Book of Oppositions | Pocket Full of Mumbles |


This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?

...or against it?

The Difference Between Memorial Day and Veteran's Day?

Don't ask Presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He doesn't know. Or rather, he didn't know yesterday in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

[Translation: He sees dead people.]

But we shouldn't be surprised considering the number of gaffes for which this man is personally responsible. Remember now, he's been to 57 states, with one more to go.

Contrast the whole of Obama's Memorial Day speech with that of President Bush's speech at Arlington National Cemetery, and Obama comes off as a panderer of social victimology. His speech did not honor America's war dead. It honored his campaign and all the ills of government he intended to change, and all the taxes he intended to raise.

Truly shameful. He doesn't know how many states comprise the United States of America, and he doesn't know that Memorial Day is not synonymous with Veteran's Day.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 12:52 PM, ,

On Declarations of: War, the Rules thereof, and Crimes

Do I want to leave the decision of when to go to war up to the president? Absolutely. That is one of his enumerated powers under the Constitution. Congress can "declare" war, but it's the president that ships the troops out. Congress cannot order the military into war; they can declare that a state of war exists between the U.S. and an enemy state, but Congress cannot send troops into battle. Let's stick to THAT rule, for now.

We can debate whether or not the war in Iraq is legal. By even the strictest interpretation of Congress' 2001 authorization to president Bush...

to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..."

...this current conflict in Iraq is quite legal. But the Constitution is vague on at least one point: Article One Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to... declare War;" however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

The President's powers are not as vague in this regard as Congress offered on September 14, 2001, the functional equivalent of a "Declaration of War". But since the Constitution does not provide that those exact words are even necessary, the debate of rules in this regard is therefore unnecessary... functionally moot. The president can send troops into any engagement that seeks to protect American interests and American citizens, and he doesn't need a declaration of war. What he does need is Congressional support to fund the engagement beyond the immediate threat. Example: Reagan's snap invasion of Grenada.

So yes, Bush can send troops wherever they are needed for X number of days, without Congress. He does have to justify their continued presence beyond the honeymoon.

Now, do I extend this rule to future presidents? Of course. Would I be visibly, emotionally, and spiritually upset to see, say, president Obama attack Israel?

Do I really have to answer that?

But beyond this rule, the Geneva Convention covers just about everything else.

Your other hypotheticals are not worthy of discussion at this time because:

a) the United States of America is NOT a terrorist-sponsoring nation, nor is itself a rogue nation.

b) the United States of America does not attack arbitrarily, willy-nilly, any nation to rob them of their dignity, liberty, or natural resources. When America invades, it does so to protect its own borders, national interests, or those of its allies, or to put an end to roguery... as in the first and second Barbary wars.

For some perspective, there has only been in the entire history of the United States of America 5 FORMAL declarations of war. There has been 12 military engagements (wars or mini-wars) authorized by Congress (including Afghanistan and Iraq). And there have been over 125 instances where the president sent troops into harms way WITHOUT prior express military authorization from Congress; to include Korea (1950), the Philippine-American War (1898-1903), and Nicaragua (1927). And I don't recall hearing of any overt challenges against the presidents of the day for supposed "War-Crimes."

This whole War-Crimes issue is founded entirely upon one segment of society's intense dislike of President George W. Bush. The anti-war, peace-at-any-price crowd.

As for Iran. Iran may be a sovereign nation but it is a rogue nation. Iran trains Iraqi militia and sends them back across the border with weapons that kill not only American soldiers and support personnel, but Iraqi troops and civilians. That is an act of war.

Are we at war with Iran? According to the wording of the September 14, 2001 Joint Resolution, Yes.

The real question ought to be: Do we want to "actively" engage Iran in Iran? We're already engaging their agents and weapons in Iraq. The only difference would be location and escalation.

. . . . .

Peace is a lovely ideal; one for which we should all strive. But we cannot lower our guard. Not all nations desire to live in peace with the world. Not all nations respect its neighbor's or the world's sovereign borders. Islam, for all it means "submission" cares nothing for submitting to the rule of western law, and therefore does not respect its neighbor's or the world's sovereign borders. Islam's "submission" is the attitude Islam's neighbor's and the world must adopt to have peace (and a pseudo one at that) with Islam.

Is the U.S. readying for an Attack on Iran? I sure hope so! Not to invade arbitrarily, but to have a plan on the table should no one else be willing to take the bomb out of Islam's hands.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 11:01 AM, ,

Obscene Profits!?

What's obscene is the Left's colossal ignorance of the principles of Supply & Demand. What's obscene is for the Left to accuse "Big Oil" of profiteering when Big Government gets a bigger piece of the pie than the companies that explore, research, drill, refine, and pay wages for hundreds of thousands of employees who make gasoline possible. What is obscene is Congress' inability to recognize that THEY are the reason gasoline is nearing $4 a gallon. All because they refuse to allow American oil companies to tap our own very rich American sources of oil and gas....


Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 1:49 PM, ,

Is the U.S. Readying for an Attack on Iran?

Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran


Israel's Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch a military strike against Iran before the end of his term.

The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was now called for.

It's easy to brush this off as just the fevered and hopeful imagination of Israel, and just as easy to dismiss it because Israel is perceived as not being as intel-savvy as the West-- but this in not true. Israel is VERY intel-savvy. Question then remains, why did Israel disclose something so potentially... I'm at a lose for words so YOU fill in the blank...? Is it a ploy, with NO kernel of truth? Or a ploy WITH a kernel of truth?

This is what's truly interesting...

Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom's highest-ranking officials.

Bush may or may not be planning something, but in light of his speech before the Knesset last week it could be that he's considering the possibility that Iran, if not countered in its nuclear ambitions, could pose not just a terminal threat to Israel, but dangerous threat to the West AND the U.S. as well.

Obama and Hillary would certainly use this against McCain, even though McCain would not be the one approving an attack on Iran. But this goes back to the whole previous debate about Bush's speech and its veiled attack against politicians who choose to talk with "terrorists" without preconditions... namely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama spoke this morning in response to McCain's jab at him and said, roughly, that the "failed policies of Bush and McCain" were responsible for Iran being as close to nuclear capability as they are, and that HIS reasoned approach to the situation could "change their minds" about nuclear weapons. A pipe dream turned pipe-bomb!

But this is extremely naive. Talking with madmen has never stopped madmen from doing the insane. For all that he claims to have an "in" to the Muslim mindset because of his world travels, he seems to have utterly forgotten or entirely discounts Islam's complete and utter antipathy toward Israel. Obama's approach will not achieve anything.

Iran is not Russia. We cannot outspend them and bankrupt their economy trying to catch up. Iran only wants a handful of nukes before actually attacking Israel. And if Israel believes Iran is as close to achieving its first by next year..... we'd be foolish in the extreme to discount it out of hand.

Time is of the essence. Bush's approval rating is already in the tank (though twice as high as Congress'). Any of the three candidates would be reluctant to attack Iran, even for good cause, as they'd be thinking of how such an action might affect their reelection bid. But Bush isn't running for reelection. His actions could give Democrats reason to "spread the love" to McCain as well, but Bush has shown he's not particularly concerned with polls.

Thing is, it's easy to point to 9/11 and say, 'if only we had caught those men...' But what if the Bush administration HAD caught those men, and did it by "bending the rules" and abusing FISA? Democrats and many more besides would be ready to crucify him for abuse of power, war crimes, whatever. The figment of a disaster averted would not "play" at all. The argument would be, 'Yeah, they could have done a lot of damage, but they didn't! Chances are they probably wouldn't have succeeded anyway!'

Question: Can we afford to let Iran acquire nuclear weaponry? How long after Obama (assuming he CAN win) gets the big chair and begins formal talks with Iran will Iran actually acquire them? And, realistically, would Iran really stop for Obama when they're on the very cusp of acquiring their nukes in days, weeks, or a few SHORT months? Saddam stalled for 10+ years while the U.N. did nothing but line their own pockets with Iraqi "oil for food" gold. How long would President Barack Obama continue to talk with Iran? Until Israel erupts in mushroom clouds? At which point President Obama raises his hands and says, "we tried, but Iran choose not to change directions!" ?? Does he retaliate?

A bit late wouldn't you say? Too late. Far too late for Israel. Such an attack on Israel would see her nukes launched in retaliation and then we would see a war that has never been seen before, nor ever will again.

For all Obama appears to be well-meaning in his intention to "talk" to the enemy, he can't walk into ANY meeting without a very big stick. Madmen only respond "reasonably," unless threatened for not being reasonable.

Obama either doesn't know this-- which makes him naive. Or he does-- which makes him criminally dangerous. Either/Or, is Obama a risk this nation can afford?

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 8:05 PM, ,

News Flash from

Black Guy Asks Nation For Change
March 19, 2008 | Issue 44•12

CHICAGO—According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.

"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."

The black guy is oddly comfortable demanding change from people he's never even met.

It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.

"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"

After his initial requests for change, the black man rambled nonstop on a variety of unrelated topics, calling for affordable health care, demanding that the government immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposing a $75 billion economic stimulus plan to create new jobs.

"What a wacko," Schaumburg, IL resident Patrick Morledge said. "And, of course, after telling us all about how he had the ability to magically fix everything, he went right back to asking for change. Typical."


Just for laughs check out the entire article at

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 7:46 PM, ,

Top Ten...

Ugliest Pictures of Jesus

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 10:21 PM, ,

The Thin Skinned, The Water's Edge Hypocrisy, and the Pale Democratic Horse

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

--President George W. Bush, May 15, 2008
On the Knesset floor in recognition of Israel's 60 birthday

The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head.

--Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL),
Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus

Democrats are livid over a perceived jab at the presumptive democratic presidential nominee. Senator Obama, perhaps thinking the world revolves around him, has taken umbrage at the President's remarks yesterday in Israel. Who was Bush speaking to? Israelis. In what context was he speaking? In one that they understand all too well: Appeasement kills innocent civilians. President Bush made no mention of Obama by name or by innuendo. He spoke "Truth to Power" in affirmation of a principle the Israeli people know intimately and all too well. But the world revolves around Barack Obama, so he takes umbrage. He takes it, and steals a meaning into the President's statement of the obvious that simply wasn't there.

How can I know this? The same way Obama and Democrats can say Bush directly attacked Obama. I read Obama's mind, much like Obama read Bush's mind. That cute picture Dan has of McCain with a "Carnac turban"? How quaint. Now let's give it to Barack, for the hat certainly fits.

Let's look at the worst President in modern history, Jimmy Carter. Here's a man who repeatedly thumbs his nose at this administration and attempts to negotiate with terrorists. Could it be that this is to whom Bush referred? Absolutely not! Everyone knows it was Barack that Bush attacked.

As for this Water's Edge nonsense, Carter himself has violated this unwritten rule, castigating Bush while on foreign soil. William Jefferson Clinton also trashed the President while on foreign soil. Democrats of some or no report have routinely violated this unwritten yet inviolable rule. But Media calls it fair criticism of an unpopular president. But unpopular to whom? The Left, Media, Democrats and Progressives. Because media says it's so does that make it so? Not hardly.

What it all boils down to is this. Barack is thin skinned and cannot, for all his Don Knotts blustering to the contrary, take the heat. He's immature as a politician and yes, quite naive. And yet he has the uncanny ability to read minds. Dan is even having Obamasms over at Payne[fully] Hollow. Everyone on the Left is absolutely orgasmic over Barack Hussein Obama.

The Left doesn't care that he has the most Liberal voting record in Congress. They don't care that he supports Partial Birth Abortion. They don't care that he doesn't even have compassion for the survivors of abortion... "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" Semper Fi, Barack! Stand tall and proud for those wondrous and holy Christian principles of yours. America doesn't even care that your ex-pastor is a racist! They don't care that you intend to gut the military, and make nice with terrorists.

I can't wrap my mind around the Democratic party. They are not the least bit democratic, as evidenced by their nomination process. They're racist through and through as evidenced by their history of suppressing, and being an affliction upon, Black America. They cannot tell the truth about anything. Not about the Housing crunch, the price of oil, the global warming hoax, about what Bush actually said on the Knesset floor. They hold the Right to standards they themselves disdain. They embody the worst of human nature.

There's not an honest intellectual bone in a one of them.

Democrats do not support Life. They support Death. They do not support the Troops. They support the means and methods of the acquisition and retention of political power. Dr. Evil's every one. Except perhaps Lieberman. They vote down a bill to allow drilling for American oil, while insisting we beg terrorists to pump more. They seek to plunge America in a Marxist nightmare..... I heard the question asked: When everyone in America is receiving taxpayer funded benefits of one kind or another, who will be working to pay for those benefits? Good grief! Taxing the citizenry into ignominy so you can give them a handout!?

Obama wants to negotiate with terrorists, but is outraged that his opponents would use it against him. Obama wants to gut the military, but insists he loves America, Freedom, Mom and Apple Pie. He won't wear a flag pin, but he loves America. He won't place his hand over his heart for the National Anthem, but he loves America. He is a hypocrite and a liar.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

America is outraged at what Bush had to say in Israel yesterday? Uh uh... MEDIA was outraged and they chose to use the occasion to whip up the ignorant villagers into yet another pitch fork frenzy against Bush and Republicans.

You can't make me believe that a born again child of God, with the Spirit of God residing in him, would support Roe v Wade, Partial Birth Abortion, and vote against the Born-alive Infants Protection Act. I am personally outraged that the man calls himself a Christian.

Obama should be unelectable in November, but thanks to Democrats own hypocritical election tampering McCain is the man he'll be running against. Will the world explode in a fiery furnace of death and mayhem should he win? That could happen any time.... China, Burma (Myanmar), Indonesia, Thailand, New Orleans.

The Democratic party is the apotheosis of pale, though their horse is no horse at all. They are cankers on America's dwindling freedoms, and they haven't an honest argument between them. A diseased philosophy cannot bear any fruit fit to eat, but that's the banquet they promise us. Such philosophy is good only for spreading its own infection. And I think American's have had about enough of that. Or have they? I reckon it depends on who you ask.

Better that one philosophy should die than that an entire nation perish.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 10:59 PM, ,

3 Quotes From...

The Obama Rules
by Rich Lowry
May 12, 2008

After his blowout win in North Carolina last week, Obama turned to framing the rules of the general election ahead, warning in his victory speech of "efforts to distract us."

The campaign can succeed in imposing these rules on the race only if the news media cooperate. Newsweek signed up for the effort in a cover story that reads like a 3,400-word elaboration of the "distraction" passage of Obama's victory speech. "The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968," it says, through "innuendo and code." McCain "may not be able to resist casting doubt on Obama's patriotism," and there's a question whether he can or wants to "rein in the merchants of slime and sellers of hate."

We could take Obama's rules in good faith if he never calls John McCain a "conservative" or labels him in any other way. If he never criticizes him for his association with George Bush. If he doesn't jump on his gaffes (like McCain's 100-years-in-Iraq comment that Obama distorted and harped on for weeks). And if he never says anything that would tend to make Americans fearful about the future or divide them (i.e., say things that some people agree with and others don't).

Personal Note: As an extension of my previous post, this article clearly shows the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Dan suggested we can "disagree with policy X... [by] offer[ing] what [we] think is a valid reason," and as long as those reasons don't make mention of his middle name, the color of his pastor's hatred of America [which is truly "black-hearted," as anyone with ears to hear could discern.. as black-hearted as my own black heart [thank you ER]], or his business and civic relationships. We can't question his judgment, but we are expected to fawn over and yearn for the policy changes his "judgment" will foist upon us should he win the White House.

Something is just not right about this. Since when does any politician get to make the rules by which his candidacy is judged? Clinton had some of this mojo during his first term as president, but then, he was already president. Media covered and mitigated for him during the storms of his myriad scandals, and even carried water for Al Gore during the run-up to the 2000 election.

But media is a far more dangerous animal today than it was a mere eight years ago. It has declined. It has been wounded. And like any other wounded powerful animal it is dangerous to get too close... too close to the men [forget the women... Hillary was thrown under the bus by media months ago] they think will usher in the policies of the good ole days. The days when Democrats ruled policy with an velvet encased iron fist. Comforting the downtrodden while pummeling the " Evil Rich."

Democrats have never met a tax increase they didn't like. Next spring, should a Democrat win, will be no exception. In the meantime, Obama, his adoring acolytes, and media all will insist we play by the rules from which they exempt themselves... out of hand, sleight of hand, encased in velvet, cast in iron.

It amazes me to think that this nation once tore down an iron curtain only to, decades later, begin building one of its own.

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 11:56 AM, ,

Question to Consider

With a black man all but nominated to the Democratic ticket, with honest criticism of the man Obama tainted by media and pundits alike as "racist"--when race is demonstrably not a factor--can any honest and philosophical criticism of America's first black president be proffered without being labeled as "racist"? In other words, can anyone disagree with a black president in today's American political and social climate without being called a racist?

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 8:30 PM, ,


China persecutes home churches / earthquake kills 12-thousand plus Chinese [It is reported that 1000 of these are students and teachers.]

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 2:51 PM, ,

Truth is not an abstract concept....

Truth is a person.

John 14:6

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 10:53 PM, ,

"Mission Accomplished" says C in C USOC

We have successfully created chaos... Every objective has been met and surpassed.

Will the Democrat Party become the party of disenfranchisement? Will it become the party that denies millions of people the right to participate in their own electoral process? Will it become the party where some votes count more than others? Will the Democrat Party become the party of back-room deals?

            --Rush Limbaugh, May 7, 2006

It would be a little strange to have a nominee chosen by [only] 48 states.

            --Hillary Rodham Clinton, May 6, 2008

But the Democrats don't appear to be concerned about disenfranchising millions of voters. It would seem they detest the Clinton's so much and, simultaneously, are so afraid of being perceived as racist, that they're willing to hand the nomination to a man who associates with racists and terrorists-- who is damaged goods and the poorer choice of the two --while disenfranchising Democratic voters in two states. It's also a bit hypocritical for them to complain about Republicans crossing over to vote Democrat, when John McCain is the Republican nominee because of Democrats crossing over to vote Republican. What's good for the goose...

Righteous indignation just doesn't look good on them.

Please read the following and tell me what you think. Like him or hate him, please try to avoid frothing bile and vitriol all over the man, and give his analysis an honest critique.

Where do we go from here, ladies and gentlemen? I am tempted today, as commander-in-chief of US Operation Chaos, to tell the superdelegates, "Go ahead. Go ahead and pick Obama. Go ahead," 'cause I now believe that Barack Obama would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees. Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes that Democrats need to win: blue-collar working people. He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, and he can get the young, he can get the black vote, but that's about it -- and Democrats do not win with that. So I was tempted here to tell the superdelegates to go ahead and pick Obama. Now, I know that the superdelegates are frightened to take the nomination away from him on the basis he can't win nationally. Which, he can't. And this is nothing new, by the way, for us to say here at Operation Chaos.

Obama is going to have a tough time winning; I don't care what you Democrats think. Superdelegates, I have warned you. I have helped you. I've been trying to help you through this mess. You're afraid to pull the nomination away from him because you're scared that you would cause a permanent fissure with the black vote in the Democrat Party. And I'm telling you again -- it's the last time I'm going to say it -- don't worry about it! You have mistreated blacks for 50 years far worse than it would be to pull Obama's nomination from him. You've destroyed the black family with your welfare programs. The public school system keeps them enmeshed in a school system where they don't learn anything. ...And the black vote has stuck with you throughout, no matter what you've done to them in the Democrat Party, they stick with you. Pulling the nomination from Obama? Yeah, hell to pay early on. But we get to November, there is no way the black vote will siphon itself away to vote for McCain or anybody else.

So that's why I am tempted to tell the superdelegates to pick Obama, 'cause I now believe that he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees. Now, if I were to go that way, this would be a landmark decision for Operation Chaos, because up 'til now, Operation Chaos has not picked the candidate on the Democrat side. We have successfully created chaos. We have done our part to expose Obama through our support of Operation Chaos, effectively using the Clinton campaign as our foil, and Obama and the Democrat Party are the weaker for it. Every objective has been met and surpassed. It will be up to John McCain now to take advantage of the gift that has been handed to him. No thanks to his own campaign, thanks to Operation Chaos. Yet McCain continues to take veiled shots at conservatives. What should Mrs. Clinton do? Mrs. Clinton should stay in! There is no question Mrs. Clinton should stay in. Mrs. Clinton... superdelegates are going for Obama, they won't talk to her today.

Mrs. Clinton needs to demand counting the popular vote in Michigan and Florida. She needs to demand this! She then perhaps should do what liberals always do in the end and take the whole matter to court. As for the votes in Michigan and Florida, I have a question: Will the Democrat Party become the party of disenfranchisement? Will it become the party that denies millions of people the right to participate in their own electoral process? Will it become the party where some votes count more than others? Will the Democrat Party become the party of back-room deals? The Justice Department civil rights division should investigate the Democrat Party's rules, and Mrs. Clinton should call for this. Those rules disenfranchise millions of voters, including minority voters in Michigan and Florida, and the Democrats are very concerned about the minority vote, and there's a bunch of minorities in Florida and Michigan whose votes are not going to matter a hill of beans to the nomination process.

I also have a little aside for those of you women who are supporting Hillary Clinton in this process of back-room deals: You are about to get screwed. The Democrat Party is aiming to make as many people (this is unintentional) unhappy and miserable as they can. My friends, not since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have we witnessed such a large-scale effort to obstruct the vote, as we are seeing in the Democrat Party primaries. Two big states, Florida and Michigan, at this point are being denied the opportunity for their delegates to be seated at the Democrat National Convention; all because the superdelegates want to make the choice, and they are afraid that if Florida and Michigan are seated, they will go Hillary and the chaos will continue, and they don't want the chaos. So the Democrat Party is willing to disenfranchise voters of all stripes from two large states, in order to end the chaos that is their party nomination process. As I say: not since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have we witnessed such a large-scale effort to obstruct the vote.

The Democrat Party is up to its old tricks, the party of slavery. The party of segregation, the party of poll taxes is now the party of disenfranchisement in Michigan and in Florida. I'm serious about this, folks. You may think I'm trying to make you laugh. I am serious about this. I thought that we as a nation had put all this behind us. Where is the civil rights division of the Justice Department? Where are the House and Senate judiciary committees? Why are there no investigations? Why are there no demands for investigations? The closest we've come to examining the undemocratic process of the nomination of the Democrat Party nominee is an episode of Boston Legal last week, in which the Democrat Party was sued over its rules. The party won, but it was the first exposure in mass media of the entirely undemocratic process. I realize they're a private group, a private organization. They can set their rules up, but what's the name of the party?

Call themselves Democrats! There is nothing democratic about their nomination process, as is evidenced now, not only by the existence of their superdelegates. The party hacks, who will be making this decision behind closed doors, smoke-filled rooms and so forth, then denying two states their right to be seated at the Democrat National Convention. Again, we're not talking about small states. We're talking about Florida and Michigan. We're about to witness the most egregious assault on voting rights since the 1960s. Howard Dean, as the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, is responsible for this. Howard Dean is in charge of the process. He is the George Wallace of our time. Howard Dean is standing in the way of counting the votes from Florida and Michigan. Senator Kerry, on the conference call (I played the sound bite mere moments ago) is accusing me of tampering with the primary system. It is Senator Kerry who is part of the cabal that seeks to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan, including minorities! Kerry and Dean, are part of the ongoing George Wallace wing of the Democrat Party.

How about all the Hispanics voting in Florida? The one thing I can't remember hearing about throughout this campaign is the Hispanic vote. We hear about the black vote. We hear about the rich vote. We hear about the blue-collar vote. We hear about the white vote. Where's the Hispanic vote? Do you realize how many Hispanic Democrats in Florida there are? They are being disenfranchised. The Democrat Party ran a stealth amnesty immigration bill to get as many of those people legalized and vote [ready] as possible, and now they're willing to disenfranchise these people, all to save themselves a little trouble? John Kerry is supporting that. Ladies and gentlemen, if anyone is "tampering" with the primaries -- not just a primary -- if anyone is tampering with our sacred electoral system, it's the Democrat Party: Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, all of these people who want to deny Florida and Michigan; at this crucial time, when this primary is still wide open. Ted Kennedy went to the 1980 primaries and convention. He went to the convention down something like 700 delegates. Mrs. Clinton is not down that far. Who is tampering with the primary process? The Democrat National Committee is doing just that.

            --Rush Limbaugh Show, May 7, 2008

If you'd like to discuss the issues he brought up honestly, feel free to comment. Otherwise, don't. I'm genuinely curious as to your take on the following points: Is it fair to all of America that Obama would be the candidate of only 48 states? Is it fair that Guam and Puerto Rico's votes count, not being states at all, while Florida and Michigan's votes are denied? Can the Democratic Party really be called "democratic" in light of the rules that govern their nomination process? Is there not an element of "white guilt" in all this? And if so, should Barack get the nomination simply because of the color of his skin? Who is really to blame for all the chaos in this year's Democratic nomination process: Limbaugh and Republican crossovers? or Howard Dean for refusing to seat Florida and Michigan? And finally, if Florida and Michigan HAD been allowed to "count" would Hillary have already sewn up the Democratic nomination? Would Barack be where he is today... still in the race and leading?

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 7:59 PM, ,

Born to Run, Doomed to Die...

I'm sorry. I tried. I ran as fast as I could... am I going to be okay?
You're not mad at me are you? Please say you're not mad....
Please help me...

--Eight Belles

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 7:54 PM, ,

What is wrong with today's political landscape?

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative           and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and           should do for themselves.

--Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, 1916

And yet they religiously intone, "Yes We Can!"

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 4:15 PM, ,

Thank You China!

For loaning the U.S. enough money so that I can receive a stimulus check.

Again, I say, Thank You!

Read the entire article...

posted by Eric @ 12:36 PM, ,