“She wasn’t the only one crying…There was a whole lot of white people crying.”

Another white racist jack-hole pops up at Obama’s former church.

Do I believe that Sen. Obama agrees with this idiot? No. But I bet I can write the press release:

Obama had no idea about this guy’s positions either, and it doesn’t matter anyway because any concern about this at all is a ‘distraction’ from his campaign.

And let me try to explain one other thing. I’ve attended two churches regularly throughout my life. In about 25 years of attendance, there is one thing that I can guarantee: It only takes about two years of regular attendance to get a pretty clear understanding of what the church is like, and what the pastor’s and leadership’s stance on issues are.

In fact – I would even say that it’s dangerous and irresponsible to sit through more than a couple sermons without knowing where the church and pastor stands. Unless, of course, your view of church is just blindly accepting whatever they tell you (another commonly believed myth about Christians).

Either way, what I’m getting at here is that I find it totally unbelievable that Sen. Obama went to a church for 20 years that allows this sort of absolute garbage from the pulpit and never knew it. I recall one time that a guest was invited to our church who turned out to be a raving apocalyptic crazy (He talked about these absurd conspiracies with the Pres. Bush Senior trying to instigate a one world government, and how him and his wife weren’t having children because the end was near, and how we should buy his book so that we could be prepared for the end. It was all bullcrap.). If I remember correctly, our head pastor was pretty much horrified and devoted the entire next service to apologizing and taking questions, even though the nut-job guy didn’t even preach (he just had a table set up in the church lobby).

In sharp contrast, it would appear that Sen. Obama’s former church doesn’t seem to be all that offended by these white racist types. Note the introduction and outro the new Trinity pastor gives this idiot:

And you are going to tell me with a straight face that Barack Obama attended this church for 20 years and knew nothing, heard nothing, had no concept of this filth that Trinity seems to cheer about?


UPDATE: I guess Obama was cool with earmarking 100 Grand to this baffoon:

“Typical of Mr. Obama’s earmarks was a $100,000 grant for a youth center at a Catholic church run by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a controversial priest who was one of the few South Side clergymen to back Mr. Obama against Mr. Rush.

Father Pfleger has long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce crime and improve the community. But he has drawn fire from some quarters for defending theNation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and inviting him to speak at his church.”

File this under: Great displays of Judgement.

Dumb-as-a-post Pelosi blames surge success on…(wait for it)…Iranian goodwill!!!

Her statement today (emph mine):

“Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, theynegotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.”

I’m sorry – I usually don’t resort to flat out insults, but…What a freaking clueless idiot!

This ludicruis comment is so typical of the know-nothing douchenozzels in Washington. It even earned Nancy the coveted flaming skull over at Ace of Spades (I had to transplant and quote):


Having blurted out, probably accidentally, that the surge was in fact successful, Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants now scrambles to credit the enemy nation murdering our troops with the victory our troops accomplished through blood, sweat, tears, and more blood.

It’s not our troops. It’s not Petraeus’ leadership. It’s not the Iraqis turning on the Al Qaeda murderers. No — it’s Iran’s goodwill.

Here at wtc she gets the coveted Jar-Jar Award:

I have created a helpful “who to trust” tutorial below for those who haven’t been following the war so far:


Socialism’s conflict with Liberty

Earlier I mentioned that I would be returning to the discussion over Socialism and its direct conflict with individual liberty. Yesterday I ran across some excellent audio that discusses the concepts of Liberty and Socialism and clarifies them in regards to the platforms of the current Liberal and Conservative philosophies.

I believe that these are crucial issues that must be understood as we are facing maddeningly high oil prices, steep medical bills, and national elections. It is critical for voters to understand that if they are voting for socialized solutions to these problems, ultimately they are voting for massive increases in governmental power and devastating reductions in individual liberty.

I have chopped up a great 6 part audio series from the Mark Levin show where he explains with great clarity Socialism and it’s conflict with the fragile American system which was originally designed to encourage liberty.

Before you listen, here is a small disclaimer. I want to point out here that I do not think people pushing socialized ideas are evil. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and many people of the left are pushing for socialized medical systems. I do not believe that they are doing this out of evil intent. Heck, when I had a much more liberal understanding of politics (most of my life up and through college), I used to think Socialism wasn’t that big of a deal. I wasn’t evil for believing that way, and neither are you if you happen to think nationalizing health care is a great idea.

What I didn’t understand, and I urge you to at least consider, was that socialism ultimately cannot coexist with liberty.

So without further ado – here’s the audio. It’s a bit of a tour-de-force of the conservative viewpoint of the American Government. Part of it swings around to talk about the oil companies because they happened to be in the news that day. However, the oil situation is applicable here as many are advocating more governmental meddling, even complete state control. I guarantee that you will not hear these ideas on TV, in anything from Hollywood, or even school for the most part. I have outlined some of the points mentioned in each clip below and please feel free to leave comments. I am not asking you to agree, only to consider the ideas presented. Remember that clarity is far more important here than agreement.

  • Freedom (or liberty) is always competing with tyranny.
  • Ann Rand: “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake. That his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society. That the only justification of his existence is his service to society. And that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to it’s own tribal collective good.”
  • The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights. – In other words, all things belong to the collective society – also known as The State.
  • Can human rights exist without property rights?
  • Tyranny doesn’t come at once in a democracy – it comes in pieces. (The idea that bad things come first as small “friendly” ideas wrapped up as: the children, the elderly, the environment, health care, etc.)
  • I want to point out here that Conservatism (not to be confused with “The Republican Party”) is about taking power away from the state and giving it to individuals, essentially – localizing it. This is the opposite of socialism.
  • Republicans, for the most part – aren’t really doing anything to help the situation.
  • The left creates enemies of the state, such as oil companies and Halliburton. But most people don’t know anything about these companies and how they do business, let alone how many jobs they provide.
  • Sen. Obama somehow gets to decide what’s appropriate for people to discuss about him and his presidential campaign. Here’s the current list of people/topics concerning Barack Obama that he says are “Distractions” and we shouldn’t be concerned about: Tony Rezko, William Ayers (American born terrorist, formerly part of the Weather Underground), Bernadine Dorn (Ayers wife), Jeremiah Wright (Sen. Obama’s pastor of 20 years – because apparently, Obama wasn’t at church on God Damn America Sunday, or The Government Created AIDS to Kill Black People Sunday, etc. and he had no idea that Wright held these views) Michelle Obama (Barack’s wife who we aren’t suppose to criticize even though she gives stump speeches all the time and has been a central force in his campaign).
  • The constitution is a set of guild lines so that the federal government would nurture individual liberty and not hinder it.
  • The Government’s villain of the day – Oil companies. But most people don’t realize how much control the government already has of the oil companies.
  • We shouldn’t be relying on the government to provide for our needs.

The rest of the world is increasing supplies, looking for more sources or oil – and we are not. The main argument I hear is that we should be looking for alternative sources of energy. That’s a nice thought – except that we will need oil to find those alternatives!

Currently – our entire economy revolves around oil. We cannot just abandon it in search of some magical futuristic (currently non-existent) form of energy. And don’t even get me started talking about Nuclear energy. Guess what – the environmentalist have blocked that idea too with their junk science. Read this article my buddy from work sent me: Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Re-think What it Means to Be Green. In particular this bit on Nuclear Power.

The last segment addresses the question of whether “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” includes things like health-care, etc. This bit is especially important as it outlines the idea that the government is so disconnected from the individual that it cannot effectively provide these services.

I hope that this post has been helpful in illuminating some of the problems with the idea of Socialism.

I have written a more extensive series on Socialism called: Why Reject Socialism. You can read it over at Appeal To Heaven.

What party desires more power in the hands of the state?

One of the defining characteristics of the right politically, and the concept of freedom in general, is that power should remain as close to the individual citizen as possible.

Returning power into the hands of individuals is a core Conservative principal. Hence the common heard ideas: smaller localized government, school choice, less taxation, etc.

The Democrats in congress want to nationalize health care, nationalize the oil companies, and raise your taxes (aka. force you to pay for it) to do it. Voters need to understand that this means handing huge amounts of power over to the state.

Pure and simple.

Sen. McCain Understands Iraq

I hate to say it, but Sen. Obama does not. McCain continues to make efforts to get closer to situation in Iraq so he can broaden his understanding – Sen. Obama basically repeats talking points (You might as well listen to a speech by Harry “the war is lost” Reid).

This is the question you should be asking about the situation in Iraq: Who do you think understands more clearly what is actually going on there: The troops on the ground, or a bunch of policy makers back in Washington?

The one thing Sen. McCain understands is that if we really want to figure out what’s going on, we have to talk to the men directly involved.

You can get this perspective too. Read this book by Michael Yon:
Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New ‘Greatest Generation’ of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope

Moment of Truth in Iraq - Michael Yon

Michael Yon, who is self supported, has spent months amongst the troops (more time than any other journalist) on the ground in Iraq. His book is what I like to call, the no Bull-S*** assessment of the situation. It’s a great read and you can get a clear picture of what General Petraeus’ strategy is for Iraq. I read half the book in one sitting cause I just couldn’t put it down.

Then you can congratulate yourself. In reading this book you will know more about the War in Iraq than most of the senators in Congress, sadly, including Sen. Obama.

As a voter, you owe it to yourself.

Also recommended: The Looming Tower.

I believe ‘Nationalize’ is the word you were looking for, Chavez…I mean Waters

Nice idea Maxine. Let’s trade free market competition for a government monopoly. That’s proven well for the people and economies of Mexico and Venezuela.

Note how she blurts out “socializin…” and then stops herself. My dear Democrat friends – that’s the mask of your party leadership slipping. Do you really want America to become a socialized state?

Do you really believe that elevating the powers of the state will do good things for this country?

Do you really think that the federal government can make better decisions about people’s lives than those individuals themselves?

Because that’s exactly what socialism is. And this is EXACTLY what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running on.

People must begin to understand that the idea of handing more power to the state, is in direct conflict with personal liberty.

Stay tuned. Much more on this idea to come here shortly on wtc…

It’s A Tarp!!

Lost Parrot Tell Vet His Address

Something lighthearted amongst all the garbage.

TOKYO – When Yosuke the parrot flew out of his cage and got lost, he did exactly what he had been taught — recite his name and address to a stranger willing to help.

Police rescued the African grey parrot two weeks ago from a neighbor’s roof in the city of Nagareyama, near Tokyo. After spending a night at the station, he was transferred to a nearby veterinary hospital while police searched for clues, local policeman Shinjiro Uemura said.

He kept mum with the cops, but began chatting after a few days with the vet.

“I’m Mr. Yosuke Nakamura,” the bird told the veterinarian, according to Uemura. The parrot also provided his full home address, down to the street number, and even entertained the hospital staff by singing songs.

“We checked the address, and what do you know, a Nakamura family really lived there. So we told them we’ve found Yosuke,” Uemura said.

Full Story

A Constructionist Judge (Updated)

Here’s another misconception – that conservatives want to only appoint conservative judges. Wrong. Conservatives want to appoint justices that do the following:

Justice Carol Corrigan opens her dissent (Updated):

In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.


History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.

Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.


The principle of judicial restraint is a covenant between judges and the people from whom their power derives.  It protects the people against judicial overreaching.  It is no answer to say that judges can break the covenant so long as they are enlightened or well-meaning.

The process of reform and familiarization should go forward in the legislative sphere and in society at large.  We are in the midst of a major social change.  Societies seldom make such changes smoothly.  For some the process is frustratingly slow.  For others it is jarringly fast.  In a democracy, the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference.  That is the way democracies work.  Ideas are proposed, debated, tested.  Often new ideas are initially resisted, only to be ultimately embraced.  But when ideas are imposed, opposition hardens and progress may be hampered.

We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root.  If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

Plain and simple. It is not the business of the court to impose legislature. That’s the very point of the Legislative body. If that’s not the case, then why bother voting? Appoint seven or so dictators and let them decide everything.

Essentially – the Justices have said, “We really don’t care what Californians want, we will define Marriage – we won’t let the people do it.