Frankly Speaking

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Labels: pointless silliness

I am not one to condone the use of the "C" word, not even for Hillary. But I do have to admit that this design is pretty ingenious.

h/t Salon.

Labels: pointless silliness, presidential politics

I'm going to use quite a lengthy quote, but you really have to go read the whole thing. In a nut shell, conservatives give more money to charitable organizations and donate more time than their liberal counterparts.

“Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published ‘Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.’ The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives. If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:—Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).—Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.—Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.—Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.—In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.—People who reject the idea that ‘government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality’ give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.” —George Will

Seriously, go read the whole thing.

Labels: celebutants, conservatism, inconvenient truth, required reading

So I guess it's time for me to talk about race again.

I've been told numerous times, buy several people, that I am simply not allowed to discuss race in America because I am white. Somehow the color of my skin negates my ability to observe the world around me and point out stupidity when I see it.

Fine, you don't want to hear what I have to say, then check out Snoop, The Neo-con Negro. He is black, he is pissed off, and says everything I've ever said, plus more.

Imagine that, a black man that has many of the same opinions on race that I do. Maybe I wasn't so far off the mark after all.

h/t Misha

Labels: race relations

In celebration of Earth Hour last night, at precisely 8:00 I turned on every light in my house, turned up the heat, opened every window to fight the heat, and started my car and let it idle in the drive way.

But one man can only do so much.

Labels: biting sarcasm, pointless silliness, rise and fall of American culture

and now my life is complete.

Labels: pointless silliness

Ever wonder how China came up for their logo for the Olympics this summer? Well, wonder no more.

Labels: pointless silliness

Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Never thought you would see those two juxtaposed on my site, did you?

Reagan was a strong, idealogical, articulate candidate who was elected in two land slide victories. He was swept in to office on a wave of anti-Carter, but also because he had a strong, simple message. Fix the economy and peace by strengthening our military. Once in office, he worked to do both. But there have been many idealogical candidates over the years who, I'm sure, would work just as tirelessly to achieve their goals. The difference was that Reagan was a masterful orator. You can attribute it to his time as an actor, his time traveling the country, honing his skills as a speaker, or to his time calling play-by-play baseball broadcasts, but whatever the reason, it worked.

Obama is also a masterful orator. He is intelligent, good looking, has a great presence when delivering a speech, and on top of all of that, he has a great delivery. He sprang on to the national scene when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His campaign stops this year have drawn enormous crowds of cheering supporters. It doesn't hurt that the liberal media is also enamored with him, presenting him in as much favorable light as possible for as long as possible.

But this is where the likeness stops. Most politicians say they want the exact same things; economic prosperity for America, peace in the world, help third world nations to realize their potential, etc. What differs is the path they want to take to reach those goals.

When Reagan spoke, he portrayed America as a "Shining city on a hill". He spoke of her goodness, her greatness, and that he wanted everyone in America to be allowed the freedom to reach their maximum potential. People wanted to hear a positive message, and they responded to it.

When Barack Obama speaks, he speaks of potential good of America. His main themes have been changing the status quo and hope for tomorrow. This is also a message people want to hear, and they are responding to it. However, when Reagan spoke about the change he wanted to make, he started with the overall theme, say economic recovery, and then laid out the plan for exactly how he wanted to get there. For the vast majority of Obama's campaign, he was talked about change, but he has stead fastly avoided having to articulate exactly what that change would mean.

Obama has also very carefully avoided any and all situation which would allow him to come under hard questioning. He has appeared on such hard-hitting journalistic shows as "The View", "Ellen", and "Oprah", but avoids the Sunday morning shows. He gives speeches instead of press conferences. And when he does allow questions, he cuts them short when something difficult comes up. Like when he was asked about Rezko.

Now that the media has been forced into looking deeper at what Obama really believes, his star has been tarnished. The constant barrage of clips of his pastor of 20 years blaming whites in America for every bad thing that has ever happened in America hasn't helped his claim to want to represent all people in America. That coupled with the comments from Michelle have made him look like a closet racist, and that doesn't play well with the white men he is going to need to be elected.

In the last few weeks we've also finally be treated to some actual specifics of what he thinks will bring prosperity to America. His plan includes raising taxes (or in his words, allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire. Same thing, taxes go up.), raising capital gains taxes, pulling out of Iraq, lowering funding for defense and r&d for new weapons, and a few other equally fun ideas. All things, of course, that I am completely against. YMMV

In the end, the Obama candidacy has had an impact on American politics which will last for decades. On the one hand, we have the first viable black candidate for the presidency, and that is a good thing. I believe America has been ready for that for some time, there were just no good, black candidates running.

On the other hand, I think Obama's willingness to associate with an openly racist church for more than two decades just to prove he was black enough so he could be elected in Chicago has hurt the chances of another black candidate gaining any traction for at least a dozen years. Obama has squandered all the good will he gained with his talk of transcending race by claiming a mentor that is as racist as any white supremacist you ever met. But more than that, it's Obama's unwillingness to distance himself from these bigots (Wright and Farrakhan) that will hurt him. He has claimed to transcend race, but then puts someone into an advisory position in his campaing, someone he claims to consult before every major political decision, that openly hates whites, Jews, and America.

We live in a great country that was ready for that change. Obama has taken that openness and has shattered it. I don't think there will be another viable, black presidential candidate for quite some time, and all the black candidates who may have had a shot can thank Obama for that.

Labels: presidential politics, race relations, Reagan

Michael Yon has a new dispatch up, and it should be used both as an ad demonstrating the progress being made in Iraq, and also as an ad for gun owner's rights.

Al Qaeda is still trying to spin Iraq into civil war, but whereas in 2005-2006 al Qaeda was succeeding, today al Qaeda is being shredded.

An Iraqi officer near Sinjar told me that recently a group of perhaps twenty “jihadists,” many of them foreign, descended on a Nineveh village. The Iraqi officer said the terrorists killed some adults and two babies. One baby they murdered was 15 days old.

Until recently, such terror attacks inside Iraq could have coerced the village into sheltering Al Qaeda. Yet this time, the “jihadists” got an unexpected reception. Local men grabbed their rifles and poured fire on the demons, slaughtering them. Nineteen terrorists were destroyed. Times have changed for al Qaeda here. Too many Iraqis have decided they are not going to take it anymore. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still fighting, and they are tough and wily, but al Qaeda Central seems to realize there are easier targets elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, where many people demonstrate weakness in the face of terror.

I noticed several things about this.

1. Jihadists are finding it a lot harder to intimidate the people of Iraq. They used to be able to ride in to town, slaughter a few people, and the rest of the town would acquiesce to their demands. Now, the town's people fight back.

2. The town's people didn't just run to the authorities and cry for help or protection. The men of the village took decisive action, running home, grabbing their rifles, and introducing the Jihadis to their virgins. This does not mean I condone vigilantyism in America. However, if the bad guys were to ride into your town, or break into your home, would you be equipped to defend yourself, or would you hide in a closet and call 911, hoping that the police showed up in time?

I've got $5 that says you'll never see this story on the nightly news. Because Iraqis standing up to the bad guys doesn't fit their anti-Bush war agenda.

h/t The Jawa Report

Labels: gun control, Iraq, war

A few weeks ago Michelle Obama gave the following advice.

“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.” Faced with that reality, she adds, “many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”

Sounds good enough, doesn't it? I mean, a Harvard and Yale educated lawyer telling young people to give up the high paying, corporate law jobs and do things that "really matter". You know, like she did.

Now check out the Obama's 2006 tax returns.

Barack and Michelle Obama earned close to $1 million in 2006, paid more than $318,000 in taxes and got a $40,000 refund, according to the couple’s tax return released by the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign on Tuesday.

Of course most of that money is due to royalties from Barack's two best selling books. So let's take a closer look at Michelle.

In 2004, before Barack took office in the Senate, Michelle was making $121,910 as vice president of community affairs for the University of Chicago hospital. After Barack was elected, her salary jumped to $316,962 in 2005, almost three times what she made the year before.

I wouldn't mind that kind of raise myself, but I didn't go to either Harvard or Yale.

This means that, for Michelle Obama, giving up those high paying corporate jobs to do work that really matters means taking your six figure salary and tripling it. Making enough that she quit her $51,200 a year job on the board of TreeHouse Foods, because she was just too busy. She gave up $51,200, which is well above the median household income for most Americans in 2004. I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't make that much. Close, but not quite, and she gave up that supplemental income because she was just too busy.

I say all this to say again, yes, there is racism in America. There will always be people that look down on you because of the color of your skin; white or black or whatever. But there has also never been a better time in this country to be any color. Does anyone think that 50 years ago Michelle Obama would have had the opportunity to have a single job that earned over $50,000 a year, let alone give up a side job that paid that much?

Hell no. I'm not saying it was right, I'm merely recognizing the culture as it was. There is no greater time to be an American of any color. Opportunities abound for everyone. Yes, along the way someone may use a racial epitaph to describe you. But as my father has always said, the best revenge is living well.

I'm sure Michelle Obama has faced racism in her life, but instead of enjoying the fact that she lives well, she uses past racism as an excuse to bash America. The country that has allowed the opportunity for her family to become millionaires.

Labels: presidential politics, race relations

First, the parody, than the non-parody that is almost just as over the top as the parody.






What is funny, however, is how many of the stars that appeared in that second video have yet to put their money where their worship is.

Labels: pointless silliness, presidential politics

But I just received it in an email from a friend. And it's funny because it's true.

Recent hurricanes and gasoline issues are proof of the existence of a new chemical element. Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction (that would normally take less than a second) anytime from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of two to six years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

Labels: pointless silliness

We've all seen the stories about students in America who can't find Iraq on a map, or who can't name our Vice Presidnet, now comes surveys that show that Britain's students are receiving the same level of instruction.

One in three primary school pupils believe that Sir Winston Churchill was the first man to walk on the moon, according to a survey.

That's right, in a survey of students between the age of four and ten in the U.K., 1/3 don't know the difference between Sir Winston Churchill and Neil Armstrong. Not really much of a surprise, though, considering the results from this survey.

• A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real.


• 47% believe king Richard the Lionheart was fictional


• 27% thought Florence Nightingale was fictional


• 65% believe that King Arthur was real


• 58% believe that Sherlock Holmes was real and lived at 221B Baker Street


• 51% believe that Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest and robbed from the rich to give to the poor

I would be willing to bet, however, that many of the students that have no clue whether Winston Churchill was real have strong opinions about the war in Iraq and man-made global warming.

It kills me what passes for civics classes these days. Instead of learning about history, how our government was founded, and the fight for liberty by so many, students learn how the importance of recycling, the evil, imperialistic tendencies of America, and how Europeans are responsible for most of the evils of the last 400 years.

People wonder why Europe doesn't have the stomach to fight the war on terror, when it's glaringly obvious. A country that doesn't teach it's children about the resolve of Winston Churchill and the British people during WWII will never understand why they should stand up to any evil.

So, out of respect for one of the greatest war time leaders of any country in history, Sir Winston Churhill in his own words. If you can listen to this and not be moved, you are a heartless bastard.

Labels: ejukayshun, rise and fall of American culture

That's the excuse Obama used for Rev. Wright's racist rantings. Think he'll do the same for this guy?

A Texas city councilman is under fire for using a racial slur in an official document.

Mustang Ridge City Council member Charles Laws referred to a proposed immigrant detention center as a “holding pen for wetbacks” on the March 12 meeting agenda, MyFOXAustin.com reports.

When first asked for comment, Laws told the TV station, "I'm 74 years old, and that's what we called them when I was growing up. I don't care about political crap."

I mean, he's roughly the same age as Uncle Jerry, so I don't see any reason why the same standard shouldn't be applied here.

Labels: race relations

I know a million words have been written about Obama and his pastor to this point, but it seems that every day something new comes out and I can't ignore posting about this any more.

By now you've all heard the same half a dozen clips played over and over again where Wright accuses the government of creating the AIDS virus to kill brown people, says that America deserved 9/11, and that the CIA is bringing in crack to give the government an excuse to lock up black men.

What strikes me about all of this is that Wright, like Sharpton and Jackson and so many other "civil rights" leaders, plays on the fears of the very people he claims to support. He is helping to foster a culture of victimhood within the black community that allows them to blame everything that goes wrong in their community on outside forces beyond their control, thereby relieving them of any responsibility for fixing any of their own problems.

This is in stark contrast to what the black community longed for when oppression was real. When Frederick Douglas asked the question

"What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks' "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live.

When America was two separate nations, people of color didn't want to be given anything except the opportunity and the freedom to determine their own lives, which is exactly what they deserve, both then and now. Self determination is the greatest gift God has bestowed upon us, and to deny it to another is the worst of all crimes.

Rev. Wright denies that right to his flock. Or rather, he encourages the self denial. He mocks members of the black community who have become successful, while continuing to portray the vast majority of the community as victims. No, that's not right. He mocks successful conservative members of the black community who are successful, referring to "Uncle Clarence" Thomas and "Condi-skeeza" Rice. (Full disclosure, he also names Oprah and Colin Powell, but makes no attempt to paint them with the denigrating terms he used about Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice) He also takes great pains to point out what a sellout Tiger Woods is for playing at country clubs that don't allow women. You can hear all of these quotes in the following exchange between Greta Van Sustern and Al Sharpton.




Sharpton, playing the race baiter that he always does, claims that there is nothing hateful about anything that Uncle Jerry says in that video; that he's merely reciting history. You know what? Fuck you, Al.

This country has had very bad history when it comes to race relations. I will be the last person to try to gloss over that. But America over the last 40 years has made great strides to do all it can to right those wrongs and provide equal opportunities to all its citizens.

The problem is that when we go from MLK Jr. hoping his four children "one day will not be judged by the color of the skin but by the content of their character" to Rev. Wright spouting off about "U.S. of KKK A", progress stops. When the black community is bombarded with this message from their pastor, from "leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, from anti-semite's like Farakahn, they are left with no reason to not believe that the only reason they can't succeed is that the white man is holding them down, trying to make slaves of them again.

Completely ignoring the fact that right now the black community is its own worst enemy. Let's look at some simple statistics.

• IN 1993, 8.8 percent of whites, 10.5 percent of African-Americans, and 7.3 percent of Latinos were divorced. source


• In the first two years following a divorce, family income among white children falls about 30 percent, while it falls by 53 percent among black children. source


• 68% of all births among blacks happens outside of marriage source


• Contrary to what you hear from Rev. Wright, Sharpton, et al., blacks are more likely to be killed by other blacks than by any other race source

The statistics go on and on about the breakdown in the black community, and much of it can be directly attributed to the culture of victimhood fostered by the likes of Jeremiah Wright.

What I don't understand is the willingness of the black community to believe stories about the C.I.A. distributing crack to control the black population, but the sheer ignorance about who really means them harm.

In the video above Reverend Wright claims that the hand picked justices of the Supreme Court don't believe women have the right to control their own bodies, and they are going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, as if this is some sort of affront to the black community. The truth is that abortion on demand was mostly championed by groups like Planned Parenthood, which was founded by racist Margeret Sanger as a means of controlling the black population. Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the lead sponsor of the 1999 "Say-So" march in Washington, D.C., and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization, had this to say.

Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!" declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan.

If you've never read about Margaret Sanger, go read the full article and search around for other stories about her.

Finally this week we got a short sound bite summarizing just how the black community has been trained to think of the white community in Barak Obama's "typical white person" comment. If you haven't heard it, here it is.




I find several things very offensive about these remarks.

1. Obama completely mischaracterized the experience of his grandmother. Basically, she was being harassed by a particularly aggressive panhandler and she didn't like it. Obama's grandfather, not wanting her to appear uncharitable, said that she didn't like the guy because he was black. Obama translates that to "Granny sees a black man on the street and panics".

2. The unbelievable double standard that he sets for America. Between his speech Tuesday and these remarks, he is essentially saying that it's okay for someone like Wright to hate America and whites because, you know, times were hard when he was younger and we just need to ignore his rantings because when he's not in the pulpit he's a really great guy who is really helping the community. It's also okay for the messiah of racial healing to make blanket statements about the inherent racism of the "typical white person", and their distrust of blacks. But if Geraldine Ferraro makes a remark about Obama that includes race, he wants her fired. Or if Imus makes a racist comment, Obama claims that he would never have someone like that working for him. It's time to be able to talk openly about race in America and not have the the debate automatically skewed from the first word.

In the end, I don't have a solution for the problem. As long as the black community continues to exalt leaders that feed their culture of victimhood, along with willing accomplices in the media who continue to put the most divisive race bating guests in front of cameras, the likely hood of racial reconciliation will stay a dream. At least in the media. In the mean time, the black middle class will continue to grow, minorities will continue to become judges and lawyers and doctors, silently making their own way in this world.

In the end, I guess change is going to come the same way it does everywhere else; in spite of our leaders, not because of them.

Update: I sit corrected. Listen to James David Manning, Phd. rail against Obama and the irresponsibility of black men. I can't say I agree with everything he says, but he is definitely not your typical black preacher. Don't look for Sharpton to be embracing this guy any time soon.



tip of the hat to LGF for the last video.

Labels: race relations

Caroline Glick has posted what I think is one of the most damning assessments of Obama's speech yet.

I was 13 years old when I stood up alone to all my classmates and told them that I thought they should be ashamed of themselves for supporting an anti-Semite for president. I was a child. But Obama came to Wright as an adult. And as an adult, he sat through 20 years of Wright’s anti-white, anti-Jewish, and anti-American vitriol and said nothing. Indeed, until just a few months ago, he was honoring him as his spiritual mentor. What does that say about him?

Go read the whole thing.

h/t Rusty

Labels: presidential politics, race relations

Sometimes we all need a little reminder that America is not the evil, imperialistic, racist nation you hear about on the news every night. America is far from perfect, but it's the best thing going.

Labels: inconvenient truth, rise and fall of American culture

Geraldine Ferraro has gotten herself into trouble for, well, speaking the truth. The problem with that is that the object of her truth telling is Barack Obama, the first viable black presidential candidate in American history, and you're not allowed to speak the truth about him.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."

This reminds me of a similar "scandal" a few years ago involving Rush Limbaugh and his comments about Donovan McNabb. Rush addressed the fact that while McNabb was a decent quarterback, he was played up in the press as being one of the best out there, due largely to the desire of the press to see a black quarterback succeed. He was, of course, called a racist and forced to resign his position with ESPN, because we just can't have that type of commentary floating around out there.

Geraldine Ferraro find herself in a similar situation, and I find the entire situation amusing, because it is finally a long time Democrat bearing the brunt of racial righteous indignation.

Now, this doesn't mean Barack doesn't have strengths. Far from it. The man is a gifted public speaker and has shown himself to be a very good campaigner. But is he the savior of the world that his followers make him out to be? Far from it. What he has going for him, however, is the fact that he is a talented speaker, a good campaigner, and he is black. What Geraldine forget to mention is that he is a Democrat. If he were a black Republican running for President, he would never have received the favorable treatment from the media that has helped to catapult him into the national spotlight.

Let's look at another young, black politician; J.C. Watts from Oklahoma. He was the star quarterback for the Sooners, leading them to several bowl victories. He was the first black man to hold a state wide office in Oklahoma, and he ran for and won a congressional seat from Oklahoma.

J.C. Watts is just as gifted a speaker as Barack Obama. I know, because I've seen him speak. He's a bright leader and a man of integrity. Is there anyone out there that thinks he would receive anything but cat calls from the media or the Democrats were he to run for President? Or even Veep? He would receive much the same treatment as Clarence Thomas, because he is a minority who dares to be a Republican.

What is currently happening in the Democratic primary is what has happened to Republicans for years. If you are running against a woman or a minority, there is automatically a long list of things you cannot say, publicly or privately, about the candidate, merely because of their identity. Forget whether or not they are qualified for the office, the mere fact that they fit into a protected category, free from the scrutiny that the white guys have to put up with. Unless, as I stated earlier, they are a minority Republican, then the gloves are off.

Democrats have been programmed for so long to protect the female and minority candidates, they don't know what to do when they run against each other. If someone criticizes Clinton, they are misogynistic; if they criticize Obama, they are racist. If, however, they speak the truth, that Obama is where he is because of the color of his skin and Clinton is where she is because of who she was married to, then the fur is going to fly.

But the simple truth of the matter is just that; Hillary Clinton is only a candidate because of her marriage to Bill, and Barack Obama is only as popular as he is because he is a minority.

But isn't it fun to watch the Democrat's attempt at self destruction? By the time all of this is over with, all McCain is going to have to do for campaign commercials is play tape of Clinton and Obama destroying each other.

Update: Geraldine Ferraro is still attempting to defend herself against the charge of racism.

She said that in her comments to a California newspaper earlier this week, “I referred again back to the historic campaign of mine, and I said in Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Four, if my name had been Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have gotten the nomination. It doesn’t mean that I wasn’t capable of doing the job. I certainly was. I believe that if we had gotten elected, I not only would have been a good vice preisdent, but I would have probably run for president in 1992.”

She also accused the Obama campaign of continually playing the race card to its advantage.

“Every time this comes up, every time there is something to — some opportunity to play the race card — and this is being done by David Axelrod, who knows better, he’s his (Obama’s) campaign manager — every time they have an opportunity to do it, they do it. They did it against Bill Clinton, and it worked. They shut him up. They did it against (Pennsylvania Gov.) Ed Rendell, it didn’t work. And now they’re doing it against me.”

“I’m sorry. I said nothing negative. I care about the black vote in this country. I am absolutely thrilled by the historic campaign, and I really don’t think this is right that they should attack me,” Ferraro said.

More on the racial divide in the Democrat race available here.

Labels: mediots, presidential politics, race relations

Elliott Spitzer: $5500 an hour hooker.

Larry Craig: Free blow jobs in the bathroom.

Even in their scandals the Republicans try to remain fiscally conservative.

Labels: biting sarcasm

NY Governor Elliot Spitzer has informed his aids of his involvement with a prostitution ring.

Ace is watching the entire thing unfold, and it's getting good. The latest headline is, "Client Number Nine Asked For Stuff the Prostitute Didn't Think Was "Safe"". Client number 9 is allegedly Spitzer.

And just for the fun of it, here is Hillary, who obviously has no idea at all what men around her are up to.

"That's right.. now just jam your hand right up in there."

Labels: biting sarcasm, governmental idiocy

It seems that those peace-loving followers of hope and change aren't so peaceful after all.

Reading the comments from those ready to start a riot should Clinton take the nomination both amuses me and terrifies me.

It terrifies me because this is how we're raising our children, or allowing them to be raised by the state. War is bad, but throwing stones at a convention if you don't like the outcome is okay. You know, because "No Justice" = "No Peace".

Amused because it's fun to watch the types who want to form drum circles outside recruiting stations and pray to gaia for peace on earth are the first ones to threaten violence if you don't adopt the view of the world.

No matter what happens, it's going to be fun to watch the next 8 months.

By the way, if you want to read what they have to say for themselves, check out their site: "Recreate '68".

Labels: moonbats, presidential politics

In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?
Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Labels: pointless silliness

I've had a lot of fun over the years discussing weapons bans with people. I'm not a hard core gun nut, but I do own a few and enjoy shooting. I have always thought the assault weapons ban was asinine, and now I have a great link for you to enjoy.

The Armed Canadian has a post where you can play "Spot The Assault Weapon Ammunition". It should be quite instructive for anyone who thinks that assault weapons are so much more powerful than hunting rifles.

For you, I have a simple question. Using the photo above and ignoring the two huge rounds (what these items are called but you may call them "bullets" since that is probably what you know them as) behind the front row, tell me which of these bullets are those fired by "deadly assault weapons" and are meant to do nothing but kill?

For anyone not familiar with ammunition, this is going to be a bit of an eye opener for you.

Labels: gun control, inconvenient truth

I'll be buying stock in nose plugs, because Republicans are going to need them come November.

Labels: biting sarcasm, presidential politics

Police Chief Boisee Correa saw the carnage of the NIU shooting and moved into swift action to prevent similar attrocities from happening in Hawaii. What was his solution, you ask? He is asking the legislature to ban .50-caliber sniper rifles.

Those 28-pound rifles -- the most common manufactured by Barrett Co. -- were described in a 1999 congressional Government Accountability Office as "among the most destructive and powerful firearms sold legally in the United States." They are banned only in California.

The article goes on to describe all the horrific things that can be accomplished with one of these rifles, including bringing down planes, destroying jeeps, and hitting a target up to 1 1/2 miles away. What the reporter fails to mention even once in the article is that this weapon has never.. take a moment and digest that word.. never been used in a murder in the United States.

Never. As in, zero, no murders in all of recorded history using this weapon. .50-caliber have been used in murders, but they have been muzzle loaders (that's pretty much a musket, if you don't know), and .50-caliber Smith and Wesson.

However, the evil, black guns are currently owned by several people in the islands, so we know it's only a matter of time.

Registered owners of the .50-caliber rifles number 125 statewide and 90 on Oahu, according to police. They are just as available to purchase as any other hunting rifle. Hawaii legislators shouldn't wait for the carnage to occur. emphasis mine

You get that last part? Even though no one has ever used one of these rifles to kill someone, and we know exactly how many of them are owned and by whom, we should definitely move to outlaw them, because their mere existence will prove to be more temptation than the average person can handle and someone is going to cause carnage with one.

You know what else most people in Hawaii own? Knives. And fists. Which do you think is more dangerous in Hawaii?

Take a look at this document (.pdf) for some stats on crime in Hawaii from 1998.

In 1998 there were 24 murders in Hawaii
Firearm = 25%
Knife = 25%
Strongarm = 42%
Other or Unknown = 8%

So, of the 24 murders in 1998, 67% were committed with a knife or by strongarm.

Robberies = 1225

Firearm = 12%
Knife = 7%
Strongarm = 78%
Other or Unknown = 3%

Weapons used in Violent Crimes (Murders, Robberies, and Aggravated Assaults) in Hawaii from 1993 to 1998

Total = 17090

Firearm = 13%
Knife = 9%
Strongarm = 66%
Other or unknown = 12%

So from these statistics here are some conclusions I have made.

1. Knives are used at almost the same rate as firearms to commit crimes in Hawaii, but no one is moving to ban knives


2. The number one method of murder, robbery and aggravated assault on the islands is "strongarm"


3. We should ban gyms in Hawaii

Obviously the most dangerous thing in Hawaii are the thugs roving the streets, beating people up and/or killing them with their bare hands. I think they should first move to expel all Gold's Gyms, followed by the closing of all fitness centers, and the banning of recess in school. We should probably ban surfing, too. There is way too much physical activity involved there, and we can't chance someone accidentally getting in shape by surfing. Next thing you know they'll be beating someone to death with their board.

Next we need to make sure everyone is eating as unhealthy as possible; lots of carbs, and lots of pig roasts. Hell, I think they should mandate nightly luaus every night of the year. Get these people fat and lazy so they'll stop beating each other to death.

Yes, all of this is ridiculous. Just like banning a weapon that has never been used to commit murder merely because you think it is scary looking.

H/T John Lott

Labels: gun control, inconvenient truth, liberty

Ranger Up, one of my most favorite sites in the entire world, is looking for new writers.

What we're looking for in a writer:

1) Good writing. Doesn't have to be Bill Shakespeare, but you have to be able to get your point across.

2) Biting sarcasm. We're assholes and we're looking for more assholes.

3) Factual writing.

4) Non-partisan - we don't want to push anyone's political agenda - we are pro-troops, pro-firemen, and pro-cops - period. Bashing politicians is definitely free game, but only as it relates to how their actions affect the armed forces or those that serve domestically.

5) Writing with some frequency. Once a week would be phenomenal. Twice a month is our expectation.

So, if you're ex military, can write and are a total smart-ass, this is the place for you to be seen.

If you've never visited their site before, you really have to read some of their work. If you are familiar with the military at all you will laugh your ass off. They are truly warrior poets.

Labels: general rants, military

Jeff Healey died Sunday, finally losing his lifelong battle with cancer.

I, like many of my age, became acquainted with Jeff Healey through Road House. I loved not only his unique style of play, but the fact that he was good. Damn good. With a wonderful voice for blues.

In memory of Jeff Healey:


Jeff Healey Band covers "Roadhouse Blues"



Jeff Healey and SRV performing "Look At Little Sister"

Labels: music