Joe the Non-plumber

They call me Homeless Joe. I stay down the road from Joe the Plumber who owns a house.

I’ve never been a plumber, not much of anything actually. I don’t have any REAL estate like Joe the Plumber has, but a judge just ruled in my favor. I can now vote because I get to use my park bench as my address. Send your congratulation cards to:

Homeless Joe
12345 Park Bench
Anytown, Ohio 34567-1345

Boy am I coming up in the world. I don’t own any REAL estate in this world. I don’t own any PRIVATE property, but now I can use a FIXTURE (an appurtenance they call it) on PUBLIC property as my address. So now I can vote!

Yesterday Jo the Paralegal was walking by 12345 Park Bench and I heard her mumble something about a legal fiction. I guess she didn’t like it that she had to rent or buy her REAL estate so she could have an address while poor old Homeless Joe could get one for free in the local park. "Whatever," I said as she continued to mutter.

My right to vote was always there, but I didn’t have an address so I just figured I couldn’t convince the election judges to allow Homeless Joe to register. Then an amazing thing happened; an angel of mercy came by this morning. Jo the Registrar from ACORN told me I could register to vote now that I had an address. She gave me a cigarette and a buck and arranged to pick me up on voting day.

Homeless John came up the back alley just then and Jo the Registrar gave him the address of 12346 Park Bench across the sidewalk, signed him up to vote and arranged for him to get an absentee ballot because he was going to be too busy to vote on Tuesday because he had a drug deal going down that day.

Yah know, I just thought of something! Now it makes sense. Homeless Joe’s vote counts just as much as Joe the Plumber’s does. I heard him protesting the other day to his helper when they were fixing MY public drinking fountain that some guy named Senator Obama wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe the Plumber was steamed. I bet he’ll really be steamed when he figures out I’ll vote for this Obama dude ’cuz I’m gonna get some of that wealth.

It gets even better than that. Homeless Joe’s vote is gonna count for a lot more than Joe the Plumber’s. 12345 Park Bench is just where I sleep. I have coffee break at 12001 Park Bench in the morning and 9809 Park Bench in the afternoon. I have a snort at 12357 Park Bench after supper (I know they're all odd addresses. I'm an odd kind a guy). I’m sure I could arrange all the addresses with Jo the Registrar from ACORN and I’d get more cigarettes and some more bucks. With all my addresses I can vote in the Socialism Joe the Plumber was so angry about. That Marx guy sounds pretty good—"to each according to his need"—something like that. I'm gonna visit a lot of precincts on Tuesday that I have never seen before.

And now with an address, I can build a shanty on public property over this park bench and have some REAL estate and I won’t have to pay REAL estate taxes like Joe the Plumber does. I could build an afternoon cabin too. Oh man! This is REAL living. This is representation without taxation! It can't get any better than that.

I'll see yah later. I've gotta run. I have to find that guy with the little red wagon.

Created Equal....the Pursuit of Life

Senator Obama’s position on infant human rights is well known. We analyzed his illogical declaration in support of abortion here. Senator Biden is pro-choice for women, but pro-death for potentially any of the unborn. Senator Pelosi is ardently pro-choice, anti-life, stating the beginning of human life cannot be known. Both Obama and Pelosi took paragraphs to give convoluted explanations that did not answer Pastor Rick Warren’s or Tom Brokaw’s simple question.

Senator John McCain, presumptive GOP presidential nominee, answered Pastor Rick Warren’s question, "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?" with a quick, short, decisive response, "At the moment of conception."

Senator McCain’s love and respect for life wears shoes in his daily life, in the person of his adopted daughter.

"John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her."

And nominee McCain’s selected VP running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, respects equality and the life of the unborn as well.

"Four months into her most recent pregnancy, Palin learned the child would have Down syndrome, and she said she never had any doubts about whether she would have the baby.

"We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential," Palin told AP earlier this year in describing what she and her husband had confronted. Trig, her fifth child, was born in April."

The contrast between the Democrat and Republican presidential/vice presidential ticket cannot be sharper. One provides no hope for the unborn and possible terminal change. The other provides hope, dignity, respect, equality and the opportunity to pursue life. McCain and Palin value life, not just of the born, but of the pre-born.

I would never argue a president should be elected on the basis of one issue. But this year, there is a very stark contrast between the two contenders on this basic human right.

The McCain/Palin team, which recognizes equality and chooses life and the pursuit of life for all, can be trusted to provide national security which is the fundamental framework we need for the pursuit of happiness in post-natal life.

Pelosi and Conception

Isn’t it amazing that a professor of constitutional law cannot articulate a coherent argument to state when he believes a baby receives human rights? Almost any professor is well enough versed in his studies to articulate fundamental statements about crucial concepts in his field of teaching. Yet Professor Obama cannot do that.

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, cannot do it either. Tom Brokaw asked, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker, when does life begin?" She responded,

I would say that, as an ardent practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have impact on a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child, first trimester, certain considerations second trimester, not so third trimester, there’s very clear distinct, this isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As a [sic] say, Catholic Church, for centuries, has been discussing this, and there are those who have decided-

While it is above Obama’s paygrade to answer a question about infant human rights either theologically or scientifically, Pelosi, as a studied and practicing Catholic, believes it cannot be answered from dogmatic or historical theology.

Her studied answer is that ". . . the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition (i.e. when life begins)." Many in the Catholic Church have refuted Pelosi, showing that the official church position is that life begins at conception. For Pelosi, since it cannot be determined by the Catholic Church, then it cannot be theologically determined—"And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

In fact, theology should not be considered, says Pelosi, "The point is, is that it [when life begins] shouldn’t have impact on a woman’s right to choose."

For Pelosi, the uncertainties of theology are many, but the specificity and precision of Roe v. Wade is very clear. Just as Obama thinks he can answer the question legally, so does Pelosi. Pelosi is willing to accept the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe v. Wade, but she cannot endure the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

On what grounds does Pelosi accept the one and not the other? She states none, for she has none. Hers is simply an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. She hasn’t answered anything. Appealing to law does not make it right.

While she wants abortion legal, she knows what is legal is not necessarily moral. So ". . . it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God."

Pelosi says, ". . . it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare and reduce the number of abortions."

And she declares, ". . . we have to handle this as respectfully, this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully, and not politicize it as it has been."

The woman has no idea that she politicized the sacred ground by appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States, rejecting the Supreme Court of her own church. For Pelosi, God, the Ultimate Lawgiver and Judge, must take Roe v. Wade into consideration when a woman contemplates an abortion with her doctor, for that is a woman’s unalienable right.

Above His Pay Grade

At the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, Rev. Rick Warren asked Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain to give answers to his questions. The following transcript is taken from here and the whole transcript is available here.

Rev. Rick Warren: "Now, let’s deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time. All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

Barack Obama: "Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Obama said, ". . . answering that question. . . . is above my pay grade." And this man wants to be president! Almost all presidential decisions are above the presidential pay grade which is small compared to the business world. We don’t pay presidents for their decisions. We elect them to make decisions.

Pastor Warren’s salary would be small in comparison also, yet he said he has to deal with this all of the time. So by self-declaration, Obama could not be the pastor of a church because he doesn’t get paid enough to answer that question. How unpresidential!

Obama said he can’t answer it from a scientific perspective and didn’t try. He said he can’t answer it from a theological perspective and didn’t. But he said there is a moral and ethical perspective to abortion.

"But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one."

OK, there’s a moral and ethical perspective to abortion, but what is it? No answer from Obama.

Obama continued: "But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. . ."

Ah, there’s a legal perspective that Obama believes in. Now how does Obama come to his legal decision?

Obama: I ". . . come to that [legal] conclusion not because I'm pro abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members."

So Obama makes his legal decision by observing that women don’t make these decisions casually, that is, that his legal conclusion is based on the grave process of other people making decisions. Wow, that is solid legal reasoning that would pass any Supreme Court test!

Obama continues: "And so for me, the goal right now should be— and this is where I think we can find common ground (and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democrat Party platform) is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."

So let’s all have common ground around Obama's legal perspective which really is a social perspective of reducing the number of abortions, which hasn’t happened under President Bush, but evidently it will under President Obama.

With his logic, because a person wrestled hard while deciding to embezzle and reduced the amount of intended embezzlement for social reasons, the embezzlement is legal. Or because a person really struggled with bumping off a family and reduced the number of victims for social reasons, the killings were legal.

Answering that question about the baby is truly above Obama’s pay grade. And he thinks Justice Clarence Thomas was unqualified!

A Cuban Perspective

I received the following personal account via e-mail. I cannot vouch for its veracity, however, it rings true. It also fits in well with the previous post by Freedomwriter.

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate MY independence day and on July 4, I celebrate America's.

This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence. On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the US to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there.

In the late 1950's most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.

When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

But nobody asked about the change, so:

• By the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away.
• By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.
• By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing.
• By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.
• By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.
• By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.

You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never in America fall for a young leader who promises change without asking, "WHAT change?" How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?'

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr

The Obamessiah

He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness....

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Obama’s messianic complex is so perceivable that this writing appears in mockery. He is so self-important, so arrogant, that he makes Jesse Ventura look down-right humble.

Are facts obsolete?

By Thomas Sowell

"In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual."

Read more....

Do as I say, Not as I do

This seems to be a reccuring theme for Obama, who, like most liberals, think they need to make tons of rules for the rest of us, but not themselves. "...the choice could not be clearer...it starts with equal pay." So says Obama, trying to illustrate the differences between him and Senator McCain. He did so quite beautifully...'eloquently', if you must. Here's the scoop on the two senator Presidential Candidates:

"On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator." CNSNews.com reports of their own findings. "Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman."

In contrast, women outnumbered men on McCain's Senate payroll by 30 to 16. The women were paid an average of $3,000 more than the men.

Well put senator Obama.

The Radical Left

A panel discussing "The Military and Progressives" was held today at the YearlyKos. A young man in uniform stood to argue that the surge is working and reducing Iraqi casualties. The panel did not want to hear him because this young man’s view is contrary to what they want to propagate.

"Democratic presidential candidates expected to attend the conference are former Sens. John Edwards and Mike Gravel; Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also are expected."

Read the account.

When these Leftists attend this far left annual extension of the DailyKos, the media gives them a pass. If the Republican presidential candidates attended a right wing event as far right of center as the DailyKos is left of center, the liberal media would be highly critical and would fall all over themselves in derision. The Republican candidates would be smeared through guilt by association. In contrast, none of the Democrat presidential candidates will be painted as anti-Semitic. See the previous post.

Kudos to the young military man who wore his uniform in the midst of a bunch of military-haters and who dared to attempt to speak his mind.

Hillary Clinton Flip-flops

On July 23, 2007,

"Hillary Clinton pounced on rival Barack Obama on Monday for his willingness to meet with some troublesome world leaders during a Democratic US presidential debate..."

Read the rest of the report.

Back on April 22, Clinton declared the diametrical opposite:

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination."

Read the quote in the whole report.

Which position is the one she holds? She has the right to change her mind, but she needs to tell the public. However, it seems the answer she gives depends on whom she is addressing--President Bush in the latter and candidate Barack Obama in the former. And don't forget the two audiences.