Fun & Frivolity: Ping Pong And Nerdtastic Song

To send you off into this weekend, here's an incredible video clip of martial arts master Bruce Lee playing ping pong with a nunchuka. Yes, you read that right. Take a look:

INCREDIBLE!!!

Next, we have a super-nerdtastic video that...well, it speaks for itself. If you recognize most (or all of the songs), you know what I mean:

Have a great weekend!

What Does The Government Provide?

Larrey Anderson writes a terrific column at American Thinker that everyone should read and think about titled 'Stop and Think':

Really. Stop and think. What does your government actually do for you? This article is a series of quick thought experiments to help answer that question.

First thought: Where are you physically situated? Unless someone has printed off this article and given it to you on paper, you are probably sitting in a room and reading the article on a computer screen.

Second thought: How many things can you find in this room that were created by the government? Let's look around the room.

We will start with the words you are reading. An individual (me) wrote them. The words I have written appear on the computer screen you are viewing. The transmission system that sent the words to your computer was not invented or created (nor is it maintained) by the government. (Al Gore's claim to be the inventor of the Internet notwithstanding.)

None of the components of either the monitor or the computer that allow you to read these words were invented or created by the government.

The screen probably sits on a desk. The plastic, wood, varnish, vinyl, and screws in the desk were all manufactured by privately owned businesses. Private citizens designed the desk. Non-governmental employees built the desk.

Unless you are reading outside from a laptop, you are still sitting in that room. The sheetrock on the walls of the room was produced by a private company. The walls were installed, finished, and painted by individual hired laborers.

Glance at the door to the room. Same story. The door and its hardware were all privately invented, manufactured, and mounted.

In short, nothing tangible in the room is a "gift" from the government. Not one thing. (This is true even if you happen to work for the government and are situated in a government owned building. All of the work on the building was subcontracted. All of the items in the building were privately produced.)

Third thought: Are there things you can locate in the room that are a "gifts" from the government? Sure there are. Lots of them.

Let's run through the things in the room again. We will start with my written words.

Unless my words incite or threaten some form of violence they are, for the moment, free from government regulation.

When we move to the transmission system that gets my words to your screen the "gifts" from the government start to appear. The behind the scenes tussle for broadband access has greased the hands of lots of politicians. And, rest assured, in the future it will grease a lot more. The government taxes, monitors, and regulates the transmission (not, at this point in time, the content) of the information you are now reading.

How about that monitor you are looking at -- and the computer? There are literally thousands of government regulations on each of them. The rules state, as examples, how much energy the products can use, what chemicals can (or cannot) be used in the manufacturing process, and how to throw the computer in the trash (if you are using VISTA).

The desk and chair where you sit? The government regulates those as well.

Not the walls. Surely the government has nothing to do with the regulation of the walls? It does. And the door. And the door handle.

The government does not make any of the things you see around you ... but it regulates every one of them.

Fourth thought: Is this regulation necessary? Arguments can be made for the government's requirements for each of the items in the room. Some of the arguments might even be good ones. Some governmental requirements might make these items safer to use. Every requirement makes them more expensive to buy and to maintain.

Fifth thought: Exactly what does the government give us? It is important to understand, as you look around the room, that the government has nothing to do with the provision of the goods and services of the things that you see. Government has everything to do with the regulation of those goods and services.

Sixth thought: The next time an elected representative of your government tells you that he is going to make your life better, or fix the economy, or make America great again, ask yourself one question: How?

I cannot thank Mr. Anderson enough for writing this! This column is a perfect illustration of the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism is the free market system in which goods and services are produced and consumed because people want them. Profit and success drive the system, which benefits both parties of each transaction - one person gets a product or service that he or she wants, the other gets paid for providing it. It's mutually beneficial, and everyone wins.

Socialism is an oppressive system in which the government controls everything, distributing goods and services as it sees fit (remember how taxation was all about 'fairness'?). It does nothing to enhance freedom, prosperity, or success; rather, it does the opposite. Socialism is parasitic. It does nothing to produce or contribute to the health and success off of its host organism -- in this case America -- but it leeches the strength, ingenuity, and motivation out of it.

This is what we are going to learn the hard way over the next few years. The brand of socialism that Obama wants to implement in America (according to his own promises) is going to tax the most successful people in this country, the vast majority of small businesses (who provide the vast majority of jobs) in this country, and implement vast new restrictions and regulations on every aspect of life. We are going to see an unprecedented attack on the American way of life, and it is sadly going to come from our own leaders.

Just remember this illustration as you see more regulation and less freedom - as you read these words, there is absolutely nothing around you that the government has produced, created, or provided. In contrast, almost everything around you has been taxed, restricted, or regulated by the government.

Now, what do you think government is going to do for you in the next 2-4 years? That's what Obama promised, and that's what 62 million people voted for. Now we're all going to get it.

There's my two cents.

Update On The Obamessiah's Birth Certificate

If you've been following this blog, you know that there's been an effort for months to get Barack Obama to provide his actual long-form birth certificate to prove that he is a 'natural born citizen', as the Constitution requires. See previous posts here, here, here, and here.

This argument started out as a bit of a joke, but has steadily gotten more credibility as higher profile people have gotten involved. There's now another substantial update that needs to be passed along, but before we get to that, here's an article at American Thinker showing why it's a legitimate issue. It's a bit long, but there's a ton of good information that dispels some big-time misconceptions floating around out there. Read the whole thing:

...Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.

Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he's just "another politician." Here's the outline:

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.

C. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.

1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."

3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."

3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.

A. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:

1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;

2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);

3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.

B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?

C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.

The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what's the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's watchdogs aren't.

Now for the most current update. I received an e-mail from Newsmax recently with the following information:

Team Obama:"All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage." According to the WorldNetDaily headline above, that was the retort of an Obama campaign spokesperson when asked about complaints requesting that Senator Obama produce a valid Birth Certificate to prove that he is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

The Constitution of the United States is NOT "garbage" and furthermore, securing the rights of the people under the Constitution is NOT "garbage"!

The Obama campaign's response is an elitist, condescending slap in the face to patriotic Americans. No one is above the law and Team Obama cannot make the question of Obama's eligibility go away by disrespecting the American people - and, by inference, the Constitution of the United States.

You probably already know that Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg filed a suit in U.S. District Court several months back contending that Senator Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen.

And you probably already know that the court dismissed the suit claiming that Berg, as a private citizen, "lacked standing to bring the case."

Of course, Berg is not the only one who has filed an action and the "Berg Case" is not the only one in which the courts have relied upon the lack-of-standing technicality.

Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied an action saying to the plaintiff Rev. Tom Terry, "I don't think you have standing to bring this suit."

Washington State Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed yet another suit ruling that even the Secretary of State did not have authority to inquire about Senator Obama's birth certificate.

Can you believe it? What's going on? Well, perhaps Berg said it best:

"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States - the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

Of course, Berg's statement also illustrates why the "Berg Case" and some of these other actions are doomed to fail and why we believe our action WILL succeed!

Simply stated, the lack-of-standing argument is already out there. Yes, it's egregious but the all too sad reality is that judges will continue to grab onto it like a life-preserver now that it has been put into play... the die has been cast!

That's why [the United States Justice Foundation] is taking a different approach. Our petitioners are Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr. and Markham Robinson!

We state in the Petition we just filed with the court:
"The parties in this case have standing to bring this litigation, due to the fact that Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake, Sr., are candidates on the California ballot for President and Vice President of the United States, and Mr. Robinson is an Elector for the Keyes-Drake ticket, and Vice Chairman of America's Independent Party, of Fenton, Michigan, which nominated Dr. Keyes for President. He is also a Chairman of the American Independent Party (California), which nominated Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake for President and Vice President, respectively. Based on the foregoing, it is imperative for SOS to be provided proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen."

Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake were actually on the ballot in California and Markham Robinson is an Elector for Keyes-Drake. If they don't have standing, one would be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who has standing and if the court attempts to use the lack-of-standing argument, it's an implied admission that NO ONE has standing to enforce the Constitution!

I'm no lawyer, but this is probably the best shot anyone's going to have at forcing Obama to provide the unquestionable proof of his citizenship. I have no idea what is going to happen, but apparently the USJF is gearing up for a long fight, committing to legally contest literally every executive order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork done by the Obama administration until this legal challenge is answered.

If you believe the American people are entitled to some answers -- and let's be clear, this is not a witch-hunt, simply a search for a truth we all deserve to know -- then you can sign a petition demanding those answers here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Obama's documentation truly was legitimate and proper, why doesn't he provide it? And no (as indicated above), the scanned document he pushed out through DailyKos months ago does NOT meet the criteria.

I'll keep you up to date, but it looks like this isn't going away. The Left loved to claim (incorrectly) that Bush was an illegitimate President, but it looks like now we may get the real thing. Time will tell.

There's my two cents.

Quick Mumbai Update

It appears that the fighting in Mumbai is still going on, though it is winding down as authorities are cleaning out -- room by room, it sounds like -- the terrorists.  A number of the terrorists were British citizens, which should really make us question our domestic efforts to root out terrorists who are supposedly from 'friendly' nations.  The total number of dead is now over 150, with almost 400 more being injured.  I've heard reports of as many as four Americans being included in that count.  It sounds like the fatalities would have been significantly higher but for some true heroism on the part of hotel staff, who have done everything from locking guests in secure rooms to literally taking bullets to shield them.

Even when the worst of humanity rears its evil head, the best of humanity shines through.  Still, this should also underscore the need for constant vigilence against terrorism.



Sources:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/british-men-were-among-8-captured.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQ4Y2JjM2MwZjEzNmM0Y2RhMGNjNDdlYjJkZjU2MmI=

No Kumbaya

David Limbaugh writes one of the best explanations of the position I believe conservatives should take during the coming Obama administration:

Many say that now that Barack Obama has been elected, we should all work together for the common good. That sounds wonderful until you realize that we don't all agree on what is the common good.

Notice I don't take the position that Republicans should refuse to cooperate with Mr. Obama because Democrats have been indescribably partisan, cruel and unfair to President Bush for the past eight years.

Those are certainly grounds to call them hypocrites, but we must always put the best interests of the nation above petty partisanship — obviously.

So we must ask, Would it be in the best interest of the nation for Republicans to work with Barack Obama?

The only sensible answer is, It depends on what policies Obama pursues. As much as people want to believe that getting along is the highest good, there are many more important things.

If Democrats were being honest, they would agree with that statement. Otherwise, they owe us an explanation as to why they opposed President Bush at every turn.

Could it be they think their ideas on Iraq, the war on terror, education, stem cell research, judges, the environment, immigration and the rest are more important to them than simply getting along?

I thought so.

And while certain conservative "intellectuals" have anesthetized or deluded themselves with feel-good platitudes, I daresay that camaraderie in furtherance of policies that could permanently erode our liberties is hardly for the common good.

Yet with Obama's rash of Clinton-era appointments, these conservative elites are already feeling vindicated in their stated hope that Obama is not a leftist who would govern in accordance with his decidedly liberal record.

But as I anticipate the Obama presidency, I'm — surprise, surprise — far less sanguine. To the extent that Obama charts a course toward preserving our liberties and prosperity, I'll be more than happy to support him. To the extent that he does not, I have a duty to oppose him, for which I do not apologize.

Based on his campaign and everything I've been able to glean from his available records, here's the short-list of things I believe Obama would:

# Shut down Guantanamo Bay and otherwise make life much easier for our terrorist enemies and others who want to destroy the United States and Israel.

# Fill any Supreme Court and lower court vacancies with liberal activist judges whose decisions would further imperil our constitutional integrity.

# Promote a culture that, notwithstanding the embarrassing denials of such previously stalwart life proponents as Doug Kmiec, would be hostile to the lives of the innocent unborn.

# Initiate a stimulus package that would equal or exceed the $700 billion government "bailout" package, the sheer magnitude of which is still sending shock waves into America's free-market soul. This, despite the liberals' castigation of President Bush for eight years for fiscal irresponsibility.

# Further open the floodgates to illegal immigration, with the purpose of expanding another Democratic constituency and with utter disregard for the rule of law and whether immigrants assimilate into the unique American culture or learn the English language and American civics.

# Seek to implement endless Draconian measures to satisfy the global warming cult, whose blind faith to their secular religion blinds them — ironically — to real science and whose ideology makes them indifferent, at best, to the disastrous economic and freedom-zapping consequences that would ensue.

# Pour even more federal money into and demand more federal control over education, consistent with the liberal policy goals of the National Education Association, which are demonstrably aimed at indoctrination, at the expense of academic excellence.

# Continue to oppose school vouchers, to the disproportionate detriment of inner-city minority children.

# Withdraw our troops from Iraq, even against the advice of generals on the ground, jeopardizing our almost consummated victory, the independence and freedom of the Iraqi people, and possibly rendering vain the noble deaths there of American and Iraqi soldiers.

# Impose some form of nationalized healthcare, which would inevitably destroy, despite its many problems, the best system of healthcare in the world.

# Implement a cookie-cutter Iraq-type surge in Afghanistan when, as former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Op-Ed in The New York Times makes clear, such a course could embroil us in a devastating quagmire.

# Re-sign into law the Censorship Doctrine, otherwise mislabeled the "Fairness Doctrine," with the unhidden purpose of silencing conservative talk radio critics.

We live in very dangerous times. Many of these policies would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse and could forever change America.

I ask those of you who place such a high priority on bipartisanship and collegiality: If Obama pursues the course outlined here, should we help him to be "successful" in those pursuits?

The terms 'loyal opposition' or 'principled opposition' come to mind.

I think it's pretty clear that the Democrat opposition to Bush over the past eight years was based every bit as much on simple hatred as it was on policy grounds.  The sheer viciousness with which they attacked him personally simply cannot be explained by mere disagreements over policy.  We need to refuse to digress to that level over the next four years.  Instead, like Limbaugh suggests, we need to focus on the policies, and what we believe will be good (or bad) for America.  We need to always be respectful and gracious, but that doesn't mean we roll over and give Obama whatever he wants.  We don't have to give him an easy first 100 days, as many in the media are suggesting.  We don't have to quietly give up as the far-Left Congress that is about to take the reigns of American power seeks to re-make this great nation into its vision of a socialist utopia.

We need to give Obama credit when he seeks to implement solutions that genuinely benefit America (for example, his sudden and inexplicable hesitation to close down Gitmo, if he follows through), while also being fierce opponents of any policy we see as damaging America.  We need to be bold, be informed, and above all absolutely steadfast in standing on the conservative principles that made America great, and will continue to keep it great.

There's my two cents.

It Was A Hoax!

The irony here is striking. Let's take a look. Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Of course, as prices rose through the summer, even she fell for this supposed 'hoax', saying she would allow a vote on increased drilling. This was an almost unprecedented step for Democrats, given this history:

For decades, Democrats have blocked efforts to responsibly develop the energy resources our country possesses, transforming vast areas of opportunity into "The No Zone."

Over the past 30 years:

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

But, with two-thirds of Americans supporting offshore drilling and after gas prices soared to over $4 per gallon in July Speaker Pelosi said the Left would consider drilling.

Now, we find out what the real hoax was: Pelosi allowing a real vote on increased oil drilling and energy production.

The Leftist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just blocked a major drilling effort off the coast of Alaska, and it is unlikely any Democrats are going to stand up to complain about it. Investor's Business Daily has the details:

Remember those 68 million acres House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the oil companies had to use or lose? According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, they can't drill there either...

Last Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a major drilling effort in the Beaufort Sea, ruling that federal officials failed to properly address environmental concerns when they granted permission to Shell Oil to drill there. The decision followed a temporary order issued last year that halted Shell's drilling at Sivulliq, 16 miles off the coast of northern Alaska.

"There remains substantial questions as to whether Shell's plan may cause significant harm to the people and wildlife of the Beaufort Sea region," the current ruling said.

It was prompted by a pair of combined lawsuits filed by environmental and Native groups that alleged oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea would disturb migrating whales.

This isn't the first instance where political correct stupidity has trumped practical economic and security concerns:

In a July interview with IBD in which we asked better questions than Katie Couric, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, before she was picked as John McCain's running mate, said: "There are even bigger sources of crude than ANWR . . . such as offshore areas like the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea."

Palin in May challenged the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species; the listing was another move designed to block drilling in these areas. She argued that polar bears were and are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over the last 30 years. Since 1960, when the Alaska oil hunt began, only two oil-related bear fatalities have been documented, according to the federal Mineral Management Service.

The problem, Palin said, was "we frequently find ourselves at the mercy of those who think that we must be protected from ourselves. Shell is up here wanting to drill offshore, but they've been fighting various environmental groups through the 9th Circuit Court and are running into very fierce push-back."

The Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf holds 26.6 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, according to recent Minerals Management Service estimates. Most of that is in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

The real hoax is that they say they want more oil drilling and energy production (though their own drilling bill ruled out almost all actual drilling as can be seen in the picture above), then they appoint judges who make it as difficult as possible for oil companies to actually drill. When will the American public demand accountability from the Democrats and the Left? The American people want more drilling, more nuclear power, more coal power, more wind power, more solar power...why are the Democrats always standing in the way?

Why are people still believing them when the lie through their teeth about providing more energy for America?

There's my two cents.

Source: Gateway Pundit

Happy Thanksgiving!

Rush Limbaugh has a tradition of reading the real story of Thanksgiving and George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving address each year before the holiday. I think it's a great review of history, which is sadly no longer taught (accurately) in our schools. Learn and enjoy:

The Real Story Of Thanksgiving

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work."

Now, you know the usual story of Thanksgiving: They landed. They had no clue where they were, no idea how to feed themselves. The Indians came out, showed 'em how to pop popcorn, fed 'em turkey, saved 'em basically -- and then white European settlers after that basically wiped out the Indian population. It's a horrible example. Not only is that not true, here is the part that's been omitted from what is still today taught as the traditional Thanksgiving story in many schools. "The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store,' when they got here, 'and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well.

"They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. ... [William] Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism,' and it had failed" miserably because when every put things in the common store, some people didn't have to put things in for there to be, people that didn't produce anything were taking things out, and it caused resentment just as it does today. So Bradford had to change it.

"What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering," that happens today and will happen "in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.' ... The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?"

Here's what Bradford wrote, the governor of the Massachusetts colony. "'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he?" or an Obamaite, if I can update it. "Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... Anyway, the pilgrims found "In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"

Very few people have heard this story or have had it taught to them -- and the "thanks" was to God for showing them the way. In later parts of the chapter, I quote John Adams and George Washington on their reminisces and their thoughts on the first Thanksgiving and the notion it was thanks to God. It was an entirely different story than is being taught in the schools. It's been muddied down, watered down all these years -- and now it's been hijacked by the multicultural community -- to the point that the story of Thanksgiving is the Pilgrims were a bunch of incompetents and were saved only by the goodness of the Indians, who then were wiped out. And that's what kids are being taught today -- 'cause, of course, you can't mention the Bible in school, and that's fundamental to the real story of Thanksgiving.

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

[Rush:] You want me to count the number of references to God? How about just the first line? "Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." Let's see. One, two, three, four references in just that first clause. What a fanatic, George Washington! Just wanted you to hear that. That's the first Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789. The real story of Thanksgiving -- and by the way, the real story is continuing, what I just read to you. The thanks was given to God, not the Indians.

Let us follow in the footsteps of the founders of our nation, thanking God for the blessings He has given us.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The People Say...

Here are two Rasmussen Reports polls that I think are interesting.

Negative on the auto bailout

Fifty-five percent (55%) of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded loans to help the Big Three automakers stay in business, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 26% support loans to General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, while 18% are undecided.

Investors, with an eye to the wildly fluctuating markets, are even more strongly opposed. Sixty-four percent (64%) are against taxpayer-funded loans to the Big Three, compared to 45% of non-investors.

In mid-November, 46% of Americans opposed a taxpayer-backed bailout of the Big Three automakers.

One-third of voters (34%) put most of the blame for the companies’ business problems on the automakers themselves, while 25% blame auto workers’ unions.

Something else that I find interesting about this poll is the difference in political party views:

Forty-one percent (41%) of Democrats blame the automakers, while 43% of Republicans blame the unions.

Hm. So, the Right blames the freedom-squashing unions who are driving up costs and driving down quality, while the Left blames the free market business itself. What does that say about the ideology of the two parties? Hmmm...

Democrat leaders on the economy
What do people think of the leading Democrats' ability to solve the economic crisis?

The key Democrats on Capitol Hill who will be working to reverse the country’s financial downturn are better known than Barack Obama’s new economic team but not better thought of by voters.

Just 30% of U.S. voters have a favorable opinion of Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, while 37% view him unfavorably. One-third of voters (33%) don’t know enough about Dodd to have an opinion of him one way or the other.

Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees the banking and housing industries, has an even bigger favorability gap. Twenty-seven percent (27%) have a favorable view of the Massachusetts congressman, but 42% regard him unfavorably, including 31% who say that view is Very Unfavorable. A similar number (32%) are not sure what they think of Frank.

Both men are shrouded in corruption scandals. But they're not alone in their public disapproval:

Just 12% of voters give Congress good or excellent job approval ratings, but they are the highest ratings for the legislature since mid-May. Fifty-five percent (55%) say Congress is doing a poor job. A majority of voters have given Congress a poor rating in every survey since mid-June.

One little thought about the wisdom of the people:

"I am convinced that, on the good sense of the people, we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."
-- Thomas Jefferson --

We should listen to him. The people have spoken.

There's my two cents.

Terrorist Attack In India

A major terrorist attack occurred today in Mumbai, India. Details:

TERRORISTS HAVE TAKEN HOSTAGES AT THE TAJ MAHAL HOTEL
An ATS team has arrived at the Taj, where fresh blasts have been reported.
There was at least two explosions in the dome of the Taj.

"Gunmen took 40 hostages and half of them foreigners. They wanted anyone with a British or American accent!" -NDTV.
Terrorists did not even spare hospitals-- Gunfire reported at GT and Cama.
There are reports that hostages were taken in Cama hospital of the city.

Terrorists strike in at least 7 different locations!... 60 people dead!
...Make that 80 people dead.
Trident Hotel bombed!

A policeman stands guard after shootings by unidentified assailants at a railway station in Mumbai. (Reuters)

National Terror Alert has live video coverage:

Terrorists are reported to be moving through city in emergency vehicles and staging multiple attacks. Shootings, explosions and other attacks are taking place throughout the city.

There are reports of hostages being held at several locations. Americans and other westerners are reportedly being rounded up by terrorists in several hotels.

All security personal are being called up but are still overwhelmed by the scope of the terror attack.

The attacks have been blamed on Muslim militants.

Mortal remains of a taxi after terror attack at western express highway near domestic airport in Mumbai. (Hindustan Times)

A policeman walks with an elderly man after shootings by unidentified assailants at a railway station in Mumbai. (Reuters)

Lawhawk is covering the massacre.

A little known outfit Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility for the attacks.
There are now reports of firing at JW Marriott Hotel as well.

UPDATE: Horror! There is fighting reported from the hotels.
The operation is ongoing. Security forces are moving throughout the city. There could be more targets throughout the city. A couple of terrorists have been killed away from the downtown. This is a new kind of urban jihad.
FOX News is following the story.

UPDATE: More than 100-120 guests are held hostage in Mumbai!

More updates as they occur...

What's Urgent?

From American Thinker (excerpts):

In a video shown at a costly, two-day "global warming" jamboree at the Beverly Hills Hotel, hosted by Governor Schwarzenegger of California in November 2008, Barack Obama said:

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security."

Obama said he would introduce "a federal cap and trade system to reduce America's emissions of carbon dioxide to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050." He said his administration would "invest" $15 billion a year in solar power, wind power, biofuels, nuclear power and clean coal to "save the planet" by creating 5 million new "green jobs".

Few challenges facing America and the world are less urgent than combating the non-problem of "global warming". On all measures, there has been no increase in global mean surface temperatures since 1995; and, according to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, near-surface temperatures in 2008 will be lower than in 1980, 28 years ago, the first complete year of satellite observations. On all measures, global temperatures have been falling for seven full years since late 2001. The January-to-January fall in temperatures between 2007 and 2008 was the greatest since global temperature records were first compiled in 1880, 128 years ago. The rate of new Arctic sea-ice formation in mid-October 2008 was among the fastest since satellite records began almost 30 years ago. There has been no decline whatsoever in the total global extent of sea ice since satellite records began. New records for the extent of northern-hemisphere snow cover were observed by the satellites in the winter of 2001 and again in 2007. This year, many ski resorts are opening early as Arctic weather strikes. Many temperature stations in the northern hemisphere recorded record low temperatures in October/November 2008.

These facts are inconsistent with the notion that "global warming" is occurring, still less that it is dangerous. The Sun continues to show very few sunspots. Many solar physicists now predict at least half a century of global cooling, which would be a far greater and more destructive problem than a little warming.

Obama is not correct to say, "The science is not in dispute." Across all disciplines, some 31,000 scientists approached by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2007/8 signed a declaration to the effect that "global warming" is not a global crisis and that humankind has very little influence over the climate. A survey of climatologists and scientists in related fields by Van Storch (2005/6) established that a considerable proportion of respondents did not believe the alarmist notions disseminated by Al Gore or the UN climate-change panel. The office of Senator James Inhofe maintains a list of more than 500 scientists in climate and related fields who have made public statements questioning at least one aspect of what has falsely been presented as a scientific "consensus".

In any event, as the late Michael Crichton used to say, "If it's consensus, it isn't science: if it's science, it isn't consensus." Science is not done by consensus: and, even if it were, the evidence is that a very considerable body of scientists both within and beyond climatology have grave doubts about the notion of a significant and damaging human influence on the climate.

...

Obama is right to wish to reduce his nation's dependence upon foreign oil from unstable and largely hostile regimes such as Venezuela or the Arab world. But that is a problem quite independent from the non-problem of "global warming"...

It is welcome that Obama has accepted the contributions that nuclear energy and clean coal can make. However, he is wrong to place any faith in significant energy supplies from solar or wind energy. These technologies only survive anywhere in the world because they are currently fashionable enough to attract massive subsidies. One of the biggest problems Obama will face in the coming years is maintaining a secure energy supply. For that he will need to continue to rely on coal and other fossil fuels, whether he likes it or not. Fortunately, fossil fuels are not a threat to the planet's climate, and it is no longer credible to pretend that they are.

The Obamessiah believes global warming is an urgent problem (despite the evidence).  Meanwhile, we face enemies that are so desperate and dedicated to kill us that they brainwash disabled women into becoming suicide bombers, and they celebrate thugs who beat children to death simply for being an Israeli.  Iran now has enough nuclear material to create a complete nuclear weapon and is boasting of launching a rocket into space (though the truth of that claim is in dispute).  Russia is on the move just south of us and talking tough again.  Domestically, the economic madness is snowballing from bad to worse as industry after industry is lining up to get a bailout.  After the banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, credit card companies, cities and states, auto makers, and others who have already been bailed out, we now have the ski industry, soap operas, newspapers, and sock puppets.

Isn't is nice to know that Barack Obama has such good judgment when it comes to prioritizing things that are urgent?

There's my two cents.

Gitmo Awfulness And Obama's Thorny Problem

Michelle Malkin's latest column sheds some light on how tough it is to be a terrorist in U.S. custody at Gitmo, as well as the sudden about-face that the Obama administration appears to be performing:

Playing games at Gitmo
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

The human rights crowd is right: Life is hard for a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The deprivation is unspeakable. Their brains have not been "stimulated" enough, according to the facility's "cultural advisor." Which is why this Thanksgiving, America is drawing up plans to provide the 250 or so suspected jihadists at the "notoriously Spartan" detention camp with basic sustenance including movie nights, art classes, English language lessons, and "Game Boy-like" electronic devices, according to the Miami Herald.

Next up: Wii Fit, Guitar Hero, Sudoku, People magazine, and macramé. Anything less would be uncivilized.

On a deadly serious note, the detainees aren't the only ones playing games at Gitmo. Some top legal advisors and supporters of Barack Obama, whose name detainees chanted on election night, are now rethinking the President-elect's absolutist campaign position on shutting the center down and flooding our mainland courts with every last enemy combatant designee. Yes, reality bites – and Democrats must now grapple with the very real possibility that an Obama administration could potentially release a Gitmo denizen who would turn around and commit mass terrorist acts on American soil or abroad.

Nothing clarifies the mind like a jihadi boomerang. Never before have an administration and its followers matured so quickly in office – and they haven't even taken office yet. While Obama paid lip service to the "Close the Gitmo gulag!" agenda on 60 Minutes over the weekend, his kitchen cabinet is proceeding more pragmatically. Believe it or not, the Obama crowd is now contemplating a preventive detention law and an alternative judicial system for the most sensitive national security cases involving the most highly classified information. Information that has no place being aired in the civilian courts for public consumption.

Listen to relentless Bush critic David Cole, who told the New York Times last week: "You can't be a purist and say there's never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone." Added Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution: "I'm afraid of people getting released in the name of human rights and doing terrible things."

Moreover, Obama transition team members have suggested to the Wall Street Journal that despite his campaign season CIA-bashing, "Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight."

Next thing you know, they'll start arguing that the world has been fooled by years of sob-story propaganda about the Gitmo detainees — funded by Kuwaiti government-subsidized lawyers who cast them all as innocent potato farmers and schmucks dazed and confused on battlefields.

Next thing you know, they'll rediscover the facts that detainees have systematically lied and exaggerated stories about mistreatment at Gitmo and that interrogators and military personnel have bent over backwards to accommodate their personal and religious needs and wants.

Next thing you know, they'll start reminding us that dozens of former Gitmo detainees have been released and recaptured on the battlefield while committing acts of terrorism.

Funny, when President Bush and his homeland security team realized these very realities seven years ago, they were branded terrorists and hounded relentlessly by Congress, the media, and the Left. When Attorney General Michael Mukasey eloquently defended these administration's counter-terrorism policies at the Federalist Society before he collapsed, he was heckled as a "tyrant." And when I wrote my second book expounding on this very thesis, I was branded a racist and fascist whose ideas exploring the proper balance between security and civil liberties had no place in public discourse.

Now, at long last, some liberals have realized that the sacred goal of "regain[ing] America's moral stature in the world," as Obama put it, may be less important than ensuring that al Qaeda killers don't strike on American ground again.

Viva la Hope and Change!

Two things.  First, the next time you hear someone whining about how evil America is for keeping Gitmo open, you should really point out some of these awful things that the terrorists have to deal with there.  Movie nights and video games??  It sounds more like a vacation resort than a prison to me!  My guess is that pretty much everyone who thinks Gitmo is akin to torture of poor innocent people has their head in the sand.  Maybe a little reality will help them.  Second, this is another instance where Obama appears to be failing on one of his key campaign promises.  Don't get me wrong - I love seeing all of these particular failures, because the things he promised and proposed while on the campaign trail were, in my opinion, disastrous.  Even coming back on a few of them are good news to me.  For him to come around to the side of sanity, especially on something as critical as fighting terrorism, is absolutely good news, and I applaud him for it (if he follows through, of course), and any other measures that will keep Americans safe.

Still, it illustrates a couple of key points that reveal a very thorny problem.  First, that Obama is already heading toward outright failure as a President.  The Right is going to oppose him pretty consistently unless he really comes over that center line, which just isn't going to happen.  The Left, on the other hand, will probably tolerate some moderation from his radical campaign promises, but if he moves too far to the center, they'll discard him as a traitor, too.  We've seen how rabid the far Left is, even to the point of cannibalizing their own, so their support is not a given for Obama.  At that point, Obama becomes an outcast from both ideological sides, and, with a run-amuck Congress like we will probably have, he'll be unable to do anything at all other than go along with whatever they want.  I could be wrong, of course, but I just don't see how he can become anything other than an ineffective President at best, and a disastrous one at worst.  Of course, the media won't tell you that since they sold their souls to get him elected - you'll have to feel the effects yourself through your pocketbooks, your lessened freedoms, and your lessened national security.

This also shows us that Obama is a flat-out liar with zero integrity.  How many issues has he backpedaled on so far?  And he hasn't even been sworn in yet!  So, this shows us that he will say anything to anyone, as long as it's what needs to be said at the moment.  There is no leadership there, only political expediency.  That's the problem.  Can we trust anything this guy says?  He has not shown us any indication that we can.  If Obama talks tough with our enemies, will they buy it?  They're already planning to test him, so you draw your own conclusion there.  If Obama commits American aid to our allies, can they count on it?  Israel is already preparing to go it alone, and the EU is taking measures to strengthen themselves.

This is why integrity matters.  When a man or woman of integrity commits to something, the world understands what is at stake.  When a man without integrity commits to something, no one much cares because the commitment doesn't matter beyond the current conversation.  How can a man without integrity possibly be an inspiration and a true leader when no one can count on them to follow through on what they say?  There is nothing worse for a politician than becoming irrelevant, and that's exactly what will happen.

This is going to be a rough four years for all of us.  I'm beginning to wonder if it's going to be even rougher for the Obamessiah himself.

Ehh...probably not.

There's my two cents.

Guns And The Obamessiah

Remember that huge 63-page survey that every prospective employee of the Obama administration had to fill out? Well, it appears that owning a gun is enough to get you disqualified from working in the administration:

The 59th question demands to know whether the applicant or anyone in his/her family owns a firearm, a sign of the hostility we expected to see towards gun owners from Barack Obama:

But even some Democrats and transition experts are baffled by the inclusion of the question.

Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.” …

It’s just one question on a lengthy personnel form — No. 59 on a 63-question list — but the furor over the query is a vivid reminder of the intensity of support for Second Amendment rights and signals the scrutiny Obama is likely to receive from the ever-vigilant gun lobby.

Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.

Oh, I get it. Rather than just ask the traditional question about prior convictions, Team Obama wants to proactively ensure that their applicants don’t break laws. Will we see questions like this?

• Do you have children? Please list proof that you haven’t beat or molested them.
• Do you have pets? Please list proof that you have them spayed or neutered.
• Do you have alcoholic beverages in your house? Please list proof that you’re not an alcoholic.
• Do you have satellite television service? Please list proof that you don’t buy pay-per-view porno or professional wrestling.

No, of course not, nor should we … well, perhaps except for the professional wrestling question, but we’ll work on that later. Team Obama isn’t interested in enforcing gun laws through job applications. They don’t want gun owners working in the administration, and they’re screening for that right up front.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right. Employment discrimination on that basis should be illegal. It certainly should be exposed so that we can get a sense of how the man who will swear to protect and defend the Constitution plans on doing either for the entire Constitution.

Will a religious test come next in the Obama vetting process?

I guess this explains why there's been an incredible run on guns and ammo lately:

The media has been noting, with some distaste at the paranoia of backwoods Americans, that the Obama win has triggered an uptick in gun sales:

But whatever the reason, gun dealers in red and blue states alike say they've never seen anything like the run on weaponry they've been experiencing since Election Day— surpassing even the panic buying in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"People are terrified of losing their right to protect themselves," said DeWayne Irwin, owner of Cheaper Than Dirt, a large gun store in Ft. Worth. "The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point people are buying ammunition, high-capacity magazines, Glocks—it's all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest."

I'm sure it doesn't help that Obama's pick for Attorney General supports the ban on handguns that the Supreme Court recently overturned. Is it any wonder why gun owners are concerned, and people are fearing they won't be able to get guns once Obama is in office?

No, not really.

There's my two cents.

Palin And Turkey

Sarah Palin did the obligatory Governor thing and pardoned the official Alaska turkey a few days ago. Shortly thereafter, she conducted an interview with a TV reporter. She was standing directly in front of a machine where turkeys were being slaughtered. Watch here:

Naturally, animal rights Lefties were horrified. As you can see from the anchor reporting this story, he describes the horrific nature of the demise of these turkeys with more gravity than we normally get with reporting of people being murdered. Personally, I think it's both amusing and stupid...I mean, what do they think happens to turkeys right before Thanksgiving?? Where do they think those nicely packaged turkeys in the grocery store come from?

Perhaps also naturally, the Right has been deriving immense amusement from the hand-wringing overreactions on the Left. For example, here's Powerline:

What has liberals a-twitter is that--this being a turkey farm and all--someone starts killing a couple of turkeys in the background while Palin's interview is going on and she doesn't seem to care! She continues as though nothing were happening!

This suggests other dire possibilities. When Governor Palin and her husband take their commercial fishing boat out into the ocean for 24 hours at a time, braving high winds and waves, and succeed in hauling salmon into their boat, they don't catch and release the fish! Instead, they let them die so that people can eat them! And we won't even start on what happens when Palin hunts moose or caribou. Did you know that those aren't rubber bullets?

Yes, it's quite a scandal in Liberal Land. Sarah Palin actually doesn't mind when turkeys are killed, almost in her very presence. Which is the rub, I suppose.

Mark Steyn:

I didn't think I could like Sarah Palin more than I do, but the nancy boys at MSNBC bleating all over the screen about the Great Turkey Carnage is hilarious. This is a great caption:

TURKEYS DIE AS GOVERNOR PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS FROM MEDIA

Or was it: MEDIA DIE AS GOVERNOR PALIN TAKES QUESTIONS FROM TURKEYS.

After she's sworn in in 2013, I hope President Palin arranges for a ritual turkey slaughter to be going on behind her at every press conference, if only during David Shuster's questions.

Here and here are some NRO readers who offered some comments on the whole kerfuffle. Here are my favorite zingers:

Where’d folks think their turkey dinners came from? A yeast vat? That’s what happens on farms. With all due respect to Charlotte’s Web, Wilbur’s purpose in life is to become bacon and ol’ Tom is due for a basting. Heck, if I were governor and were asked to pardon a turkey I’d just say, “Naah. Fry ‘im. Preferably in peanut oil.”

-------------------------------

FWIW, the birds in the background are being bled out. The word slaughter usually carries the idea of butchering, which is not what's happening in the the video. Governor Palin probably didn't think twice about "what was going on in the background" because that's what goes on on small turkey farms. It's nothing. No big deal. If she'd personally wrung the bird's neck, bled it out, plucked it, eviscerated it and put in on a spit to roast while talking to the reporter, I would have been impressed.

The more the MSM reports on this sort of thing the more they alienate themselves from the real people who do the work of growing and processing food for the nation.

-------------------------------

Killing is what happens on farms. Seriously. I'm saying this as a farmer.

City people think that farms are "where life happens." Nonsense. Farming is about killing stuff. I don't even raise livestock or poultry and I have to kill stuff.

I can get crops to grow by simply putting seed in the ground. The rest of my job is to kill, kill, kill. Kill weeds. Kill insect pests. Kill vertebrate pests. Whether by herbicide, pesticides, shooting, trapping, stomping, you name it — I spend far more time killing than I do making something grow. Mother nature takes care of the growing. I have to remove the competition.

-------------------------------

She should tell the media that she apologizes and she'll do her next interview inside an abortion clinic.

You just can't make this stuff up, you know? The real point of this post is to illustrate how ridiculous it is when people lose sight of what's truly important in this world. Of course we shouldn't abuse animals and wipe them out without cause. But, come on, this is getting more than a little ridiculous, isn't it? We do have to eat, you know.

There's my two cents.