Patriotism the Subject of a New Major Obama Speech

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama plans to deliver what his campaign is calling a “major speech” Monday, centering around an issue he’s been trying to highlight for months now: his patriotism.

The remarks come in Harry Truman’s hometown of Independence, Missouri, just days before the Fourth of July.

“Sen. Obama will discuss what patriotism means to him and what it requires of all Americans who love this country and want to see it do better,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton wrote in a morning email to reporters.

At the risk of restating the obvious, he wouldn’t need to make a speech to convince everyone about his patriotism, if he actually had any in the first place;.  We’d already know.

A salute to Michelle Malkin and a host of others, for generating a cool million dollars for the troops.

(CNSNews.com) – Americans from across the nation tuned in to hear the “un-told” stories behind the war on terror at last Thursday’s “From the Frontlines” Web-based telethon. The program, which ran for eight hours, was presented to raise money to deliver thousands of care packages to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – and it succeeded, pulling in more than $1 million, $500,000 above its goal.

Move America Forward, a conservative, pro-troops group, organized the eight-hour telethon, which ran from 4PM to midnight PDT. Author and blogger Michelle Malkin, along with other conservative luminaries, participated in the show, which Web-cast interviews with U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The conservative guests and the soldiers all communicated through the Internet and from various Web-stations in the United States and in Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially like a global conference call and talk show.

I wish I’d known about that one before it went down, I’d ahve gladly donated space on the site… or whatever i could to tthe cause. Glad to see it went so well, though.

Unfreeping believeable.   Barack Obama, through Wesley Clark is attacking Captain John McCain’s, United States Navy (retired) military record, Josh Kraushaar:

Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain’s military service.

Captain McCain was tested like few men ever were, and as no man ever should.   Unlike the previous Democrat nominee Captain McCain did opt to leave the theater early, and did not attack his fellow veterans when he returned home.   Captain McCain served his country with valor, courage and honor.

BO of course has no military record, and a record of horrid judgement, Joe Lieberman:

“If we had done what Sen. Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and Al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world.”

More, Gateway Pundit:

Wesley Clark said that Obama was: “Running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment.”
It’s not clear if he referring to the 20 year relationship Obama had with TUCC and Rev. Wright with that statement

Kerry tired to make a political name for himself by slandering the American Fighting Man.   Now BO is taking a page from Kerry”s playbook.   Captain McCain made carrier landings at night.   Nothing in BO’s tepid little life can match that experience.  I call upon Obama to repudiate Clark and personally apologize to Captain McCain.

Addendum: (Bit)

Well, let’s see. Clark, eh? Oh, heck. Turnabout’s fair play. Didnt Clark, last election, back someone whose only contribution was sitting in a boat, and who through some feat of training, and courage, manged to wound himself in the ass with his own bit of schrapnel? I mean, didn’t Clark call that service significant in terms of the guy’s ability to lead? Didn’t the guy Clark supported, back in the day, just about change his name to “Served in Vietnam”?

Look, let’s stipulate Clark is a bit of scum, and move on from there,  shall we?

Addendum II: (Bit) Michelle Malkin has lots more.

So does Q&O

Joe Gandelman , the guy who calls himself ‘”The Moderate Voice” has one again, proved beyond any doubt whatever that he is nothing but a poser for the ‘moderate’ moniker he claims:

This kind of thing can hurt a candidate:

In a telephone interview with the Orange County Register earlier this week, John McCain acknowledged he was unaware of the price of gas. The OC Register’s Martin Wicksol reports:

WICKSOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?

MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

Not pumping it is one thing. Not knowing it is another. It can and most likely will be used against him in a court of political battle. Big mistake. If his handlers are smart, they’ll make sure he knows the average price of gas in the U.S. every single day until the elections.

Earth to Joe Gandelman:

When was the last time you pumped gas where the price hadn’t changed rather dramatically from the day before?  I went on an 800 mile run yesterday, and as I drove back past the same gas stations I drove past going out, the prices had changed  less than 12 hours later!  Threw my cost estimates for the run,  off by several dollars. Who’s supposed to keep up with this, even when you drive quite a bit?

There’s this, too; Most of that change has been within the last year, the period during which McCain has been living out of a jet, doing stump speeches and the like. IN short, McCain doesn’t drive much at all of late, nor would anyone else running for high elective office just now.

Obama, just as an offhanded example:

How about asking that question of Obama, the guy so disconnected from the weight of gas prices he thinks we’re not paying enough? Did that obvious connection somehow get by you? I mean, you’re right in that such things can hurt a candidate.  Particularly so, when the self proclaimed ‘moderates’ accept the liberal argument on the point without raising any serious questions of their own, as someone with any degree of balance would do..  You’ve done this too often for it not to be anything but a pattern, and a damning one, at that.

Look, Joe… McCain’s no conservative; being at best a moderate.  So, when I see you piling on with the foaming liberals like Think Progress on this little tidbit, without bothering to  even to TRY to balance your slam by issuing comment on Obama’s obvious, flaming and flagrant lack of understanding on that issue, you can add that to the long list of reasons I’ve already offered as to why you’ve lost all credible claim to the title of “Moderate”, and you’re lumped in with the foamers.

Addendum:(Bit)
Patterico apparently agrees, insofar as the Think Progress post is concerned. If Patterico understands these basics, what’s keeping Gandelman from that same understanding?

Back early this morning from an 800 mile sojurn to Fostoria Ohio…. a day trip.  Took me a while to get the internet connection going again. Once I get the servers going again, I’ll have some comments,, and maybe some photos.

Free men claim natural rights.  On the other hand, serfs settle for whatever few rights their masters allow  them.   E. J. Dionne is a serf.  American free man hold that they have God given rights, which aree protected, but not created by the Constitution of the United State.  Modern day serfs, on the other hand, settle for those rights doled out by the Supreme court.

Dionne, Real Clear Politics, is upset by Heller:

WASHINGTON — In knocking down the District of Columbia’s 32-year ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have shown again their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right

Dionne is laboring under the impression that Supreme Court is our master, and we are only allowed such rights as the Court deems fit to allow.   The right for free men to carry arms is not a right created by the Constitution.   It is fundamental right of free men protected by the Constitution:  United States v. Cruikshank (1876):

“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…”

Dionne attempt to pawn off the Second Amendment as some supposed collective right, by hinting at United States v. Miller (1939) without actually citing the case:

But these pragmatic judgments underestimate how radical this decision is in light of the operating precedents of the last 69 years. The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right

Dionne has good reason to not actually cite Miller. , because the case does not hold what Dionne purports it to.   While Miller devotes a lot verbage talking about the militia, the court never questioned Jack Miller’s standing, or utter lack thereof, in the militia.  Rather the court’s sole question pertained to the status of Miller’s weapon, to wit a sawed-off shotgun:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Dione is a serf.   Are you a free man, or are you  a serf?

Addendum: (Bit)

As I said Friday: What all this boils down to is who is the best at protecting us… we, ourselves, or the government.  No shock, that the left, who never sees a government power it doesn’t like, is on the leading edge of this fight.  Dionne, unsurpisingly, says it’s the government. I’m willing to bet that Dionne doesn’t spend much time in the monument area of DC after dark. He might, under those conditions be arguing a different case.

Roger Clegg, National Review, reports that Senate has passed yet another silly and unconstitutoinal apology:

On February 26, the Senate passed a “Resolution of Apology to Native Peoples of the United States.”  It is now pending in the House of Representatives.

First it makes “findings,” one of which is that “the policies of the Federal Government toward Indian tribes and the breaking of covenants with Indian tribes have contributed to the severe social ills and economic troubles in many Native communities today.”  No mention, of course, of more proximate causes, like off-the-chart rates of alcoholism and illegitimacy.  And, of course, government efforts “to assimilate” Indians, rather than the reservation system, is criticized.

Faith Brenner, Argus Leader, reports Native Americans have their grievences and feel entitled to an apology:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – More than 100 years after the 7th Cavalry killed 300 Lakota men, women and children at Wounded Knee Creek, Congress is considering legislation officially apologizing for it and other mistreatment the U.S. government carried out against Native Americans over the years.

South Dakota’s congressional delegation supports the Resolution of Apology to Native Peoples of the United States, which the Senate unanimously agreed to add to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which is now pending in the House

I acknowledge the Native Americans sense of aggrevation, and that their grievences are not without merit.

I do not and I will not apologize.   Will you?

?

More on Bit’s comments about the Canadian Human Rights Commission(CHRC) battle against freedom, Ezra Levant reports from the front lines:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, like any petty tyranny, has a strong instinct for survival. As I predicted last week on the Michael Coren Show, that instinct would cause them to drop the complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s. And so they did.

With an RCMP investigation, a Privacy Commission investigation and a pending Parliamentary investigation, they’re already fighting a multi-front P.R. war, and losing badly. Not a day goes by when the CHRC isn’t pummelled in the media. Holding a show trial of Maclean’s and Steyn, like the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal did earlier this month, would be writing their own political death sentence

Note how in true Orwellain fashion the term human rights has been stripped of its meaning.  Sadly the term human rights is now associated with promoting depravity and tyranny.

Our friends to the north have long tradition of supporting freedom and liberty.  The CHRC is very unCanadian.

Nothing disintects a democracy like sunlight.  The CHRC is being exposed to sunlight and is not taking it well.  

The CHRC is a bully and bullies back down when confronted.   The CHRC has been confronted and is backing down.

?

• Not that it ever amounted to much anyway, but Fox Business blog notes that the gas tax holiday went bye bye, before it ever got going. And let’s be honest, here, 18.4 cents at the pump doesn’t even scratch the surface of the tax take going on, here.
• Of course, that news shows up just in time for a trip we’ve had planned for a month, now. RT around 800 miles,  and price, around $150, for a trip that a few years ago ran us $60. Gee, thanks, Democrats.
• Speaking of taxes, and their effects; Fox also notes that the stimulus checks gave the economy a boost like it hasn’t had in 33 years. Disposable incomes went up by 5.7%.  Kinda gives you pause, doesn’t it, as to the effects taxes have on the economy?
• NORK blew up a cooling tower, yesterday. Certainly a step in the right direction, and as I said yesterday, one worth rewarding.
• Laura Ingrahm goes back on Radio come Monday.
•  Grove Parc Plaza… one of the Barack Obama success(?) stories.
• Madonna wants a divorce?  Oh, crud. Like we need another couple years of her every whine being front and center. The reason, Guy? Apparently Madonna is to quote Harvey Korman in ”Blazing Saddles’  she’s “Too Jewish”. Or as the Sun quips… “Call him a Kab“
• Yellow Science isn’t the phrase I’d have picked, but it’ll do.
• Here’s a drug we could all use
• Good news for Mark Steyn.  Still, I rather wish the authority could be stripped from such groups. Even being dragged up before such a rgup is an injustice, particularly given the legal fees can’t be paid by most people.

Sorry, I’m just not excited about this at all. Know why? Because there never should have been a handgun ban in the first place. So as far as I’m concerned, this decision was way overdue, and it’s about damn time. The sad part is that the decision should’ve been 9 – 0,

Cassy Fiano, On Heller.

SOTUS gets no reward for openly admitting that free citizens have the right to keep hand guns in their own homes.

?

Billy commenting again about Sullivan and his praise for $4/gasl gas had me hunting around for something. While doing that, I found something else… a post of mine from about a year ago, that perhaps deserves revisiting, so as to get some background on both the larger issues and particularly Sullivan’s nonsense and the roots thereof.

-1-

About everybody on the planet, seemingly, has picked up on this story within the last few days of the kid who went ahead and put together a dream truck, only to see the environmentalist fascist crowd in his neighborhood decide that he wasn’t being environmentally friendly. I’ll link Joyner, here, because it’s handy… and he in turn quotes the WaPo:

On a narrow, leafy street in Northwest Washington, where Prius hybrid cars and Volvos are the norm, one man bought a flashy gray Hummer that was too massive to fit in his garage. So he parked the seven-foot-tall behemoth on the street in front of his house and smiled politely when his eco-friendly neighbors looked on in disapproval at his “dream car.” It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: “FOR THE ENVIRON.”

[…]

He bought the used 2005 vehicle a month ago from a dentist in Fairfax County and left it in a shop for several weeks so it could be outfitted to his specifications — new, bigger tires and a “lift kit,” meaning it would be higher off the ground. Groves, who grew up in the District and works in marketing for a local radio station, said he wanted the car in part because he is starting a company, Washington Sports Marketing, that is “image-based.”

He said he wants to get it towed and repaired but fears extremists might not be done making an example of him. “I’m worried about what I do now,” he said. “If I get it fixed, do I put it back in the same spot three weeks from now?”

Suber suggests:

These cretins are dangerous persons who are using environmentalism as an excuse to terrorize a man.

Put them in Palestine and they throw concrete blocks (“rocks” as the media call them) at Israeli soldiers. Put them in Germany in the 1930s and they lead the charge for on Krystallnacht. They were the Midnight Riders in she[e]ts burning crosses in the South during Reconstruction.

James himself points out that:

Unfortunately, while the vast majority of people would eschew violence, far too many are willing to smirk at it if it’s directed against those they dislike.

Yeah, well, brown shirts are like that. And in reality, that’s what we’re dealing with here. Class envy tied to a brownshirt mentality. If you think I’m kidding, take a look at some of the other comments that James quotes.
I drive the Buick version of the Trailblazer, these days… a Rainier. Here’s a few more pics, if you like. I get around 16mp around town, 21-22 on the highway. Not too shabby, for a 300hp rig, actually. In the seventies, this would have been considered a small vehicle.
And guess what? The H3 uses the same Atlas engine, and gets about the same MPG…. within a few tenths of an MPG.

Am I now to fear that some bozo’s going to wreck my vehicle because he thinks I should be driving a Yugo? It’s probably not likely, because it’s not as visible a vehicle. Not as “in your face”. But if this was for the environment, if all this destruction, all this anger was because of the environment, wouldn’t my truck be a target as well? That it is not, suggests that the environment is not the issue for these morons.

Perhaps if we look closely, we’ll find some similar holes in the remaining arguemnts by these supposed ‘eco-warriors’… Let’s examine some of the standard anti-SUV arguments:

SUV’s support terrorists

While this would be true if we were actually getting a significant portion of our oil from the Middle East, we’re not. Iraq, for example, only accounts for around 9% of our consumption, under the normal conditions we’ve not had for some 10 years now.
Let’s also consider the idea that all automobiles burn fuel, and often at as high a rate as SUV’s, the whining not withstanding. Looking even closer, let’s say that the SUV uses 20 gal per week, on average. Meanwhile the driver of the average car gets a little better, burning perhaps 8 gallons per week less. Are the folks at the Detroit project telling us that it’s just the money for that eight gallons that funds terrorism, and the rest are OK?

So, by those lights, shouldn’t that be ANYTHING that burns gas or uses oil contributes? Why just SUV’s? Should we be shutting down NASCAR and NHRA competitions because they’re anti-American? Do we all become Amish to satisfy these people? The question becomes, of course, at what point does this Liber-Lieâ„¢ get to absurd levels?

And I’m not even going to get into Al Gore and his jet collection. His SUV’s. And so on.

SUV’s Pollute

Again, comes the question about ALL autos. The fact is, the pollution from such vehicles are no worse than the vast majority on the road today, Including the mini-coffins the left would have us driving.

There’s no real need for the SUV

I’m forced to agree with Charles Galbach, who speaks to these points better than I:

“In the first place, the purchase of SUV’s by businesses was the result of your close buddies, the tax lawyers and their cohorts in the not that long ago Democratically controlled congress which permitted or encouraged a windfall tax deduction for SUV’s, posing as “trucks”. Since the Republicans have a history of trying to bottle up lawyers, including tax lawyers, where they belong and also have a history of opposing business taxes rather than the Democrat method of manufacturing loopholes, it had to be the Democrats who conjured up this ruse. It obviously backfired with unintended consequences.

Secondly, it was the Democrats who forced the auto industry into creating vehicles that couldn’t hold even 2 adults and 2 children without them being squashed inside a thimble sized vehicle. These same vehicles are underpowered and therefore unsafe on any highway at any speed. They qualify for no more than zipping around an area no bigger than your typical gated community – a role better served by the usual golf cart.

Everyone, except the rabid few enviro-whackos can see this. As a result, we see mom driving around in an oversized vehicle which is the only one that can hold her kids and a couple friends on a trip to soccer practice – or grandma driving around in an oversized vehicle which is about the only thing safe enough for her to drive on her daily errands.”

To this excellent commentary, I would add one more point: Like millions of Americans, I tow frequently enough to make a truck an economical choice.

Cars have been so downsized that towing with anything less is simply unsafe if not impossible. As an example, I will never forget the sight a few years ago while in Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, the sight of an obviously honeymooning couple using a Dodge Neon to tow a fairly small sized popup camper. We were at a parking spot along the ocean, near a popular eating spot. There’s a sizeable hill out front. When he pulled in, I could smell his brakes burning, from trying to get down the hill without smacking something or someone. They ate, and left. Well, they tried to…. They got stuck going back up that same hill… the car had all it could do to hold the trailer against the hill… and the trailer only weighed a couple thousand lbs.!

You do NOT want people and equipment like this next to you on the highway. But just think of all the gas he’s saving, right up to the part where they both die horribly because he can’t control the thing.

If higher MPG’s is the desired goal, fine, go after it. Meantime, leave me something that actually works. Create something that can tow 6000lbs, without getting into trouble, is safe in an accident situation, and yet gets 45mpg, and is at a reasonable initial cost, and is as dependable as our current modes of transport, and I’ll buy it.

Meantime, leave me the beep alone.

Which leads me, finally, to a personal comment, to those of you who think small cars are “safe”.

I hesitate to say this.
Twice now, I’ve been at the scene of an accident… once where I knew the victims personally, and once where I happened upon an accident before the police arrived. Both fatal accidents, both one car accidents, and both situations where the person would have lived had they had something better than a Ford Fiesta in one case, or a Prius, in the other. In both cases, they valued a gallon of gas over their own lives, and paid the price…. And I’m left with the horrible memory of those two incidents.

I will never drive such a vehicle, and I don’t give a hot crap WHAT kind of gas numbers it turns in.

SUV’s Aren’t safe in accdients, having higher accident death rates.

NHTSA figures report that 64% of SUV deaths are blamed on lack of seatbelts, not of vehicle design. And of those, a sizable number are related to tire failures, which in turn are caused by lack of tire maintenance… simply keeping the tires up to pressure, and THAT in fairly isolated cases. When those incidents are factored out, the death rates in SUV’s are actually LOWER than for the kind of tincans the left would have us in. Much lower.

Sorry, but from any angle… ANY angle…this anti-SUV argument doesn’t hold up. Since all these arguments are so easily defeated, it strikes me that what we’re seeing is more a political ploy, than anything else. An excuse for a bigger attack. An infamous socialist (is there any other kind) Adolf Hitler, had the Jews as an excuse for his attacks. The socialists of today have the SUV as their excuse. I refuse to be a victim as they were, for the purpose of someone’s political ploy for power.

Billy points up (Very well) that the objections to such vehicles are superficial and come from dubious sources. That’s pretty much the same point I brought up back in 2002, while camping:

Liberal idiocy, which as usual, is disguised as ‘caring and sharing’, and anyone opposing them of course, is ‘greed’. There is perhaps no place where the standard liberal arguments take on more of a quality of utter stupidity, than with regards to the subject of transportation in America. I ran into this in all it’s glory, at a gas station on the way up here to my little vacation spot.

To put this story into perspective allow me to show you my rig: I drive a 1995 Chevy Astro conversion, with a 4.3L V6, which usually gets around 23-24 mpg on the highway, after I did some minor mods to it. (even stock, Chevy reports the unit gets around 21 mpg on the highway.)

It’s rather comfortable, having powered velour seats, wood paneling, a TV/VCR combo, which feeds up to four sets of headphones for the kids, two AM/FM/ Cassette Stereo units, one which feeds the afore- mentioned kid headphones. Makes longer hauls much easier on the driver, I can tell you. It’ll seat 7, for short trips, four for longer runs. It has a seat in the back that with the touch of a power button, folds into a bed. Curtains in the windows. Twin A/C units, twin heaters. Direct and indirect lighting, as well as reading lights at every passenger position. For those of you who know about such things, this van is set on an S-10 frame. It’s a really great over-the-road road rig, and already has well over 100,000 miles on it, 30k of it this year so far, with two additional long-haul trips planned before camping season ends in October. OK, that’s the truck.

Trailing along behind is one of the smallest pop-up trailers on the road… around an 8 foot box, weighing, when fully loaded, around 1500lbs. Sleeps five people, if they’re really friendly. This is not a 10,000lb 5th wheel…

So, keep these specs in mind as we proceed here. The importance of them will become apparent.

I left town with less than a full tank, so at around 150 miles out, upon finding some fuel priced $1.27/gal vs the $1.55 I usually pay, I decided it’d be worthwhile to fill the rest of the 27 gallon tank, which when topped usually takes around 32 gallons total. Must be a monster amount of a feed pipe on this thing. It’s one nice thing about having a good sized tank; when you find it cheap, you can load up, and roll past the $1.55/gal places.

Anyway, I pulled in, and proceeded to load up, when a rather nice looking blonde in a Camry Solaria came in for a little liquid motion. She squirted around 5 dollars worth into her car, and then looked at the amount the van had taken on. Her eyes bugged a little, as she motioned toward my pump, and her face got a little red.

“Don’t you know how much gas those SUV‘s waste?” Once I stopped laughing, I pointed out that strictly speaking mine was not an SUV. I further pointed out that the car she was driving had only a slighly smaller engine than the one in my van… her 3100cc vs my 4300cc, and that in fact her car according to the EPA, only gets around 25mpg on the road and averages around 19mpg.

(OK truth to tell, I was a little off, as it turns out, the site http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm lists it as 19 and 27.. Not bad, for off the top of my head, and still not as good as my much larger Astro.)

How, I asked her, can she drive such an inefficient mode of transportation? Of course, she went ballistic, and then lacking something better to say, apparently, she pulled out the same defense all liberals do when the tripe they’ve been force-fed is challenged by someone with actual facts: She call me a liar. I’ve come to understand you’re hitting a truth they can’t argue with when they do that. I suppose there are a few who will see themselves here.

She then flamed me about the amount of space being wasted, and did I really need to have all that space, did I have to drive something so large. I reminded her it was in fact a mini-van, and would she like to look inside and point out to me what space got wasted, between my wife, my two boys, the dog and our luggage. She declined, spouting some more crap which I didn’t even bother listening to. She then fumed off, ripping a little environmentally friendly rubber as she went out into the street in front of an oncoming tractor trailer, who had tolock up all 24 wheels to miss making environmentally friendly liberal/riceball pancakes out of it all.

I filled the remainder of the tank, got some coffee, and continued on my way, fully expecting to see her again along the road. I never did. As I drove up to the campsite, perhaps 300 miles distant, I began to wonder a bit at the encounter at the pump. It seems to me that many encounters in various political discussion venues are rather like this one. The liberal attacker being gleefully ignorant of the real world, and calling anyone who disagrees with them (all together now) a liar.

How does all of this tie in with the stated topic? Well, rather simply, really. I submit to you that the biggest enemy of America today is not Bin Laden or any of his bloodthirsty idiots. Our biggest enemy is the willful, nay, GLEEFUL idiocy of the left, of which I was treated to a glowing example that afternoon.

What amounts to is, they are trying to impose their values on the rest of us. Just like the brown shirts. Billy makes this point whether nicely, addressing Saint Andrew the incontinent:

“Enviro-activists go all terrorist on us. The Washington Post story is here. I have to say that while I completely abhor the violence, I don’t abhor the sentiment. Parking a 7-foot high Hummer in your neighborhood is about as irritating as watching one careen down the small streets of Provincetown. We have to create a social stigma toward people totally contemptuous of the environment.”

That’s pretty funny, faggot.

Get it, Andrew? That’s about as deep as you creeps are going with all this. If you get to go around tagging people with attributes that they haven’t earned, then watch out, kid. You say it’s “totally contemptuous of the environment” but, then, a squeaky import petunia who doesn’t value an American-sized machine for personally transporting himself on the scale of this continent might be expected to start getting the sniffs about it every once in a while.

See how easy it is to sneer like that at other peoples’ values?

Why don’t you just shut up and stay out of it?

Because if he does, Billy, he and his ilk won’t get the power they’re after.

That’s what this is really about. It’s not about the environment, it’s not about the politics of oil, its most certainly not about the practicality of the machines, since they have no logical means by which to judge, it’s about power. political power. The ability to impose their own morality.

And isn’t that interesting, that this should come up with Sullivan?

I mean, first of all, I must admit to a certain level of amusement, when people like Sullivan start coughing up accusations about how the Hummer, and other such vehicles, are a manhood extension… sought out only by those whose manhood needs the help. The cognitive dissonance in that accusation coming from the likes of Sullivan alone, is worthy of a full length column, by someone with far better writing and analytical skills than has Saint Andrew. Sigmund Freud himself could spend a bloody lifetime writing research papers on that moron. here somebody whose politics is wrapped around the idea of what the rest of society thinks of his sexual habits. The irony of him making such a comment getting right by him doesn’t surprise me in the least… he hasn’t a hope in hell of understanding it.
In any event consider this in the context of your comments about Sullivan, Billy:
Not so very long ago the left in this country was all fired worried about those on the right moralizing about their sexual behavior. And that worrying goes on today. Witness the situation with Larry Flynt, just now. And of course, everything that comes from Sullivan’s keyboard.
And yet, what do we see the left doing with regards to transportation hear the United States? Overt moralizing. What are they calling for? Laws to match with their version of morality.

I suppose they figure it’s only valid when they do it.

Oh… And speaking of the cognitive dissonance of the left, I am reminded of the old joke about buttered toast always falling butter side down, and cats always landing on their feet. If you were to take a piece of buttered toast and secure it to the back of a cat, you could toss the cat and the cat and the toast would rotate wildly approximately 3in. off the floor, thereby giving you a new power source. So I envision the environ-wacko crowd over this one… Imagine with me, if you will, what happens, when as of next year, the H3 is available in a Hybrid. I’m willing to bet that the environ what goes eight nor it entirely. Just as they have ignored the H1 Hummers that are currently getting around 24 to the gallon.

Getting serious, now… I will leave you with this thought; Not so long ago we were treated to endless months of additional power grabbing by various factions of the democratic party, under the guise of “it’s for the children”. We are now seeing more of the same, with “it’s for the environment”. Each are equally untrue. Each have the same goal in mind, that which I stated earlier : political power. Each will have the same result…

Does anybody truly think that even assuming they manage to cram all Americans into vehicles of the size and structural strength of an Altoids box, that they’re going to STOP there? and how many people are going to end up having to die along the way because of this nonsense?

The comparison that I made to brown shirts earlier is not an idle one. The parallels between what laughingly passes for the environmental movement of today, and the NAZI movement of the late thirties and early forties, the Soviet Union before that and Marx and Engels are all there to see. As I told a commenter elsewhere, this afternoon, The parallels are already there. I’m merely pointing them out. Failing to recognize those parallels, and react to them correctly, invites a repetition of the same problem.

The fact is, it’s already started up again. Just ask the young man in northwest Washington DC.

-0-
 OK, all that re-established, we have Sullivan’s comments of the other day that Billy’s on about. ANd Billy’s got this one nailed, I think;… Sullivan sees these prices as a boon to his own lack of mentality; an enforcement of his particular way of non-thinking.

I made a flash yesterday about Heller, et al  yesterday, but didn’t really comment much on it.  I guess I should comment for the record, that I support the ruling. Personally, I thought the case fairly well cut and dried, given both the language and the cultural context in which that language was written.

The problem, here is that the people involved were arguing not about the constitution, but rather against it, toward a pre-set goal… a policy precluding private gun ownership. What all this boils down to is who is the best at protecting us… we, ourselves, or the government.  No shock, that the left, who never sees a government power it doesn’t like, is on the leading edge of this fight. 

But… Perhaps were the anti-gun types to explain to us how ‘gun free zones’ have prevented thugs from using guns inside them in places like Virginia Tech and so on, they might actually have a case.  History speaks quite loudly in the opposite direction.  Virginia  Tech has a memorial to remind us of the victims of the gun free policy. So too, does Columbine. The thug, in those cases, won, a point which calls into serious question all such efforts of limiting the access of guns to Americans. 

James over at OTB apparently agrees, saying in part…

…it’s hard to see how yesterday’s ruling affected anyone but the targets of said thugs, law-abiding fellow citizens of the District who were unable to own handguns and had to keep rifles and shotguns in a state that rendered them completely useless if their homes were invaded.

Indeed; Or their school, or anywhere else.

Bruce over at Q&O notes this as well, and gives us what is perhaps the best reason to vote against Barack Obama:

 …it was a 5-4 majority. We are one robed lawyer away from being told that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right at all. And there will certainly be more chances for that to happen in the not-too-distant future, because this is going to spawn a number of legal cases in gun-banning cities like Chicago and San Francisco. That we have reached a state where an enumerated right’s existence depends on how Justice Kennedy feels on the particular day he looks at the issue is a travesty.

Water, after all, never stops trying to get over the dam. But places like DC and Columbine and  VT and so many other places stand as mute reminders of the consequences of the misbegotten idea that the government can protect us from ourselves. They stand as a constant reminder.

And by the way, to the foamers, from whcih I’m already getting mail before even posting about this case… : No, the democratic process wasn’t thwarted… just the Democrat one. (Big D) Let’s understand this clearly; The way to deal with such things is amend the constitution, since the law in question runs directly afoul of the constitution, absent such an amendment. When you’re prevented by government action, from mounting an attempt to amend the constitution, get back to me. Until then,  hang it up.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law meant to level the financial playing field when rich candidates pay for their own political campaigns.

The 5-to-4 decision, legal experts said, was significant for rejecting the rationale behind the law, known as the “millionaire’s amendment,” and for confirming the court’s continuing skepticism about the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations.

“Supporters of reasonable campaign finance regulation are now zero for three in the Roberts court,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “This is a signal of what is to come. What could easily fall following this case are the longstanding limits on corporate and union spending in federal elections.”

“Reasonable”, of course is by far the most mailable word in the English Language. As such, I put the whole of Hasen’s statements down in the noise level.  There should be no surprise that liberal Millionaire Jack Davis was the one who brought the case, incidental to two failed runs for a western New York House seat.(A loss, I think he richly deserved) What Davis fails to understand ( that failure is in itself understandable) is that even with the added money, he still would have lost, being far too liberal even for New York State.

What this is, too, is a facit of the first amendment that few liberals  ever really understand: The first amendment guarantees a right to free speech, but does not provide a guarantee you’ll be heard.

Having attended my older son’s graduation a few days ago, I sat down upon reaching home, and started writing. Odd thing; It’s what I do, anymore. I sit down and try to capture in amber all the thoughts in my head, lest those words go away for being ignored. What you see below is the result of that early morning writing session.  What the heck; it works for Neal Boortz, I suppose the precedent is there. But I’m going to focus this speech to one very special person.  Take it as you will.
-1-
So, now, it starts. Your learning, I mean. And, with it, your life.
Oh, I know… “Huh? I thought that’s what tonight is all about!”
No, you didn’t spend those thirteen years learning about the world, per se’. You spent all that time learning HOW to learn. Your teachers, all this time, and not just the ones in the school building, mind you… have been performing the task of preparing you for life itself. And learning, you see is a primary function of life.
Well, now you’re prepared for it, about as well as you’re going to be, anyway…. now that you’re at this point in your life… a point you’ve worked so long and hard for, the first thing I’m going to tell you, is to look around you. Savor the taste and feel of your relationships today, your parents, your family… the gang you hang with…because they begin to change the moment you walk across this stage, and they hand you that diploma. There’s no way around saying this; Like it or not, graduation is a life-changing event.  That’s a hard truth to accept, for some of us, but there it is.  Remember the feel and the taste of those relationships because when you finally start getting a handle on what has changed, in about ten years, and forever after, you’ll call these years, your glory days.  And yes, that’s true even if you’re not too excited about all of it just now.
The second thing I’m going to say to you is that given that life changing event your next moves will set you on the path you’ll travel for the next 15 minutes.  You thought I was going to say ‘for the rest of your life”, right?

Oh, no, I mean it; I’m quite serious. Look, your guidance councilors, good people that they are, are going to tell you you’re making choices now that will affect the rest of your life. And to some degree, that’s true.  They will affect its trajectory, at least in the short term. But remember, that the book of your life is on your desk, and the pen is in your hands. If the story you’re writing isn’t doing it for you, you as that story’s author have the power to change some elements of it.  There are very few story elements you have control over, that are not reversible for the better.  The root word for decide is the same as the word ‘deceased’. Options die when decisions are made. So chose your storyline carefully, but don’t fret much over errors in direction, when you make a mistake on it.  Mistakes are a part of life. You can’t see all ends. You can always point in a new direction.  And anyway, what’s a decent story without a few plot twists? Pretty dull, really.
Thirdly; You’re in for a real awakening, going to the world of work.  The first thing you’ll notice, is that group dynamics that were so much a staple of your high school years, are not going to work so well when you’re punching a clock. Learn what you can from the folks who have been in your place of work a long time. They’re the best source for a feel of how to last in your job and grow there, too. Let them help you.
Fourth; Always remember that it’s a small world. Don’t burn bridges if you can help it.  You may need to re-cross that bridge someday.  Trust me on this one. This is one of the many situations where you’ll be amazed in a few years about how much you didn’t know. Time has a way of removing gaseous arrogance and replacing it with rock solid understanding. You’re better off not being on the wrong side of that bridge because you didn’t understand.

Fifth: Never under-estimate the value of discovery… that “Aha!” experience. Most experience is made up of hard fought battles and scar tissue. The “Aha!’ experience is simply beating on a problem until it vectors. Once you get the problem to change it’s direction, you have a bit more experience you can keep in your quiver for use in future events.  But Aha! isn’t limited to problems. Sometimes, it’s the pleasant things you discover about yourself and others, along the way. Often, these are the best discoveries of all. Don’t ignore them. One of the sadder things I’ve seen in life is people who completely ignore such things as not germane to the needs of the moment. Assuming you plan on living longer than a moment, always look beyond the needs and the feelings of the moment.

Sixth; Do not under-estimate the power of the lessons that history teaches.  The axiom that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, holds true, here. History, in short is the only road map we have by which we can determine our current course… as a country, a culture, a people, and as individuals. Remember, that life is about change. Some change we see as good, some we see as bad. But there’s damned little of use that doesn’t change. That doesn’t mean embrace change for it’s own sake. Do not embrace change as a panacea without a solid understanding of what is getting changed and why.

Seventh: Guilt. It’s a powerful and necessary thing. It helps keep us on track.  But it gets used too much, so take it with some salt. Newton’s law states that for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Florack’s corollary states that for every action, there’s some power hungry yutz trying to make you feel guilty about it. We know where that leads.  So don’t worry too much about guilt trips people lay on you. They have their own motivations.  Look, if we took seriously all the stuff we’re being fed by some people, we’d be all committing suicide as a way to halt global warming.
Eighth: Keep a plan B handy, particularly vocationally speaking.  This one’s a little harder to describe. All I can do here, is to get you looking at the past, and hope to give you a better understanding, thereby of the human experience so as to better your own experience. But my perspective is alas, different than is yours; Of necessity, my viewpoint is a receding one, looking back between then and now, and trying to tell you what I’ve learned, and on that basis predicting what comes next. You, on the other hand look forward to a world as you envision it, and hope it will be, and you’re just now starting to understand how it can be.  My world, as I saw it then, was a static one. One that could be built on. Trouble was, the foundations changed, the field I originally chose was a dying one, and so the building didn’t quite come out as I planned.  That’s where plan B comes into play. I got lucky because Plan B was something I liked, also. Your world from your own viewpoint is static now, as was my own. You don’t really understand the degree of change that’s about to come at you.  We’ve moved farther as a people both culturally and technologically in the last 30 years, than we have in the last 200 That rate of change is accelerating, too.  And you don’t really have a firm grip on this, yet. Not yet. But you will. Keep a plan B handy.

I could go on, but I don’t think I will. I’ve already given you a lifetime to consider… not that you weren’t doing it yourself already. I know, because 30 some-odd years ago, I, too, was in your robes, and in your seat. I was wearing that funny cardboard thing on my head. It’s a natural thing; I suppose to want to impart to you the scar tissue I’ve collected over the decades between then and now. Of course, it’s an impossible task, I can’t live your life for you.  Just as well, I guess. It’s best if you discover it for yourself. The ‘Aha’ experience, again.

That difference of viewpoint lies between us, and it is my task to tie these two viewpoints together, looking ahead by looking behind.  And OK, perhaps I’ve not done the best job of it.  But I can tell you this; I’m excited about your future. I have no fear for you. And know that we’re always here, if you need our experience to lean on.

-0-

Glenn Greenwald the Unhinged Mind, discovers Keith Olbermann is a Barack Obama whore, “Keith Olbermann: Then and now”

On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA.

And:

Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:

Olbermann has no more political principals than does his idol (employer?) Barack Obama.   Yet Greenwald pretends to shocked by his discovery.

?