw at people. The organization "Recreate '68" had many fun activities planned, including a "Shake Your Moneymakers" event, where they used magic spells to raise the Denver mint into the air and shake money out of it, supposedly with the idea that they keep whatever fell out. Well good for them! Stick it to the man.

And the most fun of all was the Magical Mystery Tour of Mysteries and Enchantment, featuring everyone's favorite rock start, Barack Obama. He's good for you, he's good for me, he's good for everyone. He traveled to visit his support base, Europe, and 200,000 Germans were given the chance to chant "Obama" in mindless repetition, provided a free rock concert was included.

I have no idea what Obama stands for, but I can't wait to find out, and neither can you! The feelings of love are in the air, and except for a few mean-spirited racists who are trying to pin Sir Bama down on the issues, everyone, and I mean EVERYone is on board with the new fad.

Once we get the Foxists, Rushists, and Jesists to shut the hell up, we can all get back to our main goal of showing the world the love that is Obama. Summer of Love! Hell, it should be called the YEAR of love, since it started with a months long battle of Good vs. Evil and having Good finally beat the evil Hillary, and will end with a grand anointing of his highness, the Lord King God Barrackus. All Hail Barackus.

(And yes, I understand the inconsistency of hating Hillary now when we loved her a few years ago, but just go with it! Get on board the Love Mobile. Hate Hillary and don't ask why!)

And at year's end, we'll have one final ass-whooping of that old man, the McCainiac. Sure, he was everyone's favorite Republican when he was fawning all over Democrats, coming up with bills that suited the left more than the right. But now he's the enemy. I hate him, and you do, too. Don't ask why, just hate. It's a simple thing, it doesn't take any reason or thought. Just hate. In fact, I can say without any hyperbole that to NOT hate McCain is racist...almost as racist as to not LOVE Obama.

But after the final ass-whooping, Obama will be anointed, then he will smite the evil ones with laws that will make a socialist cringe. Once he's done, there won't BE a Republican party. Now THAT's some lovin' for ya. Summer of Love? You got it! Summer of lovin' to hate and ruin those who don't support Obama without question, without thought.

But back to Obamapalooza, the lovefest where Obama visited the crowned heads of Europe, and lorded it over them. Good for him! Show them a thing or two about American leadership. What Europe needs is a strong US leader who can apologize quickly, repeatedly, and without question. He'll convince them that we just want to be like them, a mini-Europe, run by a mini-EU.

But most of all, he's got to apologize to everyone. There's nothing that Americans love more than having people apologize for them. We love it when rock stars and other entertainers travel abroad and say things like "Sorry to the world, we're sorry...so sorry for being american" (with a little 'a', you see), and then give them a bunch of money. That's what we really love, and this is the summer for it. I know, I know, it seems odd that for westerners today, the strongest leader is the one who can apologize the most and the fastest. Don't question these things, just believe, and apologize for something. Say I'm sorry as much as you can, as fast as you can - don't stop for any reason.

Petty tyrants around the world will tremble when they hear how we apologize. Their fears will be complete when we send them a few billion, and say it's to right the wrongs done to them by evil westerners of centuries past. Nothin' says lovin' like a bucket o' money.

And money, hell, we've got plenty of that. Oil companies are our money tree, along with anyone who dared to apply themselves and utilize evil capitalism. Now that's something to love!

Summer of love, '08. It's only the beginning, baby!

Where Have All the New Posts Gone...Long Time Passing

2008-08-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

For those of you who have actually looked at this blog (which means you), I've been lax about posting new articles. It's not that I haven't written any - in fact, I've got about a dozen that are 90% finished. But if I don't get them edited and completed right away, they tend to become dated.

I had quite a few things to say about the Democratic National Convention, about Obama's choice of Biden for VP, and various other things.

This is my first political blog, and I find it more challenging than other subjects. So many things have to be exactly correct, sourced, etc, otherwise you lose your audience and your point becomes meaningless. Plus, timing is important. My unfinished articles about the primaries are yesterday's news.

Also, I'm trying to finish a book with a self imposed deadline of November. Currently, nearly all my writing time is allocated to this and a few other books. Most of what I write is non-political fiction, which is why I use my pseudonym for political commentary.

So until I have more time, I'll just say this:

At least Biden is less liberal than Obama...he's third. I wonder how our country can even consider going so far to the left that we will have a president and vice president who actually disagree with the vast majority of the country on almost every single issue.

As usual, the mainstream media refuses to show the true face of Obama's supporters. And unfortunately, those Obama supporters marching the streets of Denver with pro-terrorist and pro-communist banners are all but unknown to the weak-minded Democrats who view the entire presidential election as a crusade against what they've been falsely led to believe about George Bush, who isn't even running.

China should never have been awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics. To them, it was nothing more than a propaganda show. The spotlight on them, instead of forcing them to reconcile their beliefs to modern human rights views, simply highlighted their steadfast willingness to continue ignoring those views.

I never disliked Hillary so little as when she was forced to be second banana to Obama.

Michelle Obama's handlers are doing a very good job. Unfortunately, when she needs to be restrained is when she's in the White House (which won't happen), not when our country still has a chance to see the Obamas for who they are, and realize how unpatriotic and un-American are their views.

If Obama wins, he will go down in history as the president who liked America the least. Is that what we want? For millions of liberals and Democrats, yes, it is, because he reflects their views.

Take a good look at Obama's attempts to "silence" the Bill Ayers ad, which did not say one single false thing, by contacting the stations and warning them to stop running it. Look at this and see our future. For those who remember the corruption of the Nixon administration, do you truly want a president who puts his own ambitions above the rights of free speech, and who is willing to use the power of his office to silence opposition?

The great fear on the left is that the silent majority who put Bush into office twice will once again rise up and reject Obama in November. The idea that the majority should have more of a say over our governance than self-appointed elitists is anathema to liberals.

On Being Divisive

2008-07-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Here's a headline for you:

President Clinton warns of growing polarization...

What? Are we talking about Bill Clinton here? HE'S complaining about polarization? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't he the one who, in an interview with Chris Wallace, raged on about "President Bush's neo-cons" and "conservative hit jobs"? And isn't he the guy who's wife bashes President Bush every time she opens her mouth? He's still the same Bill Clinton, right? Okay, just wanted to be sure, I thought maybe we were talking about some other President Clinton that somehow escaped my notice.

So what confuses me is this. Is President Clinton complaining about polarization? Or praising it? Because judging from his own actions, I thought he was all for polarization, along with other leading Democrats. As I've stated before, any across the aisle compromise will have to be done from the right to the left. Democrats have made it perfectly clear that Republicans aren't just the other party, they're the enemy. The only divisiveness that bothers President Clinton is within the Democratic party, and only because of the recent race between his wife and Barack Obama. THAT's the polarization he's worried about, nothing to do with those "other folks", you know, the "R" word.

In my life I've lived with both Democratic and Republican presidents. Whether I liked them or not, or agreed with everything they did or not, they were always the Presidents of the United States, and therefore they were my president. However, one thing I can't understand and can't accept is how Democrats, once elected, are of the mindset that they only represent half the country, and the other half is not worth noticing.

I'm so tired of having President Bush falsely accused of more crimes than Hitler by people who supposedly are adult enough to get elected to public office. And then in the next breath they speak of "crossing the divide"?!? Are they serious? Do they honestly think that bashing the current president is the way to make friends with Republicans? No, they don't.

The truth is, they understand what they're doing. They simply don't care. Bashing the right has become a national pastime for our Democratic leaders, and they are fully aware that they don't win any rightwing points by doing that. So why do they do it? Because they count on having a Democratic majority in November, so it really doesn't matter what the right does or thinks.

When Democrats speak of across the aisle outreach, I believe they are only trying to gain points from a few middle-of-the-roaders and a few of the more caring but still naive Democrats who want to feel like their side is somehow not to blame for this chasm. In the end, it won't matter. There will be no hand-reaching from left to right, there will be no compromise by Democrats once they're in power. There will be nothing but years of in-your-face attitudes, typical corruption, pork-barrel spending, and last-minute earmarks for special projects that have nothing to do with the bills being passed. Why will they do this? Because they can. How will they pay for it? By raising taxes, as they have stated they will do again and again.

I can live with a president I don't agree with, just as I've worked for bosses I didn't agree with. But it sure would be nice if they would stop insulting me and half the country, simply because they can get away with it.

Yea, Mugabe!

2008-06-27T14:33:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Things appear bleak for the poor people of Zimbabwe, as they are being forcefully led to the polls to vote for their long-time ruler, Robert Mugabe. And as the world watches, many leaders have bravely condemned the ruthless actions of the dictator from the safety of their own homes. Yea, world leaders!

What the poor Zimbabweans need is a hero. What they need is Jimmy Carter. The Saint from the South could visit Zimbabwe and oversee the election process and declare it legitimate. That should quiet the unrest and rumors of violence. Yea, Jimmy!

Either way, Mugabe has little to fear from the international community. As Democrats prepare to take over the White House like they did Congress, any fears Mugabe had of someone from the outside coming in to thwart his plans are over. He now sits back and smiles, thinking of the future president of the U.S., the man least likely to ever bother him in any way. Yea, Obama!

And the UN gives him even less concern. "Bah", he says. "They are in my pocket, and those that aren't are not about to do anything that might side them with the American Right. They will watch me stay in power and who knows, I might even get another UN appointment! HAHA." Yea, UN!

And the Western Left-Wing are his best friends of all. They helped put him in power in 1980 as a way to rid the country of evil white rulers. Throughout his 1980's reign of terror, they often supported him as he took farms from white farmers and gave them to black supporters. To this day, he's often ignored by them just like a Frankenstein monster gone wrong. Yea, Left!!

And left-leaning intelligencia fawned over him. He received honary degrees from Edinburgh University, University of Massachusetts, and Michigan State University. Only now, after three decades of terror and poverty, are they all trying to revoke those degrees. Yea, Universities!

Even the Queen of England got into the game, appointing him honorary Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Bath in 1994. Cool! She recently revoked that. Murdering opposition in the 1980's by dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire was hunky dory for her, but now that he's stolen an election, well that simply won't do. Yea, Queeny!

In 2002, Amnesty International boldly attacked the U.S., claiming we are the world's number one human rights violator, while largely ignoring Mugabe. Hopefully, continued actions like this will allow Mugabe to realize that the human rights zealots around the world are not REALLY concerned about his activities as doing so might interfere with their real goal of hurting America, and that he should continue down his current path and everything will be just fine. Yea, Amnesty International!

The life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 37 for men, 34 for women, the lowest for any nation in the world. As former Rhodesia, it had been the breadbasket of Africa, but Mugabe has faithfully overseen Zimbabwe's economic collapse. So in appreciation for his astounding efforts, Mugabe was very proud when the UN last year appointed Zimbabwe to head a United Nations body to promote economic progress and environmental protection. Yea, UN! Wait, we already did them. Sorry.

Global Warming and the Northwest Passage

2008-06-27T10:04:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

see update at the bottom...

Here’s an interesting story about global warming melting the arctic away. I read the whole thing, and although I’m not familiar with a lot of the science and claims they’re making, one piece I was familiar with really stood out:

At the end of last summer, the ice retreated to a record level when the Northwest Passage, the sea route through the Arctic, opened up briefly for the first time in recorded history.

First time in recorded history! Wow, really? Gee, I sort of remember reading something different in history books about sea travel. Here’s some exerpts from Wikipedia:

The Northwest Passage was not conquered by sea until 1906, when the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen … completed a three-year voyage in the converted 47-ton herring boat Gjøa.

and

In 1940, Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax.

and

On July 1, 1957, the United States Coast Guard cutter Storis departed in company with U.S. Coast Guard cutters Bramble (WLB-392) and SPAR (WLB-403) to search for a deep draft channel through the Arctic Ocean and to collect hydrographic information. Upon her return to Greenland waters, the Storis became the first U.S.-registered vessel to circumnavigate North America.

and

In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker Sir John A. Macdonald.

and

In June 1977 sailor Willy de Roos left Belgium to attempt crossing the Northwest Passage in his 13.8 m (45 ft) steel yacht Williwaw. He reached the Bering Strait in September and after a stopover in Victoria, British Columbia, went on to round Cape Horn and sail back to Belgium, thus being the first sailor to circumnavigate the Americas entirely by ship.

and

In 1984, the commercial passenger vessel MS Explorer (which sank in the Antarctic Ocean in 2007) became the first cruise ship to navigate the passage.

and

On September 1, 2001, Northabout, an 14.3 m (47 ft) aluminium sailboat with diesel engine, built and captained by Jarlath Cunnane, completed the Northwest Passage east-to-west from Ireland to the Bering Strait.

and

On July 18, 2003, a father and son team, Richard and Andrew Wood, with Zoe Birchenough, sailed a yacht Norwegian Blue into the Bering Strait. Two months later she sailed into the Davis Strait to become the first British yacht to transit the Northwest Passage from west to east.

So where does this leave us? Either the recorded history of the arctic started a couple of years ago, or somebody’s not being entirely accurate. Like I said, I only speak for the parts of the article that I happen to know from my own reading, but what about the rest? Is it possible they were only wrong about the one piece that I happened to know about?

We rely on scientists AND reporters for accurate information on Global Warming. But is that a mistake? I say yes, it is a mistake. It took me all of 2 minutes to find the information above. However, I already knew it to be true, since I'd read of Amundsen and other exporers before. You can find all the above information in a variety of sources, and in fact many of the people who have travelled through the Northwest Passage are alive today. There are books on the subject, and even pictures and video. It was only in very recent times, historically speaking, that man had ships capable of making that voyage, even without ice. And in ages past, no one even knew there was a Northwest Passage. So who knows how many times in history it's been navigable?

And another quote from the source article:

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

Wow, the first time in human history? Now how on earth do they know that? Well the fact is, they don't know it. In fact, there have been many periods of global warming during the time man has been on this planet. So the above statement is completely unprovable. But it sure makes a good opening sentence, doesn't it? Especially the words "human history". Those always have a nice, bold, far reaching impact.

We know from earlier explorers logs that they often encountered young ice that melted away completely during the summer. And as far as human history goes, the first attempt to explore the Northwest Passage wasn't until 1497, but what happened before that? We can gather a lot from the archeological record, and we can drill core samples to fnd the age of ice. But unfortunately, we're talking about the absence of ice.

That statement is not a quote from a scientist, it's written by the science editor of The Independent. So where did he get that from? Perhaps from this quote by Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University:

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before."

Never experienced before, by whom? He doesn't say, so we don't know. But it could simply be since scientific recordings started, or at the most, since man first even knew there was an arctic. Well that's a big step from ever! And a huge extrapolation to get to in human history!

You've got to watch these reporters. And yes, you really DO have to watch them. One person says one thing, the next repeats it slightly differently, and so on, until you've got a purple monkey dishwasher.

In the end, we just want to know the truth. We NEED to know the truth. Politicians often ignore the evidence they don't like, and they are using global warming to not only take money away from us, lots of money, but to change our way of life, and the lives of everyone on the planet. They use global warming arguments to prevent people in third world countries from building factories and power plants, in fact to regulate many aspects of their lives including whether they can have kerosene lanterns. They use global warming aruments to regulate how planes and cars are built, whether we can have coal burning electric plants, whether fast food restaurants should have drive through windows, and myriads of other things. Don't we deserve to have completely accurate information?

UPDATE:

The first quoted article has changed their phrasing, just in the time since I published this commentary. It now reads:

At the end of last summer, the ice, pushed by strong winds blowing off Siberia, retreated to a record level.

The Northwest Passage, the long-sought shipping route through the Arctic, opened up briefly for the first time in history.

However, it's still inaccurate. Expect them to change it again, probably. I would like to think that some fact checker, like myself, contacted them about it. Remember, constant vigilance. If we don't look out for our own interests, who will?

Leviticus Christianity....say WHAT?

2008-06-25T06:37:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Obama now says there is a Leviticus brand of Christianity... wait, what? Leviticus?!? That's in the Old Testament. Is he next going to say there's a Koran brand of Christianity? Or Christianity the Buddhist way? Amazing. Simply, well, astounding.

20 years in his church, but something seems to have been left out someplace. I guess between Goddamn America and white people are the devil, they must have accidentally forgot to mention the New Testament. No matter, that's actually a common mistake. I was sitting in church just the other day and was thinking to myself "I wonder what the difference is between the old and new testaments" and the preacher was about to tell us when he accidentally starting damning America. I completely understand, happens all the time.

Okay, now for those who don't know, yes most bibles do have both the old and new testaments, but no, they are not both Christianity. The old is the old way, the old agreement with God on how to be a good Jew and get to Heaven. The new is the new way, new agreement, new plan for all people, not just Jews, to get to Heaven. No preachiness here, don't worry.

Don't ask me why we even have the old testament in the Christian Bible, I've heard a number of different reasons ranging from historical reference to prophecies about Jesus to the idea that it's God's word and therefore should be in the Bible. I don't know, and really, I guess I don't care. But I do know that at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century A.D., they had the same discussion, and many were for leaving it out. Ultimately it was left in, since Jesus was believed to be the Jewish Messiah, and therefore Christianity was an extension of Judaism.

But two points to remember are 1) the new testament is about Christianity, and 2) anyone who claims to be a Christian really ought to know that. Leviticus? Good grief!

Unfortunately for us all, Obama is too much of a stubborn moron to know when to quit. Now he's all mad at James Dobson for pointing it out, and is talking smack about him. Way to alienate even more Christians, dude. Next he's going to call Billy Graham a "typical white devil". I'm not sure why Obama is pushing this, he should have stopped long ago. He knows he was wrong about his so-called bible-wisdom. Obama should stay away from religion since he must by now realize he doesn't have a clue about it. All he manages to do is make people hate Christians even more.

If you don't like the Bible or Christians, fine, but don't use them to get elected. And if you feel the need to talk smack about them, at least try and get some facts right. Obama claims to be a "man of faith," yet acts like he hates Christians! A man of faith? Faith in what? If there's one thing in politics that bugs me more than most, it is using Christianity. Let's face it, most, if not all politicians on both sides of the aisle are NOT Christians, yet many claim to be for the sole purpose of gaining and maintaining power. And when people like Pelosi and Obama start yammering on about it, all they manage to do is alienate people away from Christianity, and alienate true Christians away from them.

I think one of the problems is that people tend to disassociate Christianity from Jesus, and associate it with any number of either esoteric or spiritual belief systems, often centering around some sort of liberalistic environmentalism where we sit in the woods thinking about trees or a quasi-feel-good-flower-child sort of thing, and if Jesus enters this scenario at all he will be meditating in the lotus position with flowers in his hair. On the left, they think of two kinds of Christianity, the Jesus-Christians, and their own made-up version. Because this is a so-called Christian nation, and we were founded and brought up on Christian beliefs, many, perhaps most people consider themselves a Christian at some level. Sometimes they water it down by saying they have Christian beliefs, all the while avoiding the "J" word.

Politicians seem to want to talk Christianity and never mention Jesus. Kind of funny when you think about it. Politicians are ever eager to play Christian when in the rural areas. They enter fly over country, suddenly they know all about Jesus, but don't like to say his name. But when they return to their nests and are among their own again, then they become wise travelers who have been to the Jesus land and can explain all about its odd inhabitants.

And to actually know the difference between old and new testaments, well that's really too much to ask. I've heard people say "well, the bible says an eye for an eye, right?" And they never even realize that Jesus said the exact opposite, which upset the religious leaders of the day. To paraphrase, he said to turn the other cheek, to take a punch on one cheek and offer the other check for another punch. Eye for an eye, old testament. Turn the other cheek, new testament. But no one cares, politicians least of all. To them, the Bible is something to be used to fit their ends.

A major objection to Christianity always revolves around those dratted middle ages, and how awful Christians were. Well I'll let you in on a little secret. Folks back then were using Christianity for their own ends, just like people do today. They used it to force people to their way of thinking, they used it to gain and maintain power, they used it to subjugate others. Doesn't sound like Jesus' brand of Christianity, does it? Well, it wasn't. But for some reason, people today feel very free to bash true Christians for things done by others who were just using Christianity to their ends. Sounds a bit familiar, right? Like how not all Muslims are terrorists...

In the end, Obama and his kind do much harm to Christianity. When they claim to have some sort of wisdom about Christianity and the Bible, yet obviously don't, and when someone points it out, they attack them, it's just an ugly scene, and the entire blame can be placed squarely on Obama's shoulders. He needs to talk about taxes, foriegn policy, oil, etc. He has no business preaching anything about Christian faith, he has no business even going near this subject.

That should go for all politicians. We all seem to want a politician with "Christian values", but don't want them to be preachy or talk about Jesus. People don't really want a true Christian as president, they'd probably crucify him.

I Just Don't Understand It

2008-06-24T13:14:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

There's a couple of things in the news that are really confusing to me, I just don't understand how these things could happen.

First, I was shocked, shocked when I read that Palestinian militants broke their truce with Israel and started firing rockets into the southern part of the country. This just isn't like those lovable Palestinians. Why, they're usually so honest about keeping truces. What could have provoked them into firing rockets, indiscriminately, into Israel, probably hitting civilian targets for the most part. I'll bet Israel never saw this one coming. I mean, where's the precedent?

I'm sure the wise UN is equally shocked. Certainly they didn't foresee this. I mean, who could, right? The next step seems clear to me, find out who's to blame. I see many possible culprits, not the least of which is Israel. Perhaps they somehow caused this to happen? You know, those Palestinians had been making a few minor requests of Israel, maybe Israel wasn't responsive enough or as forthcoming with results as they should have been. Well, we'd better just keep an eye on ol' Israel, I'd say. Let's just see what they do. They might try to retaliate. But don't worry, we'll be waiting. I for one am sitting on ready to call another emergency session of the UN should Israel try anything funny.

Well actually, now that I think about it, there could be another cause for this. These are hard, economic times for all of us, you know. These poor Palestinians are feeling the effects of the Bush tax cuts and are likely feeling disenfranchised. People may feel compelled to do things they shouldn't when they are watching their families starve while Republicans are getting rich off of their oil. Maybe, instead of looking at these poor Palestinians, we should look at the Palestinian in all of us. Find your inner Palestinian. And maybe, just maybe, we can find a way to....send them a bunch of money.

The second thing that seems utterly unbelievable to me is that lovable rascal, Robert Mugabe, the sometimes tyrannical, benevolent leader of the once breadbasket, now starving country of Zimbabwe. Sure, he's tortured and killed a few innocents in his quest for power. But who among us can honestly say we haven't done things in a mad power grab that other uptight prudes might look down upon? However I am shocked, really, really shocked at the way he's behaving, considering how peaceful he's always been before. Who knew?

How could we have ever known something like this would happen? He promised a free election, didn't he? So how were we to know he would terrorize the opposition, brutally murder the wife of the opposition party's leader, and force his opponent to withdraw from the election and go into hiding? I mean, before this minor incident, Zimbabwe has been such a peaceful place under his rule. I just don't get it.

This from a man who is so good and wise that just over a year ago his country was given approval to head a UN body for promoting economic progress. Now, you don't think the UN would give that position to just anyone, do you? No croniism there, I tell you! How could the US ever compete with his stature and economic prowess.

This from a man who was knighted by the Queen of England. Why, you'd have to be some kind of rock start to get that privilege. The good queen had to revoke that knighthood. I'm sure she, too, was shocked, and I'm sure she just doesn't understand how someone with his unbleamished record could act this way. Surely, when she first knighted him, his clean record was open for the world to see.

Fortunately, the brave and proud UN has stepped in to clear matters up. We can all rest easy, for they have "condemned the campaign of violence against the opposition." Well I'm glad that's taken care of. Whew. Now, the statement is non-binding, mind you. But still it is, you know, a statement.

And having the UN declare that a fair presidential election in Zimbabwe is impossible can only bring peace. No election, and Mugabe stays in power. Hurrah!! Thanks, UN.

But Mugabe had better watch his step. A few more misdeeds and he might end up with some sort of non-binding sanction or maybe even a censure. And after twelve more years, well, the UN might just decide it's time to....get the US to send him a bunch of money.

Acceptable Leftwing Argument

2008-06-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

In an attempt to at least try to understand a left-wing viewpoint, this is what I consider to be an acceptable left-of-center argument. These are not necessarily my words, but rather words that could come from a Democrat that I would take as intelligent, instead of the bizarre and non-sensical viewpoints spouted almost daily by the press, Hollywood, and our Democratic leaders. I've tried to write it in a conversational tone.

Okay, here's the thing. 9/11 comes along, and it's a real wake up call. It was by no means the beginning of our problems, certainly there were things going on in the world for decades before that, things that are causing us problems today.

But 9/11 comes along, and after that, we do need to take immediate action. First, we have to get rid of the Taliban, we trace the source of 9/11 back, well mainly back to the Taliban controlling Afghanistan. We go in, oust them out. And then there's Osama bin Laden. Well heck we GOTTA get that guy, I mean he's like the ring leader, so we start hunting for him and his cronies.

But well next we also need to get rid of Al Quaeda. Of course we do, they're a major contributer to terrorism around the world. But you can see this whole thing is already starting to escalate at this point. Anyway, so we declare a general war on terror, which is, basically, saying we're not at war with a particular country, but with terrorists in general, wherever they may be, sort of giving ourselves carte blanche to fight them whenever and wherever we find them, and we declare the whole world is either for us or against us.

Well maybe this is okay, maybe it's necessary, certainly the world has been facing evil for a very long time and not exactly doing great things to stop it. Perhaps we're the country needed for those things. We're stronger, we're freer, we most definitely are in a better position to take on the bad guys of the world than your average country in say, Africa or Asia, or even Europe for that matter. Okay, so anyway, eventually we find that Saddam Hussein needs to be taken out as well. So is that our job? Is that part of this whole 'war on terror' thing? I don't know, but we go for it, anyway. Maybe he's not a 9/11 conspirator but he easily could be associated with terrorists, and if he was NOT making or trying to make weapons of mass destruction, well I guess he was just about the stupidest person in the world for NOT letting the UN inspectors in and breaking one UN resolution after another, even though the UN had already declared on several occasions that military force could be used to oust him. That stupidity cost him his life.

So the U.S. says Okay, that's our job to take him out. He's a baddie, the UN has already sanctioned military force, even though they latered chicken-sh**ed out, so we go for it. We go in and take him out, now we've got a real mess on our hands just trying to stabilize the country and get a new democratic government in place. Well, it's not impossible, it's just a mess to get it straight.

Anyway, later, along comes Ahmadinejad in Iran, and he declares Israel should be wiped off the map and then jumps in with the whole nuclear thing. Well, that's just trouble waiting to happen, I mean, right? Okay, so we see where all this is going, I guess. The question I have, and what's on my mind is, well, just where is this all leading? Where are we going?

It's not that I don't want our side to win, well of course I do. I mean you don't have to be some militaristic, jingoistic right-winger just to want our side to win. Sure, I want to win this thing, but after a while I start to say, well, what is this thing? Define 'win'. Tell us, exactly how far do we have to go to 'win'. At what point can we really say "job well done"? And when, if ever, will our country be safe from this kind of 9/11 crap happening again?

So at some point, you've got to look at the big picture. We can maybe see people on the far right who would have us stretch ourselves too thin and take on more than we can chew and possibly cause more trouble than what started all this. And then you'll see people on the far left who would have us simply apologize over and over, basically surrender in advance to anyone who wants to take the trouble to use a box cutter to hijack a plane, cut back on or get rid of the military, declare peace in the world, give all our money away, and sit naked in a tree and wait for death while the baddies of the world beat the sh** out of us until we either don't exist or exist as some unrecognizable socialist third world toilet.

As it is, we simply do not have the resources to fight the entire world of bad people, plus we continue to create more bad people all the time. Plus, for every bad person we kill with force, another is created using state sponsored propoganda in totalitarian regimes all over the world. How can we fight that? I understand the cause is noble, but can we really win? And at what cost? There will come a time, perhaps, that we will lose, that we will be overpowered in a great struggle to bring freedom to enslaved people around the world, because there are more bad people than good, and the enslaved simply lack the will to fight, or more likely, they believe we are the bad people because of well orchestrated disinformation, so we lose.

That's where we stand.

Okay, if I could discuss the state of the world with a Democrat who thinks like that, I believe it would be a productive debate. Unfortunately, nearly every discussion I ever have with a Democrat usually involves 1) Christians being blamed for a bunch of crap that happened a thousand years ago, 2) Christians being a bunch of stupid, redneck morons, 3) all white people being labeled as racists (and no they never see the irony), 4) Bush being blamed for every bizarre thing in the world including outsourcing, the mortgage crisis, the falling dollar, the tsunami, Katrina, a polar bear dying, kids in Africa starving to death, and Sharon Stone not getting to kiss Halle Barry in the movie Catwoman, 5) and let's not forget, oh we can never forget the main thing involved with debating a Democrat: changing the subject and ad-hominem attacks. Clever.

Obama Blame Game

2008-06-07T19:57:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

If Obama does NOT win, just who will be to blame? For anything he says that he later regrets, who is to blame? Any wrong decisions, who is to blame? Someone finds out something undesirable about his past, who is to blame? That's what the American people want to know!! That's what I want to know.

When Obama lost the Kentucky primary, it was no suprise, it was expected. However, he naturally blamed Fox News for that loss. He said they questioned his patriotism and religion and yada yada yada, by blatantly reporting on the controversy over his pastor. Apparently Fox didn't clear their reports with the Obama campaign prior to air time. For shame. Remember Fox, Obama has that list he's keeping of non-supporters. Once he's elected, he'll have the power of a Democratic Congress behind his vengeance.

For the Indiana loss, it was Rush Limbaugh's fault for stirring things up there, getting Republicans to vote for Hillary. They mistakenly exersised their so-called right to vote in an open primary in a vain attempt to deny Obama his birthright. After all, Obama and wife should not be denied their just place as our leaders. That simply wouldn't do.

Fools! Don't you see?! Don't you see you cannot trump the mighty Obama? He is above us all, and is without blame or faults. His losses are not his losses, but our evil meddling in the affairs of our betters. And if we voters abuse that nasty tendency to vote our will, then the obvious thing to do is get rid of this annoying democracy thing. Otherwise voters may continue interfering with his divine right to rule.

But don't worry voters. Obama doesn't really blame you, not yet anyway. You see, you were simply led astray by the likes of Fox News and Limbaugh. They are the culprits. Obama understands that without their evil influence all peoples would have naturally gravitated towards him. It only stands to reason. Obama understands. Obama forgives. Outside of Obama's light and goodness, there is no forgiveness. You are in an evil place, you will be shunned, called racist, overtaxed, over burdened, blamed for all ills of the world. Lies will be told about you, freedoms taken away. But with Obama, all is forgiven. With Obama, there is goodness and hope. Come to Obama, he will forgive. Come to Obama, come.

At The Local D.A. Meeting

2008-06-07T15:18:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

"I want to introduce myself. My name is Harold, and I'm a Democrat."

"Hi Harold," the attendees say in unison.

"I have always been a Democrat. My mother, she was from Boston, and she loved Jack Kennedy. He was a good man, and I've always respected him. I've remained loyal to the party."

"Thank you Harold, but that was nearly half a century ago," said the moderator.

"What?"

"John F. Kennedy, he was elected president about 50 years ago. That's a long time, Harold. It must have been hard to stay with the party all this time."

"Well, yes. Yes it was. That Carter pinhead, and then we thought Clinton was going to redeem us, but he couldn't keep is tallywacker in his pants..."

"Yes, okay. Thank you Harold. Now, who's ne..."

"And that damn wife of his! Who the hell does she think she is, anyway? 'We are the president.' And pushing that socialist healthcare crap. Give me a..."

"Thank you Harold! Who's next? Richard?"

Harold meekly sits down. Richard, looking around, slowly stands up.

"My name is Richard, and I'm a...well I've always voted Democrat."

"Hi Richard," the room intones.

"I come from a long line of Democrats. My daddy was a fan of FDR, and we loved Eisenhower, those were great men."

"Thank you Richard," said the moderator. "Now tell us why you still vote Democrat."

"Well, because the Democrats have always been the party of the people, you know? They're not like the Republicans, just out for big business. They're out to help the little people. Welfare, unions, you know."

"Have you ever been on welfare?"

"No, not me! Hell no! I've got more respect for myself than that! But I mean for other people, you know, people who, well have hard times. People who are struggling to make ends meet."

"And you believe the Republicans want to end welfare?"

"Well they did try, didn't they? I mean that's what I heard."

"No, the Republicans have often pushed for welfare reform, since thousands of able bodied people use it and other government programs to avoid work."

"Well, yeah I guess."

"It becomes a generational thing, there are children who grew up on welfare, and as soon as they're old enough start collecting it themselves, it's the only life they know. Republicans don't want to 'end' welfare, just reform it."

"Yeah, okay. But Democrats are always for the little people, you know, the blue collar workers like me, regular guys."

"And are you a union member?"

"No, not me! They tried to unionize our shop a few years ago, they tried a lot in the past, actually. We fought it! We won every time."

"But I thought you were pro-union."

"Hell no! But for other people, you know, that might need them, that's fine. But we saw what happened to other shops that unionized. Shut down after a while, they'd go on strike, want more money, want more this and that, union bosses were getting all the dough, then the shop just shut down. My cousin was out of work for three months, almost lost his house. Almost had to go on welfare."

"Well, thank you Richard." Richard sits down. "We have one more new member tonight."

A man in the back stands up.

"I'm Jimmy, and I've been voting Democrat for 47 years now!"

"Hi Jimmy."

"My great-great-granddaddy was a proud Dixie-Democrat, fought in the Civil War, for the South! My family lived through Reconstruction, when those dad-blamed Republican carpet-baggers were comin' in, buying up all the land, taking it anyway if they couldn't buy it. We..."

"Yes, but that was all over a hundred years ago," interjected the moderator.

"It don't make no difference. It's all part of my family history. We've all been Dixie Democrats, supported Robert Byrd, a fine Democrat. He was in the KKK. Democrats started segregation, remember George Wallace, 'segregation now, segregation forever', that sort of thing. Hell, Democrats started the Jim Crow laws! Democrats used to be all about helping white men, now the whole party's gone to hell."

"Uh.." stammers the moderator. "I'm a, I'm a black man, in case you haven't noticed."

"Well I'm just sayin', is all."

"Yes, well, we brought donuts for the meeting. I think I left them out in the lobby. Jimmy would you go out and get them for us?"

Jimmy turns and walks out the door. Three people, including the moderator, run to the door, quickly close and lock it behind him.

"Well, now that that's over, let's get back to the meeting."

The moderator begins a slide presentation. Various Democratic leaders of times past all flicker onto the screen. Warm smiles fill the room.

"Try to think about how these images make you feel. Try to be conscious of your reaction to them."

A picture of FDR appears on the screen, riding in an open car, long cigarette holder in this mouth. Warm thoughts, happy thoughts. Truman appears. An elderly gentleman in the back row stands up and salutes, the younger members don't recognize him.
Then a picture of John Kennedy, many stand and applaud. Bobby Kennedy, more smiles, some applause, some warm feelings, some sad faces. Lyndon Johnson, no applause, some nod their heads, one or two smiles. Jimmy Carter, smiles are gone. One man in the back mutters a long, low "shhhiiiiiit..."

Then the screen is filled with a happy, smiling Bill Clinton, his hair still only starting to gray. A few people applaud, one woman whistles. The smiles are back again. The next slide, Bill again, hugging Monica Lewinski in a crowd, a few snickers. Another slide of Bill standing at a podium, at a press conference, no sound, just a captian saying "I did not...have...sexual...relations...with that woman." One audible moan, no smiles. Last slide of Clinton, sitting at a table, caption "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." No one speaks.

The next slides are all fairly recent. John Kerry wearing what looks like a bunny suit, but is actually a protective outfit, crawling out of some sort of space capsule. Another of Kerry, from his hippie days. Michael Dukakis, helmet on his head, riding around in a tank. Al Gore, holding a Nobel Prize, a picture of a polar bear behind him. Hillary Clinton, tears in her eyes. Another of Hillary Clinton, mouth open in a mocking smile, at a speech by President Bush. Barack Obama, goofy smile on his face, standing with Al Sharpton at a podium.

All the while, there is silence in the room. No smiles, no warm, happy feelings.

Lights are on again.

"At what point in history do we stop and wonder, 'what are we doing?' When do we say 'who am I? What do I want from my party?' Now, it's discussion time. I want you to tell me some things that make you proud to be a Democrat."

"Democrats are more concerned about the environment! Republicans are trying to drill in the Arctic, want to ruin the environment," shouts an enthusiastic young man in the front row.

"Yes, Republicans want to drill in the Arctic. Actually, they drilled in Alaska, and they managed to do it safely. This is 30 years on, don't you think Americans have the capability, the enginuity to safely drill in the Arctic without doing any damage?"

"But Republicans don't care about the environment, they wouldn't sign Kyoto," the young man continued.

"Democrats wouldn't sign it either. Did you know that in 1997, when Clinton was president, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and 93 other senators voted NOT to sign the treaty? The vote was 95 to 0. Not one, not one single person in the Senate voted to sign the treaty. Bush was simply agreeing with that original decision when he also refused to ratify it."

Silence.

"What else?"

"Republicans are war mongers!" shouts a young woman.

"Did you realize that for the first 90 years of this century, every single war the U.S. was engaged in, we engaged in it during a Democratic presidency? World War I, Woodrow Wilson. World War II, FDR. Korean War, Truman. Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson, with some preliminary action by John F. Kennedy. It was only the Desert Shield and then Desert Storm operations that were under a Republican, Bush, Sr. It was a Democratic president, Truman, who authorized the only atomic and/or nuclear attack by any nation in history."

"But everyone knows the Republicans are war mongers, they're very pro-military," the woman persisted.

"Some would argue that the number one job of government is to protect the citizens. Would you disagree with that?"

"But they want to reinstate the draft!"

"No, the Republicans don't. There were two proposals recently to reinstate the draft, and they were both by Democrats. Bush stated emphatically that he was against that."

A shocked silence. Had the media lied to them?

"But the whole world hates us because of Bush!"

"Do they? Really? Bush had only been president for eight months when 9/11 occurred, and we saw people around the world dancing in the streets. Did the world love us right up until Bush was elected?

"People, listen to me. Every argument you have given me as to why you vote Democrat seems to be a lash out at Republicans. Tell me, what is something good about Democrats, not something bad about Republicans, but something good about Democrats. Think, people."

"The Democrats want to get us out of recession, the Rep.., I mean, no one else seems to care. Bush even said we're NOT in a recession!"

"Okay," says the moderator, ignoring the continued jabs at Bush. "Did anyone here realize there is an actual definition of a 'recession', and that includes at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth? We have not even had ONE quarter of negative growth."

"But unemployment is at record highs!"

"What? unemployment is around 5%, which is considered very low. It was around 4% for most of Bush's term in office. In fact, this is about as low as we can ever expect it. The media and the Democratic leaders simply play it up as if it were high, that's simply a scare tactic. Who here has lost their jobs due to this so-called recession?"

Silence.

"Who here has been negatively effected by it?"

Silence.

"Does anyone know anyone who has?"

"Yes, my brother lost his house!"

"Really? Why?"

"He had one of them sub-prime mortgages. His payments went up and he couldn't afford it, they auctioned his house off on the courthouse steps. You think that Bush cares?"

"Well, I don't personally know how Bush feels about it, and it's tragic that he lost his house. Did he realize the payments would go up after a set period of time?"

"Well, I'm not sure, they should have told him, or been more clear."

"Who, the Republicans?"

"No, the bank people!"

"Okay, well, that's probably true, but beside the point."

There are a few shaking heads, some mutters. Then a man on the second row pipes up and says, "Listen, my cousin DID lose his job, he's a computer programmer and his job went overseas! What do you say to that?"

"Well, that's a shame that that happened. Did the Democrats do anything to try and prevent that?"

"Well, I don't know. But Bush sure didn't. He let all our jobs go overseas. I heard companies actually get a tax break for offshoring!"

"That's true, they do. That's been in the tax code for more than half a century, it was put in place under a Democratic president, and it's probably time it stopped. But do you think that jobs would stop going overseas without that tax break? Computer programmers in India cost about a tenth of what they do here, it's simple math. We're entering a global economy. There's not a whole lot Bush or anyone can do to stop it, unless you want to push the US into isolationism.

"You know what, people, I think one of our biggest problems is that we expect our government, and especially our president, to make every aspect of our lives better. And we blame him anytime something goes wrong. That's not the president's job, not in this country. It's an idea that's been fed to us by Democratic leaders for decades, that the government is here to help, the government's job is to find everyone a job, make sure everyone has plenty of food and money, make sure everyone's happy. Our country was not built on that mentallity. That mentallity is the basis of socialist and totalitarian countries, not America! What's wrong with us, what happened to us that we suddenly, in just one or two generations, lost the ability to provide for ourselves and now expect a single leader, whoever happens to be president, to take care of every aspect of our lives?!"

Silence in the room.

"Does anyone know which president has spent more money on environmental issues than any other president?"

Silence.

"George W. Bush. Does anyone know which president has spent more money fighting AIDS worldwide than any other president?"

Silence.

"George W. Bush. Does anyone know which president appointed the first black Secretary of State?"

Silence.

"George W. Bush, it was Colin Powell. He also appointed the first black female Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice."

"But they're just Uncle Tom's," shouted a black woman on the second row.

"Really? Uncle Toms? Do you believe that every black person is required to vote Democrat? That's identity politics, tribal collectivism, and has no place in American politics. Every man, woman, and child in this country should be taught to think for themselves, to consider the issues personally, not simply vote based on their gender or skin color," the moderator said, a little hotly. "I am not, nor will I ever be, a voting block. The very idea of it is insulting. I will vote for the person whose ideas best reflect my own, and if my party's candidate doesn't fit that bill, I will vote for someone else. No one, NO one, should say to themselves 'I can count on that person voting a certain way because of the color of his skin.'"

"Hold on, Democrats want to lower taxes on working people! And they want to help poor Americans," one man shouted out.

"How many of you," the moderator responded, "have ever heard of the Global Poverty Act? A bill the Democrats are trying to get passed, and is supported by Senator Barack Obama?"

No one apparently had heard of it.

"This bill would pledge over 800 billion dollars of American taxpayer money to be given to the UN and other agencies. This is in addition to the over 200 billion dollars we already give in foriegn aid. That comes out to an additional 2000 dollars from every man, woman, and child in America, all to be given to foriegn entities, we retain no control on how they spend it. Party of the people?"

Audible gasps, some mumbling.

"The Democrats' answer to poverty is to give poor people money, not create jobs or help other countries enter the free market, just to give money. Who's money? Your money. And not to America's poor, they want to take more money from Americans and give it to people all over the world. This will help even the playing field, they won't seem so poor by comparison.

"Americans have worked very hard for generations to build a strong nation with our own beliefs. Current Democrats have stated again and again that they would rather align our beliefs with those of other nations, to change us, to make us seem more like many socialist nations around the world. Democratic beliefs, just in our lifetime, have skewed so much toward socialism that our grandparents wouldn't even recognize the party."

Several blank stares from around the room.

"It seems there's a lot we don't know about our own party. And once again, let me reiterate that you are in no way denigrating your parents or grandparents by not voting Democrat. The Democratic party of today is not one they would be proud of. Thank you, we'll see you next week. There's coffee and donuts in the lobby. Oh wait, first check and see if that redneck is still out there."

Something You Won't See In The News

2008-06-07T14:13:00.001-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Here's an interesting tidbit of information that managed to escape the radar of nearly every news organization in the world. I wonder why.

Over 31,000 American scientists sign petitition rejecting global warming.

Thirty-one thousand....THOUSAND!!! Sheesh, that's a lot of scientists. Physics, climate research, mathematics and engineering were some of the areas of science from which these people were drawn. More than nine thousand of the scientists hold a PhD. The petition had 15 times more signers than were involved in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here's an excerpt:

Petition Project - Oregon Institue of Science and Medicine
"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Wow, that sounds, well, pretty extreme, doesn't it? I mean, that's just the opposite of everything we're being told! From Al Gore right down to our local weatherman, the word on the street is that ALL scientists agree Global Warming is happening and it's our fault. So how does a petition like this get signed by over 31,000 scientists? Furthermore, how can it happen without us knowing?

I thought maybe the whole thing was a fraud. A quick check of facts showed me it was legitimate. Certainly there was criticism of the list, there were some debates on whether someone with only a B.S. could be a scientist, controversy over some possible duplicate names, discussion of how many could be truly verified, how many might have changed their minds, etc. But the main point I brought from this is that there really are tens of thousands of scientists here in America who do not believe in Global Warming.

As to why something like this is not reported, that's another issue. I managed to find very few references to this story in the mainstream media. CNN.com, of course, did not mention it. A search of their website reveals nothing about it. And don't expect to find much, if any, information about this coming from such places as MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, AP, Rueters, The New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, etc, etc, etc. It was basically ignored. Why?

Well, I'm not much into conspiracy theories, so I can't imagine there is a massive coverup of this. It would simply seem that the general mindset of journalists everywhere is that you do not report on things that don't fit your agenda, unless not reporting on them would become an issue. Even Bush's White House refuses, and yes, I literally mean refuses to discuss this petition.

On the left, ignore what doesn't fit your agenda. On the right, ignore what might go against the status quo, and right now the consensus of people, albeit not scientists, but the consensus of people certainly believe in Global Warming. Bush's rating are already extremely low, why exacerbate that by bringing up something that just doesn't matter. And to a Lame Duck presidency, it really doesn't matter. It's Obama's or McCain's headache now, let them deal with it.

But in the end it does matter, it matters to us, it matters to everybody. This issue could turn out to be one of the biggest of our time, and we are so politicized and so one-sided about discussing it, that news and media outlets are keeping valuable information from the public! This is outrageous! The American people have an absolute right to know all sides of this issue, and yet we do not. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue, and arrogantly, as well as falsely, declares that there is a consensus of scientists who agree with him.

Just to be sure, I checked the definition of consensus, and it means "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole". Well that's just a big, fat lie, now isn't it? There is no consensus, not about Global Warming. And yet, and yet the average person on the street is being told there is. At what point does the press have a responsibility to tell the truth, and to tell all sides of the issue? At what point can the press simply take the word of some people and declare it as true, and base their reporting on that without fact-checking?

I am outraged. I am outraged because information about this issue is not being reported. I am outraged that our press and our leaders are lying to us, and yes when they say there's a consensus, they are lying. There is proof out there that there is no consensus. That means the issue is not settled, that means much more research is needed. That means much more reporting of both sides is needed.

I am also outraged that the average person on the street, who probably has the same intelligence as I do, doesn't do their own homework on this! While I am disgusted at our press for their lack of integrity, I am also ashamed of the average person who is old enough to vote and work and take care of themselves, and who has access to the internet and libraries and all sorts of research posibilities, yet blindly accepts this as a closed issue, without even doing the slightest amount of research into it.

Think about the sheer implausibility of this. The idea that humans have made the entire planet hotter, so hot that all the ice will melt and raise sea levels, killing millions. Whether it's true or not, it's certainly incredible. Doesn't a claim that incredible require some pretty incredible proof? Before you believe something as astounding as that, wouldn't you want to think that there's not 31,000 scientists in this country alone who disagree with it? You know the old maxim, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." If the media were all clamoring that bigfoot or aliens are real, you wouldn't just go along with it, right? You'd want some hard evidence.

But does the average person care? No. They take this astounding idea for truth, yet debate endlessly over the most minute bits of trivia. People will spend more time researching or debating nearly everything in their lives than they do for something as monumental as this.

Terrorists fly planes into the World Trade Center, it's seen live on worldwide television, yet people line up to debate whether or not it was all a government plot. "Don't believe everything you're told", they will say. Yet tell those same people about Global Warming, and they not only believe it, but literally denounce all debate and put all disbelievers in the same category as Holocaust Deniers.

Good gosh, are we that stupid? Please, people, wake up! You have access to more information, right at your fingertips, than any generation in the history of the world. Use it.

Impartiality? What Impartiality? We Don't Need No Stinking Impartiality!

2008-05-29T09:41:00.001-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

We've recently seen two of the more blatant examples of bias in the media challenged by the White House. This is a change from normal procedures, which has been to apparently let the media slide when it comes to false and biased anti-Bush reporting.

In the first example, Richard Engel's interview with President Bush was edited to make it look like Bush was agreeing with Engel's criticism of him. It's almost like a comedy sketch! Editing to change the meaning of what someone says? That's about as blatant as you can get. What's next, do they piece together different parts of a speech, or different speeches, to have Bush say "I...am...evil... All...conservatives... and...Republicans...are...really... evil!" And yet those on the left certainly see nothing wrong with it. Most news stations don't report it, most liberal critics see this as Bush getting his just desserts for his supposed crimes against humanity.

I wouldn't want ANYone pulling a stunt like that, and I'm not sure at what point the American people have so lost their way that they feel this is okay, as long as it speaks for their cause. How do we justify in our own minds the deliberate falsification of someone else's words and meanings?

Ed Gillespie fired off a letter from the White House, denouncing the tactic. NBC, of course, said big deal and refused to even acknowledge they did anything wrong.

The second example was a New York Times editorial which denounced Bush over his opposing a G.I. Bill of Rights. The editorial used pretty harsh language, condemning both Bush and McCain. What they failed to mention in the editorial was that Bush was actully for a DIFFERENT G.I. Bill of Rights that would actually give G.I.'s MORE benefits. Oops, just forgot to mention that. The other G.I. Bill of Rights was tabled by Democrats. You see, Democrats can only approve a bill if they proposed it. So they table bills proposed by Republicans. Nice. Whoever said they weren't looking out for us? So again the White House fires off a letter, complaining about their false editorial. But, of course, the New York Times doesn't care.

What have we come to as a people who apparently stand for truth and freedom, that we not only allow this sort of journalism, but appreciate it? Are we so afraid of truth? Are we so consumed with hatred? Are we so blind as to not see where this is leading? The founding fathers considered a free press to be so vitally important that they listed it in the very first section of our Bill of Rights. Something happened along the way. We seem to have forgone any desire for truthful reporting in favor of the comfort we get from believing we are right, even in the face of opposing evidence. Are we so afraid of cognitive dissonance that we'd rather have someone lie to us, knowing it's a lie?

Perhaps we don't even need to show Bush saying anything in that interview. Just make up what you want to report, say Bush said whatever you want him to have said. If you've set out to deceive, what moral reason do you have for trying to deceive while pretending to yourself you are being honest? Are you trying to achieve a certain level of deception only? Why not simply lie, and keep lying, and say whatever you want?

Once journalists and media organizations have accepted in their minds the idea that dishonest reporting is okay as long as it's for a cause they believe in, what then? Where will this lead us?

One of the things we should keep in mind is that the NYT's and NBC's liberal bias is not a secret, and they are not trying to keep it a secret. In fact, most media outlets in America do not try to conceal their liberal bias, they only deny it out of standard procedure. However, even though the bias is well known, the Republicans in this country have no choice but to utilize them, even though they are usually twisted in their portrayals. What choice do they have? There are very few media outlets who do not swing to the left, and Fox News is one of them. So what can Bush do? Only speak with Fox News?

Well, that's not such a problem for the Democrats. They routinely condemn Fox News and refuse to speak with them. That's where we are heading. The average Democratic voter simply believes Fox is somehow evil, run by a bunch of evil conservatives, even though they never even watch them.

I had a discussion with a very far left individual who had watched the show "OutFoxed", which is supposed to show how Fox is biased. He had never seen Fox, never watched Bill O'Reilly, yet knew all about it. As far left as he is, I consider his mentality on this subject to be average.

Consider Barack Obama, who is likely to be our next president. He has made no secret of his dislike for Fox News, even though it's watched more than any other network. He makes it clear he considers it to be bad for our country. He, along with Clinton and Edwards refused to be a part of a debate that was hosted by Fox News. That's about as biased as a candidate can be. Did Republicans ever do something so blatant? Bush, as much as he realized NBC was extremely anti-Republican and extremely anti-conservative, gave an interview to Richard Engel, which NBC promptly edited to falsify Bush's statements. (What did he expect?) Can you imagine the outcry if Fox had pulled that kind of stunt? Yet it's acceptable if done against the right.

The simple fact that comes to mind is, we do not have a reliable mainstream media in this country. We can NOT count on them to give us fair, accurate, and truthful information. Therefore, the average person in America, who gets their news from the average news outlet in America, is getting biased information. Is it any wonder Bush's ratings are so low? Can anyone stand up against a biased press, combined with a very liberal entertainment industry?

Another scary fact is, our likely next president, Obama, is not only complacent about the left-wing bias in the media, but he is openly against the only major news outlet that does not toe the Democratic line, Fox News. Considering his current treatment of Fox, it's not inconceivable that, if elected, he would take measures to ban Fox from the White House. That's just a simple first step. Don't allow them access to official government information. Soon it becomes policy that branches of the Federal Government stop allowing Fox News access to press conferences, interviews, etc. It also helps send a message to other news organizations, toe the line or you, too, will be banned. All in the name of being fair.

The Fairness Doctrine comes to mind. What do you think will be the future of media in this country and of Fox News in the face of the Fairness Doctrine? Well, to be honest, Fox has been seen by analysts as the MOST balanced network, but really, who truly believes that's going to matter, especially to a man who openly complains about Fox?

We lament other countries whose governments censor the news, such as China, Burma, and some countries in the middle east. Yet we allow the same thing right here in America. Ironically, we have allowed our press to be hijacked in the name of freedom of the press! And the next step is simply to start regulating what is reported in the name of "fairness". Hhmmmm, the government to regulate the news outlets. Wait, what I meant to say was, the Democrat controlled government to regulate the news outlets... in order to, to what? Force them to be less biased against Republicans? I don't think so. If they're already openly pro-Democrat, and Democrats gain power over the media, what on earth do we think is going to happen?

Anyway, back to what I was originally saying. The Bush Administration has been mostly passive towards the left-leaning press. Only now, as we near the end of this administration, does it get a backbone to stand up to it? Well, way too little, and way too late. Actually, I don't think that it would have done any good had he done it seven years ago. I don't think the Democrats would have stood for it. They would consider any complaint against the media as an attempt at censorship. Ironically, attacking Fox News is hunky dory. So to clarify, any complaint against left-leaning news is censorship, any attack at non-left-leaning news is preserving freedom of the press and standing up for the people against Karl Rove's evil mind-control rays.

And at the end of some long-winded, frustrated, impotent rage, if I have a point, I suppose it would be this: Although I'm not a fan of Barack Obama, if elected by the people, he will be my president. However, I would like those people electing him to honestly know the truth, I would like them to be well-informed, and not be influenced by biased reporting, I would like them to vote according to truth, not anti-Bush sentiment, I would like them to understand the truth about the issues and understand the truth about where all the candidates stand on the issues, and I would like them to understand the consequences of their actions.

I'm Sorry For [ fill in the blank ]

2008-05-26T14:49:00.001-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

State of the Union Address

"Madam Speaker, Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests and fellow citizens: I am President George W. Bush, and I apologize for the following offenses..."

So the story is that some soldier in Iraq used the Koran for target practice. Bad thing to do, but bad things are happening all over the world. An apology was certainly due, so have the soldier apologize, and maybe his commanding officer. Have the ambassador, or some general say "sorry about that".

But the PRESIDENT HIMSELF? C'mon, the President of the greatest nation in the world, publicly apologizes for someone shooting at a Koran? Is this what it's come down to? Last time I checked, putting a cross in a jar of urine is still considered art, and is funded by our government, the same government whose president will apologize for something done against the Koran? What other country is such a putz as our country? What other country in the world is so ready and willing to claim responsibility for being the offender for every complaint? Of all the things going on in the world, this is considered so major that the president himself gets involved and says "I'm sorry"?

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq every day, just to help the Iraqi people, to make it a free country. And yet when one of those soldiers shoots the Koran, OUR PRESIDENT APOLOGIZES to the Iraqis!! Did we lose a war or something? Did we sign a Treaty of Subjugation? Are we doing penance for something?

Welcome to America, the most apologetic nation in history. You name it, we'll say we're sorry for it. Remember that whole Revolution thing, Great Britain? Well, we're sorry, no offense intended. France, remember when we invaded your country and forced out the Germans with whom you had signed an armistice agreement? Well, we are sincerely sorry. And to all the people in this or any other country who are poorer than me, I am very, very sorry.

The U.S. will always automatically be guilty of offense for the simple reason that we accept that guilt. We stand up and proudly proclaim to the world "it's all our fault, we're bad, spit on us!" And the world complies.

I would like a show of hands from anyone who honestly believes this will do any good at all. The people so offended and so demanding of apologies are the least likely to be "understanding" and the least likely to ever suddenly be our friends. Their greivances are based on existing sentiments that are not going to change because we apologize for something. Let's face it, people around the world hate America. Many American citizens hate America. They enjoy the hatred, and are not looking for a reason to like us again. All the nice things we do are either ignored or belittled. You are kidding yourselves if you think the way to gain respect is to prostrate yourselves before your enemy. You just come off looking pathetic. You look like a sappy character from The Simpsons...."If I do everything she asks she's bound to respect me." (Milhouse)

Someone offends us? We are so understanding, we're sorry, we deserve it, we're mean, we need to put ourselves in their shoes. We offend someone else? We're sorry, we're mean, we need to put ourselves in their shoes. What the hell?

I remember a trip I once took to Hamburg, Germany. In discussing it with co-workers, I mispronounced the name of the city (made it sound like hamburger without the 'er', oops). My co-workers immediately labeled me the "ugly American", and said that would offend the Germans. How many times have you also felt that way? "Can't do anything to offend non-Americans, can't say the wrong thing, can't mispronounce a word! Don't want to be the ugly American"...

Bosh!! In my career I've worked with people from all over the world, and I cannot remember a time I ever thought less of any of them because they didn't pronouce New York or Atlanta exactly as I expected. But for some reason, so much more is expected of Americans. What, is the whole world a victim of our callous indifference to their cultures and languages? And is it our responsibility to apologize for being American? No! That mentality just makes them victims. People are stronger than we give them credit for. It shows a lack of respect for their character to assume they're going to crumble under the onslaught of a mispronounced word.

Ever hear people, fellow Americans, say things like "we're so arrogant, we're so mean, blah blah blah..."? What is this bizzare need by many "guilty" Americans to be self-deprecating? That's part of a mindset that doesn't even make sense! They feel the need to include themselves in the insult. They won't simply say "some Americans are arrogant", they NEED to include themselves, sort of an ablution, a confession of sins, as if to say "yes I know I'm bad, and I'm sorry, don't hate me". The assumption is that the non-Americans are weak, so to be fair we have to make ourselves weaker. That insults them and makes us look foolish.

I long for the days when the world respected America, but unfortunately I do not believe any of our current leaders or candidates have the ability to win back that respect. They believe that respect can be bought, that it will be given in return for making yourself look like a fool, or for giving people everything they ask for. It's like the kid in the neighborhood who always wants to win friends by letting other kids play with his toys. Pretty soon they just look at him as the kid with all the toys, and they begin to expect certain things, and the first time he doesn't let them play with his toys, they just go someplace else. They weren't really his friends. I feel sorry for that kid, and I want to teach him that the way to make friends isn't by pandering to freeloaders, and that by doing it he's actually making more freeloaders out of kids who would otherwise have not expected a hand-out. I wish I could convince our leaders of that, but their response would be "yes, but the problem was the kid didn't provide ENOUGH toys, otherwise the other kids wouldn't have left..."

And so it goes on. We buy goodwill around the world, we have friends as long as the money holds out and we do everything they tell us, as long as we apologize for our very existance while their people burn our flag in their streets.

For Memorial Day

2008-05-26T08:16:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Two things in the news a couple of weeks ago caught my eye at about the same time. One, some junior high school students were being punished for not standing during the Pledge of Allegiance, to the outcry of liberal minded people everywhere. Now honestly, I don't know why they didn't stand, and it might have been simply that they're kids. What was troubling is the support they received from people and organizations who have no qualms about stating their anti-American positions.

The other was just a blurb, almost overlooked, in a story about the horrible tragedy of the 10's of thousands of people killed as a result of the Burma Cyclone Nargis.

"It's troubling that many of the Burmese people learned of this impending disaster only when foreign outlets -- such as Radio Free Asia and Voice of America -- sounded the alarm. Although they were aware of the threat, Burma's state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm's path." Mrs. Bush in an interview regarding the aftermath of the storm and ongoing relief efforts.

Voice of America? Who are these miscreants that blatantly blare their Capitalistic propaganda at unoffending people? And Radio Free Asia, another outlet probably embracing and spreading lies about how great freedom is. Bah!

Not to diminish the impact of the story on Burma's tragedy, but one of the things I took away from the article was the fact that there are people around the world, many of them Americans, who are doing what they can to help others. Whatever you think of George W. Bush, this country was founded on the principles of freedom for our fellow man, oppurtunity, and respect. We have come a long way in this Great Experiment. In two hundred years we have extended this belief to all people, men and women, of all races. In what others would call an imperialistic mind-set, we go throughout the world, spreading this idea of freedom, offering help, offering aid, offering sacrifice. To be sure, we are not the only country who gives time and money to make the world a better place, but this country, America, is credited with starting a revolution in thought. We are the birthplace of true freedom, and we are the standard-bearers for an idealistic value of intrinsic freedoms that had never been seen before in this world.

Every country has things they can and should be proud of, every country has it's heroes, it's leaders, it's humble workers, and it's good and great people. So do we.

There are Americans, all over the world, who try to help, people who are involved in doing what many American citizens consider to be the natural and expected thing, to reach out and help in times of need. Yet we have people, children in our schools, who are taught so little regard, so little respect for our own country, that they refuse to perform such a simple act as standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, a simple show of respect. What are we teaching the generation that will take the reins from us? How can they be expected to lead our country, if they don't like our country?

We seem so determined to enforce the idea of the right to dissent, that we so often forget that that freedom should be used wisely, not indiscriminately. We should have a REASON for dissent, not laziness, not general dislike of some policy. Don't think for one second that your opposition to the war in any way negates the hard work and sacrifice by millions of Americans each year to not only keep this country safe, but to make the world a better place.

If and when a time comes that our country actually stands for evil, that we as Americans abandon the long cherished and basic human beliefs of assisting others in need, giving of ourselves, trying to help others have what we have, and yes, sometimes sacrificing for the greater good, if and when a time comes that we as a people shall have degenerated and devolved enough to give in to animalistic desires of hurting for huring's sake, oppressing for oppression's sake, and if we lose the desire, and even the ability to be great again, then and only then will I no longer stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And even then, I pray that I could be a voice in the wilderness, who could remind others what it means to be American.

How to Offend Barack Obama

2008-05-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

State of the Union Address

"Madam Speaker, Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests and fellow citizens: I am President Barack Obama, and I am offended by the following things..."

--------------------

Well, that's what it's starting to come to, isn't it? There seems to be a list somewhere of the things from which Obama feels compelled to draw offense.

I for one am glad that Obama is clearing out our over-cluttered English language by getting rid of offensive words and phrases. He must be taking his queue from our current administration which has made the world safe for Democracy by declaring the phrase "Islamic Jihad" forbidden. So Obama has decided that from now on, referrence to anything off limits will be replaced with the phrase "something happened." Okay? Good, now repeat after me, "something happened."

Let's come up to speed. Senator Hillary Clinton, as we all know, is feeling mounting pressure to drop out of the race. Of course the Obama supporters certainly feel this way. Naturally. She's running against him, and that alone is offensive and should be stopped.

She was trying to explain that having Democratic primaries last until June is not so unusual:

“My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June,” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

The Obama camp, seeing an opportunity, stated that her remark “was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.” Okay, here's one of the problems I have with this. It seems clear to me that she was simply saying these primaries lasted into June. Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning, he was not finished, the campaign would have gone on longer had he not been assa.... oops, did you see that? I almost said the "A" word, that would have been a no-no.

The ever-respectable and completely non-biased Keith Olberman agrees it's a naughty word: "You actually used the word assassination..." I'm not sure why they're still letting Hillary roam the streets.

Obama says mentioning this "has no place in this campaign." What exactly is the reason for this? Here's a few guesses:

The word [the-A-word] is off limits because it is just so darn vile

Any referrence to an [the-A-word] is off-limits, because of Obama's race

Any referrence to Bobby Kennedy's [the-A-word] is off-limits, because of Ted Kennedy's recent sad news

She was secretly calling for Obama to be [the-A-word]

Any referrence to Bobby Kennedy's [the-A-word] is off-limits, because, well because that's Obama's right to declare certain subjects off-limits

Well I'm not buying and you shouldn't be selling. Obama's just using this, like he has other gaffes in the past, to attack his opponents. Not going negative, are we Barack? He's going negative, all right, just in a different way. He and his camp should have either said nothing, or said "No big deal, back to the issues..." That would be more likely to enhance his image as a strong and decent person. Unfortunately, the Obama camp believes that they should take advantage of every slip up and every thing that could possibly be twisted into something offensive, and use it against their opponents.

The other thing I have a problem with is this. Who made Obama king of what people can and can't say? Why does he get to decide what's allowed to be said? Is this a portence of things to come? What happens when he has the power of the presidency behind him? I do not trust him to use that power wisely. I believe we already see the writing on the wall.

At the very least, you can argue that his melee of words with President Bush about his remarks concerning negotiations with hostile nations, at least you could argue that that was concerning actual policy and campaign issues. This, well this is just silly. So she made a gaffe, so what. We all do. Bush is famous for them. Obama's 20 years being spiritually mentored by Reverend Wright was a gaffe. "Oops, I accidentally spent 20 years listening to anti-white, anti-American rhetoric. Sorry, folks."

The response: "Leave him alone, he said he was sorry, you're just changing the subject. We should be talking about Hillary!"

But a gaffe by Hillary seems to be cause for a lync.... Oh...My...God...do you realize I almost made the biggest gaffe of all? I'd have been banned from ever running for office had I completed that sentence! Whew! Forgive me Obama.

The real meaning of this is that we as Americans are wasting our time and energy, and millions of dollars on crap. Pure, unadulterated crap. Here's an idea, let's just have all the candidates stop talking now. There's nothing left for them to tell us. Do we really need another month of playing "whack-a-Republican"? We know, okay, we get it, Clinton and Obama hate all things Republican. McCain is a centrist and apologist. We all know where they stand on the top six issues of the day, war in Iraq slash terrorism, health care, economy slash oil, the green movement, the border, and last but not least, victim appeasement. It took a while for these three personalities to TELL us some of these things, but we finally found out. Now, how about they just go home, turn on reruns of I Love Lucy, and veg out. Don't speak, don't whine. We can hold the primaries without you, and we can hold the general election without you.

I'm sorry, we have to break into this commentary for a special news bulletin. President Barack Obama has just declared the phrase "something happened" to be off limits. He has just added it to his "Presidential Big List of No-No Things". He stated in his press conference that, and I quote "we all know what you're talking about, you're referencing something I don't like, so stop doing it." So to repeat, you are no longer allowed to say .... well we can't tell you what you can't say. So to be safe, just don't say anything.

One Fine Day in the Oval Office, All Things Suddenly Became Clear

2008-05-23T10:56:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

And then it happened.

George W. Bush had been in conference with his Secretary of State. Once again, the situation of the open border and the fence was in the news.

"Well to be honest with you, I'm just not interested in hearing about this anymore, Condi," Bush said flatly.

"You have GOT to listen," Condoleezza Rice was saying. "The American people hear about this situation every day. They are getting tired of knowing that their government is doing nothing, NOTHING about it!"

"I just never understood why they were always so against them."

"They're NOT against the immigrants, the people aren't against the Mexicans, they just want..."

"No, I don't mean the Mexicans. Hell we all love the Mexicans, right? No, I mean the boarders. They've got to have a place to live. Just because they're rooming with someone, no need to kick 'em out of the country."

The room was silent for a full 10 seconds.

"What did you say," asked Rice.

"The Boarders. Everyone keeps talking about the boarders, like they're some kind of bad people."

"Borders? The border between the U.S. and Mexico? Rooming with somebody? What are you talking about?"

"No, BOAR-DERS. You know, they want to close off the boarders, deport the boarders. Look, I wish everyone could share the American dream and own a house, but some people just can't afford it. Some people have to pay for room and board."

"Oh...My...God..." Rice said slowly, realization coming to her as she sank in a chair. Suddenly, the memory of a hundred different meetings came flooding back. Why was he always lax on putting up a fence on the border? Why did he act like the situation at the border wasn't that bad? It all began to make sense.

"Mr. President," Rice began. "George...listen. All this time, all these meetings, all the protests, you thought they were talking about boarders, about people renting rooms?"

"Well...aren't they?"

"Oh God, oh..." she trailed off.

Suddenly, somewhere in the darkness, a light flickered, began slowly, almost went out, then burst with the clarity of a spotlight! President George W. Bush jumped to his feet, his mind suddenly clear!

"Jesus! No, you mean, you mean....all this time, all this time they were talking about the...the dividing line between Mexico and the U.S.? Oh Jesus, I thought...but it just sounded like..."

Bush dropped into his chair, put his face in his hands, and began to moan softly as he slowly rocked back and forth.

"All this time...all this time," Rice kept saying, as if in a dream. "The American people thought...I thought, you were just weak on the Border issues, or were pandering to illegal immigrants, or just scared of Mexico or something. All this time...you were just....really, really...stupid."

"Dear God..." muttered Bush. "Dear God..."

Speechwriting 101 - Obama

2008-05-23T08:02:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

"What the hell was that? Reagan? What the hell was that all about?"

"I was trying to reach across the aisle, you know, people liked Reagan, he was a popular president," Obama said.

"He was a REPUBLICAN! Or did you happen to forget that little part," said Leopold, the angry speech coach.

"I know he was a Republican, I'm not an idiot. Remember who you're talking to," Obama chastised.

"Oh! Oh, I'm so sorry your highness," Leopold said, his Brooklyn accent showing through. "I forgot, the great Obama has spoken, can't criticize Obama, now can we? Well I've got news for you, my friend, you are NOT the president yet. And unless you want to convince people to vote Republican, do NOT, EVER, EVER give credence to ANYthing ANY Republican has EVER, EVER done. Not even Lincoln, just ignore it altogether! Got it?"

Obama stared at him for a moment, but nodded.

"Good. Now listen, you can only quote Democrats. And that doesn't leave you with many choices. You do NOT quote Clinton, since in case you haven't noticed, his wife is running AGAINST you. You do NOT quote Carter, because the man is a freaking moron. In fact, steer clear of anything involving that has-been."

Obama smiled and nodded.

"Leave Lyndon B. Johnson out of it, anyone who remembers him probably doesn't like him, the whole Vietnam thing."

Obama looked confused, trying to remember his history lessons from college.

"That leaves our old pal Jack. You quote Kennedy for all you're worth." Leopold handed him a sheet of paper. "These are quotes by JFK, I want you to memorize them. There's at least one for any subject that may come up. I want you to be able to recite these in your sleep, got it?"

Obama took the sheet and looked it over, two columns, front and back, at least a hundred quotes. He took a deep breath and let it out slowly. Then nodded.

"Good. Now don't go back any further than JFK. Truman was in the military, can't give any credit to the military."

"But JFK was in the military, too," interjected Obama.

"No one cares, no one probably even remembers that. Plus, Truman dropped the bomb, don't want to bring THAT up. Roosevelt, well, just stay away from depression stuff."

Now Obama really was confused. He'd have to remember to Google presidents and history when he got home. He had a vague memory of the Republicans being somehow to blame for the Great Depression. And, didn't his college professor tell them that Republicans had dropped the bombs in Japan? Or did he read that on the Daily Kos?

"Now on to Bush bashing. I noticed you've been laying off Bush the last couple of speeches."

"Well," said Obama, "I just figured if I'm going to be president of the whole country, there's no sense in alienating the majority of people who voted for him."

"I don't give a crap about them, and you shouldn't either!" shouted Leopold. "They made their beds, let them lay in them and suffer! You need to include the phrase 'failed policies of the Bush administration' in every speech, EVERY SPEECH. You've got to flood peoples' minds with that notion, make it seem like it's an accepted fact that Bush is a failure."

"But it's not true, it's..."

"No, listen, the more you repeat it, the more it seems true. You've got to convince people things are bad and they need change."

"But things aren't that bad, and it's certainly not Bush's fault if they are."

"Doesn't matter, your job is to make people hate Bush, make 'em think things are going haywire and it's Bush's fault and he doesn't care. 'Bush's failed policies', 'Failed policies of the Bush administration', mix and match the phrases, use 'failed', 'Bush', 'policy', get creative."

Obama shook his head.

"Now listen," Leopold pressed on. "Bush's ratings are at an all-time low. You need to take advantage of that. You've got the media on your side, all of freaking Hollywood, everyone is willing to talk smack about Bush. All you have to do is play in to that."

"But, but the media is wrong in so many cases. All they're doing is highlighting every bad little thing that happened while he was president, and ignoring the good things. It doesn't make sense. That's the reason his ratings are low. I don't want to be party to that kind of mindless politics."

Leopold looked at Obama, his mouth open in surprise.

"Did I hear you right? Did you just say 'Leopold, I want Clinton to win'? Did you just say 'Leopold, I don't really want to be president'? Is that what you just said?"

"No, now listen..."

"Is that what you just said? Because it sure sounded like that's what you said! You said 'Leopold, I'm in love with Bush, I want to elect him again and again!!' What the hell is wrong with you?"

"But Bush's policies, the media, they...they're.." Obama stammered.

"'Oh Leopold, please help me get a Republican in the White House again'", Leopold continued to mock him.

"Now wait just a damn minute! That's not.."

"Because you listen up and you listen good, pal o' mine! The media is handing you a gift on a gold freakin' platter. For the first time in history the American media has come out openly in support of all things liberal. They've thrown off the mask of unbiased journalism. They don't care anymore! They're going to support whoever's the most liberal, and that's you. Take advantage of that, Baracky my man. The media is openly mocking Bush whenever and wherever possible. The American people are being inundated with it, they can't help but believe it. Fox News is the only one still giving him a fair shake, and you've got to bash Fox right along with Bush. Make people think Fox is dishonest, get people to stop watching Fox. They're in it together. You think terrorists are the enemy? No! It's Bush and it's Fox News."

"But wait. Listen. Just listen to me. Bush senior, he had a lot of support in going after Saddam, and.."

"That's ancient history!"

"Now just listen," Obama persisted. "Clinton ignored the situation for eight years. EIGHT YEARS! It just festered and got worse. 9/11 was a result of that. Bush did something about it. He went in and opened this whole situation to the eyes of the world. He's catching a lot of smack for this, as if it's all his fault, but in reality he's been the only one willing to fight this sort of terrorism. I simply want to acknowledge that and continue, in my own way but not to ignore what he's done."

Leopold was looking down. He took a deep breath and let it out slowly. Then he spoke.

"Obama, I want you to understand something. I realize everything you're saying is probably true. But I want you to understand this, and listen closely. I...don't...care." He left those words hanging.

Obama looked at him waiting for more, then realized the meaning of what he was saying.

"Obama, George W. Bush could be the freakin' messiah himself for all I care. To you he is Hitler. This isn't about making the world a happy freakin' place, or having the whole freakin' planet hold hands and sing freakin' Kumbaya! I just don't give a freakin' rat's ass!! Because in the end, what matters, ALL that matters, is winning."

"The ends justify the means," Obama said slowly.

"The ends justify the means," Leopold confirmed.

Speechwriting 101 - Bush

2008-05-23T08:01:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

"No no no, George. Now listen to me. 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. You fool me, can't get fooled again.' Okay, now from the top."

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..." said George Bush.

"No! Listen, 'shame on shame on you.'"

"He's not going to get it!" shouted a third man in the large studio. "He's never going to get it! Can't you see that? We've been doing this for half a freakin' hour! A chimpanzee could get it by now!"

Sitting on a chair and feeling awkward, Bush scratched his head. The third man returned to the darkened corner of the studio, shaking his head.

"It's okay, it's okay," said the first man, the speech coach. "We'll just try once more and then take a break. Now George," he said calmly. "I want you to listen very carefully, okay?"

Bush nodded and said "Sure, yeah okay. I'm listening."

"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. You fool me can't get fooled again."

"Okay," said Bush. "Okay, ah, 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. You fool me can't get fooled again."

"YES!", shouted the coach.

The third man, standing in the dark corner, simply nodded and smiled. He's got it!

------------------------

The next day, President George W. Bush stands before a large group of people at a school in Nashville, Tennessee. The speech begins, the president drones on. People are listening, some smiling, some nodding, some dozing off, some staring out the window. But two men sit tense near the side of the stage.

"He's going to blow it," whispered the speech coach.

"Just relax, Victor. He's not going to blow it."

"He's going to blow it. I know he will."

"There's an old saying in Tennessee..." Bush was saying.

"Here it comes!"

"I know if it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says..."

"Crap, he's going to blow it!"

"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you..."

"He's doing it, he's doing it," the coach whispered excitedly!

"Fool me, you can't get fooled again."

"YES!! YES!!! He did it!!!" The coach jumped to his feet, the music from Rocky began to play, balloons fell from the ceiling. Victor the triumphant speech coach jumped up and down, his arms raised in victory! He had done it.

Thou Shalt Not Criticize

2008-05-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

by Nathan Mathews

Listen up, people, we have received word on new topics which are off limits in this presedential race. Get your lists out, now add "Michelle Obama's campaign remarks". These are verboten. Thank you for your continuing support in this matter.

To bring you up to speed, we have the Tennessee GOP, which ran a negative ad about Senator Barack Obama's wife, Michelle. The ad showed her speaking on the campaign trail, saying "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." The remark was troubling to many Americans, even more so when we find out she didn't just say it once, but often, as it was part of her stump speech. However, running the ad seems to have caused more of a dust-up than what she said. Obama condemned the Tennessee GOP, calling them "low class", and saying his wife is off limits.

To be sure, it's never nice to bad mouth someone's wife. But they weren't calling her ugly, or stupid. It wasn't an ad-hominem attack, just for sheer spite. She is campaigning for him. I looked it up in the dictionary to be sure it still means what I thought it means. Yes, she is promoting him, and herself, since she'll be sitting in the White House, too.

Then it suddenly occurred to me what's going on. I didn't realize it before, but the truth seems obvious now. Obama wasn't aware that he was "running" for president. After having everything handed to him and his wife for so long, they naturally believed they were simply being "given" the role of president and first lady. They were not aware that the little people, those "nasty voters" would have any say in the matter.

I, for one, would like to apologize to Obama and his wife for having somehow given them the impression that the presidency and first lady-ship are positions which they are "owed".

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if she becomes first lady, what then? What if she decides to push legislation, a la Hillary when Bill was president. Will she make a speech before Congress, just to be followed by President Obama who says "okay people, you know the rules. My wife has spoken. You will NOT say anything negative about what she said." And does this rule apply to all politician's spouses who are involved in politics? Because she certainly is involved, she's campaigning for him. Her powerful words are used to push him ever closer to the White House. Can those same words be examined? Can they be repeated? Does she have carte blanche to say whatever she wants without reproach? And if so, why? Why her, and not others?

I can remember many times when a politician's spouse was verbally assaulted in ways that made me cringe. I remember John Edwards' wife having to endure remarks about her age when she had a baby. Or Hillary's thighs when Bill was pres. I remember reading a breakdown on the looks of Barbara Bush, and it was not flattering. But, those heartless attacks are different, and the average voter should recognize that. To say attacking Michelle over supposedly anti-American comments she makes while campaigning for her husband is the same thing defies logic.

But this wasn't the first time criticism has been criticized. Last week we watched the scene unfold as President Bush, before the Jewish Knesset, criticized what we thought was Former President Jimmy Carter's feckless attempt to reason with the leaders of the terrorist group Hamas which routinely shoots rockets from Gaza into civilian territory in Israel. While I applaud Carter's ability to finally recognize that Hamas actually IS shooting these rockets, and that perhaps it should stop, I agree with most analysts who predicted the gesture would do no good. I also agree with those who state such gestures can be detrimental, as it gives the terrorists the idea that they're getting the attention of some very powerful people, so keep up the good work!

However, back here at home, Senator Barack Obama and company assumed he was speaking of him, and they went wild! They were seething with righteous indignation. How dare Bush, Bush!! of all people, dare to say anything negative about Obama. There was debate back and forth over whether Bush was refering to Obama or not, and if Bush was refering to Obama, he seems to be automatically guilty of...something. A certain something to which Obama is immune, I suppose. Although Bush never mentioned Obama in his speech, Obama has no compunctions against mentioning Bush in his speech. And McCain as well. Enemies, all!

I have to say, like Bush or hate him, I really admire him for his ability to take a punch. More than any other president I’ve seen, and certainly more than Obama, he has taken the most foul, negative, outright falsification of his statements, not just by left wing zealots, but by members of congress and the media, and he has not thrown in the towel. I for one would have said to hell with it and not run for a second term. Bill Clinton, that wasn’t his style, he usually came back hard at critics. But Bush is able to take it more, he seems much more dignified. I give him due respect for that. But the amount of vitriol, the type of hatred exuded towards him, is staggering, and at the same time numbing. Each time someone calls him Hitler it just makes the next time easier, so that in order to really insult him, you have to go even further. The way our Democratic Congress openly mocks him during his state of the union addresses, the way they openly discourage their side from working with him in any way, because it might give legitimacy to the right, as if Bush were the terrorist! So the result is any “across the aisle” outreach has to be done by the right to the left, and the right will be the ones who have to compromise.

Okay, but back to Obama, the worlds’ most sensitive baby. Bush never mentioned Obama, never said anything negative about Obama in that speech, yet Obama’s rebuttal was far more negative about Bush than the Bush speech he was condemning. It doesn’t even make sense! They say more negative things about Bush on a daily basis. In fact, the whole democratic campaign is almost completely based on Bush bashing. Try to listen to any speech by either candidate, see how many times they bash Bush and say we need to get away from “cowboy diplomacy of the Bush administration” or how Bush as ruined the economy, Bush let New Orleans drown, Bush this and Bush that, yet Bush says one thing and they act like he’s a monster!

Then we come to find out that Obama has stated that he would talk to hostile nations, he even states on his website that he would talk to them “without preconditions”!! So what exactly is Obama mad about? Bush didn’t lie, he didn’t mention Obama, he simply stated that that is bad policy. And in fact, not talking to hostile regimes has been White House policy throughout many administrations. Those on the left seem to be more willing to talk and compromise with terrorists than with Republicans. Obama wasn’t mad at Bush because Bush was wrong, but because he dared question him. And not just that he was questioned, but questioned by Bush, whom Obama thinks everyone knows is a joke, a bad-guy not to be taken seriously. To Obama, it’s as if the clown at the circus were to give him career advise. How dare he!

The political kitchen is very hot at times, and Obama appears to be the most thin-skinned politician we have ever had. I suppose he is a product of our current generation of socialistic leaning left-wingers that have been produced by the average college in America, where conservatives and Republicans aren’t at all taken seriously, but are considered at best an oddity to be studied for amusement, and at worst an anathema to correct thinking people. There is one of the major problems. Obama never expected to be questioned on his beliefs. He, just like many on the left, simply expected that their way of thinking was the norm and the only way of thinking to be tolerated, and any deviation from it was no different that Hitlerian doctrine.

We’ve heard so many times in the last 10-20 years that free speech seems to be reserved for the left, and not for the right. This is simply the result of what Obama and those like him have been taught for many years. Once you come to expect special treatment, you then come to believe that not getting it is a form of harassment and denial or your rights, and not getting that special treatment from a government entity is the same as oppression, and is of course compared to Hitler. Now, Obama’s being faced by the fact that a vast amount of people in this country have remained silent for years, but still cling to those long suppressed beliefs of conservative and traditional values, beliefs that many dare not utter in public, but can express behind a closed curtain in a voting booth.

Unfortunately, the right wing is almost apologetic about their beliefs, while the left is openly hostile towards them!! And for what reason? Well I think one of the problems is that the left actually doesn’t want open debate. They are not at all interested in an open back and forth discussion. I think they would rather push their dogma through legislation, shout down the opposition, and label any contrary beliefs as hate-speech, racism, low class, war-mongers, Bushitlers, etc, with the willing assistance of a left-leaning media that is always eager to hype up so-called offenses by the right while ignoring the same on the left. So those on the right, instead of spending their time debating, have to spend all their time in defending themselves against these accusations, trying to convince the American people that they are not racists, and in the end have to “apologize” for offending anyone, and bend a little more to the left just to maintain some legitimacy. Unfortunately they don’t realize they’ve already lost it, the moment they let the left change the subject.

We are facing new rules, different than we've seen in years past. First off, we have an African-American as the likely Democratic candidate (and I think it's about time, actually). Most white Americans feel awkward when race issues come up and we would rather avoid them. That's a good thing, since race is top of the forbidden subject list.

But there's other things. He's openly used his church affiliation to forward his politics, yet when his pastor came under the microscope, that, too, went on the list. He has had many shady associates, including a known terrorist. Whoops, that's on the list. Hamas is actively campaigning for him! Nope, forget it, that's on the list. He publicly states he will meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions. Someone pointed that out, and then it went on the list, too! The problem seems to be that only good things about Obama are allowed topics of conversation. Anything Obama says can only be repeated in a good light. Anything his wife says on the campaign trail can only be repeated in a good light. Same with anyone associated with him. I believe that if people were allowed to criticize Obama, he wouldn't have made it this far. It's only by blindly accepting him as the nominee, without question, that so many issues have been ignored. And if this continues into his possible presidency, what oversight will we have for his policies? All opposition will be shouted down and denounced, the name calling will begin, and people will run in fear of ruining their careers by being labeled racists. This is a Democratic dream come true! Everything they want, they get, all thanks to a new mentality that plays into their hands.

To me, this represents one of the biggest problems in politics today. We have developed a priviledged class of people who have been educated with the idea that certain beliefs and values are exempt from criticism, while others are expected to be criticized. While college professors routinely and openly mock Christianity, Islam has become the sacred stone of religions. And when confronted with this, they don't deny it, they justify it, usually with references to what people did in the Middle Ages. While I think all this is very bad, I don't think there is some widespread conspiracy. I just think these beliefs are reflected in the mindset of people everywhere, mostly on the left. You simply don't criticize some people (Obama) and you simply don't say anything nice about others (Bush). It's just not done. Unfortunately, the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has no will to oppose this. He routinely agrees with everything that Obama says is off limits. They must look at him and think "that's right, just keep smiling and agreeing old man, or you'll be next. We'll give you the Bush treatment." And they will.

But back to Obama. For someone who can’t take any criticism, he certainly can dish it out. That goes for many on the left, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, etc. They should take a lesson from Bush, the man they despise, are openly hostile to, and openly mock, yet who continues to speak his mind. They should grow themselves a backbone instead of teaching our country that whining about something is the same as leading. It’s easy to be tough when no one dares criticize you. I wish Obama would be as tough on terrorists as he is on Americans who dare to dispute his mighty word. But no, he wants to meet with terrorists, to compromise, to find “common ground”. Terrorists, sure. But a Republican? Forget it!!