Here are a few from Journey, one of the few true stage bands out there:
Lovin', Touchin', Squeezin'
Wheel in the Sky
Just the Same Way
Getting more personal than I usually do on this blog I'll confess that the first day I heard this song was the day after I lost my virginity, so the lyrics had a very special resonance with me.
Feeling That way
And for your consideration the cast of Glee (the new drama by Ryan Murphy - the demented genius who gave us Nip/Tuck) performing Don't Stop Believing.
At the end of this clip you see the cheerleading coach watching the glee club practice. She will vow to bring the singers down in future episodes.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Here are a few from Journey, one of the few true stage bands out there:
Friday, May 29, 2009
Governor Sarah Palin (By the grace of God the next president of the United States) gave a speech to the Vanderburgh County Right to Life banquet in Evansville, Indiana. This is what Mrs. Palin sounds like when she isn't constrained by McCain campaign talking points.
From the Washington Times:
Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.
The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments.
Judge Sotomayor's demeanor on the bench will be one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee tackles when she appears for her confirmation hearing. A lack of a good temperament has been used as a line of attack against nominees in the past - most notably conservative Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated.
I would much rather a radical left-wing judge be a raging asshole who will alienate her colleagues on the Court than have her be a friendly, reasoned and persuasive person.
Right now the court has four reliable liberal activists, four reliable conservative originalists and one swing vote (Kennedy) who has recently made a sharp turn to the right.
Kennedy's rightward turn is tied to the retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Apparently Kennedy and Rehnquist deeply disliked each other and this personal feud led Kennedy (who is far from the sharpest knife in the High Court's drawer) to reflexively align himself against the conservative Rehnquist.
With Mr. Rehnquist no longer on the court Mr. Kennedy has returned to the center-right position which apparently is his natural judicial philosophy.
Anthony Kennedy is the sort of person that Sotomayor naturally hates. He is more or less conservative and not terribly bright. If Sotomayor antagonizes him it could very well drive him into alignment with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
If this happens the tone of the Court could move from generally conservative to hard-core conservative with little Barry completely unable to do anything about it (other than assassinate Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas - which he might well be capable of, he is from Chicago after all).
It would be a rich irony if Obama's first Supreme Court pick were to have the exact opposite effect than what he and his supporters were hoping for.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Rick Moran writes in American Thinker:
Doug Ross and Joey Smith are doing a helluva job in researching the data on the Chrysler dealer closings story. And in typical internet fashion, the story now has some legs and is being addressed by other outlets.
Notably, World Net Daily - sometimes not the most reliable of sources - has a piece of straightforward reporting where they scanned the 789 dealers being closed, matched the donations to presidential candidates, and discovered the following:
$450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton;
$2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.
What does this mean?
It could mean nothing. It is a given that a large percentage of dealers - small businessmen - are Republican to begin with. Liberal poll expert Nate Silver pegs the percentage at 8-1 which matches up pretty well with what Doug and others have found. Nate was looking at donors to political campaigns from all car dealers and that shakes out to be overwhelmingly GOP.
Therefore, it is probably useless to try and make a case based on the amount of monies donated to the two parties. What is needed is an analysis of which dealers were allowed to stay open and whether they benefited from GOP dealers that were closed..Doug Ross came up with some interesting coincidences based on his analysis of one dealership group owned by prominent Democrats where their dealerships were all allowed to stay open while neutral or GOP donor dealerships were closed. He made this connection in three separate territories where the Democratic auto group - RLJ - operated.
This is compelling but still not enough evidence. In the end, what is needed is solid information about who exactly made the individual decisions to close the dealers.
We know it wasn't the bankruptcy judge. We also know that the criteria for closing announced by Chrysler is not being followed. In dozens of cases, profitable dealers are being closed for no apparent reason.
So if the judge and Chrysler had little or no say in who was being torpedoed, that leaves the White House auto task force shoving these decisions down Chrysler's throat. So far, Chrysler has remained quiet. But eventually, they are going to have to say something in response to the building pressure put on them by dealers who think they are being treated unfairly and a media that may be getting more curious.
Go read the rest, it is worth your time.
Does anyone out there, even you lefties, doubt that Obama and his henchmen are fully capable of doing something like this?
Of course the narcissist-in-chief would see this as a chance to punish political enemies and reward political allies. He is a CHICAGO machine politican.
How could he look at the world any differently?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
That means that YOU are listening!
God save us from liberal "empathy." After President Barack Obama announced his empathetic Supreme Court nominee this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, we found out that some people are more deserving of empathy than others.
For example, Judge Sotomayor apparently "empathized" more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.
Let's hope she's as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.
In the now-famous firefighters' case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.)
But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions.
Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers' unions that routinely produce students who can't read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools -- and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students' lives.
Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!)
So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one.
Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.
The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either -- citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That's the sort of sophistry we're taught in law school.)
Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming -- as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC -- that she was merely applying "precedent" to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.
This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.
To be sure, there is "precedent" for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn't telling: The lower court's dismissal of the firefighters' case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, "Talk to the Hand."
Not only that, but Sotomayor's fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an "empathetic" fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court's denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case "raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit -- and indeed, in the nation."
A "case of first impression" means there's no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, "second impression."
If it were merely "empathy" that explained liberal judges' lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.
But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim.
Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more "empathetic" than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada.
After aggressively blocking Estrada's nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush's first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court -- according to Senate Democrat staff memos -- now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!
If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic -- an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras.
Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because "he happens to be named 'Estrada' does not give him a free ride."
The truth is liberals couldn't care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on "Good Morning America" Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales.
"Empathy," in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power.
Sonia Sotomayor is a racist an a judicial activist with no respect for the law. She will willingly violate her oath to uphold the constitution and Obama and the Democrat party would not support her otherwise.
This makes us wonder what George H.W. Bush was thinking of when he made her a federal judge.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
Demonstrators outside the court yelled "shame on you!"
The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.
The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."
They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."
The California Supreme Court set aside their own personal beliefs and values and applied the state constitution as written!
This must be another sign of the Apocalypse.
Monday, May 25, 2009
That 2girls1cup (the video that makes you wonder if you can unsee something) went viral and that making and posting reaction videos is THE fad sweeping the nation?
And here I was thinking that the country was fraked up because people were watching American Idol and Survivor!
And at last. . .
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Here are parts 2-4 of former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the American Enterprise Institute (part 1 can be seen here):
This nation owes Mr. Cheney a great debt. His speaking up and standing for the truth has rocked the administration and put Obama seriously off his game. Cheney's almost single-handed defense of the Bush administration's extremely successful national security policies (coupled with Nancy Pelosi's almost unbelievably stupid performance in "briefing-gate") has put little Barry and his lickspittle spokesmen and surrogates onto the defensive and given his opponents (otherwise knows as patriotic American who don't want to see their nation driven into the ground like a tent peg) the chance to delay or even derail his plans to nationalize the auto industry and the health care industry.
This is why the left is so eager to shut Mr. Cheney up and to convince Republicans that he is harming them politically.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Mark Steyn on gets with the program, or programs as the case may be:
I was in Vermont the other day and made the mistake of picking up the local paper. Impressively, it contained a quarter-page ad, a rare sight these days. The rest of the page was made up by in-house promotions for the advertising department's special offer on yard-sale announcements, etc. But the one real advertisement was from something called SEVCA. SEVCA is a "nonprofit agency," just like The New York Times, General Motors and the state of California. And it stands for "South-Eastern Vermont Community Action."
Why, they're "community organizers," just like the president! The designated "anti-poverty agency" is taking out quarter-page ads in every local paper because they're "seeking applicants for several positions funded in full or part by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)" – that's the "stimulus" to you and me. Isn't it great to see those bazillions of stimulus dollars already out there stimulating the economy? Creating lots of new jobs at SEVCA, in order to fulfill the president's promise to "create or keep" 2.5 million jobs. At SEVCA, he's not just keeping all the existing ones, but creating new ones, too. Of the eight new positions advertised, the first is:
"ARRA Projects Coordinator."
Gotcha. So the first new job created by the stimulus is a job "coordinating" other programs funded by the stimulus. What's next?
That's how they spell it. Like in "Star Wars" – Luke Grantwriter waving his hope saber as instructed by his mentor Obi-Bam Baracki ("May the Funds be with you!"). The Grantwriter will be responsible for writing grant applications "to augment ARRA funds." So the second new job created by stimulus funding funds someone to petition for additional funding for projects funded by the stimulus.
The third job is a "Marketing Specialist" to increase "public awareness of ARRA-funded services." Rural Vermont's economy is set for a serious big-time boom: The critical stimulus-promotion industry, stimulus-coordination industry and stimulus-supplementary-funding industry are growing at an unprecedented rate. The way things are going we'll soon need a Stimulus-Coordination Industry Task Force and Impact Study Group. By the way, these jobs aren't for everyone. "Knowledge of ARRA" is required. So if, say, you're the average United States senator who voted for ARRA without bothering to read it you're not qualified for a job as an ARRA Grantwriter.
I don't want to give the impression that every job funded by the stimulus is a job coordinating the public awareness of programs for grant applications to coordinate the funding of public awareness coordination programs funded by the stimulus. SEVCA is also advertising for a "Job Readiness Program Coordinator." This is a job coordinating the program that gets people ready to get a job. For example, it occurred to me, after reading the ad, that I might like to be a "Job Readiness Program Coordinator." But am I ready for it? Increasing numbers of us are hopelessly unready for jobs. Ever since last November, many Americans have been ready for free health care, free day care, free college, free mortgages – and, once you get a taste for that, it's hardly surprising you're not ready for gainful employment. I only hope there are enough qualified "Job Readiness Program Coordinators" out there, and that they don't have to initiate a Job Readiness Program Coordinator Readiness Program. As the old novelty song once wondered, "Who Takes Care Of The Caretaker's Daughter While The Caretaker's Busy Taking Care?" Who coordinates programs for the Job Readiness Program Coordinator while the Job Readiness Program Coordinator's busy readying for his job? If you hum it, I'll put in for the stimulus funding.
Oh, and let's not forget the new job of "VITA Program Coordinator." VITA? That's "Volunteer Income Tax Assistance." It's an IRS program designed "to help low- and moderate-income taxpayers complete their tax returns at no cost." The words "no cost," by the way, are used in the new Webster's-defined sense of "massive public expenditure." Whoops, I mean massive public "investment." You might think, were you a space alien recently landed from Planet Zongo, that, if tax returns are so complicated that "low- and moderate-income taxpayers" have difficulty filling them in, the obvious solution would be to make the tax code less complex. But that's just the unfamiliar atmosphere on Planet Earth making you lighthearted and prone to cockamamie out-of-this-world fancies. Put in for a Job Readiness Program, and you'll soon get with the program.
Of course, it's not just "low- and moderate-income taxpayers" who have difficulty completing their tax returns. So do high-income taxpayers like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Tragically, they're ineligible for the "Volunteer Income Tax Assistance" program. Indeed, the treasury secretary seemed under the misapprehension that it was a "Volunteer Income Tax" program, which would be a much better idea. But, being ineligible for VITA, Secretary Geithner was forced to splash out $49.95 for TurboTax and, simply by accidentally checking the "No" box instead of "Yes" at selected moments, was able to save himself thousands of dollars in confiscatory taxation! Oops, my mistake, I meant that, tragically, by being unable to complete his tax return due to a lack of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, Timothy Geithner was the only one of 300 million Americans to pass the Treasury Secretary Job Readiness Program.
SEVCA serves two rural counties with a combined total of a little over 40,000 households. If you wanted to stimulate the economy, you'd take every dime allocated to Windsor and Windham counties under ARRA and divide it between those households. But, if you want to stimulate bureaucracy, dependency and the metastasization of approved quasi-governmental interest-group monopolies as the defining features of American life, then ARRA is the way to go. Oh, you scoff: ARRA, go on, you're only joking. I wish I were. We're spending trillions we don't have to create government programs to coordinate the application for funds to create more programs to spend even more trillions we don't have.
The stimulus will do nothing for the economy, but it will dramatically advance the cause of statism (as Mark Levin rightly calls it). Last week's vote in California is a snapshot of where this leads: The gangster regime in Sacramento is an alliance between a corrupt and/or craven political class wholly owned by a public sector union-bureaucracy extortion racket. So what if the formerly Golden State goes belly-up? They'll pass the buck to Washington, and those of us in nonprofligate jurisdictions will get stuck with the tab. At some point, the dwindling band of citizens still foolish enough to earn a living by making things, selling things or providing services other than government-funded program coordination will have to vote against not just taxes but specific agencies and programs – hundreds and thousands of them.
The bad news is that our children will not enjoy the American Dream. The good news is they'll be able to apply for an American Dream Readiness Assistance Coordination Grantwriter Program. May the Funds be with you!
One of the many reasons America has prospered so greatly is that our freedoms (economic, political and religious) have attracted the brightest and hardest working citizens, or often subjects, of other nations. Mr. Steyn is one such import. Driven out of his native Canada by political persecution (they literally put him on trial for expressing his opinions) he enriches the United States with his wisdom and wit.
(CBS) Canadian Naval helicopters thwarted an attack Friday by pirates in the Gulf of Aden on a U.S. cargo ship, the Maersk Virginia - from the same fleet as the Maersk Alabama, whose captain was held captive for four days in April.
CBS News correspondent Sheila MacVicar is aboard the Canadian warship HMCS Winnipeg, which first responded to a distress call by a Lebanese flagged cargo ship called the Maria K. The crew reported rocket propelled grenade fire from the pirates.
Within minutes, three naval helicopters from the Winnipeg were in the air and on their way to the Maria K, located about 60 miles away. The pirates broke off their pursuit of the Maria K and headed instead for the nearby American ship.
An Italian Naval helicopter joined the Canadian aircraft. With the helicopters hovering overhead, the pirates gave up their attempted hijacking and threw their weapons overboard before their boat was boarded by Italian seamen.
The craft was approximately .75 nautical miles from the U.S. ship before turning away, according to Maersk Lines, Limited, based in Virginia.
Maersk Lines said the Maersk Virginia was not fired upon and that all crewmembers are safe.
I'm glad that both merchant ships are safe but I am left with a question. Why in hell didn't the Canadian and Italian helicopters engage and destroy the pirates on sight?
That is what you do to pirates. You destroy them on sight. The laws and traditions of the sea are unanimous on this for all of recorded history. Whether it was a Phoenician trireme sailing the Mediterranean, a British frigate paroling the Atlantic trade routes in the 18th century or American warships in the opening decades of the 20th century all would attack and destroy pirates on sight.
When did the civilized nations of the world have their balls cut off?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The same day Dick Cheney delivered a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.
But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday morning, indicates that a majority of Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of Cheney.
Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.
In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.
The reason for this is simple. When Mr. Cheney was vice president he had to be bound by the wishes of George W Bush in the way he represented the administration in public. Mr. Bush believed that the partisan back and forth of Washington "politics as usual" were beneath the dignity of the Oval Office and would not participate, or allow his surrogates to participate.
Because Cheney was unable to fire back at his critics the Democrat party and its propaganda organs (the mainstream media) were given carte blanc to define his image before the public.
Now that Mr. Cheney is a free agent he is allowed to speak his mind as he sees fit and the public is being given a chance to evaluate the former vice president based on truth rather than on the far left's lies.
It is natural therefore that the public's opinion of Mr. Cheney is improving since the general public is not made up of barking moonbats who will believe dailykos or Huffington Post over the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
This is why the hard left (also known as elected Democrats and the mainstream media) is falling to the ground in paroxysms of foaming madness over Mr. Cheney's public comments. They know that he is persuasive and that compared to him the Obama administration comes off sounding like the more unstable members of the local college CPUSA chapter.
Since Obama is not likely to be able to realize his fantasy of creating an American GULAG, at least in his first term, and since Dick Cheney will not shut up we can expect his stock to rise - and little Barry's to fall - as time goes by.
And that means that YOU are listening!
How about for next year's graduation ceremony Notre Dame have an abortionist perform an abortion live on stage? They could have a partial-birth abortion for the advanced degrees.
According to liberals, the right to kill babies was enshrined by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution -- and other constitutional rights are celebrated in public.
The right to bear arms is honored in 21-gun salutes, turkey shoots, Civil War re-enactments, firearms demonstrations and, occasionally, at Phil Spector's house.
The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is celebrated at political rallies, tea parties, marches, protests and whenever Keith Olbermann has a fight with his cat.
The free exercise clause is observed in church services, missionary work, peyote-smoking Indian rituals, and for a few days after every time Bill Clinton gets caught having an extramarital affair.
So instead of inviting a constitutional lawyer to yammer on about this purported constitutional right, why not show it being practiced?
How about a 21-vacuum hose (D&C) salute? Maybe have the Notre Dame marching band form a giant skull-piercing fork? How about having the president throw out the ceremonial first fetus, like on opening day in baseball? I'm just brainstorming here, folks -- none of this is written in stone.
Being such a prestigious institution, Notre Dame could probably get famed partial-birth abortion practitioner George Tiller to do the demonstration at next year's graduation. Obama could help -- inasmuch as Tiller the abortionist is a close friend of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
This is a "constitutional right" like no other.
Even its supporters are embarrassed by the exercise of this right. They won't practice the right in public -- they won't even call abortion by its name, preferring to use a string of constantly changing euphemisms, such as "reproductive health" and "choice."
It would be as if gun owners refused to use the word "gun" and the NRA's motto were, "Let's all work together to keep hunting safe, legal and rare."
Liberals were awestruck by Obama's statesmanlike speech at Notre Dame, but whatever he says about abortion is frothy nonsense because we're not allowed to vote on abortion policy in America. If it's a "constitutional right," we can no more vote on abortion than we could vote on free speech.
With Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters ripped the issue out of the democratic process -- limb from limb, you might say -- and declared their desired outcome a "constitutional right." They have hysterically defended that lawless decision for the last quarter-century.
All of Obama's soothing words about joining hands and not demonizing one another are just blather as long as that legal monstrosity remains the law of the land.
Showing his open-mindedness, Obama asked, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles ... without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?" (What do I have to do to get you murderers and you non-murderers to shake hands and be friends?)
A good start would be letting us vote.
Liberals can be all sweet reason as long as their preference for abortion on demand is lyingly called a "constitutional right," immutable to the tiniest alteration by the voters.
In the minuscule areas where abortion policy can be affected, Obama has shown his passion for compromise by always taking the most extreme pro-abortion position.
On his third day in office, Obama overturned the "Mexico City Policy," which prohibited U.S. taxpayer money from being spent on overseas organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Obama has filled his administration with Planned Parenthood veterans and friends of partial-birth abortionists.
As an Illinois state senator in 2002-2003, Obama repeatedly blocked and voted against the "Born Alive Act," which would have allowed doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions and remained alive, wholly apart from their mothers.
Even the extremist National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League declined to take a position on the bill. The same bill in the U.S. Senate passed unanimously -- and that means that abortion-happy nutcake Barbara Boxer voted for it.
But Obama apparently thought it was important to affirm a woman's critical right to fourth-trimester abortions.
Here's my idea for how we can "live together as one human family," as Obama proposed at Notre Dame: Go ahead, demonize pro-lifers, Obama -- call us "right-wing ideologues." But just once, support one little policy that will save a single unborn child.
The majority of Catholics in America supported Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama to speak and the majority of students at Notre Dame supported the University's decision as well.
The Bible has a name for the minority who opposed Obama's invitation.
The Believing Remnant.
God always retains a remnant who remain loyal to Him regardless of how degenerate the greater society becomes.
"Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him."1 Kings 19:18.
"For out of Jerusalem will go forth a remnant and out of Mount Zion survivors The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 37:32
"Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him And the people showed reverence for the LORD." Haggai 1:12
"Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, " THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;"
"In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice." Romans 11:5
Old Testament or New the genuine believers are always the "remnant" because outside of times of great persecution the majority of those who profess to believe will abandon God the moment the price becomes too high.
At least in ancient Rome the price of faith was being crucified, burned alive or thrown to the lions. In America today all believers face (at least at present) is mockery from worthless left-wing trash like Perez Hilton (dumb bitch!), Barack Obama (bitter clingers) and Keith Olbermann (everything he has ever said).
I have some sympathy for those in the 1st century who renounced Christ because the alternative was seeing their children torn apart by dogs in the arena. I have nothing but contempt for these today who turn their backs on the Lord to avoid snark from oxygen thieves like Rachel Madow and Genine Garofalo.
Karl Rove on B. Hussein Obama:
Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.
For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.
He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.
These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.You have to admit that Rush Limbaugh called this on. He said, before the election, that if Obama won that there would be no withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. Once the war belonged to Obama he would not lose it and have that defeat hanging around his neck come 2012.
Democrats were eager to have the US lose the war when Bush was president and could be blamed for the defeat but now that they own the war and can claim credit for success they will give the finger to their lunatic fringe and attempt to produce a victory.
They will not do this out of any genuine sense of patriotism (they have none) or out of any genuine hatred of our Islamofascist enemy (they feel a certain kinship with the Islamofascists, after all the Islamofascists hate the same things that the American left hates - America, Israel, Christians, Jews, Capitalism, freedom). The Democrats will base their actions solely on the political calculation that their opposition to the Vietnam War gave their party an anti-military image which has done them long term damage.
As for closing Gitmo Obama wants to do it but the adults in the CIA, FBI, Defense Dept. and Congress are putting their foot down (Limbaugh predicted this too, BTW). The simple fact is that we can't try them in open court because doing so would give away too much of our intelligence gathering methods and capabilities and no other country will take them (unless it is to toss them into a cell, torture them and then put them to death - which we, for reasons I don't understand, have some kind of problem with).
Rove then goes on to talk about the bad:
We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.
Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.
However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.
On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."
Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.
In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.
Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.
Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.
Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.Obama, or to be more accurate Mr. Obama's string pullers - you know the people who put the words on his teleprompter, could not get elected by running as a radical neo-marxist. So they crafted for him what has to be one of the greatest political swindles in the history of the world. They managed to get him to the right of his Republican opponent on economic issues, especially taxes.
Of course this would not have been possible if Obama had been facing a halfway competent GOP challenger. But the hapless RINO John McCain is incapable of offering criticism of anyone other than a fellow Republican so Hussein was able to fool a majority of the voting public into believing that he was going to cut their taxes.
The truth is that Obama is the most left wing politician to ever sit in the Oval Office. In less than six months in office he is well on his way to nationalizing the banking and credit industry, the auto industry and the health care industry.
This is all according to plan and it shows us were Obama's true interests lie. Give on national security in order to preserve the leftward push on domestic matters. Because the transformation of the American economy from free market capitalism to Marxist central planning is the key to the establishment of a permanent governing class.
And that is the goal which the left eternally lusts after, to entrench themselves into absolute and unchallenged power. The shape of the world to come if Obama, and more importantly the people whom he is fronting for, realize their dreams can be seen in current events. The attempt to shut down talk radio, the abuse being heaped on Carrie Prejean and the attempt to criminalize policy differences with the previous administration. All of these things represent a desire to go beyond mere electoral victory and achieve not just the defeat of their opponents but their utter destruction.
This inability to tolerate the bare existence of opposition is ever and always the hallmark of the tyrant. The opponent must not just be overcome he must be eliminated. The signs at the beginning of the journey with someone like Obama always say "This Way to Utopia" but the signs at the end of the trip always have names like Berglag, Gorlag, Majdanek and Sobibor.
2010 and 2012 offer chances to get off the train. Will we be wise enough to avail ourselves of the opportunity?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Byron York writes in The Washington Examiner:
The Republican strategist who helped Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman prepare for a possible presidential run says the Republican party is in for a devastating defeat if its guiding lights are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. "If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout," says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain. "That's just the truth."
Huntsman, a favorite of GOP moderates, left the Republican presidential race last week after accepting President Obama's offer to become U.S. ambassador to China. Before that, Huntsman appeared to be working hard on preparations for 2012. "He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run," says Weaver. "We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road."
All you really need to know is that Weaver was a "close adviser to Sen. John McCain" and that Huntsman, the man that Weaver thought would make the ideal presidential candidate took a job in the Obama administration.
Let's look at a bit of history. In 2008 the man whom the "moderate" wing of the Republican party regarded as its standard bearer, its very model and ideal - John McCain - gained the Republican nomination.
The result? He went down to defeat at the hands of a half-smart, half-Marxist, no-nothing, done-nothing with zero executive experience who only won the Democrat nomination because he happened to be half-black.
The only time that there was any energy and enthusiasm for the McCain campaign was when he chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
If the John McCain style Republican represents everything the party needs to win elections then why was McCain unable to draw a large and enthusiastic crowd unless he had Palin by his side?
Let's look at another "moderate" Republican who is held out as an example by the RINO wing of the party. Colin Powell. Powell, you will remember, got exactly the candidate he tells the Republican party that it needs to win elections in John McCain and his response was to endorse B. Hussein Obama.
History, from Ronald Reagan's two landslide victories to John McCain's humiliating defeat, teaches us one clear lesson. In a head-to-head race between a conservative and a leftist the conservative wins.
The only remaining question is this. Are these GOP "moderates" really that shit-all stupid or do they actually want the Republican party to remain an ever shrinking minority?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
That means that YOU are listening!
Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.
Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching "The West Wing" and all movies starring Julia Roberts.)
But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.
This apparent contradiction incites violent anger in liberals, triggering their famous "fight or flight" response. So liberal masturbators are, once again, launching furious attacks on a beautiful Christian in a fit of pique similar to the one directed at Joan of Arc.
First, the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants. Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news.
Next, a photographer released a single cheesecake photo of Prejean. This prompted liberal reporters who have never met a Christian to proclaim that Christians were outraged by the photo. Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)
Then on Monday some genuine "semi-nude" photos were released. These were not what we'd call appropriate for a Christian. In a curiously similar attack, the left's final attempt to destroy Paula Jones was to lure her into appearing naked in Penthouse magazine. Oh well.
Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.
This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.
Finally (so far, anyway), reporters gleefully released the divorce records of Prejean's parents. Because when you want the truth, what is more reliable than angry accusations traded in the middle of an acrimonious divorce?
Liberals used the divorce papers to argue that Prejean had some deep-seated psychological disturbance causing her to oppose gay marriage. Symptoms of this debilitating illness include a belief in some sort of "god" and a reverence for the Bible.
It's not as if Prejean's special talent in the Miss USA contest was to perform an opposite-sex marriage. (Or, as the president and I call it, "marriage.") She didn't even volunteer her "controversial" views on marriage. Rather, she was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and gave it -- in an answer wrapped in so many layers of sugar it took 10 minutes to get to the point.
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."
What a vicious hate-monger! Any second there I was expecting her to bust out a "by golly!" or an "oh my gosh!" Angry gay-marriage supporters should be happy they didn't get my version of that answer. It contains some terms you won't find in your Bible.
Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate.
From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.
You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.
I'm not sure we needed a psychological profile of Prejean to figure out why she holds the same position on gay marriage as: the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and his mistress, and the vast majority of the American people.
But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx.
From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It's the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision.
The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male's bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity.
Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn't care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her.
One small quibble have with Miss Ann is to note that Miss Prejean's "inappropriate" photos were taken before she became a Christian.
Christians understand that before we are saved we are "of our father the devil and the desires of our father we want to do" (John 8:44). Like John Newton, who was once the captain of a slave ship but went on to become a pastor and author of the most beloved hymn in all Christendom, Amazing Grace, Miss Prejean is a "new creature" whose "old things are passed away" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Carrie Prejean, like all other Christians is not perfect, only forgiven.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is considering California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court.
An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood—people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.
I know someone with DHS who believes that Napolitano is a shoe-in for the job. His reasoning is that the borderline retarded Napolitano is a near daily embarrassment to the Bamster but as only one loony-left voice along with the other three on the High Court she would be more anonymous.
This could very well true, but I still hold out some small hope that some little corner of Obama's scrunched up little soul doesn't hate America enough to do this.
From The Politico:
President Barack Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning — the debate over Miss California’s position on gay marriage.
At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s.
“It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”
In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump’s statement, telling reporters: “The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.”
In the final round of the Miss USA pageant, Prejean told judge Perez Hilton: “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.”
Mr Trump and Miss Prejean are both correct. Barack Obama did express almost exactly the same views during the primaries. If this causes Perez Hilton to think that Carrie Prejean is a "dumb bitch" I wonder if he also thinks that Barack Obama is a "dumb nigger" for believing the same thing?
Did Mr. Hilton want to run up on the stage when Obama was being sworn in and slap the bible out of Chief Justice Roberts' hand?
The fact is that I don't remember hearing anything about Perez Hilton launching an obscene tirade, or any other type of criticism, against Obama when he defined marriage in exactly the same way as Miss Prejean.
So how about it Hilton. Are you just going to spew your venom at a 22-year-old beauty pageant contestant when she didn't say anything different than the President? Let's hear you use the same kind of language to describe President Obama.
Or are you a disgusting, filthy coward afraid to go after anyone who you think might be able to fight back?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tonight we bring you three versions of the Frankie Goes to Hollywood video for their massively popular song Relax.
This is often identified as the original version because it saw heavy play on MTV and NBC's Friday Night Videos and preceded the following version which was taken from the Brian De Palma movie Body Double. Fair warning, don't watch this if you are likely to be offended by seeing Melanie Griffith's naked rear end.
this was sometimes labeled "Version Two" when it aired but it was actually the third version of the video to be produced. The actual "original version" was shown only a few times on the BBC before being banned (the record was also banned from the radio after a DJ bothered to actually listen to the words - the record was stopped literally in mid play).
Here, for the first time on this blog, is the "banned" version of Relax. Fair warning! Don't watch this if you are likely to get freaked out by something that is gayer than a Perez Hilton vlog.
This video is said to feature several well known gay celebrities including Angus Young from AC/DC, and Freddie Mercury from Queen.
Here are the lyrics:
Relax don't do it
When you want to go to it
Relax don't do it
When you want to come
Relax don't do it
When you want to come
When you want to come
Relax don't do it
When you want to to go to it
Relax don't do it
When you want to come
Relax don't do it
When you want to suck to it
Relax don't do it
When you want to come
Come-oh oh oh
But shoot it in the right direction
Make making it your intention-ooh yeah
Live those dreams
Scheme those schemes
Got to hit me
Hit me with those laser beams
Relax don't do it
When you want to go to it
Relax don't do it
When you want to come
Relax don't do it
When you want to suck to it
Relax don't do it (love)
When you want to come
When you want to come
When you want to come
Get it up
The scene of love
Oh feel it
Monday, May 11, 2009
I was talking to a friend the other day and he mentioned hearing that the Obama regime was attempting to seize Smith and Wesson. It should be noted here that S&W is doing very well financially due in large part to the public's fears of what sort of new gun control laws Obama and the Democrat controlled congress will force upon the nation.
I wanted to bring this story to the attention of my readers so I searched for it and could only find this on a blog called Jumping in Pools:
The problem is that there is no link back to any news story or even any mention of a source. Now on the one hand this sort of has the feel of an Internet rumor. But the friend I was talking to gets his news mostly from the cable news channels, especially FOX, not from surfing conspiracy blogs and he's smart enough to have a well tuned BS detector.
Seemingly in line with other corporate seizures, the United States government appears to be attempting to gain a majority stake in prominent firearms company Smith & Wesson.
Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest weapons companies in the United States, is currently on sound economic footing. However, a clause in the 2009 Stimulus Bill calls for the federal government to seize industries and companies that are essential to the economy or 'government function.'
The Treasury Department contacted the company in March 2009, asking to buy shares at $10 above market price. However, this offer was sharply rebuffed. Similar offers have been made to Remington.
After this rejection, the Treasury Department has declared that it will use mechanisms in the Stimulus Bill in order to override the corporate decision. Smith & Wesson's board of executives have also been informed that this decision by the Treasury Department could not be appealed to any superior court.
And this is the Obama regime we are talking about. Does anyone seriously doubt that Hussein wouldn't love to get his claws into S&W so that he could announce the new board of directors chaired by Sarah Brady.
If this ever came to pass rather than shut the company down or start selling only to military and law enforcement I think that the Bamster would announce that Smith was going to single-mindedly devote itself to developing practical "smart gun" technology. This would mean that in a couple of years S&W would come out with something that would work as advertised more than half the time and an executive order would be signed instructing the BATFE to only certify as "suitable for sporting purposes" firearms incorporating that technology.
But that is only if the story is true and I can't find anything to confirm or disprove it, even Snopes doesn't have it yet.
If anyone has any information on this I would appreciate hearing from you.
I'm calling this one out as an urban legend. I've seen no mention of it anywhere other than the blog where I found it so unless someone sends me a link to a credible source I consider the matter closed.
Friday, May 08, 2009
From Wiki: Robert Leroy Johnson (May 8, 1911 – August 16, 1938) was an American blues musician, among the most famous of Delta blues musicians. His landmark recordings from 1936–1937 display a remarkable combination of singing, guitar skills, and songwriting talent that have influenced generations of musicians. Johnson's shadowy, poorly documented life and death at age 27 have given rise to much legend.
Considered by some to be the "Grandfather of Rock 'n' Roll", his vocal phrasing, original songs, and guitar style have influenced a broad range of musicians, including Muddy Waters, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Johnny Winter, Jeff Beck, and Eric Clapton, who called Johnson "the most important blues singer that ever lived".He was also ranked fifth in Rolling Stone's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time.
He is an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Johnson's fame among Blues aficionados is established by his guitar work and songwriting. However he is best known in the popular mind because of the legend that he gained his talent by selling his soul to the Devil one midnight at a Mississippi crossroads.
The legend gained some traction due to the recurrent "Devil" theme in Johnson's surviving works. Although only 29 recorded songs survive four of them (13%) feature a "devil" theme. Crossroad Blues, Me and the Devil Blues, Preaching Blues (Up Jumped the Devil) and Hellhound on My Trail all suggest a preoccupation with a Satanic theme.
Johnson is also reported to have fed the legend of the crossroads in personal conversations, however no direct witnesses have ever gone on the record. One other alleged confirmation of the "sold his soul" legend comes from noted bluesman Son House who knew Johnson as a child. House reports that Johnson would follow him around and try, with little success, to copy his guitar style. House then says that he lost contact with Johnson "for a brief time" and that when he next saw Johnson he had achieved an "unmatched technique" with the guitar.
However Johnson biographers have investigated this part of his life have established that the time in which Johnson and House were out of contact was at least two years; enough time for someone with Johnson's innate talent to have begun to develop a distinctive musical style.
Another way in which the "deal with the Devil" legend entered the popular culture was through the movie O' Brother Where Art Thou which featured a character named "Tommy Johnson" who testified that he had sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for mastery of the guitar.
Finally the TV series Supernatural aired an episode titled Crossroads which began with Mr. Johnson playing in a Mississippi juke joint when the "hellhound" came to collect his soul. The episode developed the theme of a demon who shows up a crossroads to make deals for people's souls. The Crossroads Demon has become a recurring character/theme in Supernatural.
Johnson's Death, from Wiki:
In the last year of his life, Johnson is believed to have traveled to St. Louis and possibly Illinois, and then to some states in the East. He spent some time in Memphis and traveled through the Mississippi Delta and Arkansas. By the time he died, at least six of his records had been released in the South as race records.
His death occurred on August 16, 1938, at the age of 27 at a country crossroads near Greenwood, Mississippi. He had been playing for a few weeks at a country dance in a town about 15 miles (24 km) from Greenwood.
There are a number of accounts and theories regarding the events preceding Johnson's death. One of these is that one evening Johnson began flirting with a woman at a dance. One version of this rumor says she was the wife of the juke joint owner who unknowingly provided Johnson with a bottle of poisoned whiskey from her husband, while another suggests she was a married woman he had been secretly seeing. Researcher Mack McCormick claims to have interviewed Johnson's alleged poisoner in the 1970s, and obtained a tacit admission of guilt from the man.
When Johnson was offered an open bottle of whiskey, his friend and fellow blues legend Sonny Boy Williamson knocked the bottle out of his hand, informing him that he should never drink from an offered bottle that has already been opened. Johnson allegedly said, "don't ever knock a bottle out of my hand." Soon after, he was offered another open bottle of whiskey and accepted it, and it was that bottle that was laced with strychnine.
Honey Boy Edwards, another blues musician was present, and essentially confirms this account. Johnson is reported to have started to feel ill into the evening after drinking from the bottle and had to be helped back to his room in the early morning hours. Over the next three days, his condition steadily worsened and witnesses reported that he died in a convulsive state of severe pain—symptoms which are consistent with strychnine poisoning. Strychnine was readily available at the time as it was a common pesticide and, although it is very bitter-tasting and extremely toxic, a small quantity dissolved in a harsh-tasting solution such as whiskey could possibly have gone unnoticed but still produced the symptoms (over a period of days due to the reduced dosage) and eventual death that Johnson experienced.
Other researchers have cast doubts upon this account, but what is beyond dispute is that Johnson died at a young age depriving the world of a major talent.
Here are four of Johnson's songs. The first two are Johnson himself. The first is Hellhound on my trail:
Next is Me and The Devil Blues:
Finally there are two covers of Johnson songs by modern musicians. The first is Eric Clapton and Buddy Guy performing Sweet Home Chicago. The next is Led Zeppelin performing Traveling Riverside Blues:
I love the way Zeppelin captures Johnson's guitar style.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
That means that YOU are listening!
The media wail about "torture," but are noticeably short on facts.
Liberals try to disguise the utter wussification of our interrogation techniques by constantly prattling on about "the banality of evil."
Um, no. In this case, it's actually the banality of the banal.
Start with the fact that the average Gitmo detainee has gained 20 pounds in captivity. There's even a medical term for it now: "the Gitmo gut." Some prisoners have been heard whispering, "If you think Allah is great, you should try these dinner rolls."
In terms of "torture," there was "the attention grasp," which you have seen in every department store you have ever been where a mother was trying to get her misbehaving child's attention. If "the attention grasp" doesn't work, the interrogators issue a stern warning: "Don't make me pull this car over."
Farther up the parade of horribles was "walling," which I will not describe except to say Elliot Spitzer paid extra for it.
And for the most hardened terrorists, CIA interrogators had "the caterpillar." Evidently, the terrorists have gotten so fat on the food at Guantanamo, now they can't even outrun a caterpillar.
Contrary to MSNBC hosts who are afraid of bugs, water and their own shadows, waterboarding was most definitely not a "war crime" for which the Japanese were prosecuted after World War II -- no matter how many times Mrs. Jonathan Turley, professor of cooking at George Washington University, says so.
All MSNBC hosts and guests were apparently reading "Little Women" rather than military books as children and therefore can be easily fooled about Japanese war crimes. (MSNBC: The Official Drama Queen Network of the 2012 Olympics.)
Given what the Japanese did to prisoners, waterboarding would be a reward for good behavior.
It might be: waterboarding PLUS amputating the prisoner's healthy arm, or waterboarding PLUS killing the prisoner. But waterboarding on the order of what we did at Guantanamo would be a reward in a Japanese POW camp.
To claim that the Japanese -- architects of the Bataan Death March -- were prosecuted for "waterboarding" would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.
What the Japanese did to their POWs made even the Nazis blanch. The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners' healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded; and injected them with chemical weapons in order to observe, time and record their death throes before dumping them in mass graves.
While only 4 percent of British and American troops captured by German or Italian forces died in captivity, 27 percent of British and American POWs captured by the Japanese died in captivity. Japanese war crimes were so atrocious that even rape was treated as only a secondary war crime in the Tokyo trial, similar to what happens during an R. Kelly trial.
The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."
The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.
Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.
Or they would "waterboard" the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.
Meanwhile, the alleged "torture" under the Bush administration consists of things like:
-- "failing to respect a Serbian national holiday"; or
-- "forgetting to wear plastic gloves while handling a Quran."
Finding out who started the tall tale about "waterboarding" being treated as a war crime after World War II would take the talents of a forensic historian, someone like Christina Hoff Sommers.
After years of hearing the feminist "fact" that emergency room admissions for women beaten by their husbands soared by 40 percent on Super Bowl Sundays, Sommers traced it back to an unsubstantiated rumination erupting from a feminist rap session.
But the lunatic claim was passed around with increasing credibility until it ended up being cited as hard fact in The New York Times, The Boston Globe and on "Good Morning America."
One of the earliest entries in the "waterboarding as war crimes" myth must be this October 2006 article in The Washington Post, citing a case raised by Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- and heaven knows Kennedy understands the horrors of a near-drowning:
"Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk."
Even if that description of what Asano did were true -- and it isn't -- the only relevant word in the entire paragraph is "civilian."
Any mistreatment of a civilian is a war crime. So every other part of that paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the treatment of prisoners of war, much less non-uniformed enemy combatants at Guantanamo, who could have been shot on sight under the laws of war.
What Americans need to understand is that under liberals' own "laws of war," they will invent apocryphal incidents from history in order to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to undermine those who kept us safe for the past eight years.
Just when I think I can't feel any more contempt for the left. . .
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Narsilion - Beltane
Beltane is the anglicized spelling of Bealtaine (Irish pronunciation: [b-al-t-ən-ə]) or Bealltainn (Template:IPAgd) the Gaelic names for either the month of May or the festival that takes place on the first day of May.
In Irish Gaelic the month is known as Bealtaine and the festival as Lá Bealtaine ('day of Bealtaine' or, 'May Day'). In Scottish Gaelic the month is known as either an Cèitean or a' Mhàigh and the festival is known as Latha Bealltainn or simply Bealltainn.
As an ancient Gaelic festival, Bealtaine was celebrated in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. There were similar festivals held at the same time in the other Celtic countries of Wales, Brittany and Cornwall. Bealtaine and Samhain were the leading terminal dates of the civil year in Ireland though the latter festival was the most important. The festival survives in folkloric practices in the Celtic Nations and the diaspora, and has experienced a degree of revival in recent decades.
For the Celts, Beltane marked the beginning of the pastoral summer season when the herds of livestock were driven out to the summer pastures and mountain grazing lands. Due to the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, Bealltainn in Scotland was commonly celebrated on the 15th of May while in Ireland Sean Bhealtain / "Old May" began about the night of the 11th of May. The lighting of bonfires on Oidhche Bhealtaine ('the eve of Bealtaine') on mountains and hills of ritual and political significance was one of the main activities of the festival. In modern Scottish Gaelic, Latha Buidhe Bealtuinn ('the yellow day of Bealltain') is used to describe the first day of May. This term Lá Buidhe Bealtaine is also used in Irish and is translated as 'Bright May Day'. In Ireland it is referred to in a common folk tale as Luan Lae Bealtaine; the first day of the week (Monday/Luan) is added to emphasise the first day of summer.
In ancient Ireland the main Bealtaine fire was held on the central hill of Uisneach 'the navel of Ireland', one of the ritual centres of the country, which is located in what is now County Westmeath. In Ireland the lighting of bonfires on Oidhche Bhealtaine seems only to have survived to the present day in County Limerick, especially in Limerick itself, as their yearly bonfire night, though some cultural groups have expressed an interest in reviving the custom at Uisneach and perhaps at the Hill of Tara. The lighting of a community Bealtaine fire from which individual hearth fires are then relit is also observed in modern times in some parts of the Celtic diaspora and by some Neopagan groups, though in the majority of these cases this practice is a cultural revival rather than an unbroken survival of the ancient tradition.
Another common aspect of the festival which survived up until the early 20th century in Ireland was the hanging of May Boughs on the doors and windows of houses and the erection of May Bushes in farmyards, which usually consisted either of a branch of rowan/caorthann (mountain ash) or more commonly whitethorn/sceach geal (hawthorn) which is in bloom at the time and is commonly called the 'May Bush' or just 'May' in Hiberno-English. Furze/aiteann was also used for the May Boughs, May Bushes and as fuel for the bonfire. The practice of decorating the May Bush or Dos Bhealtaine with flowers, ribbons, garlands and colored egg shells has survived to some extent among the diaspora as well, most notably in Newfoundland, and in some Easter traditions observed on the East Coast of the United States.
Bealtaine is a cross-quarter day, marking the midpoint in the Sun's progress between the spring equinox and summer solstice. Since the Celtic year was based on both lunar and solar cycles, it is possible that the holiday was celebrated on the full moon nearest the midpoint between the spring equinox and the summer solstice. The astronomical date for this midpoint is closer to May 5 or May 7, but this can vary from year to year.
Placenames in Ireland which contain remnants of the word 'Bealtaine' include a number of places called 'Beltany' - indicating places where Bealtaine festivities were once held. There are two 'Beltany's in County Donegal, one near Raphoe and the other in the parish of Tulloghobegly. Two others are lcoated in County Tyrone, one near Clogher and the other in the parish of Cappagh. In the parish of Kilmore, County Armagh, there is a place called Tamnaghvelton/Tamhnach Bhealtaine ('field of the Bealtaine festivities'). Lisbalting/Lios Bealtaine ('fort or enclosure of Bealtaine') is located in Kilcash Parish, County Tipperary. Glasheennabaultina ('the Bealtaine stream') is the name of a stream joining the River Galey near Athea, County Limerick.