The Nigh Seen Creeder

The term "hero" is used too very loosely these days. For example: I'm sure you saw the story about the Boy Scouts who died in a recent tornado in Iowa. The day after the young men died, an emergency-response official said on NBC's Today Show, "These boys were heroes." When did being in the wrong place at the wrong time make someone a hero.

Now, lest you think I'm being cold and/or callous, I mourn the death of those Boy Scouts. Were they exemplary young men? Yes. Can we find inspiration from them? Yes. Did they die too young? Of course they ****in' did. But simply dying young while sleeping in a tent does not automatically confer upon someone the title of "hero." I'm sorry, but it's true.

Now let me tell you about a true hero ...

Right now, the person I admire most in this world is Morgan Tsvangirai. "Who's he?" you ask. Well, he's the guy who's stood in opposition to Robert Mugabe's quasi-dictatorship in the African nation of Zimbabwe for the past decade. Last month, his political party won a majority of the seats in Zimbabwe's parliament, and he won a plurality of votes in the presidential election. He announced that he would participate in a run-off election, and dozens of his followers were jailed and beaten by government authorities, and several were killed. Tsvangirai was forced to first flee his country, and upon his return he had to seek refuge in the Danish embassy.

Over the years, Morgan Tsvangirai has been jailed by the Zimbabwean government and beaten to a bloody pulp by pro-Mugabe goons. He's also endured painful and humiliating torture, and he's escaped numerous assassination attempts. But Mr. Tsvangirai has never once threatened to give up his effort to secure a democratic future for Zimbabwe. Before all is said and done (in large part due to Mr. Tsvangirai's heroic efforts), Zimbabwe might very well become a representative democracy one of these days ... and I just might shed a congratulatory tear for Mr. Morgan T. when it does.

Next time you wanna confer the title of "hero" upon someone, you need to ask yourself: "How does he/she measure up to one Morgan Tsvangirai?" Yeah, that's what you'll need to ask yourself.

B. Hussein Obama has promised to institute "universal health care" if elected this November. Of course, "universal health care" is code for the socializing of America's system of health care delivery.

B. Hussein needs to listen to the words of Claude Castonguay, the father of Canada's single-payer, socialized health care system. From Powerline's blog:

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, B. Hussein Obama is the most economically ignorant presidential candidate to come along in the last 20 years. I mean, only someone so totally clueless about economic fundamentals - not to mention economic history - would propose so many tax increases when the economy is barely keeping its head above water.

One of the first taxes a President Obama will hike is the capital gains tax. B. Hussein's promised to raise the top marginal rate on the cap-gains tax not because he's convinced that doing so will raise more revenue (it won't); but because he knows doing so will show his left-wing base that he is an officer in the Class Warfare Corps.

At last count, B. Hussein has promised to raise the cap-gains tax some 6-8 percent. Now, don't go deluding yourself into thinking that a learned economist, or a learned historical figure, inspired his tax-hiking figure. No, B. Hussein went to Warren Buffet -- the billionaire Warren Buffet who sent the British Pound into the tank and had a big hand in the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis -- to seek guidance on raising the one tax that could/can/has/will have immediate detrimental impact on the economy.

If anything, serious politicians should be talking about reducing - nay, abolishing - the capital-gains tax. Far from depriving the government of revenue, abolishing capital-gains taxes would unleash economic activity the likes of which the U.S. of A. has never seen. Indeed, just look at Hong Kong, which has been an economic powerhouse for many years, to see what a no-cap-gains-tax policy can do for a nation, er, special administrative region.

All that said, I used to run a blog which featured regularly commentary from a Mr. Rod D. Martin. Rod Martin was a policy director for former-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and he's currently chairman of the Vanguard PAC. Here's what Mr. Martin had to say 'bout cap-gains taxes back in the day (2004 to be exact):

Abolish the capital-gains tax

In my ongoing series on making the flat tax a reality, I have noted that there are five key reforms which must take place before a completely new system can be enacted. Successful navigation of this "road map to reform" will improve fairness while preparing the system for an entirely new tax code; it will also teach average Americans -- and their legislators -- the lessons needed to guide them toward the best possible change.

Item one on the agenda: elimination of the double tax on capital gains.

Unfair to everyone, the capital gains tax hits poor and middle class Americans hardest: any time you sell an investment -- whether it's your home, your small business, or something you set aside for a rainy day, Uncle Sam takes a bite, which can range as high as the very top tax rate.

Double taxation is wrong, and this is surely it. You've already been taxed on your income: now, when you save or invest it, Washington picks your pocket again. How can anyone not already wealthy ever expect to achieve the American Dream?

But the foolishness of this tax is worse than its unfairness. By penalizing successful investing, the capital gains tax reduces the amount of capital available to start and expand businesses, particularly the small businesses which employ 80% of all Americans. And for existing companies, the tax lowers productivity and raises prices for every consumer, two additional "hidden" taxes on us all.

It's no surprise that over the past quarter century, whenever we cut capital gains taxes, economic growth increased.

But what is surprising is just how badly this tax devours wealth. Recent studies show that, for every dollar in capital gains tax collected, ten dollars of GDP is lost. That means, for example, that in 2000 -- while stocks were crashing and we were entering a needless recession -- when government extracted its $110 billion worth of capital gains taxes from us, it destroyed over $1 trillion of our GDP: businesses, retirement savings, jobs.

Clearly, the status quo is intolerable.

That is why my Vanguard PAC has joined Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and an ever-growing group of Congressmen and Senators in forming the Zero Capital Gains Tax Congressional Caucus.

While it may take years to deflect this dagger from the heart of our economy, President Bush and the Republican Congress have already made great progress, significantly reducing the capital gains tax just last year. What's more, supply-side conservatives were joined by moderates and conservative Democrats, many of whom had been skeptics in the past.

But there is still much more to be done.

While the tax still exists, for instance, one important goal we must achieve is inflation indexing. As Ronald Reagan taught us, the lack of indexing subjects long-term investors -- particularly small savers and "Mom & Pop" business owners ­ to serious inflation risk.

An example: if you had invested $1000 in 1980 and had sold that investment for $2000 in 1996, your after-inflation gain would have been just $241. Of the $1000 in nominal profit earned, a whopping $759 would have been lost to inflation.

Yet you would have been taxed on the entire $1000.

Clearly, the failure to index encourages speculation and discourages long-term investment. It also helps make America a country of spenders instead of savers: with savings accounts and similar investments returning the rate of inflation or less, the capital gains tax can easily wipe out the little guy: no matter how much he saves, he can never get ahead. So on average, he doesn't save, thanks to the "wisdom" of Uncle Sam.

Unfair? You bet. And as unnecessary as it is unfair.

Our Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus advocates Congressional action to introduce indexing by law. Nevertheless, we are open to other remedies. In 1992, a National Chamber Foundation study concluded that the U.S. Treasury has the legal power to index capital gains for inflation by regulation. Every American should tell the President: it's time to get this done.

In the coming months and years, as more Americans own homes, investments, and small businesses than ever before, the arguments for capital gains tax abolition will resonate across the nation. It's up to us all to make these arguments clearly and persuasively, and to elect men and women of conviction who will help make abolition a reality. No matter what the Left may say, this is not a matter of "taking care of the rich": the rich always find a way to take care of themselves. Our interest is in including every American in our country's birthright: the hope, growth and opportunity freedom provides.

Our representative government should not be an obstacle to success; it should enable it.

Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 6 March 2004

A few months back, I said this:

As a document, the Bill of Rights is the single greatest enshrinement of personal freedoms known to man. The philosophical origins of the Second Amendment are found in the writings of thinkers from Blackstone to Locke; in the English common law; and in the English Declaration of the Rights of 1689. There is a growing body of scholarly commentary which indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is - as the Amendment's text suggests - a personal right.

Today, the United Supreme Court did the right thing and affirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property.

In a statement following the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment-affirming decision, presidential wannabe B. Hussein Obama said, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms." Of course, his idea of ideal Federal judges are folks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and John Paul Stevens ... you know, the same folks who today stated for the record that the right to bear arms is not an inherent right for individuals under the U.S. Constitution.

I'll give Al Gore credit for admitting that his timid support for gun-ownership rights caused him all kinds of trouble in what became a tight election in 2000. B. Hussein needs to keep that in mind as he tries to be all Janus-like and **** as far as 2nd Amendment issues are concerned.

UPDATE: According to Georgetown University Law Professor Randy Barnett, the Supreme Court yesterday affirmed that the Constitution means what it says ...

"Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is historic in its implications and exemplary in its reasoning.

"A federal ban on an entire class of guns in ordinary use for self-defense – such as the handgun ban adopted by the District of Columbia – is now off the table. Every gun controller's fondest desire has become a constitutional pipe dream."

Read the rest here.

I played baseball for 11 years and I never heard o' nothing like this:

"A teacher has been accused of having sex with eight members of a school baseball team. Pritchett began a relationship with a 15-year-old boy in February. The 34-year-old married teacher later approached other members of the team for sex."

I know this is incredibly tacky, but shouldn't this gal be lusting after players on her school's softball team?

Cassy Fiano is my favorite gun-toting conservative gal. She tells us 'bout the latest bit of moonbattery to come out of the United Kingdom. Don't laugh. You know this crap is soon to come west across the Big Pond:

"A [U.K.] council has banned the term “brainstorming” and replaced it with 'thought showers'.

"The move came as council chiefs feared the word brainstorming might offend mentally ill people and those with epilepsy."

What's next? Outlawing "dumbass" and "douchebag" so as not to offend the sensibilities of left-wing dumbasses and douchebags?

God help us.

Speculators have been getting a bad rap from the left (see every Democratic member of Congress) and the right (see Valentine, Phil). John Stossel - my favorite libertarian journalist - sets the record straight:

"Most people don't realize this because on the surface speculators don't seem productive. They buy what already exists and resell it. How does that help society?

"In fact, the hated speculator is a good guy because his buying and selling reduce volatility and uncertainty in an unpredictable world. He may only be out for his own profit, but that doesn't matter. As Adam Smith wrote, 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'

"The prices of commodities often change unexpectedly, making business risky. The speculator brings a degree of certainty to otherwise risky ventures. When supplies of a commodity are plentiful and prices low -- but speculators expect the price to rise later -- they buy -- cushioning the collapse of prices. When supplies become scarcer and prices rise, they sell -- easing the shortage and lowering the price. Also, speculators may agree to buy a commodity in the future for a price locked in today. This reduces the risk for an oil producer or farmer who fears investing because he doesn't know what price his product will sell for next year.

"As a result of these activities, volatile supplies and prices are evened out over time. Occasionally, speculators increase volatility. Markets are never perfect. (Although they are better than government regulation.) But in general, speculators increase liquidity and keep the market on a more even keel. This makes long-term planning easier for everyone."

Over at Pentdego.com, you can make your own B. Hussein Obama poster. Here's mine:


The Pentdego do-it-yourself poster is an actual B. Hussein poster. If you don't see shades of circa-1935 USSR., or circa-1965 China, or circa-1979 Vietnam, or circa-right now Venezuela in that poster, you're wearin' catamaran sail-sized blinders, indeed. And God help you ...

Asylum.com has published a photo spread entitled "Babes of Bonnaroo." Shuffling through the pics I see Janeane "Nutbucket" Garofalo's tattooed arms and ugly mug, as well as a picture of a fat, topless Willie Nelson fan (check 'em out here). Lemme tell you ... if them gals are "babes," I don't even want to see Asylum.com's "Fugly Females of Bonnaroo," indeed.

Now, if you want to see a sexy rockin' gal, check out this recent paparazzi pic of Ms. Sarah McLachlan:


Tain't no mystery 'bout that. She's hot!

Mary Carey, a former porn star who ran for California governor in 2003, has decided to run for public office again. She’s running for the California State Assembly in District 43 (as Mary "Carey" Cook), and her name will be on the ballot in November.

I was going to make some derogatory comments 'bout Ms. Carey, er, Cook, but then I ran across a statement she issued regarding her decision to run for a seat in California's legislature ...

"I have always loved politics and know that the State Assembly would be a better position to begin my career in politics. I want to energize people into caring about local politics again – much like we’ve seen in the national primaries. But unlike one of the presidential primary contenders, I’m actually a politician you’d want to get screwed by!"

That statement is more profound than anything I've ever heard from my local state representative, Democratic Rep. Sherry Jones, I tell you what. Reckon what it'd take to get Mary "Carey" Cook to come out here (no pun intended) to District 59 to take on Sherry "I'm 60 But I Dress And Comport Myself Like I'm 20" Jones? Wait, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that question!

'Bout ten years ago, I went to church with a friend and his wife (I ain't gonna tell you the name of the church or the denomination 'cause I don't want a bunch of snarky e-mails). Upon entering the church's foyer, I spied a stack of "U.S. Out of UN" bumper on a table. I picked up one of the stickers and saw "Paid For By The John Birch Society" printed on the bottom. "These people are nuts," I said to myself.

Well ten years later, I'm totally agreeing with the members of that church (I ain't, however, gonna go so far as to say that I agree with John Birchers). The U.S. should get out of the corrupt and America-hating UN -- which only exists because of the benevolence of U.S. taxpayers.

Check this out:

U.N. Official Demands 9/11 Conspiracy Investigation

Armpit-scratching Troofers can take heart that they have an ally in their quest to rewrite history so that it was not Muslim terrorists but the Bush Administration that committed the atrocities of 9/11. Former Princeton professor Richard Falk, the moonbatty special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, normally specializes in hurling nasty allegations at Israel. But now he has his own country in his sights, as he demands that the U.N. investigate whether "some sort of controlled explosion from within" brought down the World Trade Center.

Read the rest here.

Did you hear the latest twaddle to come out B. Hussein Obama's mouth? Here 'tis:

"[The Republicans are] going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?.'
That old stuff just divides us."

Baldilocks lets B. Hussein have it:

"Most people couldn't care less about your name and your color, Senator Obama. They fear being lead by you because you have no substantive legislative record, you're a chronic liar and, after explicitly stating that you choose your friends carefully, you have repeatedly and systematically made friends with people who hate this country.

"You would 'bridge the divide,' Senator, by burning that bridge.

"Folks, don't let this Sower of Discord shut you up."

Last June, I had quite an adventure in Nashville's Mt. Olivet Cemetery. I was recently telling a friend about it, and just today I thought to myself, "When in June did that happen?" Well, it happened exactly one year ago today. Please to enjoy the story 'bout Joltin' Django's bad, bad afternoon in the cem'tery ...

A friend of mine works at a used truck, tractor and trailer company on Lebanon Road near downtown Nashville. He offered me two free tickets to the upcoming Earl Scruggs & Friends concert at the Ryman Auditorium, and I told him that I'd pick up said tickets at his office this afternoon.

When I left my buddy's office, I decided to drive through the historic Mt. Olivet Cemetery for a quick look-see. (Upon entering the cemetery, I lowered my window so's that I could enjoy a tobacco product that gives me great pleasure.) I was slowly driving down one of the many lanes inside Mt. Olivet when I heard a "boom" that scared the you-know-what outta me. Said boom not only scared me, but it shook my feet as well.

About 20 post-boom seconds later, I was sure that I heard someone yelling. I brought my car to a screeching halt. I heard yelling again; and this time, I distinctly heard someone yelling, "You son of a bitch!"

I looked in my rear-view mirror and I seen a guy running toward my car whilst waving his hands in the air like he just didn't care. The guy's facial expression was that of a person who'd been simultaneously kicked in the balls and force-fed a spoiled egg. I stuck my head out the window and inquired, "What the **** is your problem?" He replied, "Are you the son of a bitch who just shot a shotgun?"

I exited my car and asked, "What in God's name makes you think I fired a shotgun?" Mr. Guy responded thusly: "I heard that shotgun go off, you son of a bitch." (The stove-eye had been turned on at this point.)

"First of all," I replied through gritted teeth, "I didn't fire a shotgun." Then I said, "Calling a person who's supposedly carrying a shotgun a 'son of a bitch' is a dumbass thing to do."

Mr. Guy balled up his fists and sorta leaned toward me. He replied, "I ain't a dumbass. I know you shot a shotgun, you son of a bitch." (The stove-eye knob was now on high.)

Not only could I feel my cheeks getting hot at this point, but I realized that I was balling my fists as well. Says I: "You call me 'son of a bitch' one more f****in' time and you will be the next person buried in this cemetery ... because I will break your f***in' neck!"

I took a couple of steps in Mr. Guy's direction and he turned on his heel and went back to the place from whence he'd emerged. I then sat down in my car and turned it off. I grabbed the steering wheel with both hands and attempted to put happy thoughts in my brain in an effort to, well, be cool (apologies to Mr. White).

When I reckoned that I was sufficiently cool, I resumed my tour of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery. I drove around for another 20 minutes or so.

As I drove down the cemetery's "main drag" toward the exit, I noticed a Metro-Nashville Police car sitting with its ass-end facing me. When I passed Mr. Metro Cop, he pulled up behind me and turned his car's lights on. We stopped in the cemetery's funeral home's parking lot.

With one hand on his 9mm, Mr. Metro Cop, aka Officer S. Miller, slowly approached my car. When he came to my still-open window, he cut to the chase and asked, "Did you fire a shotgun in the cemetery?" My cheeks started glowing again. I gripped the wheel and yelled, "No I did not. I heard the same noise that the %$#@& who called you did, and it didn't sound anything like a f****in' shotgun!"

Officer Miller asked me to step out of the car; then he patted me down. He asked if he could look in my car. "Sure," I said, and I let him look in every nook and cranny of my car -- trunk included. He took my driver's license back to his car and did whatever in the hell cops do when they take a person's identification back to their car.

When Officer Miller came back to where I was standing, he handed me my driver's license and apologized for "bothering" me. "You didn't bother me," I replied. "The &$%^! who called you is the one who bothered me!"

I looked out across the vast expanse that is Mt. Olivet Cemetery and started grinding my teeth yet again. In my mind's eye I was envisioning me cornering Mr. Guy somewhere in the cemetery and beating his ass to a bloody pulp. Officer Miller advised, "Just let it go, man. Just go home."

I did indeed go home. I'm glad I did ...

Remember the Seinfeld episode in which George becomes a "bad seed" and immediately starts hookin' up with a young blonde in his office? Well, sometimes life does imitate art ...

"Nice guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the 'dark triad' persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs.

"The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators.

"But being just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. 'We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy.'

"Jonason and his colleagues subjected 200 college students to personality tests designed to rank them for each of the dark triad traits. They also asked about their attitudes to sexual relationships and about their sex lives, including how many partners they'd had and whether they were seeking brief affairs.

"The study found that those who scored higher on the dark triad personality traits tended to have more partners and more ... short-term relationships."

God have mercy on us all if B. Hussein Obama is elected in November. I couldn't make ridiculous sh** like this up if I tried:

"Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

"Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: 'Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.'"

Know how Al Gore's always sayin' that we need to "cut back" and "conserve" and all that crap? Now, before you go doin' what Big Al tells you to do, you need to think about this:

"In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. ...

"In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

"In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

"After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the 'green' overhaul.

"Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration."

If Al Gore was actually practicing what he preaches, he'd not only be eating dirt on a regular basis, but his big ass - and his wife's big ass - would be living in a teepee somewhere.

Unless you've been living in a hole, you know all about the massive flooding in the Midwest. The flooding in Iowa has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. But as Iowa's floodwaters recede into the Mississippi River, folks in towns down river are struggling to keep their heads above water ... literally.

Yesterday, I found a story about breached levees in Gulfport, Illinois on AOL's Web site. I scrolled through the comments and found dozens - and I mean dozens - of posts in which President Bush was blamed for the Midwest floods. I also spied a few posts suggesting that natural disasters will more or less cease if B. Hussein Obama is elected in November (I'm not kidding).

After saying a little prayer for the flood victims in Gulfport, Illinois, I addressed AOL's Nutbucket Brigade thusly:

BREAKING NEWS: According to MSNBC.com's Keith Olbermann, dozens of witnesses in Gulfport, Illinois have told authorities that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were seen yesterday placing charges under the now-broken levees. Witnesses have also stated that Vice President Cheney was laughing like Sesame Street's Count von Count: "Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha!"

In all seriousness, anyone who blames George W. Bush for the flooding in Iowa, Missouri, or Illinois - or who suggests that B. Hussein Obama could've stopped it - is a damn fool; and he or she should be prohibited - by folks toting firearms, if necessary - from voting this November.

I've come to the learned and astute conclusion that America's biggest problem right now is the fact that a growing number of ignorant souls are buying into Al Gore's ignorant proposition that Acts of Congress can prevent Acts of God from happening.

I absolutely weep for the future.

Whom can we blame for high gas prices ...? The f***in' Democrats, that's who. To wit:

"This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats' actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.

"10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day -- 5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that 'one million barrels per day,' would cause the price of gasoline to fall '50 cents a gallon almost immediately,' according to a recent George Will column.

"9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: 'Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so.' A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn't that have been a good thing?"

Check out 8-1 here. Now, if you ain't mad as hell at the Democratic Party when you reach the end of the list, then tell me where you intend to vote this November. I will do my level best to physically restrain your dumb ass from voting ... and that ain't no sh**, neither.

The Natural Law concept of free speech/expression is about to get the kibosh in Canada. No, I'm not joking.

I don't know what scares me more: the fact that the government of Canada is conducting a Star Chamber prosecution of someone who dared state a learned opinion, or the fact that said Star Chamber ain't been talked about none on any U.S. news or talking-head program.

I'll let Pat Buchanan tell us all about Canada's anti-free speech/pro-political correctness show trial. Don't laugh when reading ... 'cause it won't be long before we in America are forced to put up with s*** like this:

"Freedom of the press is on trial in Canada.

"The trial is before a court with the Orwellian title of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The accused are Maclean's magazine and author Mark Steyn. The crime: In mocking and biting tones, they wrote that Islam threatens Western values.

"Had Steyn written that, given the Crusades, colonial atrocities in Africa and the slave trade, Christianity had been on balance a curse, he would not be in the dock. In the United States, these charges would have been tossed out by any federal judge, who would have admonished the plaintiffs that, here in America, we have a First Amendment.

"The United States, however, is an isolated exception, as Western nations seek to impose wider restrictions on what has come to be called 'hate speech.' ...

"In France, animal rights champion Brigitte Bardot has been fined $23,000 for provoking discrimination and racial hatred by denouncing Muslims who slaughtered a sheep in a religious ceremony. Bardot had been punished five previous times for her statements.

"Censorship is making a comeback. Outside the United States, it is considered an acceptable price to pay for the new diversity Western Man seems now to value more than the old liberty.

"In 1990, writes Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court Brian Dickson wrote, in upholding the conviction of one James Keegstra for anti-Semitic slurs:

"'(T)he international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view ... that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression.'

"There you have it. Canada's commitment to multiculturalism and the equality of all religions, races and cultures requires the silencing of those who do not believe all races, creeds and cultures are equal.

"The dogmas of the Diverse Society dictate that the cherished rights of the Free Society be sacrificed on the altar of social tranquility.

"What has caused this reversal of the advance of freedom?

"Western Man has come to believe there are more important values than freedom, if men use their freedom in ways our new Lords Temporal find unacceptable."

PLEASE read the rest here.

The worst place on earth in which a feller can get into a heated political discussion is in church. I now know this from personal experience. Lemme tell you 'bout my experience yesterday in my church's parking lot.

A fellow church-goer - I'll call him "Dave" - and I were strolling through the parking lot talking about, of all things, the space shuttle (Discovery did recently return return to earth, you know). When we stopped at my car, Dave spied the John McCain bumper sticker on my car. "You're voting for McCain?" he asked -- with an emphasis on "You're." In reply I said, "Yup."

Well, Dave ain't no John McCain fan, lemme tell you. After regaling me with a 100-word tirade about "old" John McCain, Dave told me that B. Hussein Obama "is the only person who can save America."

Since I really didn't want to enmesh myself in a discussion on why America needs "saving," I told Dave that I wouldn't be supporting B. Hussein 'cause (A) he's a quasi-socialist and (B) 'cause he has a thin resume. I really got Dave worked up with my "resume" quip. He said, "I get sick and tired of Republicans saying that [B. Hussein] hasn't done anything the last four years." Ch-Ch ... I cocked my rhetorical shotgun and ... FIRE!

"Dave, can you name me one accomplishment B. Hussein can lay claim to while he's been in the U.S. Senate?" I asked. Dave responded thusly: "He's passed some things to help families and workers." I repeated Dave's response back to him, and then I asked, "Passed what, exactly?" After listening to Dave "uh" and "ah" for about 30 seconds, I told him: "I will buy you lunch at any restaurant in Antioch or LaVergne if you can name me one piece of legislation that B. Hussein Obama has sponsored and passed into law."

Dave responded to my free lunch offer with a similar question (direct quote): "Can you name a law that McCain's passed?" "McCain-Feingold" came right out my mouth. I repeated my offer to buy Dave lunch if he could name me one law with B. Hussein's name at the top. I must've had one smirky-ass smile on my face when I repeated the question 'cause Dave turned on his heel and stomped off toward his car. I couldn't help but wonder why he didn't try to fool me with a made-up, official-sounding law -- The [B. Hussein]-Kennedy Women And Children First Act -- when a free meal was on the line. Hell, he would've gotten a free lunch if he'd been so ballsy, indeed.

I know Dave ain't the only Obama supporter who's pretty damn ignorant 'bout what the Savior, er, Senator's hasn't accomplished while he's been in Washington, D.C. What truly concerns me these days, however, is that current polls show that a majority of Americans want said Savior, er, Senator -- who was a backbencher in the Illinois legislature just four short years ago -- to be their President. It's a wonder I can sleep at night ...

It's too bad you have to come to my little blog to stories like this:

"As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat.

"She’s not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

"And she’s not entirely alone in saying she’ll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead."

If a pledged Republican delegate announced that he or she would be supporting B. Hussein Obama this November, have you no doubt that said announcment would be a major story on TV newscasts and in newspapers 'cross America?

What, you do doubt it? Would you be interested in purchasing my palm tree ranch in Billings, Montana? I'll give you the Friend of Django price ...!

I've had to take care of some family b'iness for the past couple of days. I'll be back on Monday. In the meantime, please to enjoy this little bit from a recent Conan O'Brien monologue:

"John McCain says he has 20 names on a list of possible vice presidential candidates. Unfortunately, most of the names on the list are characters from Matlock."

If you know me, you know that quote is funny for more than one reason ...

A lot of Democrats have a fetish for subsidizing businesses that continually lose money (Amtrak, for example). Right now, a big bunch of Dems in the U.S. Senate are resisting efforts to privatize the annually unprofitable Senate cafeterias because a handful of union workers might - might - be put out of work.

I want you to read this Jonah Goldberg column and then, if you're so inclined, do your level best to convince me that the Democratic Party should continue to run the U.S. Senate.

A sample from Goldberg's column:

"As befits a government-run commissary, the Senate cafeteria has a decidedly Soviet attitude toward variety. It has averaged only two new menu items a year over the last decade. The food is so bad, every lunch hour Senate staffers rush to the House side of the Capitol like starving New Yorkers of the future storming the last Soylent Green vendor.

"According to auditors, the chain of restaurants run by the Senate food service, including the snooty Senate Dining Room, has almost never been in the black. It's lost more than $18 million since 1993 and dropped about $2 million this year alone. ...

"[A]ll augurs point to a tsunami of government ambition in the years ahead, particularly if Barack Obama wins in November. Obama promises a national health-insurance plan overseen by the kith and kin who serve the Senate its navy bean soup."

Tonight, The Night Seen Creeder calls on Hillary Rodham (Clinton) to immediately resign her seat in the U.S. Senate. (Not that it'll do any good.)

Now that her presidential quest has semi-officially ended, Hillary Rodham (Clinton)needs to retire to her and her purported husband's home in Chappaqua, NY.

We all know Hillary entered the U.S. Senate for one reason and one reason alone: to help further her presidential ambitions. If you have ever labored under the impression that Hillary entered elected public service due to an overarching desire to help her fellow man, er, man and gal, then I have some orange groves in Montana that I'd like to sell you.

During her years as First Lady, Hillary was widely considered to be - for good reason - an Eleanor Roosevelt-style liberal. Not only did she enter the White House with a track record of support for radical left-wing causes (see her work on behalf of the Children's Defense Fund), she was the primary architect of Bill Clinton's 1993-94 effort to socialize America's system of health-care delivery. In 1996, she penned a book, It Takes A Village, in which she suggested that social workers, teachers -- union-affiliated, of course -- and I-feel-your-pain politicians know better how to raise a child than the child's actual parents. (What a leftist peach she was in those days!)

In the early months of 1999, rumors began to fly that Sen. Patrick Moynihan would not seek re-election in 2000. Friends of Bill and Hill began to float the name of the First Lady as a possible replacement. When Moynihan announced that he wouldn't be running again, Hillary immediately jumped into the race. Hillary caught an incredible break when popular NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was forced to bow out of the Senate race when he was diagnosed with cancer. She coasted to victory over Republican Congressman Rick Lazio, who lacked the star power to run against a sitting First Lady of the United States.

Beginning on day one of her service as a U.S. Senator, the rhetoric of Hillary The Doctrinaire Liberal went out the window, and in came speeches and commentary put forth by Hillary The Sensible Moderate. But rhetoric is just rhetoric. Indeed, Hillary's voting record as as a U.S. Senator would certainly warm the heart of Adlai Stephenson, or Hubert Humphrey, or Howard Metzenbaum. Oh, sure, she's voted "yea" on a few pro-military and kinda pro-free market bills, but only a fool would look at Hillary's history of recorded votes in the U.S. and then call her anything but a doctrinaire liberal.

Furthermore, since she entered the U.S. Senate seven years ago, Hillary's not been the primary sponsor, or an important co-sponsor, of a single bill that's been passed into law. Oh, sure, you can find Hillary's name at the top of a few dozen feel-good bills that purportedly will improve the lot of some ordinary Joes and Janes somewhere, but Taft, Gramm, Rudman, or Hollings she ain't. Not a good track record for a Senator who just pines to be President of the U.S.A., to say the least.

And please indulge this little sidebar: I have looked - oh, how I've looked - and I cannot find a single statement from Hillary in which she's stated for the record that a call from On High is what sparked her decision to run for president. From what I can gather, Hillary's primary motive for running for for president was this: she thinks she's a smart cookie, she was First Lady, and she knows that redistributing monies hither and yon can make the U.S. of A. a U-Tope-E-Uh.

All that said, I now ask this question: What should an ethical Member of the Senate -- who entered the body only 'cause he or she wanted to use the position as a springboard to the White House -- do when the presidential dream ends? The answer, of course, is ... resign.

Tain't just Republicans who're stating for the record that B. Hussein Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK) says the same damn thing:

"Calling him 'the most liberal senator' in Congress, Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he won't endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee."

Boren tells CBS News that he will vote for Obama at the Democratic Convention and on Election Day this November. This begs a question: If Boren's going to vote for Obama, twice, in the coming months, why won't he endorse the sombitch? Well, I'll tell you ...

Boren represents a rural Oklahoma district that is so culturally conservative, it is often called "Little Dixie." If Boren - whose constituents have a deep affection for God, Guns, and the Good Ol' U.S. of A. (not necessarily in that order) - publicly endorsed a left-wing feller who started going by "Barack" instead of "Barry" for, well, decidedly left-wing purposes, he could count on catching all kinds of hell during his re-election campaign. And he just might find himself looking for another job.

If Boren's willing to vote for Obama, he should be willing to endorse him, too. His reluctance to do so demonstrates a good deal of gutlessness. But, wait ... being gutless is requirement number one when joining up with the Democratic Party, right?!

In his latest column, Pat Buchanan asks: "What is Barack's problem?" Then he gives us an answer ...

"Middle America knows little about him, and much of what they know they do not like. When West Virginians were asked what they knew about Barack, a plurality said the Rev. Wright was his pastor. In Pennsylvania, a goodly slice of Democrats knew Barack had said they were 'bitter' about being left behind and were clinging to their bigotries, Bibles and guns.

"[R]esistance to Barack's nomination in the party that he now leads [has been] extraordinary, stemming from a belief that he is too naive to be commander in chief in wartime and too far left, and does not like or understand Middle America or its values.

"'He is not one of us.'

"[I]f Barack cannot erase this hardening perception in the American mind, he will not be president."

In an interview with NBC News' Brian Williams yesterday, John McCain uncorked an awful, ugly truth: B. Hussein Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter (which is something I said recently):




Williams: Is it going to be tough to run with an incumbent party for the White House, given this economic backdrop?

McCain: I-- I think it's-- it's tough. But I think the American didn't, people didn't get to know me yesterday. They know me. They know that I have fought for restraining spending, which Senator Obama has been a big part of, with earmarking projects. They know that I have been a strong fiscal conservative, and they know I understand the challenges that they face.

They need a little break from -- from their gasoline taxes, and they -- and they know that -- we've got to get spending under control. And we've got to become independent of foreign oil. Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second. (LAUGHTER)

HT: Red State

Remember when I suggested that Creeder Readers should get on their knees and thank God 'cause they're not living in Rhodesia, er, Zimbabwe? No? I posted this ...

"With inflation estimated at 200,000 percent -- easily the highest in the world -- Zimbabwe's currency is barely worth the paper it's printed on. (The largest Zimbabwean note, 10 million dollars, can't buy more than a couple of sodas.) Foreign currency runs this economy now, mainly the U.S. dollar and the South African rand, nearly all of it traded on the black market."

As much as you think things are bad in the U.S. of A., imagine if you had to carry 8-digit bills around in your wallet due to your country's runaway inflation. (If'n you don't understand why runaway inflation is a bad thing, get to your local library and borrow Milton Friedman's Money Mischief.)

Thanks to Creeder Reader Peter V for sending us this photo:

Left-wing blogger/Obama supporter Paul Rosenberg is all head-up over a political flyer that's currently circulating in Memphis, in which voters are urged to vote against Jewish U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen 'cause he doesn't "love Jesus." Rosenberg's commentary is here; and here's a picture of the flyer:


Notice how Rosenberg hints that only Republicans and Hillary Rodham (Clinton) supporters like Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, can be anti-Semites. I hate to be the one to break it to him, but there are plenty of anti-Semite/anti-Zionist/anti-Israel types in Obama's ranks.

Juan Carlos, writing in a Socialists for Obama (!) thread, had a "How the Jewish Lobby Works" post up at B. Hussein Obama's official Web site over the weekend. It was removed, but you can see it here:


'Tis nothing but high comedy, indeed, when an Obama-lover states for the record that folks in Tennessee - Republican and Democrat - are nothing but a bunch of anti-Semites ... when at the same time the Obama campaign is deleting from its Web site an anti-Jew post from a Knoxville-area Fan o' B. Hussein. (High comedy, or high irony? You dedide.)

I was cleaning out some computer files when I ran across a little something that I simply must share with Creeder Readers.

I had a blog for a few months in 2003, which folded when I began writing for another (now-defunct) Web site. I can only thank God that I saved most of the stuff I wrote back in the day when blogs were still something of a novelty.

Please to enjoy something that I published on this date, 7 June, back in 2003 ...

Anti-tobacco zealots are all head-up over the fact that Nicole Kidman dared light-up at a Cannes Film Festival news conference. Action on Smoking and Health (?!) chief executive Anne Jones said Kidman was "perpetuating the image that smoking is associated with glamour, independence, and success." Thus, Kidman is a bad role model for our yout's.

If Ms. Kidman had dragged a bastard child to the news conference, what would have happened? The answer, of course, is ... nothing would have happened. You see, clouding one's lungs with cigarette smoke is an affront to society; but purposefully bringing out-of-wedlock children into the world is to be celebrated as a "lifestyle choice."

Dozens of academic studies have told us that a child who's born into a single-parent household will more often than not spend the rest of his or her life in abject or near-poverty. But we never hear anyone in Hollywood express concern about kids born into single-parent families. Instead, single-motherhood is celebrated (especially if the single-mother's child was created on purpose); and anyone who dares suggest that having bastard children is not such a good idea (see Quayle, J. Danforth) is maligned as being hopelessly "out of touch."

I, for one, think society has its priorites all wrong. If we're going to criticize someone for promoting a habit that will cause the influenced, if you will, health problems in 20 or 30 years, then shouldn't we criticize folks who promote a "lifestyle choice" that has immediate - negative - consequences for not one, but two people? You bet we we should ... political correctness be damned.

If smoking the occasional cigarette is the worst activity in which Ms. Nicole Kidman indulges, then I say leave her alone.

Rich liberals are very generous people ... just not with their own money. This is especially true of rich liberal politicians and politicos. Peter Schweizer tells us all about the hypocrisy of folks like B. Hussein Obama, John "Droopy" Kerry, Andrew Cuomo, Robert Reich, Ted Kennedy, and St. Franklin D. Roosevelt:

"Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism. Garrison Keillor explains that 'I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness.' But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it comes to making charitable donations.

"Consider the case of Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate for the homeless. He has, according to his website, 'compassion toward the most vulnerable of us.' And this is how the New York Times described the courtship of Kerry Kennedy (of guess which family): 'Ms. Kennedy-Cuomo, 43, said she fell in love with Mr. Cuomo, 45, when he took her on a tour of a homeless shelter on their first date and agreed to fast for the labor leader Cesar Chavez.'

"But that advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

"Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.

"Cuomo IS NOT alone in this Scroogery of course. Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President."

Read the rest of Schweizer's article here. This is my favorite part:

"[Ronald] Reagan donated more than four times more to charity -- both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis -- than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.

"George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.

"The main point of liberal compassion appears to be making liberals feel good about their superior virtue. Such are the rewards of being a 'friend of goodness.'"

You thought I was talkin' out of my ass each time I suggested that our society is going to hell in a handbasket, didn't you? Check this out and tell me I'm wrong:

"You would think a sex shop might not go over well in a neighborhood with lots of families and small children. But as CBS 2 HD found out, there's an adult store in Park Slope [Brooklyn, NYC] that's about to open where mothers and their young children are welcome.

"When we think of x-rated shops, we think of graphic windows and the Village.

"But along quiet Bergen Street in Park Slope, comes Babeland. You wouldn't even know what's sold here, unless you read the fine print.

"There are lots of body products but adult toys are the biggest seller here. Claire Cavanah is the owner, and a mom who says she designed the place to be kid friendly.

"'Strollers will be welcome in the store and we are putting a changing table in the bathroom in case the little one needs a diaper change while you're shopping,' Cavanah said."

I'm going to make a prediction: From now until election day, anyone who dares criticize B. Hussein Obama, in any way, is going to be labled a "racist" by his supporters. This ain't mere conjecture on my part. It's happening already:

"An e-mail that has been circulating since last week has Democrats and even some Republicans up in arms, accusing the Republican Party of Florida of using racism in the presidential campaign--specifically against Barack Obama's Campaign.

"The e-mail contains a doctored photo of Fidel Castro holding a poster of Barack Obama. At the top of the photo are the words, 'I love this guy.' The caption below the picture says, 'Fidel Castro Endorses Obama.' A South Florida Democrat running for Congress is accusing the state GOP of invoking the race card into the presidential contest. Joe Garcia, of Miami, is challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart."

I really don't know why Garcia's complaining. I mean, Castro did recently say a lot of kind things about B. Hussein in Cuba's Commie-controlled newspaper:

What did [Obama] say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency?

"'For two hundred years,' [Obama] said, 'the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better. (…) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach.'"

A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it.

Oh, and if you're still not convinced 'bout the Obama-Cuba, er, connection, check out these pictures from Obama's Houston, Texas office:

Last night, Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner reported on the continuing progress in Iraq:

"For the third week in a row security incidents in Iraq are at the lowest levels in four years. ...

"These security gains follow the coordinated offensive operations over the past year, and the recent security operations in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. They are being achieved today even as the fourth of five Brigade Combat Teams is returning home, and that includes two Marine battalions and a Marine Expeditionary Unit have already returned home. ...

"In the past 15 months, the Iraqi Security Forces have grown from 400,000 in June 2007 to some 559,000 in May of this year. The growing strength of the ISF is another key factor contributing to the security gains in Iraq."

During the closing days of the Bob Corker vs. Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, U.S. Senate campaign, Ford's supporters took to waving "Fed Up When You Fill Up?" signs at his campaign rallies. The premise of those signs, of course, was if Ford was elected, then gas prices would go down.

Well, Junior wasn't elected, but his political party took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in twelve years. What've the Democrats done to solve the so-called gas crisis? They've paraded oil company executives before various congressional committees and hinted that it's George W. Bush's fault that oil costs so much (as if any one person could control the price of a commodity that's traded on international markets). Meanwhile, gas prices hover at $4-a-gallon.

What's truly sad is the fact that the United States has billions of barrels - 139 billion, to be exact - under territory it controls. If those billions of barrels of oil were placed on the open market, the price of gas would go down. Period.

Whom should we blame for the United States' failure to bring its untapped oil reserves to market? Why, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We elect politicians who would rather cater to the whims of the Sierra Club than do what's right for our economy and for our security.

I want you to think about this whenever you see some Democrat - or a Republican who should know better - pissin' and moanin' about the high cost of gas:

"Contemplate this the next time you spend $60 or more filling up your tinny little car with gasoline made from imported oil: The U.S. government knows where it can get its hands on more untapped petroleum than exists in the proven reserves of Iran or Iraq, which have 136 billion barrels and 115 billion barrels, respectively.

"This unexploited stock of crude is greater than what the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports is in the proven reserves of Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (41.5 billion barrels) and Nigeria (36.2 billion barrels) combined.

"It is more than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela has (80 billion barrels). It is more than is now known to sit beneath the waters and sands of Kuwait (101.5 billion barrels) or the United Arab Emirates (97.6 billion barrels)."

With gay marriage and such on the march across the globe, it was only a matter of time before someone, well, I'll let you read it ...

"Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-sex activities as 'normal,' has written to a pro-family organization that he believes bestiality is fine, 'as long as the animal doesn't mind.'"

According to Kameny:

"Absolutely indisputably a central part of the very definition of Americanism is the guarantee, found in the Declaration of Independence, as not merely a Right, but as an Inalienable Right, of the 'Pursuit of Happiness.' If something which someone arbitrarily defines as a 'sexual perversion' provides happiness for consenting adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic Americanism."

First of all, how is it possible to know when an animal with which you're having sex minds or doesn't mind? And second, how big of a fool does one have to be to postulate that the Founding Fathers meant for the pursuit of happiness to include beastiality?

Hell in a handbasket, my friends. Hell in a handbasket.

It's only fitting that Jimmy Carter has endorsed B. Hussein Obama for president. I made the Carter/Obama connection a few months back:

What really scares me about Obama, though, is that I see in him shades of Jimmy Carter. Carter was an undistinguished one-term Governor of Georgia; Obama has served half of one term in the U.S. Senate, and he hasn't distinguished himself as a legislator in any way. Carter was prone to moralizing and bouts of self-righteousness; Obama ... well, just pay close attention to an Obama speech (or read one of his wretched books); Carter's failed foreign policies were the result of a great deal of naivete; Obama plans to protect America's interests abroad by holding gab-fests with every tin pot dictator on the planet. Carter played down his liberal past by talking endlessly about his religious faith; Obama has played down his liberal past by talking endlessly about his religious faith.

That said, there isn't a politician alive who should seek and/or accept the endorsement of Jimmy Carter. As bad as people think things are now, our national condition, if you will, ain't nothin' like it was in the late 1970s, what withdouble-digit inflation, gas lines, hostages in Tehran, charred helicopters in the Iranian desert, 'malaise,' the Olympic boycott, Soviet encroachment across the globe (Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, etc.), the energy crisis, scandals involving Bert Lance and Billy Carter, Ronald Reagan's 44-state landslide in 1980, etc., etc., etc.

Jimmy Carter's presidency can only be described as an abject failure. The only "achievement" to which Jimmy Carter can lay claim, i.e., the Camp David Accords, was eventually exposed as a hollow accomplishment when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was murdered by a gang of Islamist thugs. Indeed, Islamic fascism might never have become a global threat if Jimmy Carter had authorized a fear-of-God military assault on the then-weak mullahs of Tehran.

Unfortunately, history's view of Jimmy Carter is slowly being tempered by his post-presidential activities. From the day he left office, Carter has cagily endeavored to make us all forget what a crappy president he was. He's built houses (I guess to make up for the fact that no one could afford a house when he was president); he's supervised elections across the globe; he's written soupy poetry and prose; and he shamlessly campaigned for the Nobel Peace Prize until he finally won the freakin' thing (in what can only be described as an orgy of global anti-Americanism). None of Carter's do-good measures, however, can make up for his four-year presidential effort, during which he knocked America's **** soundly into the dirt.

If B. Hussein Obama wanted to improve his image in this humble blogger's eyes, he would immeidiately repudiate Carter's endorsement.

If you're not absolutely fearful about what's gonna happen if the Lieberman-Warner bill, aka America's Climate Security Act, becomes law ... you don't love your country. I said it, and I mean it. Consider:

"The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill ... represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods.

"Various analyses show that Lieberman-Warner would result in higher prices at the gas pump, between 41 cents and $1 per gallon by 2030. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The federal Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5% drop in manufacturing output and higher energy costs. [Emphases mine] ...

"Lieberman-Warner will also hinder U.S. competitiveness, transferring American jobs overseas to places where environmental regulations are much more lenient. Instead of working to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy and lower emitting technologies, the bill imposes a 'green,' tariff-style tax on imported goods. This could provoke international retaliatory actions by our trade partners, threatening our own export markets and further driving up the costs of consumer goods."

Finally:

"Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio), warned last week that Lieberman-Warner 'could result in the most massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service.'"

That last paragraph should scare the absolute bejeebers out of you, my friends. God help you - nay, God help us all - if it don't.

JoeCitizens.com has released a "mock draft" list of candidates for Tennessee governor, 2010. According to Tom Guleff of JoeCitizens.com:

"Most [of the candidates] have not declared themselves open to the draft, yet. Someone is going to run, and he or she is going to win. There’s a lot talent out there, and the money will follow it."

Shmock drafts, drock shmafts ... the 2010 race for governor in Tennessee will pit Republican former-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist 'gainst Democrat Middle Tennessee Congressman Lincoln Davis.

The patrician Frist will best the imbecilic Davis 55 percent to 45 percent ...

Remember, you read it here first.

Speaking as someone who just loves to hunt fowl, this letter from the current issue of Sports Illustrated (June 2, 2008) tickles me a great deal:

Brad Penny (Players, May 12) is quoted as saying that he owns a ranch on which "you can hunt ... quail. ... No guns allowed -- only bows and arrows." He's also quoted as saying, "I don't do a lot of killing." No wonder. I know a lot of bow hunters, and I know a lot of quail hunters. But I do not know anyone who has ever tried to kill a quail with a bow and arrow.

Tom Schlafly, St. Louis

At least Mr. Penny didn't say that he regularly hunts ducks with a pistol. I mean, a sombitch would have to be incredibly stupid to suggest that a handgun should be the weapon of choice in a duck blind.