A Quick Rant

It has been some time since I have conveyed my opinions here. With that being said, I’ll keep it brief.

It is estimated that, due to the ice storms the country suffered earlier this week, some 300,000 in Arkansas alone are, or have been, without power. Where are the calls for immediate government assistance? Where are the calls for the national guard to come in and keep out looters? I talked to one fellow who stayed at his business all night last night with a loaded .38 by his side, lest anyone should try to break in due to the powerless alarm system. (Of course, no one tried). If this were occurring in a liberal mecca (ahem, New Orleans, or Nawlans as folks from south LA say it) there would be constant cries of despair and complaints that the government is not doing enough.

But not in Arkansas. These people for the most part are self-made men and women; they didn’t get what they have from the backs of taxpayers. And that’s why you don’t hear them complaining much. Instead of complaining, they get to work and do something about it. That’s how they got to where they are today. That’s how we all should strive to be.

Many great men have been quoted upon this blog from time to time: names such as Ronald Reagan, Aristotle, Friedrich Hayek, and others too numerous to mention.* But perhaps the greatest quote to remember is from an ol’ boy born outside of Shreveport and raised in Alabama.

Hank Williams Jr. once said “A country boy can survive”. Don’t forget that, because it’s true. The fine folks of northern Arkansas are demonstrating it right now in fine fashion.

*I do not know for a fact that all of these people have been quoted, it just sounded like a good respectable list of persons.

This week’s 24 preview

Barack is Black?! (This Guy Really Didn’t Know)

Interesting article…

Man Sues Government for ‘Candidate Fraud’

NEW YORK – Taban Al-Awsat watched President-Elect Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in horror. For Al-Awsat, Obama’s election had been a dream. Now it seemed a nightmare. Al-Awsat was hopeful from the time he cast his ballot to the first time he saw Obama. Al-Awsat intended to vote for a Muslim candidate, but he learned  too late that Barack Hussein Obama is black.

In the wake of this discovery Al-Awsat filed suit against a number of organizations, all of which he finds at fault  for his misguided vote. Among the defendants named in the lawsuit are the City of New York, the National Democratic Party,  and the Federal Election Commission. According to Al-Awsat, he has suffered severe emotional trauma because of the defendants’ failure to fully inform the public about the presidential candidates. This, in his opinion, constitutes “Candidate Fraud.”

Taban Al-Awsat, 26, works as a taxi driver for the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. A self-described independent, Al-Awsat claims to have never taken an interest in American politics. That changed in late September, when Al-Awsat overheard two passengers’ disparaging remarks concerning Barack Obama’s Islamic heritage. “I was instantly excited,” Al-Awsat recalls, “The two men in the back of my taxi were relentless bigots, but the possibility of a Muslim president had never occurred to me before that conversation. That made the conversation worthwhile.”

Al-Awsat’s attorney, C. Thomas Wilkes maintains that his client has a strong case against the named defendants. “The bottom line is that if Mr. Al-Awsat had been informed of President-Elect Obama’s nationality, he would have never been inspired to vote.” Wilkes believes that while his client was not physically harmed, the emotional distress in lieu of Al-Awsat’s discovery was crippling. “It’s as if a black man cast his vote for a black candidate, but later found out that the candidate is Mexican. While Mexicans are a hard working and industrious people, the black voter would be devastated.”

New York City Attorney James Fletcher immediately labeled the suit frivolous. “Everybody wants their fifteen minutes of fame, and it’s clear that Mr. Al-Awsat wants to harass a number of high-profile organizations.” According to Fletcher, Al-Awsat’s mistaken vote was his own fault. “You can’t buy a gallon of milk and complain over an ingredient clearly listed on the carton,” Fletcher contends, “President-Elect Obama is a prominent player in American politics, and his ethnic background is common knowledge. Mr. Al-Awsat has nothing to blame [for his presidential vote] but his own ignorance.”

Al-Awsat sees the case differently. “Quite simply I have been victimized by not knowing enough about Barack Obama. I have decided to file suit against those responsible for that unawareness.” According to Al-Awsat, the vote was obviously erroneous. “Look at any prominent Muslim and tell me how many black people they hang out with. Muslims and blacks just don’t get along, so why would I vote for one?” While Al-Awsat asserts this as his own social position, he also believes that this is true for Muslims as a whole. “I’ve never known why, but it just seems like blacks would rather spend time with their own people instead of Muslims. The only other race I have seen them spending time with is the Chinese, like Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan.”

Al-Awsat has received considerable criticism for his allegedly racist comments, but he maintains that his lawsuit is not racially fueled. “The issue here is not simply race, but appearance as well,” Al-Awsat asserts, “Would I vote for a Hispanic candidate or an Asian candidate? Maybe, but at least those candidates look more like me than a black man does, and this would allow me some measure of comfort.”

Al-Awsat maintains a firm stance against those responsible for informing the public. “The issue here is that I was deceived into voting for a black candidate under the pretense of him being a Muslim. This deception cannot go unpunished.”

Seems pretty ridiculous to me. This guy must have no TV, no internet, and no friends…

sk.

President George W. Bush: A leader in uncertain times

A leader mourns the loss of a hero

The following is a re-post from August 1st, 2008:

“I remember where I was on September 11th, 2001; I bet you do too. It was 1st period, 8th grade English with Mrs. Evans. We had just finished taking prayer requests and making our daily petition on behalf of our classmates, our leaders, and our soldiers. To the door came our school counselor, informing our teacher that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center–she turned on the television just moments before the second plane struck, leaving us speechless as we watched it strike the tower. Minutes later, we saw the towers fall. I remember the feeling, I’ll never forget: cold chills down my spine. And the emotions weren’t anger, they weren’t bitterness, at least not initially. The emotions were shock and uncertainty. “Was this an accident? Surely no one would do this intentionally.”

The world literally stood still. Sports events were canceled in an unprecedented volume; nurses from Des Arc, Arkansas and all over the country packed their bags and drove to Ground Zero to serve injured victims. Churches held vigils, American flags were seen on every car, every house, in every hand.

It was on 9/11, and in the days following, that George Walker Bush’s legacy was written. In a speech that evening, leadership shone through:

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.

A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

Three days after the attacks, while bodies were still being pulled from the rubble, the President pinnacled the ashes, declaring that those responsible “will hear from all of us soon.”

After we swept the floor with the Taliban, we moved on to Iraq. Most Americans do not know this, because it is not reported, but Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to openly applaud the attacks on America. And we know the tale from there: Saddam refused to let weapons inspectors into Iraq, he claimed to have WMDs, and we had a leader as President that was not going to let us be attacked again. Less than 8 months after the initial invasion, Saddam is pulled from a hole, agreeing to “negotiate” with President Bush.

Despite what you may think, those WMDs were very real and have been found, despite the media’s hate-campaign against the war: a recent report from the Pentagon says that the U.S. has recently recovered 500 TONS of weapons-grade Uranium from Iraq. Of course they reported 500 tons, because it sounds a lot smaller than the weight in pounds: 1 MILLION POUNDS of Uranium.

It’s easy to criticize the catastrophe known as No Child Left Behind; it’s easy to criticize wasteful spending. It’s just altogether too easy to criticize.

The bottom line is this: We have a President who has kept us safe for the past seven years; we have a President that has never left us sleepless, wondering if we would awaken to a mushroom cloud, or not awaken at all. It’s time we show some gratitude to the man who has led our nation through uncertain times.

War is awful and should be avoided at all costs; war is also necessary at times. And despite what some think, President Bush does not enjoy war. I dare say that President Bush hates war more than anyone. Fathers, mothers, wives all hate to see their loved ones leave for battle; they hate even more to not see their loved ones return. Imagine the weight on President Bush’s shoulders–every time a soldier dies, he remembers he is the one that sent them there. But he knows, as do we, that the greater good has been accomplished, and the world is a safer place without the Taliban and without Saddam Hussein.

From flags and anthems to “change we can believe in”–we have a candidate for President that wants to change all that is good about America. We have a candidate for President that refuses to wear a flag lapel pin, in response to President Bush’s patriotism. The same candidate refuses to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. The same candidate removed the American flag from his private, CO2 emitting jet and replaced it with his own name.”

Thank God for President Bush, a leader who was willing to make the tough decisions and preserve America’s security. He was not the President we deserved; he was the President we needed.

Thank you, Mr. President. Now your legacy belongs to the ages.

A Good Use of “Ben Stein’s Money”

This is my first post for LE and needless to say, I was somewhat daunted at the task of writing on a blog that, despite it’s contributors and intended readership, is hounded by liberals with nothing better to do than attempt to disparage the ideas of “ignorant” Conservatives. Nevertheless, I couldn’t resist writing a little bit about Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Most know Ben Stein as Ferris Bueller’s dry teacher, the guy from the eye drop commercials or even that game show host who launched Jimmy Kimmel to stardom. In addition to being an actor, game show host, and oh yeah an economist, more importantly, Ben Stein is a thinker who challenges the established ideas and theories without fear. I’d like to take a brief look at the film and inform Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, Communists, etc. that Ben Stein has a point and it deserves to be examined and talked about.

So what is this film really about? Who is being “expelled” and what “intelligence” isn’t being allowed? Mr. Stein would suggest that the “Intelligence” refers to the theory of Intelligent Design of the universe. He would also suggest that those in academia who believe in or even MENTION the possibility of Intelligent Design are not only being ridiculed but even dismissed from their jobs. Darwinism has infiltrated our schools and the scientific community to such an extent that any theory contrary to Darwinism is discarded without question. But is that really science? Darwinists revere Charles Darwin because he challenged an established theory of God and Creation, Galileo was called a heretic because he believed that the Sun, not the earth, was at the center of our solar system, and yet he is one of Science’s great patriarchs, Martin Luther King Jr. dared to challenge racism and bigotry and we honor him as a modern American hero. Why should Intelligent Design scientists be any different? Shouldn’t they be greeted with open arms for using the scientific method of testing established hypotheses and theories? Unfortunately, these scientists who dare to suggest that maybe everything we see in nature just might be the result of an intelligent designer aren’t accepted and are “expelled” as Ben Stein proposes.

 

In addition to exposing the academic community’s harsh treatment of ID proponents, Mr. Stein utilizes emotionally gripping examples from history to help explain the rise of Darwinism. In one such instance in the film, Stein speaks of the similarities between Darwinism and Nazism. The two ideas may not seem alike at first, but Ben Stein convinced me otherwise. Darwinism emphasizes natural selection and Nazism is no different. The only difference is that in Nazism, the government decides instead of Nature. Stein travels to a Pre-WWII German-run “hospital” which was nothing more than a place of torture and murder for the weak, sick and old. Sounds a lot like Natural Selection to me; get rid of the weak to create a superior species which was Hitler’s goal. 

Stein interviewed both ID proponents and evolutionists, but I could hardly believe that he interviewed Richard Dawkins. Surely, Stein wouldn’t dare challenge a man of Dawkin’s academic stature, right? Wrong. And based on the footage from the film, Mr. Stein held his own. When asked how it was possible that matter came from non-matter thus creating life on earth, Dawkins could say nothing but “I don’t know”. If someone like Dawkin’s acknowledges that we can in no way prove evolution occurs and continues to occur, can we really trust this theory?

To conclude, I feel we must answer the question of why do evolutionists hate the idea of Intelligent Design so much? Now for those who have not seen the film, the following is Geoff Pauley speaking, not Ben Stein. I believe that evolutionists hate Intelligent Design because if there is a designer who is a superior being, we are obligated to do what he says. In other words, follow the Bible if you believe in the Christian God, the Torah for Judaism, the Koran for Islam, etc. I mean honestly, is Intelligent design really that hard to accept? Look at the complexity of the universe. We live on a planet that is exactly the right distance from the sun and has the exact chemical ingredients for life on earth. Look at how complex the human body is. Could it really have just happened? Nothing EVER comes from nothing. Humans are creative by nature and a creation always needs a creator. Dawkins went on to say in the interview with Stein, that one possibility of the origin of life was that an advanced civilization was able to create life on earth. So extraterrestrials, over 4.5 billion years ago came to our planet, gave life to a cell, and left. We are expected to believe this is a more likely explanation than an Intelligent Designer? If ridiculous theories like this are accepted by academia without even considering ID, something is truly wrong. Either evolutionists are too proud to admit that there might be other options, or they simply can’t live with the fact that they have moral obligations since there is a God. This is not science. People like Mr. Stein are standing up for those who dare to think outside the commonly accepted scientific box and he is looking for people to help him. Anyone, anyone???

*Hillary Clinton is Constitutionally disqualified for Secretary of State

According to Article II, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Hillary Clinton is disqualified to become the next Secretary of State.  It is unlikely that a little thing like the Constitution will prevent Senate Democrats and the lord-most-merciful Barack Obama from actually appointing her, but she is certainly ineligible.

Article II, Section 6:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Hillary was a member of the Senate last year when President Bush increased the salary of the Secretary of State by approximately $5,000.  Therefore, under this provision, she is ineligible to fill this role.

Historically, some Presidents have gotten around this clause.  For instance, Presidents Nixon and Carter both circumvented the clause and appointed sitting public officials to fill cabinet positions that had received a pay raise during their term in office.  Reagan, however, resisted the temptation to appoint sitting Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court and upheld the Constitutional provision.

What is this, Gotham City?

President-elect Obama is still one week away from inauguration, and he is already facing great (legitimate) scrutiny. His cabinet nominees, which he pledged would be ‘centrist’ and ‘change agents,’ are nothing more than the run-of-the-mill liberals we expected.

Timothy Geithner is probably the most outrageous pick of all. Not only is he yet another recycled Clintonite, we have now learned that Geithner owed over $30,000 of back-taxes to the IRS until November–until he was nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury and quickly paid the debt. Geithner, an acclaimed ‘financial genius’ and supposedly the only one who can get us out of the financial meltdown, wants us to believe that he simply forgot to pay those taxes.

The financial 'genius' who forgot to pay his taxes. Oops!

Obama is ignorantly standing by him:

[Geithner] is the right person to help lead our economic recovery . . . He’s dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence, and distinction. That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes.

Honestly folks? Is anyone buying this?

Other outrageous appointments to the cabinet include Labor Secretary-nominee Hilda Solis. She opposes secret ballots for unions. I know, I know–we’re blowing this out of proportion. But wait, there’s more.

Let’s not forget about Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General under (you guessed it) Bill Clinton. His role in pardoning several terrorists and the Elian Gonzalez abduction need to be more fully investigated.

The (dis)honorable Bill Richardson was originally nominated for Secretary of Commerce by Obama, but has since withdrawn his name in light of a grand jury investigation. Richardson, a Clinton-era U.N. delegate, allegedly exchanged government contracts for campaign donations while Governor of New Mexico.

Secretary of State-nominee Hillary Clinton is also a Clintonite. Go figure. Her ties to the Clinton Global Initiative have hardly been vetted and there’s almost certainly a conflict of interest between the millions of dollars raised by her husband from the very world leaders she will be expected to negotiate with.

Obama’s ‘climate czar’ nominee, Carl Browner, is yet another Clintonite (still waiting on that REAL change). Not only did she delete public records while working at the EPA under Clinton, but just last week she was named as one of the 14 leaders of socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

'The Foxy Commie,' Carol Browner

All I want to know is, where is the hope? Where is the CHANGE I can believe in? This is nothing more than the same old garbage from the Clinton years.

And we know with almost certainty that all of these appointments will be confirmed by the Senate–Obama is too big to fail. Obama cannot make mistakes (until he opposes Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi). The Senate will confirm these goons based on Obama’s ‘honesty, integrity, and charisma.’ If they’re good enough for Obama, they don’t need to be vetted, right?

Where is the HOPE?

This is ugly folks. This is not the centrism or the change we were promised, and he’s not even been inaugurated. If this is hope, I’d rather be hopeless.

24: Premiere Summary & analysis

Background:

The beginning of Season 7 has been one of the most intriguing and anticipated premieres during the show’s tenure. The plot presented in the made-for-t.v. movie 24: Redemption is continuing as Sangali terrorist Chumba continues to commit genocide. Death totals have now reached 200,000.

The season opens with the Senate hearings of Jack Bauer. He is being investigated for alleged ‘illegal acts of torture’ while employed at the Counter-Terrorist Unit (CTU) Los Angeles. His hearing is interrupted by FBI agents who have a subpoena to take him into custody. Jack is then briefed on a new terrorist threat involving the acquisition of a CIP device–the device allows terrorists to hack through important national security firewalls such as infrastructure databases and Air Traffic Control systems. The device was brokered by former CTU agent and close friend of Jack Bauer, Tony Almeida.

Newly elected President Allison Taylor is preparing to launch an invasion into Sangala to stop the Chumba regime and the escalating genocide. However, Chumba’s general, Dubaku, contacts the President and threatens to use the CIP device to invoke mass civilian casualties if the invasion proceeds.

Analysis:

One of the underlying themes of this season is the debate over torture. The season opened with Jack Bauer on trial for ‘illegal acts of torture.’ He made his case to the Senate, maintaining that torture to save American life is not only justified but that it is right. The issue of torture also arose when Tony Almeida, the alleged terrorist, was taken into custody. Now that Jack is working with the FBI, he is operating under a strict no-torture policy. However, he is able to persuade his FBI counterpart, Agent Renee Walker, that enhanced interrogation is sometimes acceptable.

Jack interrogates his brother, Gram, in Season 6

This is a complex, hotly debated issue in America today. President-elect Obama is reportedly making preparations to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, a holding facility for suspected terrorists. Obama is basing his decisions on a belief that all torture is wrong in all situations. He maintains that the actions at Guantanamo have defaced America’s reputation in the world and he intends to change that. Again, torture is a complex issue as is the issue of Guantanamo itself. However, Obama has not spent a single day in the Oval Office and has no idea what he would or would not be willing to do if millions of American lives were at stake. Even if he could formulate a position and maintain it (at any cost), it is altogether naive, irresponsible, dangerous, and unpresidential to tell the world/terror groups what he would or would not do. He has shown his cards–but is he bluffing?

In the end, there is no easy answer to the torture issue. But it is important to understand that the torture debate is, at its heart, a dialog on freedom. Is torture a violation of due process? Is torture a violation of human rights? Some allege that torture is morally acceptable, but refute it on the principle of liberty–based on the principle that liberty should never be sacrificed for security. Of course, should security cease to exist, the issue of freedom will be moot.

Jack is Back!

After nearly two years in exile, Jack Bauer and 24 are back on FOX!

The show is an unprecedented phenomenon in America, obtaining several mentions during the Presidential Campaing of 2008.

In an early Republican Primary debate, the candidates were asked what they would do if a nuclear bomb was discovered on American soil. Congressman Tom Tancredo quickly replied, “I’m lookin’ for Jack Bauer at that point!”

In another debate, Senator John McCain was asked for his position on torture, an issue that he knows about first-hand. He quickly rebuttled, “Life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. We are Americans. We do not torture.” McCain also made a cameo appearance on the show in 2005 during Season 4.

During the heat of the Presidential Campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, McCain was asked by reporters what he thought of 24 President David Palmer, God rest his soul, the first African-American President to ever be shown on television.   McCain passively (and ironically) answered that he thought Palmer was a great President and knew how to make tough choices.

He’s fabulous. He’s a guy who makes tough decisions, he takes charge, he’s ready to sacrifice his interest on behalf of the interest of the country.

This is an ironic statement, considering Palmer authorized torture on several occasions–something that McCain clearly opposes.  However, McCain is right.  Palmer was a terrific President who kept the country safe and made seemingly impossible decisions

The show kicked off its 7th season this past Sunday night with a 2-hour premiere.  The premiere continued with 2 more hours on Monday night.  It continues to make a significant impact on the dialog of Americans and the American media.

Stay tuned to 24 as Jack Bauer continues to fend off terror and insert himself in the real history of America.  Also stay tuned right here at LE as we make real-life applications and analysis as this season unfolds.

Well Played, Senator Burris…

I will give him this much… Roland Burris is already an excellent politician.

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich

When Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges in early December, nearly everything around him fell apart. Illinois politicians from both sides of the aisle wasted no time in joining Blagojevich’s opposition, calling for an immediate resignation and deferment of appointment powers. Despite mounting pressure, Blagojevich quickly posted bond and returned to work in the Illinois State Capitol. Regardless of public opinion, Blagojevich maintained that he (and only he) held the legal authority to appoint Barack Obama’s Senate replacement. His adamant nature seemed in vain, however, as Democratic Senators promised that Blagojevich’s appointment would never sit a single day in the United States Senate…

…Until Roland Burris entered the picture.

Blagojevich challenged his critics on Decemeber 30, when he appointed former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the United States Senate. Democrat politicians held true to their word and immediately criticized the appointment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) responded to the appointment saying, “Anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic caucus.” The Democrat leaders seemed ready to fight Blagojevich’s appointment…

…Until Roland Burris fought back.

(L to R) Senator Durbin, Senator Burris, and Senator Reid

Needless to say, the majority of America opposed the appointment of Roland Burris. Politicians from both sides of the aisle chastised Blagojevich for failing to cede his appointment powers. This discontent was evident when United States Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson denied Burris’ certificate of appointment to the Senate. According to Erickson, an existing Senate Rule required that the signatures of both the state’s governor and the state’s Secretary of State be on a certificate of appointment. Despite Blagojevich signing Burris’ appointment, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White refused to sign the certificate. Senator Reid and Senator Durbin both came out in support of Secretary Erickson’s decision and for the time being it seemed that Burris would meet his predicted fate…

…Until Roland Burris lawyered up.

Burris’ attorneys immediately filed an appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled that an appointment certificate can be deemed valid even if the state in question’s Secretary of State has not signed the document. As the arguments against Burris’ faded away, the Democrats who had previously opposed his admission to the Senate were suddenly converted. The Democratic caucus, which had initially provided a virtual guarantee that Burris would not be admitted to the Senate, accepted the idea that Burris would serve. Instead of reporting that Blagojevich’s appointment would be admitted, the Democrat leaders announced that they had investigated Burris’ credentials and found him fit to serve in the United States Senate. What they fail to add is that Roland Burris would have been seated as the Junior Senator from Illinois even if they had not found him fit to serve.

Blagojevich won the appointment battle (then consequently lost the impeachment battle), and the Democrats were forced to publicly change their minds. The American public believed that Blagojevich’s appointment would never serve in the United States Senate…

…Until Roland Burris taught America a lesson in politics.

sk.