The recent Saturday Night Live sketch poking fun at the media's handling of Barack Hussein Obama at debates ("Are you comfortable? Do you need another pillow?") while hammering Hillary Clinton with tough questions reminds me of how the media in general, as well as most liberal Americans, scrutinize the religions of Islam and Christianity. Christianity is repeatedly savaged as being cruel and tyrannical, in both its history and current incarnations, while Islam is generally given a pass and referred to as "a religion of peace."

There is no shortage of references in popular culture to the violence of the Crusades, for example, which are always referred to as Christians suddenly deciding to go on some rampaging torture spree for the cause of spreading their religious doctrine. Muslims are always depicted as the hapless victims of these rampages, neverminding the fact that there is much evidence that the Crusades were, in part, a response to the bloody encroachment of Islam into Christian lands. There is much evidence that Islam was, and still is, spread by the sword, but today we don't talk about that - we have revised this history to fit into the current depiction of Islam as a religion of peace. Yet, it is not uncommon these days, in any blue state, to hear how Christians are tyrants, fascists, or some similar insult with no further explanation.

Christianity is pilloried constantly in our culture, and liberals see no problem with this. On the other hand, if someone makes a disparaging comment about Muslims or Islam, they are viewed as "intolerant," or even worse, as "racists" (never mind the fact that Islam is not a "race"). I don't see a problem with scrutiny of the shameful areas of Christianity's history, but we need to treat Islam with equal scrutiny. That includes recognizing that even today, many Muslims are creating a bloody history of subjugation and torture.

Islam is on the move, and it is spreading by the sword. Of course you will hear apologists state that not all Muslims are fanatical or are terrorists, and that may be true. But it doesn't take all of them, it only takes some of them. Not all Germans were Nazis, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have recognized the advancing power of Germany in the late 1930s. We need to stop tip-toeing around Islam and start recognizing that some Muslims are a major threat to our way of life. Mohammed was a warrior, and he spread Islam with his sword. We need to stop asking if he is comfortable and start scrutinizing Islam in an unflinching and critical way.

For more information on Islam as it relates to terrorism, visit thereligionofpeace.com.

In the interest of looking at situations from all possible sides, I just finished reading The Audacity Of Hope by Barack Hussein Obama. Newsweek calls Obama "one of the best writers to enter modern politics." After reading his book, I can't say that I agree. I find David Horowitz to be a far more compelling writer, and more accurate in his information. Even Ann Coulter does a better job of backing up opinion with fact.

As far as writing style is concerned, Obama has a tendency to convey a simple observation with many more words than is actually needed. This book could have been half the length and still conveyed all the information that is included. His writing style, for the most part, is easy to read, but is verbose and rambling. He certainly enjoys using words, but he certainly could make better use of them.

From a technical standpoint, the writing is poor. There is no editor listed for the publication, and that is one of its faults. Obama plays fast and loose with the rules of the English language, and in a technical sense, the writing is more like Stephen King than Henry James. An actual editor may have forced a correction to such clumsy writing as the following, found on page 78:

"The scope of presidential power during wartime. The ethics surrounding end-of-life decisions."

These statements aren't sentences. It is ironic that in his next sentence after these statements, Obama uses a semi-colon; he could have used a couple of them here. Granted, he is trying to write to his audience and attempting to use a dramatic, prose-like style, but any decent editor could have cleaned up his use of language while maintaining his style. There are many examples like these throughout the book, so I cannot consider him a "good" writer. You would think a former editor of the Harvard Law Review would have done a better job editing himself.

Another stylistic issue that is not necessarily bad use of English, but just gets annoying, is his habit of ending nearly every chapter with a one sentence paragraph that has a highly dramatic tone. Chapter One ends with the following paragraph:

"They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them."

Chapter Two ends with:

"To do otherwise would be to relinquish our best selves."

Out of a total of 9 chapters in the book, 7 end with a one sentence paragraph. At least most of the one sentence paragraphs are complete sentences.

As far as the content is concerned, some of it may seem compelling, but it fails to persuade. There is a lot of history in the book, but it is history framed as Obama sees it, not necessarily how it happened. There are no sources or references listed for any of the information he cites, so to cover so much history and state it as fact is problematic in itself. In addition, Obama has a tendency to frame issues as fact that are opinion or seen from a decidedly "liberal" viewpoint. For example, on page 148:

"...special interest appropriations... are up 64 percent since Bush took office. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers (and the public) have resisted drastic cuts in vital investments..."

This could have been a statement one might take seriously, and a point to be considered, except for the words he chose to insert in parenthesis, "and the public..." How can he make such a statement as this? We are all part of the public, and I don't recall being asked about this. Is there some poll he can cite for this bit of information? We don't know, because he doesn't provide any references. On the surface, this is particularly lazy writing; if he is going to make such a statement, he needs to cite a source, or somehow back up this statement. On a deeper level, this is part of a pattern throughout the book; Obama continually states seemingly innocuous facts, then adds a liberal bias by the use of an unsubstantiated claim in the form of an off-hand comment, such as seen here. Most political writers could never get away with this, but Obama is given a pass.

The book also contains at least one outright lie. On page 188, in regards to the federal budget defict, Obama states:

"...the bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts... in other words, we ran up the national credit card so that the biggest
beneficiaries of the global economy could get an even bigger share of the take."

There is no source listed for this allegation, and the facts contradict what he states as a truth. According to freerepublic.com, revenues from income taxes increased from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003, when the tax cuts were enacted, to 8.0 percent in 2006, the most recent date for which figures are available. This includes a 1.5 percent growth in corporate income taxes to the highest level since 1978. So, with no sources cited, Obama puts forward a liberal talking point as fact which cannot be considered as anything but an outright lie. This one issue, coupled with the lack of references for any of the information presented, damages the credibility of the entire book.

The overall message of the book seems to be that he loves his country and will honorably serve its interests, as he sees them. After reading this book, I believe him; in that sense, the book is successful. Where the book fails him is how it depicts him as a man who is more concerned with making sure he is on the correct side of every issue, rather than a man who has his own strong convictions. He spends page after page carefully nuancing his position on every issue so as to be the most politically correct he can be. Where he finds fault with himelf, it is in the most mundane of daily habits; when it comes to the bigger issues, he is careful to position himself exactly where he believes his base wants him to be. We all probably have a tendency to self-idealize, but after a few hundred pages of such behavior, it becomes shallow and begins to seem self-serving.

The book actually shows him to be a better U.S. Senator than the President. A Senator is like a Human Resources Director; the President is like a CEO. Actually, the President is literally the CEO of our country, as he is the chief officer of the Executive Branch. It is a Senator's job to listen to and to represent his or her constituents, to forge bipartisan coalitions, and to consider careful compromises to enact legislation. Judging Obama from this book, he does seem to have a good abilty to listen and consider opinions from all sides and to form a conclusion based on a majority view of influences. The President, on the other hand, should weigh these influences, but should make decisions based on what is the best course of action to successfully move this country forward, regardless if his consitutents may feel it is right at the time. Many times, the president may have to make extremely unpopular decisions because it is the best for the country, even when a majority of his constituents may not understand the issue. History is full of such examples, from decisions to go to war, raise taxes, etc. Obama shows little, if no ability to detach himself from the wants of his constituents to concentrate on their needs. He shows himself to be easily swayed by public opinion, rather than resolute in his convictions. Throughout his book he recounts episodes of listening to constituents and basing his actions on popular opinion, and finding the middle ground on a position rather than acting on a strong conviction. That sounds like a good Senator to me, but not necessarily a good President.

The response to the book, for the most part, has been positive. The media seems to have ignored most, if not all, of the elements of the book I have criticized. The back cover contains excerpts from glowing reviews by such media outlets as The New York Times, Newsweek, and Chicago Tribune, all of which are papers of record. And these reviews have come in despite the complete lack of sources for historical facts in the book, and the repeated use of unsubstantiated innuendo within its pages. Conversely, when conservative writers such as Ann Coulter or David Howowitz publish a well-researched book, citing numerous references and carefully differentiating fact from opinion, their book is held to a microscope and challenged on virtually every point, no matter how well researched or referenced, or the book is ignored altogether or dismissed as a right-wing diatribe that is more fantasy then fact.

Why is there such a double standard? Why is Obama allowed to present a book that is poorly written, with no references, and exhibits a bias to liberal viewpoints, and not be challenged, while a conservative author is held to much higher standards? I believe it is because the liberal base is more concerned with feeling than fact, and if they agree with a viewpoint, the actual truth is not important. For them, it seems to be more important to be morally right than factually correct. Obama is able to paint a portrait of himself that makes his readers feel good about themselves and their country. Because his viewpoint, his positions and his presentation of history are politically correct, there is no need to cite actual facts or sources.

For most liberals, if something feels like the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. If it feels wrong, then they will hold it to a much higher standard, and do everything they can to disprove it, even if facts say otherwise. A conservative can carefully document every fact, reference or source, and the liberal will still question and challenge, and if they can't disprove it, they will move beyond the actual issue and try to discredit the author. Hence, David Horowitz and Ann Coulter are dismissed as right-wing idealogues; there is no reason to discuss the validity of their well-referenced publications, because they themselves are not worthy of discussion.

Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand, is the liberals' rock star. He preaches to his fan base and they unswervingly accept his every utterance as if it were fact etched in stone. They need not question any of his proclamations because what he says just feels right.

In addition, liberals elevate the perception of Obama's intelligence, because to be right is to be more intelligent. Liberals invariably feel they are more intelligent than conservatives, and they thinly disguise the belief of their superior intelligence. Obama is routinely discussed as being the most intelligent presidential candidate in the field. This, despite the fact that he writes poorly and much of the time speaks without really saying anything.

There is a famous quote, attributed to various writers such as Mark Twain and Winston Churchill, that goes something like this: "I'm sorry to write you such a long letter; I didn't have time to write you a short one." Obama, for all his perceived intelligence, cannot write a short letter. He must ramble on, page after page, trying to actually say something, but he usually never really does. Other than the fact that Barack Obama loves his country, The Audacity of Hope, like Barack Hussein Obama himself, is devoid of any real substance and one is left with the feeling of reading a long book that makes you feel good about yourself and your country, but otherwise didn't say much.

Fred Armisen has portrayed Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live over the last several weeks, and it seems to be raising the hackles of the race hustlers. The argument is that a black American should be playing Obama, not a person of white/Asian heritage. I first heard about the contorversy when I was in a cab and the radio happened to be tuned to a "urban" talk show, and the consensus was that the black commentators were offended that a white person would portray Obama. In delving further into this issue, I have found others who are equally offended.

From the Washington Post:

Todd Boyd, a professor of critical studies at the University of Southern California, says viewers might have a different reaction if the roles were reversed. What if, he says, "SNL" had cast a black woman to portray Hillary Clinton? "Do you think there's ever going to be a day when we start casting Queen Latifah to portray Princess Diana?" he asks. "We just don't have the same representations going in other direction.

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."

Oh please. The fact that anyone is making a fuss over this shows that they themselves have further to go. We are frequently told that we want a color-blind society, aren't we? The people who are complaining about this are the real racists.

You may have noticed the link on my home page that displays the number of terror attacks committed by Muslims since 9-11. This is a banner link to a particularly informative website called thereligionofpeace.com. If you haven't visited this website, I encourage you to do so. It may open your eyes to some information about Islam in general and Mohammed in particular that you may not have been aware of.

You have probably heard me state on this blog that "Islam is on the move," referring to the fact that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, but also inferring that it is spreading by way of the sword. If you don't believe that Islam is a violent religion whose more fanatical followers are bent on subjugating all people and all lands for Islam, the aforementioned website may help to change your mind. Many who disagree with that perception of Islam are simply unaware of the history of the religion, much of which is not really open to any other interpretation than the fact that Islam desires to dominate.

For example, are you aware of this little nugget of information from the aforementioned website?

Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

But wasn't Mohammed a man of peace, you might ask? Does this sound like a peaceful man?

Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.

Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.

But of course, you may say, many religions have violent histories. What about the Christians and the Crusades? The Muslims are usually portrayed as victims in this little piece of history, but consider this:

The first Crusade began in 1095... 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

How does that relate to today, you may ask? Most Muslims you may know seem like peace loving, ordinary people. But even in the U.S., Islamists are beginning to preach a more fundamental version of the religion. The more a Muslim takes the religion literally, the more dangerous a Muslim he becomes. A Muslim presence in your community is the thin end of the wedge. Islam still uses the same methods to gradually infiltrate and soon dominate other cultures:

Typically, the enemy's trust would be gained by non-intrusive measures in which the Muslims would insert themselves into the foreign community while professing their respect for local traditions and political structures. As they began to gain power, however, they would divide loyalties and exercise violence to acquire local hegemony.

Sound familiar? This is happening in Europe today, as evident in widely reported incidents in London, Paris, Berlin, etc. And it is beginning to happen in the U.S., and will continue unless we stop being so politically correct and are actually willing to confront the problem.

These excerpts from thereligionofpeace.com merely scratch the surface. If you want to know more about how Islam is slowly trying to destroy our way of life, I implore you to visit this website and learn more about the so-called Religion of Peace.

Hitting the newsstands today is the new issue of Rolling Stone, featuring a cover photo of none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Such an endorsement is not a surprise, but the blog world is abuzz with discussion of the Star Wars reference ("A New Hope") and the reverential treatment signified by the ethereal glow they have given the candidate. Darth Barack is clearly smoking hot after doing battle with the forces of Republican evil. Or is he emanating a white smoke similar to that seen expelled from the Vatican chimney after the election of a new pope? It's too bad they ran the photo so high on the page, it cut off the halo that would be clearly seen floating above his self-righteous noggin.

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet... I wonder if they mention anything about him belonging to a church which has awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan, and which some believe is a racist cult? Or that it took a couple of Saturday Night Live skits to finally embarrass the national news media into taking a harder look at the candidate? Or if they examine his Senate voting record, where he has been virtually non-existent as any kind of representative in the Senate for the people of Illinois? Somehow I doubt it...

Hats off to Vanderleun at American Digest. This is classic.

It's not often that you will see an explicit content warning on a sermon, but with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, that is the case. Wright, the Pastor of Barack Hussein Obama's church is at the center of a firestorm of controversy because of his sometimes offensive sermons and his relationship with the would-be presidential candidate.

The story broke on Thursday, when ABC News, followed by Fox News, ran video of some of Wright's more offensive sermons and spoke of the pastor's relationship with Obama. Of course, many of us have been well aware of Wright and his relationship to Obama and have been wondering just when is this going to break into the Mainstream Media. In August 2007, I read a story on newsmax.com that discusses Wright and Obama, and contains information on the church of which Wright has been pastor and Obama has attended for many years, the Trinity United Church of Christ. A poster on FreeRepublic.com raised the issue even earlier, in January 2007.

The Trinity United Church of Christ

Just what kind of Church is the Trinity United Church of Christ? This is from their website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

That's a pretty straightforward description of a church working to help improve lives in the black community, but upon deeper examination, many are finding out that the church has a somewhat racist ideology. The Newsmax article mentioned above was titled "Cauldron of Division." That probably is a more accurate description of the church. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Wright says its doctrine reflects black liberation theology, which views the Bible in part as a record of the struggles of "people of color" against oppression.

A skilled and fiery orator, Wright's interpretation of the Scriptures has been described as "Afrocentric."

When referring to the Romans, for example, he refers to "European oppression" — not addressing the fact that the Egyptians, who were also a slave society, were people of Africa.

The Trinity United Web site tells of a "commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic, pledge to make all the fruits of developing acquired skills available to the black community."

It is interesting to note that the last bit of text that was quoted from the church's website has since been removed from the website. That still does not change the fact that the church, for most, if not all, of its existence has been a racially divisive force in the black community. While many fine accomplishments for the black community and for people in Africa may be credited to the church, these cannot obscure or cancel out the subtle, and at time not-so-subtle racism that is being preached there.

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

The man at the center of the Trinity United Church of Christ is Reverend Wright. Although he has recently retired, he was the founder, principal pastor, and guiding spiritual force for the church throughout its existence. It was he that brought Barack Hussein Obama into his flock and it was he that was Obama's religious guide for two decades, performing the marriage between Obama and his wife, baptizing Obama's daughters, and praying with Obama time and time again.

Wright's Racist Hits

Click on the images below to see Reverend Wright in all his hateful glory.

What kind of man is Reverend Wright? By now, you've no doubt seen the video clips that have been played on news programs on ABC, Fox, and even CNN. While many may call him a passionate, fiery, orator who loves Jesus and loves his religion, it is pretty clear that he is also a racist who does not love America. This morning I heard Charles Krauthammer call him a "raving bigot," without anyone batting an eye. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson has called him a "total hater." If you read the text of a few of his sermons, it's easy to tell why:

"Hillary does not know what it is like to be black man living in a culture that is controlled by rich white people... Hillary ain't never been called a n----r."

"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty..."

"God bless America? God d--n America!"

Of course, apologists will say that these quotes are "out of context" as they are presented here. Other apologists claim that they are just a few isolated incidents cherry-picked from the thousands of otherwise benign and respectful sermons the Reverend has given in his career. Obama himself has stated that these this not the message he was hearing. Regardless of these apologists, what context could there be that could make these statements appropriate? I am providing some video links so that a more complete context can be given, but I think you'll find that what Krauthammer and Carlson said is true. Reverend Wright is a racist pastor of a racist church. And the church happens to have a long time member who is running for President of the United States, one Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama and Wright

Obama has been a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ since "1992 or 1993." His relationship with Reverend Wright goes back further, and Obama credits Wright for drawing him into Christianity. The New York Times has reported, in statement by Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, that "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church."

Obama has made statements disavowing the racist talk and ideology apparent in Wright's more fiery sermons. In an interview with Fox News' Major Garrett, Obama said this:

None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews.... I reject them completely. They are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals or Michelle's. And that, had I heard them, had I been sitting in the church at the time that they were spoken, I would have been absolutely clear to Reverend Wright that I didn't find those acceptable.

His official statement was posted on Huffington Post:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation... All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

The problem with these statements is that Obama is lying.

In the Newsmax article from August 2007, the author clearly states that Obama was present on the day he visited the church and describes several racist and reprehensible statements from the pastor. And states that Obama "nodded in apparent agreement..."

Wright's strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax. Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made. (emph. added)

In addition to this particular Sunday sermon, Obama himself has made several inadvertant admissions that he knew Wright was a racist and a hater. In a 2007 New York Times interview, Obama dismissed a criticism of a Wright sermon by stating "It sounds like (Wright) was trying to be provocative." And in March 2007, Obama "disinvited" Wright to deliver a public invocation at the official announcement of his presidential campaign.

The Importance Of Obama's Association

So, the big question is, why is this important? Many liberal apologists have been commenting on blogs over the last few days, stating that this is a "non-issue." Since Obama has publicly decried the remarks and removed Wright from his association with the Obama campaign, they would like this to be put in the past so we can focus on some "real issues."

This is important for several reasons. For starters, it gives us a glimpse into the insight and judgement of Obama. This man is running for the highest office in our country, and insight and judgement are precisely the qualities we look at when choosing who to vote for. If he can sit in this man's pew for almost two decades, yet somehow miss the fact that this guy is a "raving bigot," what else is going to misjudge? In what other areas will his insight fail? In addition, this is the church he takes his children to. How many times have his children been exposed to such fiery racial rhetoric? What does this say about his judgement?

Second, Reverend Wright hates America and wants the Lord to damn it to hell. He has called the United States the United States of "White" America, the "US of KKKA," and other offensive slurs. The question of whether Obama also feels this way is an honest question and needs to be addressed. I think most people would agree that we should not elect a President who secretly or subliminally hates his country. The Newsmax article states that Obama was nodding his head in apparent agreement as Wright made some of these statements. That is a particularly disturbing fact, and one that may well ruin the candidate's chances for victory.

Obama can make all the statements he wants disavowing such speech, but you can't unring a bell. He has sat in this man's church for many years, and the stain of Wright's racism cannot be washed off.

After vowing not to look for freelance work on Craig's List, I thought I would just give it a browse after several weeks of ignoring it. Now, let me say, I know there are some serious businesses that advertise for permanent positions on Craig's List, and do offer great jobs with good pay. But in between these more lucrative full-time listings are a lot of ads for freelance jobs which are almost downright insulting to the profession of arts and graphic design.

Take this for example:

Looking for an artistic individual to create one small, black and white, sketch in the genre of a graphic novel. The sketch needs to be of a lawyer or law-related subject matter. It will be used on fliers and in small advertisements.

The artist is encouraged to incorporate his or her own ideas to create the sketch, but also needs to keep in mind that the sketch is intended for professional advertising. I may be wrong, but I am expecting that this should only take an hour or two for a talented individual to complete.

Compensation: Flat-rate around $35 - negotiable.

Wow, $35.00 for something that any professional illustrator knows is a pain-in-the -butt job just fraught with "that's not exactly what I had in mind," type of criticisms. The person or person(s) who placed this job have no idea of what it takes to create such an illustration, and more important, deliver it in a proper technical format. I especially love it when they determine how much time they think it will take to create. I can bet you any money that this is a payment only on successful delivery type of job as well, meaning that if they don't like what you've done in that "hour or two," you'll get nothing. If they do buy it, they are expecting to buy all rights to the image and use it ad infinitum. They probably will even want to keep the original artwork. What a steal.

The sad thing is, someone will bite and agree to do this job. They will end up spending a couple of days trying to satisfy this job, and since the pay is "negotiable," perhaps talk the guy into an extra 5 or 10 bucks, and then sell all rights to the artwork at no extra cost. Pathetic.

Previous: You Get What You Pay For

Heather Mills was awarded less than half of the amount she was seeking in damages in her divorce settlement with Paul McCartney. Paul originally offered her approximately $35 million to settle out of court, but she instead chose to fight him, seeking about $125 million. The final amount came to about $48 million. Plus, when you think about it, the final amount is much smaller, because you have to minus from the amount she was awarded lawyer fees, two years of courtroom appearances, and what else... oh yeah... her DIGNITY!

Happy St. Patrick's Day Sir Paul!

The other night in an interview with Anderson Cooper, Obama joked about not being able to sing well enough to sing "God Bless America," when asked. That was his opportunity to just say the words, but for some reason, it didn't occur to him then. The interview ended without him even just saying the phrase. I thought that was odd and noteworthy, and I wasn't the only one in the room to notice.

Michelle Malkin has noted that in an interview with The Baltimore Sun, it finally dawned on him that we might actually want to hear him say the words. It's not much, but it's a start. He is in damage control mode now. His speech in Philly is just about to begin. We'll see what happens...

Here's how the Anderson Cooper interview went:

COOPER: Just for the record, you have no problem singing "God Bless America"?
(LAUGHTER) OBAMA: I don't want to sing it here, because...
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: ... people might question my talents. But...
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: All right. We will leave it at that.
Senator Obama, appreciate your time.
OBAMA: Thank you so much.

The fact that he is now saying it is obviously in response to the Reverend Wright controversy. It is clear that he underestimated the importance of patriotism in this country. I guess that's what happens when you happen to be running in a party known for its acceptance of America-bashing liberals. I think he is fast finding out that even though the America haters may have loud voices, the majority of Americans still actually do love their country and want it to succeed, both conservatives and liberals.

I thought Obama gave a pretty good speech, but then again, that's what he does best. In fact, he actually said things in this speech, which is actually a marked difference from previous speeches I have heard. Did he make people feel good about him again? No doubt, some people are going to be convinced. Did he save his campaign from the stain of Reverend Wright's hateful comments? I don't think so, but it remains to be seen. The numerous American flags were a nice touch, though.

As this argument has progressed, it has occured to me that this just isn't about race, although that is a major factor. It is also about the offensiveness of the remarks in a religious context. The profanity uttered from the pulpit makes this an issue not just of race, but also religion, and the appropriateness of certain language in a public forum. Also, the attacking of the United States in his speeches, although seeming to be derived from a racial context, is unforgivable to many people. Some people, me included, are just plain offended by the Reverend's speech, not just in a racial context but in a very general sense.

The statement that caught my attention is the flip flop on whether he actually heard the statements in church. He previously stated:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

But yet, in his speech he stated:

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

How important is this? He does not say he was in church when the exact comments being played on the news were uttered, so in particularly lawyerly fashion, he has some wiggle room. But there is no way to excercise that wiggle room without sounding like a typical politician, which is the antithesis of the type of campaign he is running. At this time, the flip-flop may not be captialized upon, but once the general election begins, and if he is the candidate for the Democratic Party, you can be sure this will be revisited.

In lighter news, Ray Romano made an appearance on Craig Ferguson's show last night, and one could not help but notice the new hairstyle. Comb-over alert! The future is not far behind...

One of the common defenses given for the hateful sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright is that these are exceptions and not the rule. We are told that on most occasions, a sermon by Wright was much like that given by any other pastor. Defenders claim the media is showing us an uncharacterisric portrayal of this man as a raving bigot by cherry-picking a few of the more outrageous sermons from the thousands he has given which were not innappropriate or offensive.

Why then, was Jim Davis of Newsmax.com able to visit the church on one day, July 22, 2007, and it just happened to be the day of such a sermon? What are the odds that he happened to show up on one of the few days out of the thousands that Reverend Wright was spewing hatred? Did Jim Davis win the Jeremiah Wright lottery or something?

More likely, we can only conclude that these sermons were the rule, not the exception.

There has been much speculation about the missing pages in the recently released Schedule of Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady. One of our sources was able to obtain one of the missing pages. We are pleased to be able to present it here...

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

This is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill, and like many of the things he was purported to have said, it still rings true today. Even the old liberals are behaving like children. Children have a tendency to want things that are not good for them. The same certainly can be said for liberals today, as many of the things they are seeking would end up being ruinous for us all.

Take for example, the war in Iraq. They don't want to win the war in Iraq, they just want it to end, no matter what the consequences. Many liberal politiicians voted for it, and many other liberals supported the action in early 2003. But like a child who has tired of something, they just want to put it down and walk away. "It's too hard," they cry. Evidently, if something is hard, it's not worth doing. They cannot see beyond their own petty concerns and realize the value of actually finishing the job. Nor, like a child, do they understand the consequences of failure. They believe they can choose not to finish this fight, and the United States will continue on its merry way, much like a child who is oblivious to the real worldly dangers their parents insulate them from.

The value of real work means little to them. They believe everyone should be able to do what they want, and that somehow the government is supposed to provide jobs and happiness for them. They go to school and get degrees in obtuse, specialized fields of study, then blame the government when they can't get a job in said field. Few of them understand that our government is only supposed to guarantee the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. I read a letter to the editor in major newspaper a few years ago, written by someone who claimed to have a Phd. He was complaining about the job market, and, of course, blaming President Bush because he hadn't been able to find a job in his field. If you ask me, someone with a PhD should be smart enough to figure out a way to support himself regardless of the job market. If, for example, he studied how to tune lutes or perform hand-loom weaving, are we supposed to subsidize his desire to work at such an extinct profession?

There is also a tendency for today's liberals to make up their own science. Like children, they believe whatever they are told, whether there is any factual basis to it or not, as long as it fits their world view. Global warming, the raw food movement, and "Bush Lied, Kids Died," are just a few examples of believing whatever is convenient rather than actually bothering to find out any truth. Whoopi Goldberg once said on The O'Reilly Factor, "...if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart." If it doesn't fit their world view, they will not believe it, regardless of being presented with factual evidence. I know a fellow who told me he ate all his vegetables raw, because "they are better for you that way." That's the basis of today's raw food movement. Now, if you do a little research, it's not hard to find out that a vegetable like spinach, for example, releases twice the amount of vitamins and nutrients in its cooked form rather than in its raw form, as a result of the cell walls breaking down to make the nutrients more available. But this fellow was convinced that because it's closer to nature, it is automatically better for you. He did no research, he just believed what his peer group believed.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are skeptical of anything that does not come without some factual evidence. Of course, there are exceptions to both groups, but most conservatives I know generally want to know how and why things work the way they do. Take for example, the contrast between Barack Hussein Obama's book The Audactiy of Hope and David Horowitz's book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. The former is a political book written by a liberal. It cites many things as facts, but there is not a single reference for anything listed as fact in the book. Yet liberals have made it a best-seller, and I have yet to see a liberal give it a negative review. The latter book is a political book written by a conservative in which the author also cites many things as fact. To back up these facts, the author has provided us with 34 pages of references for the facts that he cites. And liberals will dismiss it as lies and innuendo, even when many of the facts referenced were taken from their own liberal media outlets.

It is widely accepted in conservative circles that the liberals are seeking a perpetual nanny state of government, where personal responsibility is at a minimum and the government takes care of all. This cannot help but be bad for our country, as well as being completely un-American. Liberals do not understand economics; they simply do not understand how wealth is created. To them, corporate America is nothing but a parasite on the backs of the workers, even though it is these corporations that actually create most of the wealth and provide most of the jobs. One of the reasons communism failed was because everyone wanted to "share the wealth," but nobody understood where the wealth actually came from. Once the wealth was all redistributed, there was no more to be had, and no system for more to be created. The liberals don't understand this contradiction; they view wealth as static, as a resource we should all share, but they have little concept of where it comes from. Like a child, they want their allowance but they don't want anyone to actually have to work for it if they don't want to.

Eventually, all children grow up. The same cannot be said for all liberals. There are still many old liberals, and as Churchill said, "Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." But some liberals do grow up, and become conservatives. The afore mentioned David Horowitz is one of them; he was a self-proclaimed radical leftist who eventually, through tragedy and awareness, gave up his liberal ways and is now a leading conservative author and activist. Another recent conversion to the path of conservativism is the playwright David Mamet, who confessed to once being a "brain-dead liberal." I myself was once an extreme leftist who spent years playing in punk bands and spouting leftist propaganda.

And we are not alone. There are many liberals who are slowly seeing the emptiness in the liberal mindset and are slowly growing from young liberals into old conservatives. And, lucky for us, it doesn't happen the other way. There are few examples of conservatives who are turning into liberals. The American left is gaining few new converts; almost all conversion is from liberalism to conservatism. Which is why they are trying to brainwash children in today's schools and colleges. That's their only hope to grow their liberal movement. They must continue to sit at the Children's Table.

John McCain gave a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council yesterday, and in it, he delineated a foreign policy approach that I can support. Now, McCain certainly was not my first choice for the Republican candidate for the 2008 election, but now that he is in place as the candidate, it was nice to hear him step up and describe our current foreign policy situation so deftly. Of course, conservatives are claiming that he is moving towards the "center," although, many think he is so liberal already that a move the center for him is actually a move to the right. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of his campaign platform and I can't support everything he stands or has stood for, but I can support a candidate who says this:

We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq? Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake. Whether they were there before is immaterial, al Qaeda is in Iraq now, as it is in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Indonesia.

I believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for it, as both Democratic candidates do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date.

Way to go, John. Entire speech here.

Many people call George Bush "W." The main reason, I suppose, is to distinguish him from his father, George H. W. Bush. Some say it with derision, some say it with respect, and some just say it.

Lately, Barack Hussein Obama's middle name has been made note of. There is an argument whether it is fair to mention his middle name, as it just happens to be the same name as a recently deposed Iraqi dictator. So, those who actually use his middle name are accused of being "bigoted," for bringing up a supposed tie to someone who until recently was a fervent enemy of our country.

Of course, past Presidents of the United States have been known for their middle initial. Who can forget FDR, JFK or LBJ? Everyone knows Reagan's middle name was Wilson. And of course our current President is known simply by his middle initial, "W." So I don't think it is offensive to use or call attention to Barack Hussein Obama's middle name.

The real argument is the intent with which you are using the middle name. Is it simply being used as in the examples above, like a term of respect? Or is it purposefully being bandied about to remind people of some nefarious tie or unknown skeleton? The answer to that is for the thought police. I'll continue to use his middle name or middle initial whenever I choose, as I have the freedom to speak as I like, and you have the freedom to disagree.

So, in that spirit, I have decided to go a step further. In homage to our current president, I am going to refer to Barack Hussein Obama as, simply, "H." Perhaps others will join me.

I have watched H. make the rounds of talk shows this week. After returning from vacation, he has gone to "soft" publicity outfits to further regain some of the poll points he lost due to the Reverend Wright controversy. It's interesting to see liberal media figures, who have unapologetically skewered President Bush with scathing innuendo and out right lies, fall all over themselves to make apologies for H. and his association with Reverend Wright. The double standard is blatantly transparent.

One notable stop was on ABC's "The View." Before H. came on stage, the ladies were actually a bit critical of H., but right before he took the stage, Barbara Walters uttered a proclamation absolving him of any responsibility for the issue:

"Barack Obama... has condemned those remarks. He has in no way supported them, advocated them, stood behind him, or praised his Reverend. There are still questions which we will ask him, about whether he should have gone further, whether he should still go further, but we cannot let it stand that these are.. any statements or any sentiments of Senator Barack. That's all I want to say."

So that's it then. The ladies genuflected, H. was brought out, and while some critical questions were asked, it was mostly a wide-eyed, he's so dreamy (or as Barbra said, "sexy,") picnic for H.