I'm in need of some information, and the best way to get it is to mask my true intent by means of a strange meme. I have a specific need for the kind of information you are being asked to provide. I am asking for specific and detailed information, but I am NOT asking for personal information.

If you must know, I am to the point in a long-running writing project where this kind of information would be very helpful. I consider this meme research for what I am writing. And just to be clear, the scenario I've outlined has been deliberately crafted so as to NOT give away what I am writing about.

So here goes... put on your thinking caps and consider what follows....




Your family along with 499 others has been tagged by the U.S. Government to participate in a “hands on” experiment with definite risks. You have chosen to participate and must now consider what you will bring with you, at government expense, up to $75,000 per family unit.

You have been instructed to consider the land tabula rasa and plan your list of supplies accordingly. Each family will be transported with their new belongings, along with a government control entity, to the experiment site. You do not know where you are being transported. All you know is that it is a wilderness devoid of any indigenous human habitation or convenience, and that exiting the experiment area is physically impossible. All Radio, Television, Satellite, and Cellular signals will be blocked.

This is a three year project from which no early withdrawal will be considered—once in, in to the end. No exceptions whatsoever. Your family will be quite literally prisoners to the experiment area.

The Consortium which has written and established the parameters of this experiment dubbed “Eden,” has given each family a list of guidelines for selecting their needs for the duration of the experiment: Required, Recommended, and Optional.

What the Consortium asks of you is a detailed list of what specifically, and in what amounts, your family will be taking into the experiment site. Remember, you will be there three years. There will be no resupply from outside the experiment site once there. Think about what your family will need in terms of raw material or specialized instruments to restock, augment, or replace your initial stores of supplies should it become necessary.

Consider the following when planning your list of supplies:

• Commencement of the experiment begins on June 1st of next year
• There will be no electricity after the first winter… For anyone. (Including members of the government control entity)
• After the first winter each family will be expected to move beyond the control group compound and establish a homestead and community/communities in the outlying areas
• Commerce will strictly consist of barter for the duration of the experiment
• THERE WILL BE NO RESUPPLY FROM OUTSIDE THE EXPERIMENT SITE !

REQUIRED:

Weapons- Kind, Quantity, Ammunitions, Amounts, Replacement parts, ETC. Be Specific.

• LIMIT: No more than $25,000 of the total $75,000 government stipend.
• $10,000 Minimum (Example: A family of five should consider at least one long-barreled firearm/sidearm per member regardless of member's age. HINT: Simple is better, ergo, black-powder rifle or breech loading carbine is better than Uzi)
  

Food-Dry Goods, Canned Goods, Seed Store, Live Stock

• Texas Longhorn, Goat, Sheep and Pigs ONLY.
• Absolutely NO Horses, or Dogs Under 30lbs Mature Weight.
• BE SPECIFIC in quantity of each, and consider feed for all animals
• LIMIT: No more than$30,000 of the total $75,000 government stipend
• $15,000 Minimum

Clothing, Tools, Machinery-Remember! No Resupply Once Within the Experiment Area

• Absolutely no Vehicles other than animal drawn conveyances
• Plows, looms, needles, cloth, forge equipment, books, shoes, resoling tools, etc.
• LIMIT: No more than $30,000 of the total $75,000 government stipend
• $15,000 Minimum

Miscellany-A Home Away From Home Needs Family Comfort

• Furniture, Bedding, Sinks, Basins, ETC. Think Wisely and BE SPECIFIC
• LIMIT: No more than $10,000 of the total $75,000 government stipend

All families and Control personnel will have 120 minutes to transport ALL supplies from the staging area outside the experiment area to inside the experiment area.

Choose wisely. Your family's survival depends on it...


------------------
Please do not post your reply here in "comments." Please Email your supply lists to ELAshley@Gmail.com And consider everything at today's cost. What would it cost you to buy these things today? If you feel like it, supply your total costs for each guideline category.

Were the deals, the prices, the new 'have to have' objects worth the trampling and death of a Wal-Mart employee whose unfortunate job was to open the doors on Black Friday? What does it say about Christmas in America that getting to the deals before anyone else trumps the lives and safety of others?

If America were a third-world country and the stampede was over a ration of rice and a jug of fresh clean water I might could understand the desperation that propelled these Long Islanders head long through a breach they tore open just to acquire more worthless crap. And in the process kill someone who had every reason to believe they'd see home again.

But these "desperate" New Yorkers weren't there to get desperately needed food or water; they were there to get video games and flat-screens, and trample anyone who got in their way. What was so damned important on those shelves that a stampeding horde of Christmas shoppers, with a wealth of cash in hand and hungry for more worthless and unfulfilling possessions. . . . . were any of those moth and rust corrupted objects worth the life of someone who just hours before presumably spent joyful quality time with family and friends on Thanksgiving Day? Did this employee's thankfulness extend to those who would just hours later crush the life out of him or her?

If this is what America has become, she's not worth saving.

Better to live in a nation like Israel where senseless death more often than not has a face recognizable. Better the evil you can see, gunning for you because of who you are rather than because you happen to be between a storm of fools and the worthless crap they desire to buy.

Shame! That in a desire to give on Christmas morning, the spirit of giving was devoid of any worthy spirit; that these bankrupt souls chose to take the life of someone whose only crime was signing on as temporary help... all in the so called "spirit of giving."

The only gift these people are giving to one family is a lifetime of tears and pain. And for what? The latest version of Guitar Hero? Would these people stampede for a Bible? For the opportunity to witness for Christ? To feed the hungry? Clothe the poor?

Of course not. They'll stampede and kill for fools gold, but not for riches incorruptible.

Welcome to America! Hedonist mecca of the world. Where personal pleasure trumps individual life.

...in a world where what we want is only what we want until it's ours."

I hope their purchases give them no pleasure; nor give pleasure to those who receive them.

Feodor posted a comment wherein he outlined what he believes to be flaws or contradictions in scripture. Seeing as how time, at present, is not something I have a great deal of, I chose to address just one point: Old Testament dietary laws; namely, are they still, in whatever fashion, applicable today?

What follows then is meant to clearly and directly outline what I see in scripture regarding the dietary laws specifically, and the entirety of Old Testament Law (all 613 of them) in general.

First of all let me ask, are there any old testament laws that you the reader feel are still in force? Any law that Grace does not wholly abrogate? No need to be specific, a simple 'yes' or 'no' will do. Since I can't imagine anyone saying 'no,' I'll come back to this later.

Jesus, in John 8:17 (referring to Deuteronomy 19:15) said, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."

In an effort to move this train a little further down the track, I retreat now to a much much earlier post on a previous blog:

I've expressed the following idea several times before in various forms and locations. It's not new to me, but it surprises me how few people seem to have grasped it. To say that this is one of the greatest truths in the bible would be reaching, because the greatest truth of the bible is that God loved man so very much that he willingly took on mortal flesh to pay our debt of sin -- a debt we are wholly incapable of paying ourselves -- that we might be restored to fellowship with Him, our Creator.

God has spent almost an entire week working to bring His redemptive plan for mankind to an end. That's not a long time for God, but it's been in the neighborhood of six thousand years for us 1/2. God has made a lot of pronouncements, and quite a few promises, and the only real proofs of His faithfulness are His Word, His grace in our lives, and the physical universe itself and all it contains 3. God says this alone should be enough evidence to prove his love toward us, but man’s heart is, because of sin, hardened to these evidences.

So man asks, "Who is God? And why should we believe in Him?"

As to the first, God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and Lord over all. The Universe is His creation: every light-year of real estate between here and the boundaries of the universe (if there is in fact a boundary), every galaxy, star, black hole, quasar, and pulsar... "Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." Psalm 50:10 KJV

As to 'why should we believe in Him,' the question implies much more than a simple "why," it asks, "what makes You worthy of our praise and worship?" Very bold words! But then man is rebellious by nature, and we have Adam to thank for that... not Eve 4.

So what is it man needs to know about God? Let's consider a rhetorical question posed by an Urban Myth. The story goes... A philosophy professor of my sister's, cousin's, best friend's brother, posed a question to the class last week... "Can God create a rock so large that even He cannot move it?" On the surface, this paradoxical question is framed to smash any pre-conceived stereotypical sentiments the class may have about God, and/or create doubt in the hearts of any would-be believers. If God is omnipotent, shouldn’t He be able to create a rock so huge even He couldn’t move it? But then, if it’s so huge He can’t move it, how can God then be omnipotent?

What a crafty question! But a question with one fatal flaw. It does not consider God's nature: God is Holy... The epitome of Holiness... The personification of Holiness... In fact, there is none more Holy than God. But what does this imply? What is the consequence of existing eternally in a state of perpetual Holiness?

Answer: There is absolutely no stain of sin in God.

Which means, despite His omnipotence, there are things even God cannot do. And, perhaps the most important thing, God cannot Lie.

So. Can God create a rock so large even He cannot move it? The answer is Yes. God, in reference to the throne of David says in 1 Kings 2:45, "...and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever." In Isaiah 9:7 God says, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." The Lord God has said it. The Lord God cannot lie.

Proof of this is found in three places:

                 Numbers 23:19
                 Titus 1:2
                 Hebrews 6:18

Numbers 23:19 says:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

The bible says, "Let God be true, but every man a liar"5, and, "There is none righteous, no, not one..."6. God is not like man; He does not lie. He has no need, and feels no need, to lie. Only man feels it necessary to lie; because man is sinful, and every lie he tells finds its root in either fear or malice... Fear of hurting another’s feelings; Fear of punishment, however slight; or maliciously, with the intent to hurt. God is neither fearful nor malicious. He is Holy and as such, without sin.

Titus 1:2 goes one step further:

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began…"

So, not only does God not have reason to lie, he simply cannot do it. Again, because He is Holy, and as such, without sin.

But Hebrews 6:18 seals the deal:

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us…"

Let's get this straight: God has no need to lie. He cannot lie. And, in point of fact, it is impossible for God to lie. This is very strong language, and extremely important if any of us are to have any measure of assurance that God will keep His word and save us from eternal damnation. To put it another way, it is as possible that God will ever tell a lie as it is for us to witness a goldfish leap out of it's bowl, place a sombrero on its head, pick up and strum a Spanish guitar, while belting out in perfect tenor Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro..." It's simply never going to happen. It is simply not in this imaginary goldfish's nature to do these things—the whimsical imagination of Dr. Seuss notwithstanding. The same is true of God. It is simply not in the nature of a Holy God to tell a lie... He simply cannot do it.

There are a number of things God cannot do, or be made to feel, but they're irrelevant to this discussion. The point is, it is very important to understand that despite being limited in what He can do, He does not suffer because of it. In fact, we are assured that we can rely on God to always tell us the truth.

If we're going to rely on the blood of Christ to wash us clean from all unrighteousness, thereby restoring us to fellowship with the Father, we have to know we can trust Him to keep His word. But let me make one thing clear. God is not limited in any way, by His inability. He is limited by His promise which, for anyone wishing to debate the semantics of 'limited,' is very different

"...hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

What was it Jesus said in John 8:17?

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true." Great! But what standard of witness? John 8:18: "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." And also John 5:36, "...the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me," And John 10:25 "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me."

As to The Law, what then did Jesus say?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

To fulfill. To make replete and complete, not to abolish outright. He said,

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Till when? "Till heaven and earth pass... till all be fulfilled." The book of Revelation ends before some of the prophets do, so the law is still applicable, in some measure/to some extent, even as I write this.

Going back to my question, are there any old testament laws that you the reader feel are still in force? The answer, as I alluded to above, is Yes. but in what context?

In terms of a Christian's righteousness; or better, in terms of a Christian's eternal state before God, eating pork will not prevent one from entering heaven... it will merely ensure that the Christian enters sooner than God will have liked.

In terms of the unbeliever, the eating of swine is part and parcel with the whole of the Law, and it is the Law that will judge them when they stand before its Creator.

What IS done away with, however, is the temple sacrifice; or rather, it is transformed [but I'll not go there right now]. Why? As numerous verses suggest-- and alluding to Abel's offering in Hebrews 11 --a more excellent sacrifice was offered; one that could take away sin rather than cover for a time.

But the sacrifice is still in effect. The furniture of the wilderness tabernacle still has meaning and relevance in Christ's sacrifice for us. Animals are no longer sacrificed because they are no longer needed.

It would appear then that some things HAVE changed, but not altogether abolished.


As to the dietary laws--

Bubba, in a comment here, said:

I believe that the external purity of kosher food has been fulfilled by the internal purity of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit."

I must take issue with this statement.

Firstly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is to teach, guide, purify, and sanctify (among other things) the believer. But not necessarily the human body. The body is still subject to diseases like AIDS, Leukemia, Hodgkins, and Fibromyalgia. The Holy Spirit does not miraculously purify every believer of these diseases, though He certainly can, and sometimes does. What links all the diseases I mentioned and many many more besides? Diet and Environment, but primarily diet... in MANY diseases, though obviously not all. Also, our bodies are corrupt. In order to be perfect our bodies must "put on incorruption."

Secondly, we do not physically "eat" the Holy Spirit. We will die without physical food. And if the food is contaminated we will die sooner rather than later. Our bodies REQUIRE sustenance. And they demand QUALITY sustenance for optimum performance and longevity.

Paul did say in 1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." It is undeniably true that some foods will, if eaten to excess bring the body under its power. Obesity is a prime example. More specifically, in terms of what we ingest: Caffeine-- an addiction that with long-term use can result in damage to the body. The old adage, 'You Are What You Eat,' applies.

A caveat of sorts, in all of this, is that strictly adhering to old testament dietary laws will not make anyone holy or righteous in the sight of God. That path leads to legalism, and under bondage to the Law. But anyone who follows these laws will enjoy overall good health; free of disease and illness, for the most part.

Dan has asked the question many times: "Do we kill those who eat shellfish?" Of course not, "all things are legal, but not necessarily expedient." They kill themselves slowly-- or quickly, depending on the toxicity of the particular shellfish in question.

Now we arrive at Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-6. We've had this argument here before; that these passages explicitly outline the kind of sexual relationship that is both ordained and condoned by God; that being heterosexual, between one man and one woman. We further find proscription against homosexual behavior in Leviticus.

We use these verses to point out the unrighteous and abominable behavior of men and women in terms of sexuality, but we blow off the dietary laws as irrelevant and not for our time? Where did God say the unclean foods are now clean and "expedient" to eat? Hmmm, He said, "I am the LORD, I change not," and the writer of Hebrews said, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Jesus himself said, as I related earlier, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Well, to be clear: heaven and earth HAVE NOT passed away, and all things HAVE NOT been fulfilled. If homosexuality is wrong, so too is bacon.


Think on this:

What is at the center of Man's greatly reduced lifespan? The Flood. Aside from the deluge itself, what in particular separates pre-flood man from post-flood man? Their diet. God allowed only for nuts, fruit and vegetables before the flood. Only after the flood was meat given to man to eat. And lifespans rapidly decreased from that point on. Can I prove that diet had an effect on lifespan? No. But I can prove that diet will severely shorten MODERN man's lifespan.

Our bodies were designed to live forever. Obviously that's not possible now, but what did the Lord say when He thrust Adam and Eve out of the Garden?

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

--Genesis 3:22-24

I do not say, as did the Pharisees, that we must obey the Law to be saved/righteous. I do say, however, that if one would like to live a long and healthy life, honoring God with his body as well as his heart, mouth, and good works, returning to a diet that Daniel and others proved in Babylon; that an untainted diet will fare the body with greater wellness than all the kings meat and dainties, will go along way toward respecting the bodies God gave us.

We are free to eat whatever we want, but common sense tells us some foods are only good in moderation and some only as rare treats. And considering what is put into much of our modern "manufactured" foods [propylene glycol, for instance: an ingredient in many brands of antifreeze and some motor-oils], a more natural diet makes good health and financial sense-- eating a natural diet devoid of biblically unclean foods is demonstrating good stewardship in that, eating healthily prevents most diseases and saves thousands of dollars in the long run, in medical bills.

This notion that disease is inherited is not altogether true. For the most part we are susceptible to a family-history of disease; diabetes, heart-disease, etc., because we inherit the eating patterns of our parents, along with their weakened DNA, and immunity systems. We are susceptible to cancer not primarily because our mother or father had cancer, but because they taught us what to put in our bodies; we inherited their diet.

In conclusion, many diseases are curable through diet alone. Many conditions are reversible. We can eat all the bacon we want, and it will not change our relationship with God except that when illness enters our body because of our diet we become less effective in our service to the individual purposes He has given us all. We turn the temple of the Holy Spirit into cesspools of disease and malady. We dishonor Him, but still he loves us. Our bodies are, quite literally, temples. We should treat them as such, with an equal measure of respect.

So, enjoy your Thanksgiving. I sincerely mean that. I began cooking yesterday... two pumpkin pies with no processed sugar [with Stevia instead]. Cornbread Dressing with Organic Chicken Stock. Corn Pudding. Today I'll make the Green Bean Casserole, and the Cranberry Sauce [also with Stevia]. That'll leave the Turkey and fresh Whipped Cream topping for the pies, Mashed Potatoes, and Gravy from the drippin's on Thanksgiving day. Is my meal more healthy than yours? Who cares? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but here's what IS wrong with it.

Canned Pumpkin instead of fresh.
Evaporated Milk instead of unpasteurized cream.
Pie Shells made with Shortening instead of unpasteurized FRESH butter.
Onions and Celery from sources NOT organic.
Canned Green Beans instead of Fresh Organic.
Fried Onions that contain, wonder of wonders, propylene glycol!
Pasteurized almonds [dead almonds].
A turkey that most certainly had injections of harmful antibiotics and hormones.
The whipped cream topping? Also pasteurized, and unhealthy as hell because of it.
Potatoes from a source NOT claiming to be organic.
And gravy. Hello! I said gravy! So what if its fresh?

The only item in all this that might have pork in it is the pie shells, though it's unlikely. I believe these were made with vegetable shortening, which is just as unhealthy as lard.



Enjoy your Thanksgiving Day feasts, everyone, and rest assured that God will not send you to hell for enjoying that Honey Baked Ham. But just so you know, God doesn't want you eating that stuff. He'd rather we all honor Him in everything we do... which includes our diet.

The kind of Change democrats are eager to bring us...

On the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800)

An undemocratic agenda, part 1

"...this bill could have been inspired by 1984's Ministry of Truth."

A lot of what Obama has proposed could have been inspired by the same.

I'm remembering a film I saw but once. Robert Downey Jr. and Sam Neill in the 1995 film Restoration. Young Merivel, a promising medical student is suddenly swept into favor at the king's court, and enjoys and becomes accustomed to the king's dainties. The king, seeing how Mericel's elevation has changed him, thrusts him out, forcing him to fend for himself. To find himself. I know that sounds trite... to find one's self, but that is where the Republican party, if it is smart, will find itself; on the outside reexamining what made it the answer to Democratic slavery. It must find itself. If ever the Party hopes to see its own restoration, it must find itself. And it must look back to what made it brilliantly promising, not forward.

The Republican party has become indistinguishable from the Democratic Party in terms of Spending and governmental bloat. Naturally, 9/11 didn't help, but the Republican party needs to think on those things that made it the party of Freedom. Because right now it looks remarkably like a Jack Murtha democrat. The Republican party has forsaken principle for a seat at the Democratic table. It needs to push the chair back and step away from the table. It needs to roll up its sleeves and make some very hard decisions. It has to choose whether or not it wants to call itself "Republican," and represent those people who identify themselves as holding traditional Republican values. Or does it want to be what Democrats across this nation have mockingly called it... Neo-Con. If that's what the Republican wants to be... and faithfully morph into a label crafted by the opposition, the party can forget about any further support from its constituents.

The Republican party has not listened, and is not now listening to the people it represents... we don't want the party to lie back and let Democrats lie about the issues. We want the Republican party to take off the apron, step out of the kitchen, and step into the arena. We want to see bloodied knuckles and blackened eyes; not for the sake of sport but for truth's sake. We want to see the Republican party defend itself, its time-honored principles, the truth (even if it hurts), the people it represents, Godly values, the Constitution, and the sovereignty and safety of this nation and ALL its people. What we absolutely will not tolerate is a party that refuses to fight for what it believes. And while, morally speaking, it is much better to stand above the tactics of the enemy, there is nothing wrong with using the enemy's tactics against him.

If I could recommend one book to the Republican party... one piece of mandatory study, it would be Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings, the classic guide to strategy.

There is timing in everything. Timing in strategy cannot be mastered without a great deal of practice.

"Timing is important in dancing and pipe or string music, for they are in rhythm only if timing is good. Timing and rhythm are also involved in the military arts, shooting bows and guns, and riding horses. In all skills and abilities there is timing.

"There is also timing in the Void.

"There is timing in the whole life of the warrior, in his thriving and declining, in his harmony and discord. Similarly, there is timing in the Way of the merchant, in the rise and fall of capital. All things entail rising and falling timing. You must be able to discern this. In strategy there are various timing considerations. From the outset you must know the applicable timing and the inapplicable timing, and from among the large and small things and the fast and slow timings find the relevant timing, first seeing the distance timing and the background timing. This is the main thing in strategy. It is especially important to know the background timing, otherwise your strategy will become uncertain.

"You win in battles with the timing in the Void born of the timing of cunning by knowing the enemies' timing, and this using a timing which the enemy does not expect.

"All the five books are chiefly concerned with timing. You must train sufficiently to appreciate all this.

"If you practice day and night in the above Ichi school strategy, your spirit will naturally broaden. Thus is large scale strategy and the strategy of hand to hand combat propagated in the world. This is recorded for the first time in the five books of Ground, Water, Fire, Tradition (Wind), and Void. This is the Way for men who want to learn my strategy:

• Do not think dishonestly.
• The Way is in training.
• Become acquainted with every art.
• Know the Ways of all professions.
• Distinguish between gain and loss in worldly matters.
• Develop intuitive judgment and understanding for everything.
• Perceive those things which cannot be seen.
• Pay attention even to trifles.
• Do nothing which is of no use.

"It is important to start by setting these broad principles in your heart, and train in the Way of strategy. If you do not look at things on a large scale it will be difficult for you to master strategy. If you learn and attain this strategy you will never lose even to twenty or thirty enemies. More than anything to start with you must set your heart on strategy and earnestly stick to the Way. You will come to be able to actually beat men in fights, and to be able to win with your eye. Also by training you will be able to freely control your own body, conquer men with your body, and with sufficient training you will be able to beat ten men with your spirit. When you have reached this point, will it not mean that you are invincible?

"Moreover, in large scale strategy the superior man will manage many subordinates dexterously, bear himself correctly, govern the country and foster the people, thus preserving the ruler's discipline. If there is a Way involving the spirit of not being defeated, to help oneself and gain honor, it is the Way of strategy."

The Republican Party needs to step up to the plate and decide what it wants to be, and the sooner the better. Barack Obama has two years to show this nation he is a capable leader; in two years the campaigning will begin again in earnest. And if Obama can't pull our collective ----- out of the fire, he may very well go the way of Jimmy Carter.

And knowing what I already know about the man, that would be fine with this Republican.

Or... "A Face for Everything, and Everything in its Face."










Digging through some old sketchbooks today...

Okay, so here's one of several chord progressions that's been callousing the tips of my fingers lately... with a rough approximation of the rhythm, per each chord.

















I can't do anything with it as it is; not until I find a way to bridge to something else. Suggestions? Anyone?

NOTE: The E rings with equal prominence on the E minors, and is completely ignored on the Suspendeds. In fact, all six strings get play with the E minors. Let the A ring on the suspendeds.

Fresh Cookies Made From Scratch-- 6hrs:40mins of my life I can't get back.

It would be nice to say I was shocked, or surprised, but in truth I cannot. Everyone is reveling in the historicity of Obama's election, and I can't agree more. This moment is a historic one; for the first time a black man has risen to the highest office in the world. But what next? What will President Barack Hussein Obama do next? More importantly, how will what he does affect not just me, one American, but three-hundred million Americans? The best way to determine what one may or may not do is look back at what they've already done...


You can read the entire article at American Descent

"Being gracious in defeat isn't a Democrat virtue."

--Noel Sheppard

Say Goodbye to America
By Noel Sheppard,
November 3, 2008

No matter who wins Tuesday America is going to be a different country.

When the sun rises on November 5, regardless of who the president-elect is, a more un-United States than has existed since the Civil War will wake to dispute the results of the disgusting campaign that has mercifully come to an end.

Whoever the losers, they will believe they were cheated, and will point fingers at those they believe responsible. Almost half the nation will view the winner as illegitimate, and will do everything in their power to undermine his authority as long as he's in the White House.

With this animosity will come a new level of hatred between those of differing political persuasions like nothing our country has experienced in the modern era.

Putting it bluntly, and without sounding too much like Rev. Jeremiah "G-d Damn America" Wright, there will be no such thing as Americans anymore.

Read it all at American Thinker.

[and I'm still researching] an Obama presidency does not look like a good prospect for America, and it further underscores just how much more dangerous HIS presidency would be than John McCain's. This alone exposes just how radical the man is.

From Gateway Pundit:

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO-- Obama Promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!

Not only this but in the very same interview he said his policy will make energy prices "skyrocket". I remember this interview-- it is explosive, but not "new". I didn't think much of it last January, but then I hadn't just spent several months with gas prices circling $4 a gallon. Gas around here has finally fell to $2.21 at the Flying J, and it feels like it's been forever since we've seen prices this "reasonable."

Someone has brought this interview back into light. The San Francisco Chronicle says this tape has been in the public domain for months, and I know this to be true. Now, Obama's stated policies have been as shifting sands for all these months, who knows what he believes or wants, one day to the next? If one of the two congressional houses were in Republican hands I wouldn't worry so much. But with the possibility of a super-majority in Democratic hands coupled with a president Obama, who is there to stop the rolling blackouts of skyrocketing energy prices? Who is there to keep the new fascists from destroying the first amendment?

If this is true [and I only say "if" because as someone recently said, pinning Obama down on specifics is like nailing Jello to the wall] ...if this is true the Change we'll be seeing is the kind of change that looks backward to darker more sinister, totalitarian times. New fascists [speaking strictly of the threat to our 1st amendment rights] for a new century .

The irony in all this [to me at least] is the amount of national "blood and treasure" we expended to combat a brand of fascism in the middle east only to slip into a different-- and not so different at all --brand of fascism here.

America can't afford an Obama presidency. But Americans tend to buy a lot of things they can't afford; like the mortgages a lot of homeowners discovered they couldn't afford. Who will bailout the American people should we discover that we can't afford the president we elected?

The man who insists "I am my brother's keeper," and wants to mandate the same of us by redistributing American wealth, let's his half brother in Kenya live in a slum, subsisting on the equivalence of $4 a year. The man who insists "I am my brother's keeper," and wants to mandate the same of us by redistributing American wealth, has an aunt in a Boston slum who is here illegally, and an immigration fugitive, who illegally receives welfare benefits, and has ILLEGALLY donated to the Obama campaign.

Barack H. Obama is his brother's keeper, but despite the wealth HE owns, he cannot spare even an additional $4 that would DOUBLE his Kenyan half brother's annual income. For all of Barack "my brother's keeper" Obama's wealth he can't hire an immigration lawyer for his aunt, and appeal her deportation order, nor can he help her with a better subsistence-- but happily accepts her contributions to his presidential bid! ...until found out, that is.

Who helped Aunt Zeituni get into the country, who helped her get a social security card? Apply for Welfare? Government housing?

He wants to tax us to spread the wealth, but he's not interested in spreading his own wealth around to his own family. What a colossal hypocrite!

Shame on you, Barack Obama.


Typically, Democratic lawmaker's are outraged over the leak of Barack's fugitive aunt to the media, and are calling for a federal investigation.

Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan fired off a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to investigate whether someone leaked the information to the media in an effort to damage Obama...

"This leak is deplorable and I urge you to take immediate action to investigate and discipline those responsible."

That's right, "a leak". Something SOMEONE knew, but was keeping silent about.

"Naturally," Obama didn't know his aunt was even in the U.S., just as he didn't know Tony Rezko was doin' some shady dealins', just as he didn't know his own pastor was an angry vitriolic racist and an America hater, just as he didn't know Ayer's beyond knowing he was 'just some guy who lived in his neighborhood'. And also, naturally, NO ONE on the Left is outraged at the violation of Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher's privacy by Ohio Obama operatives. Similarly, no one on the Left was outraged when Democratic staffers to Senator Schumer stole the identity of then Lt. Governor Michael Steele in 2005...

Have you heard what Democrats working for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee tried to do here in my home state of Maryland to bring down Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele?

Steele, a rising star in the party, is considering a Senate bid. Two of Schumer’s staffers, including a former researcher for David Brock’s Media Matters, obtained Steele’s credit report by using his Social Security number, which they got from public documents. Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

There has been no outcry from privacy advocates, the ACLU, the champions of clean campaigns, or any major MSM editorial board. Needless to say, if it had been Republicans involved in this outrageous scheme and the target had been a liberal minority politician, it would be a front-page NYTimes scandal. The Times (surprise, surprise) has yet to cover the story...

Yep. Veritable founts of integrity those Democrats.


Well it ain't over, as they say, until the fat lady sings, and she doesn't take the stage til sometime after 7pm Tuesday evening. People are starting to see this fraud for what he is. It's a shame those 'People' are from across the pond...

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

And after an Obama election such impoliteness will get one blacklisted.

The New York Post, The Washington Times, and the Dallas Morning News off his campaign plane for the final few days of the race. Their big crime? Their newspapers all endorsed John McCain. (Keep in mind: endorsements are written by the EDITORIAL page staff. Reporters belong to the NEWS (and not editorial) divisions. Obama took out his anger on the wrong people, but what's a minor detail like that when you're talking about The One?)

His campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, tried to explain: there are only so many seats on the plane, you see, and we need to make room for others. Like writers from Ebony, Essence, and Jet magazines. Burton said they wanted to fold in new reporters to try to reach "swing voters." Reality check: If you're reading Jet magazine, you're not a swing voter.

We're this the only example of Blacklisting by the "Change We Can Believe In" Campaign, we could write this off as not much to look at, but just last week the "Change" Campaign blacklisted WFTV-Channel 9 in Orlando, FL because a reporter dared ask tough questions of Joe Biden.


Ah, yes... I can almost hear the Coronation Choir now...

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Obama
The Age of Obama
Obama! Obama!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Obama! Obama!

...

Is one's past actions a fair predictor of one's future actions?


Watch What You Say
--by Monica Crowley


An excerpt:

You aren't allowed to raise Obama's middle name, Hussein. You aren't allowed to say that half of his family is Muslim. You aren't allowed to say that he was born to a Muslim father, which, under Islam, automatically made him a Muslim. You aren't allowed to discuss Reverend Wright. Or Bill Ayers. Or Bernardine Dohrn. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Phleger. Or Tony Rezko. You aren't allowed to point out that so far, the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, Hamas, parts of al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il have endorsed him. You aren't allowed to ask him about the vote fraud or illegal campaign contributions being done in his name. You aren't allowed to say he's lying about his tax plan. Or about his past associations. Or his past, period.

If you raise any of these issues, you risk being punished, smeared, and silenced.

Anyone who frequents this blog knows what I think of Obama, but for the record I'll reiterate.

He is a liar. He is a Murderer. He is a Marxist. He is racist. He does not respect the Constitution. He does not believe in genuine free speech.

So, does how one acts now reflect how one will act later? If Barack is lying now, will he lie later? Yes.

If he supports the murder of unborn children now... infanticide... will he support it later? Yes.

If he believes taking from those according to their ability, to give to those according to their need today, will he believe the same later? Yes.

If he writes racist remarks in his books, and sits under the tutelage of racists for twenty years, will he be racist later? After the election? Yes.

If he held the Constitution in disdain a few short years ago, will he hold the Constitution in that same vein of disdain after the election? Yes.

If he spends campaign resources to attack and threaten those who dare to question his past, present, and future today, will he do the same later? After the election?

Yes. He will.

I simply refuse to drink his Kool-Aid. There's just too much blood and filth on his hands, thank you.

Obama will be the first president to increase taxes solely for the purpose of income redistribution, not for the purpose of funding the essential operations of government. That's a HUGE change.

--Neal Boortz, Oct 23, 2008

Who needs the rule of law when you have greedy incompetent government?

What follows is reprinted in its entirety, without permission.


Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights
--Orson Scott Card, Oct. 5, 2008
First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.


--------
You can find Card's original post at The Ornery American

Did you know that 'Republican' means 'Slavery'? Yep, it's true. The Republican party was established on March 20, 1854. That's 154 years of unbridled racism aimed primarily at blacks, but more recently toward Hispanics and Muslims.

I bet you didn't know that. I mean, I was taught something entirely different in school. I mean, I was told that the Republican party was established as an abolitionist movement, to tear down the foundations of American slavery and bring the negro out of bondage. The war between the states was fought, ostensibly, because the South resented the North demanding changes that would cripple the South's economy. After all, should the slaves be freed, cheap labor would be a thing of the past, and the riches would not so quickly fill their coffers.

But apparently, this is not the case. I have been fed a lie. I have spent my entire adult life believing that the Republican party-- that grand old party --stood for freedom. But it took the vandalism of some unknown freedom fighter with an unassuming can of spray paint to tear a hole in the roof of my intellect and shine some light on the truth that...

I always thought it was the other way around... that 'Democrat' meant slavery. Someone... and I don't know who... is guilty of propagating revisionist history.




But if this 'artist' is right then the Republicans must be stopped.

OH! And did you know Columbus was a Republican? Yes, it's true! He's responsible for bringing disease and genocide to native peoples in East India... the New World. Because of Columbus many tribes of natives have ceased to be! Which is why we celebrate Columbus Day... to remind of us the horrors perpetrated on innocent natives by greedy Europeans. This is a day to reflect and rededicate ourselves to the promise, "Never Again"

Never Again. And yet we have dropped the ball in Iraq. We have allowed the evil Republicans to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The Republicans must be stopped.

Obama will show us the way. He will part the seas, give us bread in the wilderness, make water spring forth from barren rock. He will feed us, clothe us, and be our spiritual guide. And, in time, he will lead us, with the help of a democratically controlled house and senate, into the promised land.

A vote for Barack is a vote for Freedom-- Freedom from tyranny and slavery. He will heal the world and our planet. A vote for Barack is a vote for a new Golden Age. An age of justice, wisdom, and peace in our time.

--by Glenn Beck

[Here's an excerpt from a long read. There's enough of a wake up call in this letter to attract BOTH sides of the political divide]

Too many politicians are anxiously waiting for the right moment to expand government. They’re waiting for the “Megan Law” moment. That moment when the stars align so politicians can pass legislation over any objections, whether it’s good or bad.

Megan’s Law is named after a 7 year old girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a repeat violent sexual offender. The public had finally become so outraged that the politicians had to act. Megan’s Law requires the posting of information about sexual offenders to the public. Passing Megan’s Law was the right thing to do but it shouldn’t have taken this tragedy to do it—but it took Megan’s tragedy in order to overcome the opposition from the ACLU and other groups who kept screaming about the rights of the accused.

Pelosi, Reid and the progressive left as well as many Republicans still don’t believe that our very survival is at stake with what is going on today. They still look at this meltdown as just another opportunity to score political points. If the Democrats in the House of Representatives really believed that our country’s economic security was at stake then they would have passed the bailout bill. They didn’t need any Republican support. They had the votes. But Pelosi and the Democratic leadership didn’t want to risk a massive voter backlash so they didn’t push the bill through. That is playing politics. If the Senate believed that our country’s economic security was at stake they would have passed a bailout bill without the $100 billion in ‘goodies’ attached. That is playing politics. Do the right thing for the country, stop playing politics.

As the crisis worsens and takes a higher emotional toll on the public we will see tragic stories. We will see more stories about people giving up hope, losing focus on what’s truly important and ending their lives and the lives of people they love. And when the ‘right’ story comes along, it will be exploited to take away more of our freedoms, to shred the Constitution just a little more and grab more money for the government from the people who earn it.

You can find the entire letter here

This is not about the election. This is not about who will make a better president. This is simply a wake-up call to ALL Americans. We are losing this county, and fast.



Here's another must read, also from Glenn Beck:

We are turning into France?

Don't let the tongue in cheek title fool you, this is not about us becoming French. It's about us on the verge of losing this country.

An Excerpt:

France, the UN, Russia, China has asked for a global currency. France said yesterday or day before, new world order. One financial system needs to come out of this. Last night for the first time ever all the central banks globalized and they all made one move together and they're all now saying we need to meet, we need to control the globe's financing. The UN is talking about a UN financial network. One currency. You add to the disenfranchisement now, what is it, 79% of Americans are Christian? How many of those actually still believe in the resurrection, how many believe still really in the return of Christ? 50%? 40%? I don't know, but it's large, that actually say, you know, there is some day where all these things are going to come true. Well, one world finance, one world currency, new world order, going to spook the bejesus out of those people.

And I think that's a fair assessment. All this financial turmoil has gotten me to thinking as well; days before I discovered Glenn Beck airing in my neck of the woods. America is NOT mentioned in prophecy; not as a world power. Europe is the big dog in the end. Are we anywhere near that day? Thousands of pastors across America say yes. I too say yes. It doesn't take a bible scholar to see the signs.

Where is America heading? I wrote last week about the partisanship killing this country. How is it that Bush is universally vilified by the Left as the worst president in American history when Congress' numbers are lower than his? How can all the talking heads in media, including Fox, say Obama won Tuesday's debate? I tell you, he did not win. The problem is politicians AND members of media have been in Washington, have been in "the game," so long that they can't empathize with the people they serve. They've forgotten how to think like an Average American.

I'm no intellectual slouch. I can read nuance, body-language, tone and tenor of speech. I can hear what IS said, and what is NOT said. I don't need the likes of Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, or anyone else to tell me what I heard.

I feel like some goat looking into the farmer's window only to see pigs sitting at table acting as though they were human. This country is not ours anymore. From the previous article, What's Coming:

Closer to home you will see that Americans are increasingly feeling isolated and detached from their government. Part of the reason is that we don’t think politicians care what we think anymore. The $700 billion bailout bill passed the Senate at a time when only 30% of the country supported it. We felt that a giant stick was poked into our collective eye!

59% of Americans would vote the entire Congress out of office but due to the self-serving way the politicians have drawn their election districts it’s just this side of impossible to do it. Only 49% of the people believe that this congress is currently doing a better job than a group of individuals selected randomly from a phone book would do and 33% of us actually believe the group selected at random would do a better job! [Emphasis mine]

Whatever our disagreements, we need, as Americans, to come together to save this country. NOT for Democrats, NOT for Republicans... but for AMERICANS. Party politics be damned. Save the planet? Let concentrate on saving our nation first.

Read the second article in its entirety here

Found this over at MichelleMalkin.com

by Edward L. Daley
Published originally at EtherZone.com


1) Cite one of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments since he became a U.S. Senator.

2) Describe the tactics Barack Obama has employed during this election cycle which have inspired hope and unity among Americans in general, or that constitute a genuine change in Democrat political campaign strategy.

3) What exactly are Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials?

4) Name one person closely associated with Barack Obama (other than a member of his family or fellow legislator) who isn't either an anti-American zealot, a racist, a hard-line Democrat party hack, a terrorist, a communist or a felon.

5) Explain how Barack Obama's tax proposals will punish only wealthy Americans, and not the middle class and poor people who work for them, buy goods and services from them, rent property from them or own stock in their companies.

6) Describe Barack Obama's moral stance on partial birth abortion.

7) Name one organization Barack Obama has been involved with in his adult life (aside from the Illinois or U.S. Senate) that is inherently pro-American or pro-capitalist.

8-A) In what way does Barack Obama's claim that "health care is a right" differ from the following claims?

* Food is a right.
* Clothing is a right.
* Housing is a right.

8-B) If your answer to the above question was that these things are all essential to a long and healthy life, and therefore, there is no substantive difference between them, why then shouldn't the federal government be allowed to exercise the same kind of control over how farmers, tailors and carpenters conduct their businesses that Mr. Obama proposes it exercise over the medical profession?

9) Explain precisely what Barack Obama did as a community organizer in Illinois, and how his activities in this regard enhance his qualifications for the office of President of the United States.

10) Name one foreign terrorist group, terrorist-supporting regime or communist dictatorship (which has made its preference known) that supports John McCain's presidential bid over Barack Obama's.

11) How do Barack Obama's views concerning the regulation and manipulation of financial institutions by the federal government differ from those of his economic adviser, Franklin Raines, who is as responsible as anyone for the recent sub-prime mortgage market collapse?

12) Define the word 'socialist' and explain why Barack Obama isn't one.

Burn the new bill! All 451 pages of it!

Moderator Ifill's Conflict of Interest

The highly anticipated vice presidential debate is being moderated by a Barack Obama worshipper, Gwen Ifill.

Ifill does not do a good job at pretending to be impartial. When she was reporting for PBS at the Republican National Convention, she was visibly disappointed by the excitement exhibited by the delegates on the night that Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin delivered their addresses.

She not only supports Obama, she has written a book about him, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, with a release slated for Inauguration Day no less.

--Freedom Eden, October 1, 2008

One commenter at Freedom Eden said,

Some people disagree.... It might be worthwhile to look for an opinion other than Drudge's or Malkin's.

Grumps

Well I've heard that tripe before. My response?

Why? Is Drudge's opinion of no value? Michelle's? When did the validity of their opinions take a back seat to folk like Olbermann? Matthews? Or Ifill for that matter?

Sure. It's prudent to "hold off" on judging her moderation of tomorrow night's debate... as it hasn't happened yet. But it's fair AND responsible to question her blatant conflict of interest. Why can't we have a moderator with nothing to gain or lose regardless of who wins?

"It might be worthwhile to look for an opinion other than Drudge's or Malkin's." ??? I'm hearing this bleating from only one side of the political fence.

A Comparison:
Said the Muslim to the Christian:

"It might be worthwhile to look to the Qur'an for enlightenment other than the Bible."

Yes, that's over the top. But so is the suggestion that Drudge and Malkin have nothing of value to add to the debate.

Rubbing it in a little more...

The debate is tomorrow night. The moderator is Gwen Ifill. The moderator has a financial interest in Barack Obama winning in November. How can I say that? Because Ifill has a book due out around inauguration day. Here's the Amazon.com link for Ifill's book titled "The Breaktrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama". Take a look at the publication date. January 20, 2009. Now what happens to Ifill's book if Barack Obama is not sworn in on that day? Easy ... it doesn't sell. So could someone please tell me why she's moderating this debate when clearly she has a financial interest in making Sarah Palin look bad?

Neal Boortz, October 1, 2008

This weeks syndicated column by Michelle Malkin can be found at her place:

A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama

In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 – a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.

The title of Ifill’s book? "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." Nonpartisan my foot.

LOL! I have it on good authority that Marilyn McCoo & Billy Davis, Jr., of The Fifth Dimension fame, have been asked to perform live at BHO's inauguration.

Here's the lyrics to what they've been asked to sing:

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Obama
The Age of Obama
Obama! Obama!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Obama! Obama!

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Obama
The Age of Obama
Obama! Obama!

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
[Repeat Ad Nauseum]

...but six months after he's inaugurated this is what WE'LL be singing:

They used to tell me
I was building a dream.
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow
Or guns to bear
I was always there
Right on the job.
They used to tell me
I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead.
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad
I made it run
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad
Now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun
Brick and rivet and lime.
Once I built a tower,
Now it's done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits
Gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle dee dum.
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum!
Say don't you remember?
They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember?
I'm your pal.
Say buddy, can you spare a dime?

Once in khaki suits,
Ah, gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle dee dum!
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum!
Oh, say don't you remember?
They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Say, don't you remember?
I'm your pal.
Buddy, can you spare a dime?

From Bob Unruh at WND:

Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

"Well, that’s all you’ve got," she told Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn’t her intent.

Right... I remember that debate, and I remember as well that Ifill was more lenient and forgiving of John Edwards.

My final jab to the Left eye:



Welcome to Pre-Soviet America, everyone. Now get in line, keep quiet, and do as you're told.

I have a skull-splitting headache over all this. My right eye is throbbing! I need an "insistent pill," about 15 hours of sleep, and some relaxing music... and a fresh pillowcase in the morning.

From the LP, McCartney II, here's Summer's Day Song, 1980


Here's my Migraine poem:


Rhythm of Pain

Despondency danced a bitter turn
Each step attuned to the rhythm of pain
And ague ~ Oh, what an insistent pill
A tyranny desirous of a last resort
Where pain is safely put to bed
Clubbed mercilessly and staining the sheet
One pill ~ One retreat and saving grace
And despondency cleansed and senseless in the surf


ELAshley
062006.063721.6
75 minutes of brain-cramping toil
...and a migraine in the wings


And speaking again of Wings, here's another selection from the McCartney archive... not written or sung by McCartney. Here's to hard economic times. Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Pay close attention... this is not a silly love song.

"Deliver Your Children" by Denny Laine, from the LP London Town, 1977


There's a McCartney tune for everything that ails you...

A disease is at work in America. It is and will surely destroy this nation. From where it originated I cannot say, or who it was that first introduced it to the body of this republic, but it is killing America. It is a malignancy that has crept slowly and unnoticed until its very size stabbed at the eyes of my intellect, now awake to the danger. I am certain I am not the only one to have noticed its black growth, but I am also certain that I have heard no one point it out.

Partisanship is killing America.

Partisan literally means organized into political parties. It is politics, therefore, and its varied philosophies, that is destroying America.

Who do the parties serve? America? No, they do not. THEY DO NOT. They serve their own agendas and philosophies and they campaign to attract as many sheep to their respective folds as they possibly can. The parties know that The People have the ultimate say. But the parties have, through the artifices of their political craft changed the meanings of words and concepts handed down to us by a hundreds of years old document that very few of The People genuinely understand. If they did, there would be a revolt the likes of which has not been seen since the French Revolution. But the parties are not stupid. They have created the greatest of distractions to blind the eyes and hearts of the American people. Politics... Partisan politics.

The parties have managed to stake out a private hegemony within the body of this nation. Because The People are largely ignorant of what the Constitution really says, because they are overwhelmingly ignorant of the vast bodies of legislation-- and their true ramifications --passed by the parties, because The People have been taught-- propagandized --into believing that THIS is way our nation's business is to be done... because of our party-sponsored education we see what the parties wish us to see. Media used to stand guard at the entrance to Washington, but no more. They have agendas of their own, and they can be bribed.

There is something to be said for information overload. Twenty years ago the only news anyone got was from the evening news and their local paper. There was only one cable news channel. Media wielded great power then, and though many say Media has lost much of its power because of the introduction and proliferation of New Media, don't you believe it! They are as powerful as ever. Where once the cancer was localized in small, benign and compact enclaves, it has since grown massive and spread its tentacles throughout the body that supports it; its pride, arrogance, and deception have proliferated throughout not just the body politic, but to every room graced by the presence of a PC. We stare into its eye and absorb the slow poison of philosophical indoctrination.

The presidential debate last night is a stunning example of just how doomed this country is. Who won the debate? How you answer that almost certainly depends on your political philosophy-- you cannot possibly convince me that more than three in ten people view the right or wrong of a political statement based on anything other than the political philosophy to which they have already thrown their support. This is not to say that a Democrat cannot see or admit something good about a Republican [Senator Obama beautifully illustrated this last night] but it is to say that in any one man's mind, Who won the debate? is largely decided by that one man's pre-aligned political bent.

Look at the "Bail Out" debate in Washington for example. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, in no small measure, are culpable in the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but they are now in the position of fixing the problem. A problem they helped create and refused to see until it was too late... until the markets began to crash around them. And the praetorian Media guards-- bought and paid for --refuse to draw back the shades and let the light shine on these and many other men who are both culpable, yet nonetheless at the heart of fixing the mess they created.

These men accepted money from Freddie and Fannie, but do they offer to give the money back? No. They want to take the money from The People to prop up their own failures. Who won the debate last night? The man who said it would be prudent to institute a spending freeze on non-essentials? Or the man who couldn't point to a single program that might have to wait because of the Bail Out? Who won the debate last night? The candidate who suggested a spending freeze, or the candidate who continued to outline billions of dollars in new spending-- and heavier taxes? Who won the debate last night? The Candidates or Media? Who won the debate last night? The campaigns or the talking heads?

Who won the debate last night?

The men with whom you had a pre-existing philosophical affinity. You have bought yet another lie. The lies the parties with whom you most closely align with have fed you. You're still playing the game they have laid, by the rules they have set.

When will you learn to think for yourself? You have a say every four years on election day, but you always seem to vote for more of the same... whatever brand of Same you're partial to.

This year will be no different, and the rancor and divide will grow harsher and deeper. The vitriol will burn brighter. Nothing will truly change but the name on the letterhead.


Updates:

One: Monday, September 29, 2008