A Modest Proposal

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of gender struggles.

Men of the world, it is time to cast off your chains of oppression and fight the tyranny which imposes its will upon you, denying your right to choose what to do with your own body. For far too long, the unenlightened forces opposed to choice have dictated what ought to be a personal, private decision. No man should be marginalized or treated as a second-class citizen for what he chooses to do with his own body.

Men, it is time to stand up for your innate right to rape! March! Chant! Take to the streets! Demand your rights!

Men, unite to overturn this unconstitutional law which infringes on our right to privacy. The government must not legislate morality. The state must not impose its religious views on others. Who are they to say what is right or wrong for me?

In the first third of a woman’s life, roughly up until her thirtieth birthday, a woman is not fully developed, either physically or mentally. During that time before she reaches full personhood, the state has no interest at all in regulating rape. She should be freely available to any rapist who chooses her. Once a woman reaches the age of thirty, her husband may decide to allow any rapist he wishes to have access to her. Without the husband’s permission, a rapist must show evidence of an urgent need for sexual release before raping a woman of this age. Of course, unmarried women have not reached full personhood and may be raped at any age. Beyond the age of sixty, in order to avoid emotional damage to the rapist, a woman may only be raped after placing a paper bag over her head.

If you don’t believe in rape, don’t do it!

Some will say that I am pro-rape, but that is not the case at all. I am pro-choice. I want rape to be safe, legal, and rare. Even though rape is currently illegal, it still occurs, but it is forced into the back alleys and shadows of society, where rapes are performed in unsanitary conditions which endanger the safety of the rapist. Once rape is legal and brought out into the open, we can take steps to assure that rapists are not injured by coat hanger rapes.

If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a penis?

In addition, we will have the opportunity to encourage men to seek alternatives to rape. For instance, they may decide to alternate between rape and some other outlet such as wife beating, masturbation, or sex with a hired partner.

The benefits of safe, legal rape do not end with the man. Women reap the rewards as well. It is well known that men know what is better for a woman than she knows herself. Without rape, a woman may live her life as a noncontributing drain on society, dependent on the productivity of men, without a quality lifestyle. A rapist is truly doing a woman a favor, in spite of the fact that she is not man enough to recognize it.

Oftentimes women will present irrational arguments against safe, legal rape. They are simply enemies of choice. If you are not a man and have never had the experience of being a rapist, then you simply can not relate to what these men are going through. The decision to rape is a deeply personal matter which often comes at a very difficult and emotional time in a man's life, and if you have never been in his shoes, you have no basis to judge his decision. Although we welcome women to support our cause, any woman who opposes legalized rape is not entitled to an opinion.

Men! You have a right to autonomy and self-determination! Demand your rights!

Be a voice for choice! Keep the US out of my black windowless van!

Men of all countries, unite!

Who is the enemy?

There is one thing that all three candidates for president agree upon: America is facing a dangerous enemy which must be fought and defeated.

The disagreement regards the identity of that menacing threat.

John McCain sees the threat as Islamic Jihad, recognizing the importance of winning each battle in the global War on Terror.

B. Hussein Obama and the lame filly Hillary Clinton want to surrender to the terrorists and turn all of our attention to the real threat facing America: oil companies. The tough talk which McCain directs at those who seek to commit horrific acts of mass murder in American cities is reserved for Exxon, whose crime is running a profitable business.

In Sunday’s lovefest with former Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos, Hillary sounded like she was preparing a military strike on Exxon.

My longer-term plan is, yes, to put an excess profits tax on the oil companies above a certain level of profit. You see, I really believe we've got to start right now demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies. I voted against the big oil giveaway in the 2005 energy bill. My opponent voted for it. I'm on record as taking on the oil companies.

Both of the Democrat candidates want to place a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies because they feel the need to create the perception that they are “doing something” about high gas prices. But instead of addressing the economic conditions driving the price of gas, they resort to demagoguery by conjuring up a villain to blame and meting out punishment on that villain. It’s easier than dealing with the real issues, particularly because revealing the root causes of rising gas prices will show that they themselves are a part of the problem.

The oil companies find oil. They drill for it. They pump it out of the ground. They transport it. They refine it. And they deliver it to the gas station so that we can fill our tanks. They produce a product which keeps our society working. Without them, all economic activity in America would come to a halt in days. For all of that work they make a profit of roughly 16 cents per gallon.

For all their talk of energy independence and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the government has blocked every option to increase domestic oil production. Congress, under pressure from radical environmentalists, has prevented us from drilling for our vast oil resources in ANWR and along the Gulf Coast, or from building any new refineries for more than thirty years. This leaves us trying to meet 2008-levels of demand with 1970-level production capacity.
The same environmentalists have blocked the construction of nuclear power plants for thirty years, in spite of the fact that we now have the technology to build plants which are safer and much cleaner than coal or natural gas. As a result, our natural gas production is consumed to product electricity, when it could be used more effectively to power mass transit – a shift which would both reduce emissions and alleviate some of the demand for gasoline.

Congress’ most recent meddling involves forcing us to use corn for energy rather than for food. Leftist environmentalists have long searched for ways to drive up the price of gasoline in order to force people to drive less. Ethanol is one of their most successful ploys. A gallon of ethanol costs more and powers a car a shorter distance than a gallon of gasoline, and it is not any friendlier to the environment. But reducing the food supply has driven food prices up around the world. As the price of corn is driven up, the price of milk and beef also increases, because cows eat corn. Transportation costs for every product increase as gas becomes more expensive, and the ripple effect drives inflation across the board.

The Government has made a real mess of the energy and food markets, and what do they get for it? While Exxon profits 16 cents per gallon of gasoline, the average Federal and state tax on a gallon of gas is 47 cents.

Hillary and Obama look at this government-created disaster and come to the conclusion that the solution is to tax the oil companies some more. Hillary is saying “Me too” to McCain’s gas-tax holiday gimmick, but substituting a windfall profit tax "to pay for it". Consumers pay the tax regardless of how it is collected or what name it bears, to this proposal is all smoke and mirrors. Obama is running ads showing him walking through a gas station declaring that he will “tax Exxon Mobile’s $40 billion in excess profits.” This is not even intended to address the problem of insufficient domestic oil production. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to rally the economically illiterate voters who make up the bulk of the Democrat base these days to support “their hero” who will stand up for them against the evil “big oil companies.”

Beyond the demagoguery, what will a “windfall profits tax” actually accomplish? It certainly will not bring gasoline prices down. As a rule, when you tax something you get less of it. Perhaps Obama intends to repeal the laws of economics as he imposes his “windfall profits” tax above and beyond the 35% corporate tax rate which Exxon already pays. To discover the results of such a tax it is not necessary to rely on economic theory alone, because we have real-world data. In 1980 the Carter administration slapped the oil industry with a similar “windfall profits tax”. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. If Obama gets his way, oil imports will soar, gas prices will increase even more, and dangerous dictators around the world will increasingly line their pockets with money which may someday buy weapons to use against us. Yet Obama promises to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which he says costs Americans $800 million a day.

Today Exxon is under fire for buying back $2 billion of its own stock instead of adding that money to the $21 billion it will invest in energy research and oil exploration this year. But if oil companies foresee that their profit from new exploration will be expropriated by government, they will certainly invest less, not more, in new production. The windfall tax kills the incentive for oil companies to produce more oil domestically, a necessary step to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring prices down by meeting demand.

Clinton and Obama desperately want to be seen as leaders in establishing a coherent energy policy, but their words and actions are in direct contradiction. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce consuption. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment.

Picking the right battles is a key responsibility of the President. We have a choice to make in November. Will we elect a President who sees a vital American industry as the most pressing threat we must confront? Or will we instead choose a man who is committed to defeat the Islamic militants determined to bring mass murder to American cities once again?

It's a horse race

Hillary has been saying that she is betting on the filly "Eight Belles" in the Kentucky Derby. In the 133-year history of the Kentucky Derby, only 3 fillies have won, a far better track record than females hold in presidential politics.

Clinton, campaigning across the Ohio River in Indiana, said she’s putting her money on the sleek, gray beauty named Eight Belles, who has handsome lineage but crummy odds against 19 competing colts at the Derby.

“I hope that everybody will go to the derby on Saturday and place just a little money on the filly for me,” Sen. Clinton told supporters in Jeffersonville, Ind., ABC News reports. “I won’t be able to be there this year - my daughter is going to be there and so she has strict instructions to bet on Eight Belles.”

“It looks like it could be the year for the girls!” said trainer Larry Jones. “Eight Belles I’m sure would want to endorse Hillary!!!”

Check here to see how that worked out for Hillary. Maybe it is not the year for the girls after all. Could this mirror the presidential race? If betting on a novelty in a horse race is not a winning plan, maybe its not such a great idea in picking the leader of our nation, either.

When pigs fly

I have many things to be thankful for in my life. My relationship with Jesus Christ is by far the biggest. An amazing wife and three great kids are near the top of the list. Friends, being part of a vibrant church, a home to live in, and good health are up there as well. A cool job where I get to design the brains of the next generation fighter jet is down a bit from that. Quite a ways down the list from those things is the fact that I am not a Democrat “superdelegate”.

Right now these Democrat Party elites are between a rock and a hard place. Many are facing a conflict between voting for the person they feel would be the best president, the person who would be best for the party, the person who can actually win in November, and the desires of their constituents. Regardless of how they vote, they will tick off a significant portion of the people who they depend on to re-elect them.

The safest course of action would be to state that they will vote with the majority of their constituents. I think that most people would accept that reasoning.

But just for fun I am going to step into that horrible parallel reality where I am a Democrat superdelegate, one of the chosen few who have been bestowed by The Party with the power to overturn the will of the unwashed rabble who are too dumb to know what they really want. I would feel that it was my duty to cast my vote in a way which would advance my vision for what is best for America, which as a Democrat would mean advancing a Democrat agenda.

But that still doesn’t make it a simple question. I would have to weigh a number of issues: which candidate most closely matches my views? Which candidate would be effective at implementing the Party platform? Which candidate will unify and strengthen the Party? Which candidate has the broadest coattails to help elect Democrats to Congress? Which candidate can actually win the general election?

When I compare the candidates on the issues, there is very little difference. They are both toeing the Party line on taxes, health care, and so forth. Obama reminds us that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and he didn’t, but he wasn’t even in the Senate five short years ago when that vote occurred. In hindsight, both candidates say they would have voted against the war, but we will never know how he would have voted based on the information and political reality of 2003.

In terms of the ability to effectively lead the nation, run the government, and implement Democrat policy, both candidates show a worrisome lack of experience. Neither has a significant track record of success. Obama is green, and not just behind the ears. He arrived on the national scene barely three years ago, and moving into the Senate office building is pretty much the biggest accomplishment on his resume. It is very telling that Hillary is portraying herself as the battle-scarred veteran in this contest. She has ridden her husband’s coattails all the way to her present position. Seven years in the Senate is more than three, and Hillary’s years as First Lady might count for something, but she is still far from confidence-inspiring. Hillary has an edge here, but not much of one.

After this brutal nomination process, the ability to unify the Party and the nation will be important. A few months ago, I would have said that Obama was the one who could do that, as Hillary is a polarizing figure, and Barack seemed to be floating above the mire of politics. Lately, however, he has come crashing to the ground as revelations of his views, his history, and the people he has aligned himself with have contradicted his image as a uniter who transcends political and racial divisions. It would be hard to say that Hillary now has an advantage here, but it is no longer a clear-cut win for Obama. I have heard speculation about Al Gore being the solution, but that would disenfranchise all the voters, not just half. Those people who were excited about the prospect of a black man or a woman as the candidate would all be disappointed if the party elites delivered another fat white guy – especially one who already lost once.

In terms of coattails, there is a stark difference between the candidates. Bill Clinton has been networking for decades, long before he was President, and Hillary used her time as First Lady to expand her own network of political alliances as well as to plug into the network which Bill had already established. Obama, Mr. Johnny-come-lately, can’t come close to matching Hillary’s ability to carry more Democrats into office across the country.

Overriding all of these considerations is the crucial question: who can beat John McCain on November 4? It doesn’t do any good to have the best possible person for the job if he can’t get elected. The polls right now show Hillary having an edge in the matchup against John McCain. In key battleground states, Hillary has a clear advantage. Moreover, the momentum is clearly moving in Hillary’s direction. Barack Obama peaked on Super Tuesday, and has pretty much stalled out since then. Meanwhile, Hillary is surging. Of the ten most populous states, which combined account for half of the nation’s population, Hillary won seven. Nearly a third of Hillary’s supporters say that they would vote for McCain over Obama. Voters nationwide are experiencing “buyer’s remorse” as they begin to see exactly what kind of person Barack Obama really is, and wonder if he can be elected President, and more importantly, if they really want him to be President. I would have to conclude that Hillary is electable and Obama is not.

In the real world where I would never dream of promoting Hillary Clinton, my loyalty is not for sale. But as a Democrat Party Elite, I would be accustomed to the gravy train and all of the perks which my prominent position entitle me to. Knowing what I know about both candidates, I would have to conclude that Hillary would be in a position to offer better swag to thank me for my support. Of course that is negotiable, and I would be open to hear Obama’s offer.

Shortly after Super Tuesday, Obama seemed to be on the roll, and the case could be made that superdelegates who voted for him were expressing the will of the majority of their party. Since then, several key factors have shifted, and I believe that if, heaven forbid, I was a Democrat superdelegate, I would have to vote for Hillary.

The Jive-Talk Express

Yesterday, Obama finally denounced his long-time pastor and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, saying that “The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.”

Just last month he said “I could no more disown him than I could disown the black community.” Essentially he was saying that Jeremiah Wright was so deeply a part of who he was that he could not possibly disown him. So has Obama also disowned the black community? What about his "typical white person" grandmother? Just last month, Obama asked us not to dismiss Wright as a “crank or a demagogue” suggesting that Wright had a valid position worthy of consideration when he embraced theological statements such as:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer and we better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.

That led me to go back to Wright’s speech to the Press Club on Monday to look for the shocking and appalling revelation which would lead to this sudden reversal from the presidential wannabe. Wright, flanked by his Nation of Islam bodyguards, repeated the same things he has been saying from the pulpit and printing in the bulletins week after week. The government created the AIDS virus to kill black people. Our soldiers are the moral equivalent of terrorists. Louis Farrakhan is one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century. These views have been the bread and butter of Wright’s preaching, and it does not pass a sanity test to say that Obama only discovered where his pastor and mentor stood on Monday.

There is nothing in Wright’s recent statements about his own views which is new or surprising to someone who has called Wright his pastor, mentor, friend, and sounding board for twenty years. In his much-heralded speech on March 18, Obama made a play on white guilt when he claimed that segregated churches were to blame for the nation's surprise and shock at what Rev. Wright was preaching. But now Obama pretends to be surprised at it. What is his excuse? Was he sitting in a white-only church for the past twenty years? It was nothing about AIDS or chickens or the US of KKK A or God Damn America or equating US Marines to al Qaeda which drove Obama away from Jeremiah Wright.

Then I found the real cause for Obama to denounce Wright.

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. I do what pastors do. Obama does what politicians do.

Obama didn’t suddenly discover what Jeremiah Wright stood for after twenty years of blissful obliviousness. The reason that Obama must now disown Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with Wright’s fringe beliefs. Obama embraced those views for years. But on Monday, Wright dared to question Obama’s integrity. He said in effect that Obama was distancing himself from Wright for political reasons, not because he disagreed with Wright’s views. This is a devastating revelation for a candidate who has built his campaign on personality, not ideas and asks for our vote on the basis that he is reasonable, thoughtful, measured, a person able to transcend politics and racial divisions. If voters believe that Obama fundamentally disagrees with Wright’s views, they might question his judgment for maintaining a relationship for twenty years. But if voters conclude that Obama secretly agrees with Wright, but is putting on another face to win an election, then all is lost.

It is decades too late for Obama to have any credibility when he weakly asserts “when I say I find Wright’s statements appalling, I mean it.” The only thing Obama is appalled by is the fact that his carefully crafted veneer is being stripped away, revealing the unelectable reality which lies beneath.

Dead is dead

If you are killed by a single gunshot, are you less dead than if you are killed by fifty bullets?

That seems to be the position of the people who are using the death of Sean Bell to incite racial strife.

If you watched the news or read the newspapers in the past week you know that three New York Police Officers were acquitted of shooting Sean Bell to death back in November 2006 as he was leaving his bachelor's party early on the morning of his wedding day. You will know that the officers shot the unarmed man fifty times, and you will have some impression that it was racially motivated. But you won't have enough information to determine if the officers were justified in their actions. For that, you have to do a lot of digging on your own.

Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, and others are making an emotional appeal based on the idea that it was excessive for police to fire fifty bullets. They are ignoring the real issue -- did the police have reason to believe that their lives were threatened?

I've done a lot of training and studying of the laws, rules, and principles of the use of lethal force in self defense. One principle which runs contrary to many people's conceptions is that the requirements for legal use of deadly force are the same for any level of deadly force. There is not a higher standard for me to be justified in using an M-16 to stop an attacker than for using a bolt-action 22. If I have sufficient reason to fear for my life to justify lethal force, any means of lethal force is equivalent (although I am responsible for injury to innocent bystanders). The fact that Sean Bell was about to get married has no bearing on the case, and neither does the number of bullets fired.

For police, the standard is less stringent. Civilians generally have an obligation to retreat before using lethal force. For a police officer it is a part of their job to intervene in dangerous situations and apprehend dangerous people, so they are permitted to brandish a weapon in cases where civilians may not. The legal standard for justifiable self defense is the “reasonable man” standard: would a reasonable man in the given situation, knowing only what the individual knew, believe that his life was threatened by a determined attacker with immediate means and opportunity to kill him?

The media seem completely uninterested in the facts which are necessary to determine if the reasonable man standard was met in this case. I suppose that sensationalism and racial division sell more newspapers and furthers the political agenda of the New York Times better than an honest presentation of all the relevant facts.

Here is what happened on that November night in 2006. Sean Bell and several friends were having a bachelor’s party at a Queens strip club. The club was under surveillance by the police, who were investigating drug trading and prostitution. An undercover officer inside the club heard one of the dancers complain about a customer who was armed. At 4pm Sean and three of his friends left the club, and a fight erupted in the parking lot. It is not clear what the altercation was about, but the undercover officer radioed to her partners parked in a minivan outside that a man said “Yo, get your gun.” Then he and three others got into a silver Nissan Altima and drove away. The Altima drove half a block and then crashed into the unmarked police minivan. The car then backed up onto a sidewalk and nearly struck a police officer, but instead smashed into the front of a store. It then shot forward and again hit the police minivan. At that point, the officers opened fire, killing the driver, Sean Bell, and wounding two other passengers. Two of the three officers who fired their weapons were black.

I don’t have all of the information which was presented at the trial, so I can’t claim to second guess Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Cooperman’s decision to exonerate the officers. But it sounds to me as if the officers had reason to believe that Sean and his friends were armed and that they were using the car as a weapon. In his thirty years on the bench, Judge Cooperman has earned a reputation among both prosecutors and defense attorneys as a knowledgeable, eminently fair judge who calls cases exactly as he sees them. His lengthy decision demonstrates that he carefully and impartially weighed the evidence and testimony and came to a conclusion only after considering all of the available information. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, settled on what was, in his mind, the only just verdict the moment he learned that Sean Bell was black.

I have read the news coverage of this case from the time it happened up to the current reaction to the verdict, and I can’t say for sure if the officers were justified or if they overstepped their bounds. I have no reason to think that the shooting was racially motivated. Firing fifty shots does create a PR problem for the New York Police Department, but it does not create a legal issue, if the officers were justified in firing one shot. I don’t even have enough information to say conclusively if the police officers were responding to a deliberate attack or if the situation was caused by a combination of circumstances, bad timing, bad assumptions, and drunk driving. But I find it illuminating that the Al Sharptons of the world want to ignore the facts and play to emotions in their attempt to paint the police as eager to shoot black people, and that the media are so willing to go along for the ride.

They don't make 'em like they used to

In the past month I have watched all of the big winners from this year's Academy Awards. Overall they were reasonably enjoyable.

No Country for Old Men was my favorite of the bunch, certainly deserving of the Best Picture award. It was a tense, violent, exciting film with a fitting ending. Javier Bardem was superb as the bad guy.

Sweeney Todd was entirely delicious. I’m not a big fan of musicals, but who can resist Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter speculating in song about how pedestrians passing on the street would taste baked into a meat pie?

There Will Be Blood was not bad, although it centered on clichéd stereotypes of the greedy, deceptive oil prospector and compromised pastor.

Juno was by far the lightest and most enjoyable of the bunch, very different from the dark brooding mood of the others. The silly lyrics of the songs got old after a while. But the story was good, and the characters were well-developed. I appreciated the pro-life outlook of the film, which is a rare thing from Hollywood.

3:10 to Yuma was excellent. In the past year or two I have come to appreciate well-done westerns more than I did in the past. Dan Evans is an outstanding character who grows and develops as a father and husband and earns the respect of his son as he demonstrates that his honor is not for sale.

Ratatouille was charming and highly enjoyable – probably the best winner in the short history of the “Best Animated Feature” category.

Michael Clayton didn’t impress me much. Crooked lawyers and corrupt corporations have just been done way too many times.

Atonement was well done, with a complex and non-linear story line which starts out tragically and ends tragically. There was a section in the middle that I found confusing, and never did understand what was going on. It effectively made the point that it is unwise to make assumptions and meddle with things you don’t understand, and that righting past wrongs is better than living with the regrets of leaving them unresolved.

I have not seen Transformers, and I don’t intend to. I can find dozens of better uses for two hours of my life than watching a toy commercial.

While I found most of these films to be good, none rose to the level of great. Apart from Transformers, they did seem to buck the recent trend of substituting special effects and action for plot and character development. I also appreciated that several of the films dared to not provide a happy, feel-good ending. This year’s winners were certainly better than those from recent years.

More and more each year I find that the most effective way to get a really superb movie is to go back forty or fifty years and pick a title which has stood the test of time. It is hard to understand why modern-day Hollywood, with their huge budgets and advanced technology, has so much difficulty producing movies which compare favorably with films made decades ago. Perhaps it is because the expectations of the public have changed. To be a commercial success, movies must be loaded with gratuitous violence, sex, drugs, and foul language. While films used to reflect a moral worldview, the list of films above mirrors society’s nihilism. Or maybe Hollywood is just running out of ideas, and have resorted to remakes and reusing worn-out storylines. There certainly does not seem to be anyone making movies today who can match Alfred Hitchcock as a story teller, nor is there an actor with the stature of James Stewart or Cary Grant.

Some people have the preconceived idea that old movies are dull. I would encourage you to shatter that misconception by watching any of the following film classics.

Double Indemnity
North by Northwest
Lawrence of Arabia
A Witness for the Prosecution
Dial “M” for Murder
Casablanca
Bringing Up Baby
Vertigo

Guide for Bitter Voters

Democrats in rural Pennsylvania, still bitter about the state of the economy, will receive helpful voters’ guides today, published by Obama for America, with tips on how to cast a primary ballot while clinging to a Bible, a gun or both.

“We don’t want anything to stand in the way of your desire to vote for change,” according to the pamphlet distributed at polling places by Obama volunteers. “With a little planning, and flexibility you can cling to your firearm and the Word of God, and still operate a Diebold touchscreen voting machine. Do make an effort to maintain proper trigger discipline.”

Here’s an excerpt from the tract entitled Barack Obama’s Ballot Primer for Bitter Voters:

Rifle or Shotgun Voting Position
Tuck the Bible under your right arm. Use your right hand grip the stock of your shootin’ iron just behind the trigger guard. If you have difficulty supporting the weight of the weapon, rest the upward-pointing barrel on the top edge of the voting machine. This leaves your left hand free for voting, while keeping your trigger finger ready to harvest any wild game that might appear.

Concealed Handgun Voting Position
Slip your dominant hand up under your loose-fitting outer garment, insert the thumb between your body and the grip of your concealed pistol and rest the heel of your hand on the backstrap, keeping your trigger finger in index position alongside the frame of the weapon. Grip the Bible between your chin and collar bone, and vote with your weak side hand.

Muzzle-Loader Position
Let’s face it, you’re going to need two hands free in case you need to reload. So, hold the weapon in the standard rifle-voting position, but grip the Bible between your knees.

Something worth seeing

I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel event at Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth this weekend if anybody wants them. Robbie is going to attempt to jump over 500 Democrats with a bulldozer....

Giving America the finger

There is some ridiculous buzz about B. Hussein Obama giving Hillary the finger in response to Wednesday's very revealing debate which highlighted his tendency to embrace radical leftists who hate America, such as Weather Underground terrorist William Ayres, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Michelle Obama.

To me it looks like an innocent face scratch. But who knows? Maybe it was intentional. And why not? What right-minded person would not relish the chance to flip Hillary the bird on national television for all the harm she wants to do to America.

What we ought to be concerned about is the way that Obama looked America square in the eyes and flipped us off, saying that our bitterness causes us to cling to guns and religion and to anti-illegal immigrant sentiment.

People are bothered by what he said because it reveals that his carefully crafted public image is a sham. Obama presents himself as a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the U.S. Senate. Voting records show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation — nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

But speaking privately to far-left supporters in San Francisco, he let his hair down and revealed what he really thinks of the voters he is trying to woo. His statements are standard far Left rhetoric, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction and opinions different from those of the Left are ascribed to emotions, rather than to legitimate issues that need to be answered. Obama rejects “stereotypes” when they are stereotypes he doesn’t like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about “a typical white person” or “bitter” gun-toting, religious, and racist working-class people sitting on their hands for 25 years waiting for government to rescue them.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification,” when people react adversely to what was plainly said. Obama and his supporters were still busy “clarifying” Jeremiah Wright’s very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to “clarify” Senator Obama’s own statements in San Francisco.

However inconsistent Obama’s words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and embraced the radical, anti-Western Left — whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi, and of course America-hating Michelle Obama.

Obama is part of a long tradition on the Left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the Left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings. Karl Marx said, “The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.” In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda. Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the “detestable” people who “have no right to live,” saying “I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.”

Most famously, Karl Marx called religion "an opiate for the masses." Obama has been caught stealing a play straight from the original leftist. His "uniter, not divider" shtick is not going to fly any more.

Hamas endorses Obama

On Sunday, B. Hussein Obama picked up a key endorsement when WABC radio interviewed Ahmed Yousef, the chief political advisor of the Hamas terror organization.

We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will win the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.

It is good to know that Obama and Hamas see eye-to-eye on changing America. An endorsement from Hamas is tantamount to picking up a Superdelegate, and the best part is that Obama didn't need to compromise his principles or make any commitments beyond what he has already promised to do. Former President Jimmy Carter, wearing his traditional Hamas vest, expressed hope that the support of Hamas would "trigger an explosion of support from the Carter coalition" of global non-governmental organizations seeking change in the U.S.

That explains it

For twenty five years I have been wondering why I am a believer in Jesus Christ and why I own guns. Certainly it must be more than the fact that Jesus is God's Son and the only way to restore our broken relationship with God, radically transforming my life by aligning me with God's purpose for my life. It couldn't be that the Second Amendment is a crucial safeguard of our liberty and that self protection is a responsibility of every free citizen. There had to be an explanation.

I owe a debt of gratitude to B. Hussein Obama, a lifelong opponent of the Second Amendment and a deeply spiritual man, mentored by the America-bashing Jeremiah Wright. He finally helped me to realize that my faith in Jesus and my ownership of a few firearms is a result of my bitterness over the government's failure to rescue me from my miserable economic situation. For twenty-five years, in fact ever since the hapless Jimmy Carter was president, I have been wallowing in hopeless misery waiting for Obama to descend on a glowing cloud, as angel choirs sing, and fix all of my problems.

I see it now. My faith and my Sig are just coping mechanisms to help me deal with the bitterness of my wretched state. Obama is my true savior, and now that he is here at last, all my worries are gone and I can rely on the benevolent government for everything: food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, abortion on demand, protection, and of course a livable minimum wage job.

With Obama as President, you'd better *cling* to your wallet.

Praise be to Obama!

Tax Day

Last year on April 15, I asked the question:

"Are you getting your money's worth?"

Since we pretty much settled that question, this year I am providing a link which will make the annual shafting from the government slightly less painful. We all pay throughout the year, but for many of us, it is never enough to satisfy The Greedy Hand. April 15 comes around and they take more. As I prepare to write the big fat check, at least I have a smile on my face.

The Black Knight -- a perfect depiction of the IRS. I tried it once and scored 84,470. I see on the high score list that others have done much better. Try it out and let me know how you like it.

Remember that in November you will have a chance to do something about taxes by way of the Presidential election, but even more importantly, the Congressional elections.

Now go bash some peasants, and make sure that you don't smack Hillary!

3am

It's three AM.

Or maybe three PM.

Or at least the prop clock next to that God Damned American flag is set to 3:00.

The phone is ringing in the White House.

Somewhere, something is happening.

Who will answer it?

And will they know which end of the phone to talk into?

Highly optimal

Failed radio tycoon Tom Athans, must be up on his latest medical journals.

Athans, founder of failed liberal talk radio ventures Air America, TalkUSA Radio Network, and Democracy Radio, and husband of US Senator Debbie Stabenow, knew exactly how long it ought to take to visit a prostitute.

Police report that Athans entered a room at the Troy Michigan Residence Inn, paid $150 for sex, and left fifteen minutes later. I thought that was a bit quick on the draw, if you know what I mean.

Then I came across a study from the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, a publication I read regularly.

It found that an optimal duration for sexual intercourse was between 3 and 13 minutes. It seems that our hero, Mr. Athans allocated a minute to undress, the optimal 13 minutes for "wham bam", and one more minute to dress, hand over the $150, and mutter "thank you ma'am" as he hurried out.

Closer examination of the study indicates that the 3-13 minutes does not include foreplay, but I suppose that being concerned about the woman's enjoyment doesn't matter much with a hooker.

To coin a phrase

The San Francisco Chronicle had this account of Bill Clinton's tirade at the state convention last weekend:

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."

When he finally wound down, Bill was asked what message he wanted the delegates to take away from the meeting.

At that point, a much calmer Clinton outlined his message of party unity.

"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.

"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."

Bill, all I can say is "I feel your pain."

A winner

According to this poll, Hillary is leading Obama by 9 points in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. Hillary's 50-41 lead is twice the poll's margin of error.

More importantly, in the general election, Clinton beats McCain in crucial Florida 44 to 42, but McCain leads Obama by 9 points, 46 to 37.

In the vital swing state of Ohio, Clinton leads McCain 48 to 39, which the McCain-Obama matchup is a dead heat.

And people thought I was crazy to support Obama as more beatable than Hillary.

My Dem or the highway

Gallop just released a poll which shows that 28% of Hillary's supporters will vote for John McCain if Obama is the Democrat nominee.

Almost as bad for the Dems, 19% of Obama's supporters say they would vote for John McCain if Hillary is the nominee.

Either way, we are looking at a defection of more than 10% of Democrat voters to McCain.

To you Dems:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Misspeaking really fast

Fran Capo holds the world record for fast talking. She spoke 603.32 words in 54.2 seconds. Don't ask me what the last 8/25th of a word was, because I have no idea. To set this record, Capo spoke more than 11 words a second for nearly a minute.

This record has stood since 1986, but now Fran Capo has competition.

Last week, Hillary Clinton told a dramatic tale about her 1996 visit to Bosnia, in which she described landing under sniper fire and running to their vehicles with their heads down to avoid being shot. Video footage of Hillary's arrival has since surfaced, showing Hillary and Chelsea casually strolling across the tarmac, being greeted by an entourage, and listening as an eight-year-old girl read a poem. Now that the truth is out, Hillary really is ducking for cover.

"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.

"Millions" being plural, indicates two or more. If she blabbered nonstop for the entire twenty-four hour period, she would have to speak at a rate of more than 23 words per second to spew two million words. That is more than twice the record-setting pace that Fran Capo could sustain for 54 seconds. No doubt this claim was simply another case of Hillary misspeaking.

It seems that Hillary is very prone to misspeaking.

Perhaps she should slow down and focus on straight talk rather than on fast talk. But it seems that someone has already claimed that territory.

The importance of a pastor

I have been a member of Hulen Street Baptist Church for eight years, and I have known our Pastor, Jim Pannell for as long. It is a privilege to call him a friend and a mentor, as well as a steadfast spiritual leader. He did not perform our marriage, but he did baptize our children. I have not traveled to Libya with him to hobnob with Islamic terrorists, but he has been over to our house for dinner more than once, and my baby son pooped on his family room floor.

Although I have not known him for twenty years, I can say with complete confidence that Jim is not a racist, anti-Semite, or a proponent of class warfare. Neither privately nor in public does he spew profanity-laced rants against America. In fact, I am quite certain that the vision for the purpose and direction of our Church which he voices every Sunday is completely compatible with my view of the mission of the Church. This is true because the message Jim preaches is based on the one standard of truth, The Bible, and not on some political ideology of victimization.

If there was a fundamental difference in our essential beliefs, including the fact that all people are created equal in God's image and equally in need of God's grace, I would have left more than seven years ago.

A Church is not just another organization, like the Ladies Gardening Club. It is a body of believers joined together by the common bond of Christ for the purpose of doing the most important task ever given to mankind -- leading others to know Jesus in a life-changing way. Because I decided to join with this Church and partner with this particular body in ministry, the best way to know my core values is to examine my Church. I reflect on them, hopefully in a positive way, and they reflect who I am and what I am all about.

Trust us, we're from the government

The one phrase which ought to make your blood run cold:

"Trust us, we're from the government."

That is what they seem to be saying each year when I get my "Social Security Statement" in the mail.

They seem to be presenting the situation as good new/bad news.

Let's start with the good news.

If I keep earning what I am earning now and keep paying into social security at the current payroll tax rate, I will be eligible for payments of $2,150 a month at my full retirement age of 67.

Being an analytical kind of person, I want to know how that compares to saving the same amount of money in my own account. I worked up a spread sheet which determines how much I would accumulate if I saved that payroll tax at a given interest rate, and how much income I could draw from that when I retire. Then I found the interest rate which would result in the same income that the Social Security Administration is promising to provide. This interest rate is the effective rate of return on my money that Social Security is paying over the course of my lifetime.

The effective rate of return provided by Social Security is -0.426%. Before inflation. In other words, for every dollar I pay in, I am assured to get less than a dollar back, thirty years from now when a dollar won't be worth nearly what it is today. Assuming the inflation continues at a typical rate of 3.5%, the value that I expect to get back from social security is less than one third of what I put into it. They are taking enough to buy three loaves of bread today and promising to give me enough to buy one loaf in 2038.

In real terms, this is roughly a -4% rate of return. Without taking any risk, you can get a +1% real return using inflation indexed treasury bills.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that we already know that the government can not deliver what it has promised.

By 2017, Social Security will begin paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes. This is a problem because Social Security is operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. The money I pay into the system each week does not go into an account to be invested for my future benefit. They take my money, turn around, and hand it to a retired person who is currently collecting benefits. The "Social Security Trust Fund" does not contain real money. It consists entirely of government Treasury Bills, or IOUs the government has written to itself. To understand this concept, pull out a piece of paper and write "I owe myself $1,000,000." Then sign it for good measure. Congratulations! You're a millionaire! The government will have to come up with some real money to make good on those IOUs, and where does the government get its money? From the taxpayers. That means we can expect a higher tax burden in the future.

But that is not the end of it. In 2041, three years after I reach retirement age, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted. According to this year's statement, there will only be enough money to pay about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled payments. So the bad news is that they can't possibly deliver on the good news, which really wasn't that good to begin with.

In 1935 the Government asked us to trust them with our retirement. It is clear that they were not trustworthy stewards of the trillions of dollars entrusted to them. Now they want us to trust them with our medical care. Based on their track record, I say hold tight to your wallet and run for your life.

How to buy a car

For a lot of people, buying a car is a matter of scanning the ads or walking around on a car lot until you find the nicest looking car you can afford. Then maybe you try to talk the smiling salesman down on the price a bit, sign the papers, and drive home. There are several problems with this approach. First, you don't know that you are getting the best car available. Secondly, you are almost certain to pay too much. Maybe thousands too much.

I have gotten the car buying process down to a science, and I am going to share the secrets with you, free of charge.

The first step is research. Start by deciding what your requirements are for your vehicle. Are you looking for a little 2-door, a truck, or an SUV? What are the priorities: comfort, appearance, reliability, cost, fuel efficiency, safety, etc. Scour the Consumer Reports auto issue. I start with the ratings for the category I am interested in. Stay near the top of the ranking. Narrow your selection down to three or four vehicles which meet your needs and fit your budget. Look at what edmunds.com has to say about them, including the road test reviews and the total price to own analysis.

Now go to the dealer and test drive your top two or three vehicles. Tell the salesman up front that you are just looking today and plan to buy on a later day. Don't let the salesman pressure you to buy on the spot. If he does, walk away. Any legitimate deal he can offer today will still be available next week. When you look over the cars and drive them, look for differences which cause you to prefer one vehicle over the other. Take notes.

Based on all of this information, pick two vehicles which best fit your requirements. Decide on the trim level and options you want. Price it on Edmunds.com and write down the invoice price as well as the MSRP, and look for any dealer incentives going on. The invoice minus dealer incentives is the dealer's cost for the vehicle. Your goal is to get the car for as close to that price as possible.

The dealer likes to get you into their "closing room" where they can put the heat on you and strong-arm you into buying. In that room, they are in control and you have to meet their demands to reach a deal. They will play games like "If I could get you this car for sixteen thousand, would you buy today?" He knows that he won't sell it for that low of a price, but he wants to get you negotiating on his terms. We are going to turn the tables on them, using the power of the Internet.

First of all, sign up for a free email account with gmail or hotmail or something like that. I use this email address because I know that I will keep getting email from the dealers for years, and if it is not going to my real address I can just ignore it.

Go to the dealer's web site and look for the car you have decided on. Email the dealer and ask for their best price on that car. Give them the VIN so that they know exactly which car you are talking about. Do this with every dealer within a hundred miles of where you live. When I was buying my last car, I emailed 14 dealers. Take the lowest price and ask all of the others to beat it.

Now instead of playing by their rules, they have to meet your expectations to make a deal. In their closing room they will make you name the price, which turns it into a winning game for them, but now you force them to name a price. You can get all of the dealers in your area bidding against each other. In some cases I have been able to get within $200 of dealer cost with this method. In other cases I got lower than dealer cost.

I like to arrange my financing through my credit union, so I apply in advance.

If the best offer is at the dealer you want to buy from, just go there and buy the car. In my case, the best offer was from a dealer who required that I sign a binding mandatory arbitration agreement, an onerous arrangement in which the buyer agrees to settle any disputes by means of arbitration through a mediator chosen by the dealer. I decided to buy elsewhere. You should ask your local dealer if they require that you sign an arbitration agreement. If they do, ask them why you would do business with a company who requires that you sign away your right to legal recourse if the dealer commits fraud, negligence, or even breaks the law. There is no valid reason for a business to refuse their customers the protection provided by the legal system that we all pay for.

Before you go to the dealer, have your approach in mind. When I went to the Honda dealer to buy our Odyssey, I told the salesman, "I really liked the new Sienna better, but the Toyota dealer wouldn't work with me on the price." The message was clear: this car isn't my first choice, I'm not tied to it, and I'll walk away if you don't give me a good deal. He accepted my first offer without any argument.

Once you have picked the dealer you would like to do business with, take your best offer to them and ask them to match it. In my experience, they usually will match it. They might grumble a bit about selling a car at such a thin profit margin, but remember that the dealer will not sell a car if it is not in their interest to do so. If they won't match the price, go somewhere else. I walked out of a dealer when I was buying my last car, and an hour later the salesman called me back and accepted my offer.

Don't let them talk you into a lease. For almost everyone, a lease is the most expensive option in the long term. If the dealer pushes it, he is not looking out for your best interest -- they make more money on leases than they do on sales. Their cost comparison is misleading because it doesn't account for the time value of money. If you want to see the flaws in their math, ask me and I'll explain it.

Once you have agreed on a price, the dealer will try to pad their profit through financing and other worthless add-ons. You don't need their paint protection package, underbody protection, fabric protection, or VIN etching. Don't be fooled into paying for it. They'll want hundreds for those things, but a can of Scotch Guard costs about $4. Don't pay more than that for any of these rip-offs. Look at the bill of sale and make sure that you know what all they are charging you for, and double check their math. They are notoriously bad at addition, and mysteriously, the errors are always in their favor.

Then there is the extended warranty. The dealer would not push this so hard if it was not a major profit item for them. If the dealer is making a profit and the underwriter is making a profit, it can't be a good deal for you. They use scare tactics to get you to buy it: what if the transmission goes out, repairs are expensive these days. If you have done your homework and picked a vehicle with good reliability, this should not be a concern. Ask the salesman if his vehicle is really so unreliable that it requires an extended warranty.

Don't let them talk you into using their financing, unless it really will save you money. Most importantly, don't take delivery on the vehicle until the financing is approved. I've heard of cases where the dealer called the buyer back a week after they took delivery on their new car and told them that the financing was not approved, and they had to bump them up to a much higher interest rate. You can avoid that kind of problem and prevent the dealer from hiding extra dealer profit items in your loan by financing with a credit union rather than the dealer.

You may feel ruthless and stingy doing this. Never forget that the salesman is far more ruthless than you'll ever be. He will happily bilk you out of thousands of dollars, smiling and patting you on the back as he picks your pocket. The process is heavily rigged in his favor, and you can never win, but you can come out significantly better than you would if you walked in uninformed and bought the shiny car for MSRP.

One Nation Under God

Do you know the Preamble for your state Constitution? The Constitution of 46 states mentions God in the preamble. The remaining four mention Him elsewhere in the Constitution.

Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Arkansas ,grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble . We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble . We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution.
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance...
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man .
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution..

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe the ACLU is wrong about the whole "Seperation of Church and State"
fraud!

Does anyone know the Texas Two-Step?

Last night my dad and I went to the Democrat precinct caucus. It was supposed to start at 7:15. We got there just before seven, and got in line. There were probably a hundred people in front of us, and the line grew rapidly.

We discovered that the precinct chairman was in line next to us. He had two sign-in sheets, enough to handle 40 people, and I would guess that by 7:30 there were ten times that many people there.

No one knew who was supposed to be in charge, and the precinct chairman was just standing there in line, so we all just stood there until eight o'clock. Finally someone took charge and sent the precinct chairman running around looking for a copy machine to make more sign-in sheets.

Someone from the Obama campaign was handing out little “Obama” stickers to stick on your shirt. She ran out just before she got to us in line, but she had a few buttons, which are much nicer than a throw-away sticker, so I got one of those, which I will treasure forever.

They set up one table for precinct 1349 and another for 1119. It turns out that not a single person was from precinct 1349, so they started signing people in one at a time, while the second table sat idle. Finally someone had the bright idea to use both sign-in tables, and that made things go slightly faster.

I signed in and indicated that I was supporting B. Hussein Obama, just as I had done in the primary. My dad and I sat in the front row of the church.

When the sanctuary was mostly filled up, someone came in and said "Obama supporters on the right, Hillary supporters on the left." Well, they can't BOTH be on the left, so what does it matter? We got up and moved, along with almost everyone else on Hillary's side. Soon Obama's side was standing room only, and Hillary's side was mostly empty. It did look like Hillary did well among her core constituency: angry women over the age of 45 who wear combat boots.

Then someone else came in and yelled out "Obama supporters on the left, Hillary supporters on the right." A bunch of people started moving, and others yelled out that it was the other way around, and pandemonium broke out. The seats in the sanctuary were divided up into six sections, and eventually someone asked the Hillary people to move into the two sections on the left, to give Obama people four sections. Well, they were not at all happy with that request.

It was past nine o’clock by the time everyone was signed in. The temporary chairman called for nominations for caucus chairman, and people started yelling out names. After several names had been called out, someone suggested that maybe the nominees stand up and their name be recorded. We ended up with three nominees, including the precinct chairman who had been next to us in line with 2 sign-in sheets.

My dad asked if I wanted to be nominated for chairman. I started to plan out my nomination speech. I would talk about how we want change and we are sick of the Clinton duo and their corruption, sick of Monica Lewinski and cigars and perjury, sick of Clinton voting for the war and then claiming to oppose it, sick of Whitewater and Vince Foster and bimbo eruptions, sick of double-talk about driver's licenses for illegal aliens or about NAFTA (oops, that was Obama). Then I would promise Obama supporters that if they elected me I would take Clinton's delegates and redistribute them more fairly to Obama. But then I decided that I wanted to walk out of the room alive, so I declined.

The lady who had taken charge (it turns out she was not an election official, just someone who saw the need and stepped up) started to tally the votes. She said that it had to be a voice count, so she told us to number off if we were supporting the first candidate for caucus chairman. She started working down the aisle of the first of six sections, pointing at each person. If they wanted to vote for that candidate, they would call out the next number. Counting is a difficult concept for many liberals, so this resulted in a lot of confusion.

It immediately occurred to both me and my dad that they could tally each of the six sections in parallel and save a lot of time, but that involves addition which is even harder than counting.

It took ten minutes to tally the votes for one candidate from one of the six sections of seats, and there are still five sections to go, and two more candidates, and then we needed to elect a secretary. And don’t forget 39 delegates and 39 alternates. It started to look like a long night.

When they had finished tallying the vote for the first candidate for chairman, it was clear that he had more than half of the vote, but they still tallied votes for the other two nominees. You know, you’ve got to count every vote.

So eventually we got a chairman, but it quickly became apparent that he had no idea how to run a caucus. He called for nominations for secretary, and the lady who had spent the last half hour electing a chairman was nominated unanimously. What a relief.

Suddenly, they realized that it was important to actually tally the Obama and Clinton supporters on the sign-in sheets. They might have had someone doing that while people were signing in and we were electing a chairman, but that idea had not crossed their mind. So they had a Clinton representative and an Obama representative tally each sheet, and after a lot of very difficult mathematics and a couple of calls to the Democrat Party Headquarters, they had a tally.

The chairman was standing over by us, so we asked him how we would go about selecting the delegates. He said “they are trying to figure out how to apportion the delegates, but it takes a mathematician to figure it out.” They should have asked if there were any Republicans in the room. Proportions are even harder than adding.

While the math geniuses were hard at work on that problem, my dad and I decided to facilitate the delegate selection process. We walked around and asked who wanted to be a delegate, and then made sure that someone would nominate them – usually the person sitting next to them.

The chairman stood up and announced the results. Obama 84%, Clinton 24%. Sounds like the math was done by the same people who think Gore won Florida in 2000.

Eventually they sent the Obama supporters to pick 33 delegates and the Hillary supporters to pick 6 delegates. The Hillary people thought that was completely unfair. We quickly had 25 people nominated, and after some convincing got up to 33. With a unanimous up or down vote we approved those 33 people to be delegates, and we were done.

And these are the folks who want to run the country.

It's 3AM

It's 3AM and your children are sleeping peacefully.

But in the White House there's a phone, and it is ringing.

Somewhere in the world, something is happening. Somewhere, Bill is calling to say, "Hey! Hillary, it's me, the First Lady's Man. Heh heh. I'm working on a speech with an intern, Bridgit. I'll be out late."

Buckley

It is sad to hear the William F. Buckley has died at the age of 82. I always enjoyed his columns. But the most brilliant column he ever wrote was the one in which he plagiarized me.

Who is more unelectable?

Several people have asked why I would vote for Obama in the Texas primary instead of Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife.

For one thing, this may be my only chance to vote AGAINST Hillary, and I don't want to miss such a historic opportunity.

But in addition, I think that B. Hussein Obama will be a weaker opponent in November.

I am well aware that the polls say that Obama does better against John McCain. These are the same polls which can't predict a 16-point Obama win the day before the Wisconsin primary. In fact, the polls have been consistently wrong about the primaries all year. Hillary's negatives are out in the open, and have been known for a decade. Obama's will come out over the course of the next months, and they will more than erase the edge he currently has over Hillary.

The left is currently having an Obama love-fest, and compared to Hillary, he looks pretty good. By any other measure, he is a lightweight with little experience, no significant legislative accomplishments, and vague policy proposals. He has gotten as far as this because he has never been in a race where his liberal ideology has been questioned. Running in Illinois is far different from most places in the country, and running against Clinton and Edwards, where there is little distinction in policy matters, Obama's far left ideas are accepted rather than torn apart and revealed for the garbage that they are. That leaves personality as the only distinction in the primaries, and Obama beats Clinton in that category hands down. People hoped that Hillary would be Bill Clinton part 2, but she is not at all like her husband. Sure, they are both liars, but when Bill Clinton lies, he looks straight in your eyes, shakes his finger, and makes you believe that he is being completely honest. When Hillary lies, everyone knows she is lying. The inability to lie believably is a fatal flaw for a Democrat candidate.

Obama has managed to be the leading contender for the Democrat primary without ever specifying what he would do as President. Instead, he has present himself as an empty shell into which any person can pour their hopes and dreams, and somehow believe that he is the answer to their individual problems. By framing the debate in terms of "change" and "hope" he allows each person to define those terms in any way they wish. He offers us empty rhetoric and expects a blank check in return. Obama has not been forced to lie much, as Hillary has, because he hasn't said anything at all. But in the end, hope does not come from the government, and "change" is a constant, and it is not always good. Eventually, Obama will have to specify what change he will make, and most people will not like it. The reality of surrendering the War on Terror, raising taxes, and putting your health care under government control will not be nearly as appealing as his vague but flowery speeches.

As the campaign transfers from the primaries to the general election, Obama's opponent will change from Hillary to John McCain, but his target audience will change as well. Now he will be fighting for the swing voters in the middle of the political spectrum, and they won't be satisfied with his empty leftist platitudes. They want substance, and Obama doesn't have it. John McCain has substance, and he's got it in spades. They will want to know what the candidate's experience is, and what are his qualifications for the job. In that category, McCain is a heavyweight, Obama is a featherweight. As voters watch the debates, they will want to know who has the knowledge and judgment to deal with the complex issues facing our nation. John McCain will absolutely eat Obama's lunch on specific policy issues.

Another clear distinction is in the area of patriotism. This goes way beyond Barack Hussein Obama's name and his connection, through his father, to Islam. Obama's essential message is on of running down America. He talks about "hope" as if without him America is hopeless, and "change" as if anything would be better than the way things are now. His wife let slip their central outlook on America -- it is something to be ashamed of. These Ivy-League educated, wealthy and successful people sound like whiny elitist brats. Compare that to John McCain, who turned down an offer for early release from his captors in the Hanoi Hilton base on the principle of "First In -- Last Out". He would not accept release until his fellow POWs were also released. McCain is undeniably an American Hero -- he is what John Kerry can only pretend to be. There was talk of an attempt to "Swiftboat" McCain. I say bring it on. In the face of McCain's true record, the backlash will carry him straight to the Oval Office.

I believe that John McCain could beat Hillary or Obama in November, but Obama will be much easier than Hillary. Barack peaked on February 4. It's all downhill from here, baby.

Options

Over the weekend I was brainstorming with my dad about slogans for the upcoming election. I was just playing around with various associations and rhymes and came up with a pretty good one. My dad designed a bumper sticker on zazzle.com based on the slogan and listed it for sale. In the past three days he has sold four copies of the sticker, earning $1.52.

It's good to know I have a fallback position if I should lose my job in the coming layoffs.