For years now, I’ve heard President George W. Bush called “Bush Jr.,” but he’s not really a Junior. After all, his name is George Walker Bush, and his father is George Herbert Walker Bush. The proper term to differentiate President Bush from his presidential father is “the younger.” That’s the term that has been used to distinguish Pliny, Seneca, and William Pitt from their same-name elders.

But we all know that people have and continue to use “Bush Jr.” to diminish him. It’s an easy way to mock him as somehow not being as good or as worthy as his father, and the vast majority of times I have read or heard “Bush Jr.,” it has been done by some liberal actively disparaging the president. Yes, his family gave him the nickname of Junior, but are you so close with the former president that you are on a nickname basis with him? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

An election later, and now we have a real junior in the White House. President Obama’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama II. His father is Barack Hussein Obama I. The roman numeral at the end of the name is just another way of indicating Senior and Junior.

So if you want to be correct in addressing the President as Junior, President Obama is the real Junior, not President Bush. Besides, as I watch the lack of experience in the Oval Office, I am reminded that Obama Junior is a neophyte when it comes to being an executive. He could get away with voting “present” most of the time when he was a state senator, but he is far out of his depths as President of the United States.

And now for some inadvertent comedy hidden in a survey of Republicans:

Americans who suggest Barack Obama should rot in hell are apparently deadly serious.

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president ‘may be the Antichrist’, according to a survey.

Who actually asks these sort of questions? I do like the weasel word “may” in the quote, as in “Obama may be an American,” or “Obama may be the offspring of a Martian sheep pimp.” There’s lots of wiggle room in “may.” Anyway, any prominent person “may” be the antichrist, but we’d have to look at his actions and words to know. And as it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the antichrist “sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” Can you think of a prominent politician whom people see as God?

An even greater number compared him to Hitler.

The corollary to Godwin’s law should have stopped this poll right there.

More than half of the Republicans quizzed by Harris Poll, 57 per cent, believed the president was secretly Muslim, something he has consistently denied.

His favoritism to Muslim nations and his antagonism to Israel surely doesn’t indicate anything. Nor does the time Obama mentioned “my Muslim faith.” George Stephanopoulos was quick to correct him. It was a simple mistake, and one I make all the time as mistakenly call myself a Hindu instead of Christian.

And 67 per cent of Republicans who responded believed Obama was a socialist, despite his central leanings.

With the passing of socialized medicine, I believe the answer should be closer to 100% now.

I’m not Catholic, so I don’t celebrate Lent or the practice of abstaining from meat on Friday. I’m not Jewish, so I don’t observe kosher laws. I’m not Muslim, so I don’t bow to Mecca five times a day to pray. And I’m not Green, so I don’t bother with Earth Hour or Earth Day. I’m not saying that these religious observances are bad, but since I’m not part of any of these faiths, their practices don’t apply to me.

And yes, being Green, in the capitalized sense of the word, is a religious observance with its own practices like Earth Day and Earth Hour. These high holy days of the Greens celebrate their deity, the earth. And in the case of Earth Hour, it is a celebration of self-denial similar to that of Lent as they turn off their lights for the span of one hour. Why bother with the 40 days of self-denial of Lent when you can feel the glow of self-righteousness with just one hour’s effort? So being Green is not only a religion, it’s a smug religion. How can I believe otherwise when the meaningless effort of turning off the lights for one hour is one of the central tenets of the faith? It is a literal plunging from light into darkness and done in a way that shows off one’s participation to others.

But not everyone who participates in Earth Hour does so out of religious fervor. Some people participate because of peer pressure, while others do so out of an attempt to curry favor with the faithful. They fear the backlash that may occur if they don’t participate visibly.

I’m not Green, so I don’t bother with Earth Hour. My friend calls it “Human Achievement Hour,” and he celebrates by turning on all his lights and basking in the glow of human achievement. That’s the kind of observance I can agree with because I believe in the power of human beings to make their lives better and rise above the limitations of a primitive existence.

Watch the following Earth Hour video, and tell me you don’t see the religious fervor in the faces of the faithful. This is clearly a missionary effort to reach out to the unbelieving.

“Do it for global warming.” And ignore that more and more evidence is coming out that human-caused global warming is bunk.

Cheered on by the success of socialism in taking over the health care industry, liberal radio talk show host, Ed Shultz explains clearly the next on his socialist agenda (h/t to Brian Maloney):

SCHULTZ (30:58, initially responding to caller claiming “virtual war” between Dems and GOP): It is a cultural war that’s taking place in America, you’re exactly right. And it’s being played out over the airwaves of America. And I hope the Democrats now turn to the Fairness Doctrine.

It’s time now for the Democrats to consider the Fairness Doctrine when you’ve got Rush Limbaugh out there saying, it’s, we’ve got to defeat these bastards. He is now openly admitting that he is going to work against and campaign against the Republican, against the Democratic Party and campaign against Obama, and he is motivating people with the microphone and he’s electioneering. Keep on talking, Rushsky! Hell, maybe I’ll get on 600 stations too, or how many you own or whatever.

The fact is, look, it’s not a level playing field when it comes to the audio culture of the country. Ownership has its privileges. When you own, I will be honest, if I owned 500 stations, the drugster wouldn’t be on any of ‘em. And that’s just where it’s at right now. But maybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.

SCHULTZ (32:51): Just keep in mind, there aren’t any poor people with microphones.

SCHULTZ (33:56): And so, I think that, you know, hell, if we’re going to be socialist, let’s be socialist all across the board.

But for some reason, they don’t like being called socialists. Huh. This is the same Ed Schultz who said the following about the special election in Massachusetts the resulted in Republican Senator Scott Brown being elected:

I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.

Cheat during an election? Obviously, he misspoke, right? He didn’t really willing admit that he’d violate federal election law did he? When given the opportunity to clarify, he did so in his next broadcast: “I misspoke on Friday. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I meant to say, ‘If I could vote 20 times, that’s what I’d do.’ ” Real class act here.

Doing a quick count on his website, I see Schultz broadcasts from 78 stations. That’s not bad considering the leftist Air America program failed, and he was the most successful of all the hosts. But in the free market, he still can only convince one station to carry him for every eight that carries Rush Limbaugh. That’s the free market for you.

But if you hate the freedom to listen to the person you want, and you want government to step in to force stations to carry a lesser light, then you are a socialist. And socialism is all about taking away your freedoms in the guise of being fair, or compassionate, or looking out for the greater good.

It’s funny how the greater good always benefits the socialists, no?

The Democrats are getting their collective panties in a bunch now that the Health Care Reform Act has passed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

The Maryland Democrat said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn’t have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.

Just an estimate, huh? Sounds like a guess to me, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Hoyer is just making things up. The news article continues with Hoyer getting on the moral hobby horse and riding it for all it’s worth: “Hoyer hinted that Republicans should do more to condemn these threats of violence.” There are three problem with Hoyer admonishing the Republicans to speak out against violence:

First, after 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, the left told America that we need to reach out to the terrorists and understand why they resorted to violence. Apparently that only applies if the violence comes from terrorists and not conservatives.

Second, conservatives aren’t the violent thugs the left would have you believe. Quick, name for me a riot by conservatives. . . . Yeah, I couldn’t think of one, either. But the left is easy to stir up in anger. Just witness the left as it shut down Ann Coulter’s speech at the University of Ottawa. Can you name any time when conservatives shouted down or prevented a liberal from speaking? Again, you won’t be able to cite an incident. Besides, Republican Representative Eric Cantor’s campaign office was shot at and has received threatening emails, so anger is not just conservatives against liberals, as Hoyer would have you believe.

And third, the Republican minority leader has already spoken out about violence, and it’s in the same article at the I quoted before:

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”

Don’t get sucked into the idea that violence is only on the right. History shows us that most violence comes from the left.

Now hear this!This is just way too good to let slip by, so it’s time to break out the megaphone. Posted by Val Prieto at Michelle Malkin’s site.


Some months back I went over to my parent’s house for lunch as I needed a fix of my mom’s cooking. When I arrived, Mom was adding the finishing touches to her famous arroz con pollo and Dad was watching the local newscast on TV. So I sat down next to the old man and chatted with him: I’m doing OK…Wife is fine…Work is a little slow…Dogs are driving me nuts.

As Dad and I are catching up, the big news of the day was being reported on TV. The government had just taken over GM and the talking head anchor kept mentioning how unprecedented it was and how thousands of jobs would be saved and how GM would now turn around and yadayadayada.

At that moment Dad lets out a sigh, looks over at me and asks me to hand him the remote.

I look at him kinda funny. He always lets me have the remote when I’m there. He extends his big, calloused hand towards me and asks for the remote again.

I hand the thing over to him, he points it, turns off the TV and says “Bah. I’ve seen this movie before.”

Dad’s a Cuban exile, so he knows a little something about the Nationalization of businesses and government intrusion.

There’s a brief moment of silence between us, then the old man sighs again, puts his big welder’s hand on my arm and squeezes just a bit. “Listen to what I’m about to tell you,” he says. “Prevent or lament.”

Back in June 22, 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama made a pledge to the American people. You can watch it, if you can stomach it, starting at the 1 minute mark in the following video:

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

The Health Care Reform Act passed the House late on Sunday, and today, Tuesday, President Obama will sign it into law. Now I’m no rocket scientist, but I know the difference between two days and five. If Obama were to keep his promise, the bill would be online for five, count ‘em, five days on the White House website so we can see what the hell it is he is signing. But what do you see when you follow the “Learn More” button?

Nothing to see here, move along.

To those people who voted for Barack Obama believing in his promises, I have just one thing to say:


I work in the software industry. It is an industry standard for software to go through different versions over time. The idea is to improve the program with each release, but that isn’t always the case. Just look at the bad press that Windows Vista has received since it was released.

Likewise, our nation has undergone several versions. It began with a beta release on July 4th, 1776 and progressed to version 1.0 on March 1st, 1781, when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. As is common with initial releases, what looked good on paper didn’t work very well in real life. The thirteen states were sovereign, with a small, toothless federal government. Eventually the flaws led to a convening of the Second Continental Congress and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

When the ninth state ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788, America 2.0 was released. This version proved to be much more robust than version 1.0, and it continued, with small patches, for almost 100 years until the crisis of the Civil War. Version 2.0 was coded with strong states and a stronger, but still limited, federal government. Many southern states split from the mother country over the issue of slavery, arguing they had the right to do so under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and it took years of bloody fighting and two more amendments to bring the nation together again.

President Lincoln’s efforts brought about America, Version 3.0. With the advent of this release, people stopped referring to the United States as separate sovereign states, and began referring to them as a single unified nation. A strengthened federal government took charge of America 3.0, leading the way for the next decades; Americans began to become familiar, if not comfortable, with the federal government dictating what individual states could and could not do.

America 4.0 appeared as part of President Roosevelt’s efforts to ameliorate the Great Depression. This version created a major societal shift, as American citizens went from being largely self-reliant to being largely dependent upon the government for job creation, policies that affected everyday life, and relief from every woe. President Johnson further altered social paradigms with the release of Version 4.5, an expansion of the welfare state with an associated reduction in individual self-reliance.

And now that the House has passed the Senate’s Health Care Reform Act, America 5.0 is almost here. It will begin when President Obama signs the bill into law, effectively taking over one-sixth of the nation’s economy and shouldering the responsibility of providing health care for every individual within its borders. If you are ignorant of American history and America’s founding principles, you might be looking forward to this new version. But I believe America 5.0 will create ever more monolithic government control over state and individual freedoms, as begun in version 3.0. Socialized health care will create fewer services at a higher cost, as every such program has produced in every nation where it has been tried; the only beneficiary will be government officials and bureaucrats, who will now have more control than ever over how Americans–who were meant to be sovereign citizens–may choose to live their daily lives.

Nationalizing health care is a dramatic code rewrite of the ideas put forth in the U.S. Constitution of America 2.0 about individual freedoms and responsibilities, but with the passing of the health care bill, Version 5.0 will be the law of the land. The question remains whether this will be a good change or a bad one. Looking at the way other nations have changed with the adoption of socialized medicine, I believe this change will be far worse than those which came before. If you think Windows Vista got nasty reviews, wait until you discover the “undocumented features” of America 5.0.

As much as certain people try to claim that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, there are alternatives available to those who want them. The computer software market allows you to go with the competition if you dislike the current market leader. But when government controls your health care, who can you turn to when a bureaucrat decides your health, or even your life, is expendable? As messy and crazy as a free-market health care system can be, it allows for individual choice. But when the government is the only choice, you get one-size-fits-all care or nothing at all. That doesn’t seem like much of an upgrade.

I took advantage of the site to send the following fax to my Representative in the House:

Mr. Inslee,

Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

The majority of American voters are against having one-sixth of our economy taken over by the government. Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

The bill is not about reducing the cost of health care for Americans. Every time and in every place where socialized medicine has been instituted, it has led to an *increase* in costs and a reduction in services. Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

The bill will not fix our troubled health care system. It will only exacerbate the problems that were caused by government meddling in the first place. Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

The bill has little to do with “fixing” our health care system and everything to do with seizing power over this nation’s economy and the individual liberties of American citizens. Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

The bill will require everyone to pay for abortion on demand, regardless of our religious beliefs regarding elective abortions. This is government force overriding individual religious convictions, and it is unconstitutional. Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

If you vote against the Health Care Reform bill, this registered Republican will vote for you in November and encourage everyone I know to do likewise, because you will have proven yourself to be a man of honor. But if you vote for the Health Care Reform bill, I will mobilize and do everything legally in my power to see that you are not reelected this November.

Do ***NOT*** vote for the Health Care Reform bill!

Think he’ll get the message?

Since this is a pretty liberal district, I’m sure he will vote in favor of the bill. I’ve never voted for him before, but a No vote on this bill would be sufficient in itself for me to vote for him this November.