Bob's Blog

The Time Is Now

2012-01-22T17:13:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's time for a man like Newt.

Hear what I have to say. Does anyone believe that any of these ideas coming out of the debates by the candidates is going to get enacted? If you do, then I got a bridge for you in Brooklyn.

(That line reminds me, as it is an election year, of the campaign slogan for the 1996 re-election of Bill Clinton. "A Bridge to the 21st Century." A lot of people bought that bridge, and as I dislike to point out, the off ramp was, like the Brooklyn Bridge, at the southern point of Manhattan, only Clinton's bridge terminated at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Fitting as it is also, Newts latest troubles stem from that era as well.)

So its admitted, we all expect nothing out of these candidates. A little around the edges, that's all I can reasonably expect. Even from Newt.

But I'll say this, Newt is the only one that I'd expect to be confrontational. I think Romney would placate sooner rather than later, and that Santurom would hold out just a bit longer. I don't expect Newt to ever placate.

He never has.

Newt has done the improbable, winning the House in 1994. He accomplished much in his time there, that gives me hope that he would change things. All the sarcasm that a simplistic sentence like that is entitled to, please.

But seriously, while I can see Mitt and Rick being beaten by the press and the party, I don't think Newt would succombe to that. Additionally, lets not forget for the least the type of characters that pass for Senators and Representatives these days. I guarantee the first critics of Newt Gingrich will be the those Mensa's running Congress. "How abrasive and uncompromising Newt is."

I would love to hear Newt tell them to quit their belly aching.

I thought Perry would be a nice antagonist to congress, what with his sharp tongue on part time sessions. I absolutely expect Newt to be an antagonist.

Its time for an asshole for President.

Good Guys Don't Finish First

2012-01-22T17:12:00.002-05:00

Newt was absolutely correct in one particular observation during the South Carolina CNN debate the other night. The media and the process has discouraged any decent human being from running for President.

Although Rick Santorum is struggling mighty hard to prove he is the exception to the rule. He is also running third, and will likely be the next candidate to drop out. So where does that tact get him?

I take that statement of Newt as an admission too. He knows what he is, and that isn't the most decent of human beings.

Be that as it may, he's still the most accomplished in D.C. Romney is accomplished, I'll give him that, but not inside the beltway.

Rational Anarchist

2012-01-17T21:45:00.000-05:00

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

-- Prof. Bernardo de la Paz

I Should Like Mitt

2012-01-16T18:10:00.000-05:00

I should like Mitt.

With an opening statement like that, you would assume I don't, and you would be correct. I don't personally dislike the guy, but as to why I don't like him, can certainly be taken personal. I think he's a little too fake. Contrived. Acted.

Which is not to say he's a bad guy.

This sentiment may merely be a manifestation of my contrarian streak, which I can argue myself out of, but it may also be the reality of it. He certainly has some positions today, that he didn't have back in the day.

If I take the New Hampshire approach, I wouldn't look at him beyond his electability, whatever that means, but I'm not living there, I have my own reality to deal with, and I'm not convinced his positions today are the ones we'll get if he should win high office. That victorious occupation is a slim reality, in my opinion as well. But I digress.

Contines

2012-01-11T17:01:00.001-05:00

After the first primary, and the second event, with the third immeniently and projected much the same, is it too early to recognize the trend I already wrote about? The conservatives are out polling the front runner. Too bad this is a race for plurality, not majority, and the majority is losing. Like they always do.

I got so much to say that I may find this is no longer a hobby.

Do I go with the rant about the nominating process or the reasoning behind the voters choice, reached through exit polling?

I'll build upon the concept of a third party candidacy that I'm not really supporting but espousing. I've been voting that way for years, I'll try to explain why. But I'm not actually in that place yet this year, its still early, but they say history repeats itself, and this nomination process reminds of 2008 and every election year before that.

Before you tune out, consider what choice I'm being presented with. Not certain, yet, but likely indeed. The momentum makers, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and particularly New Hampshire, cited as a top tier reason for voting for Mitt Romney his electability.

What? That's as ephemeral and manipulable a reason as I wound never ever want to see in regards to voting for a presidential candidate.

You think he looks good now? Able to win, do you? Just wait, that can suddenly change, as the news makers see fit.

But I'll give them this, being where we are in the process, Iowans and New Hampshirites are at least putting it out there first and early. Moving forward, anyone with that reasoning is either intellectually daft or demonic. Either way, I'd like to remove them from the voting lists.

I scornfully predict that this reasoning isn't going away though, and neither is this election process that over values the voices in two tiny states over the other mostly larger, but maybe not brighter, forty eight states.

Keep in mind that this process, these influences, these King makers, will deal from the deck and lay a hand on you and I that we are expected to play loyally in November.

It will happen by and large as they hope. Some will have a red face, not of a royal flush, but from the anger, for it is preordained that those who don't call on electability, will fold to the manipulation that has proven successful for years, pissing off the electorate.

How do you think Obama got in there? Rationally and empirically the Bush years weren't as bad as the Democrats were making them out to be, Obama's record is much worse. Voters are more sedate now however, the loud and frequent gripes from the left aren't needed, yet.

Which brings me back to Romney not even winning the majority of his party, yet.

The conservative voices are not going to win the day, again, and while that part of being a splintered vote is their own damn fault, the fact that I'm not going to have a say at all is what riles me. My chance to vote is in late April, it will be decided well before then, if not before February.

To think that people who put as much thought in it as the "electability" crowd will somehow inspire millions of clones to do just the same and decide this, and proudly admit as much is beyond my patient sensibilities.

I'm not done yet, we have a debt that is in the tens of trillions, I hesitate to be specific here because by the time I click publish, the number I cited may rise, and will rise by some not insubstantial amount. We have a nuclear Iran coming around the corner, and I've been reading the rhetoric for years -- its not good. We have open borders and high unemployment. We have as many problems as we do debt, seemingly.

If it weren't for the simple fact that we have a ridiculous election process that is manipulative and disenfranchising I'd have something other than sarcasm for our society. As it is, how can I not be cynical while I'm expected to vote for the party in November, regardless. How is it too, that I can not help but be cynical toward any rhetoric that we can fix the nations ills when we can't even get our elections right.

Maybe the conservatives are right in one regard, the fore fathers of ours were inspired, they made an elaborate system that presumably they understood, though I swear to you, I don't.

More to Say

2012-01-05T19:36:00.000-05:00

When I finished writing about the third party option, I really had more to say. I want to break new ground on this issue, ferment a little Jeffersonian rebellion.

There is news out today spotlighting the latest ad by Newt Gingrich plowing into Mitt Romney. Specifically his "timid" approach to the economy, likening his plan to that of the President.

Many think Newt is a progressive, just as bad as the President. Mitt and his supporters certainly characterized Newt as a scoundrel as vile as the President, successfully enough in Iowa to beat down the numbers that ultimately came in for Gingrich.

In the end, in Iowa, Romney won by the slightest of margins over conservative Rick Santorum. He won with 25% of the votes, depending on the way you slice it, the conservatives out gained the mainstream candidate by more than two to one.

Do you see what these generalizations mean?

It means that unless the conservatives coalesce around one candidate the end will be destined for a man that could not convince a majority of his own party, perhaps not even a plurality, to vote for him.

What if this continues through the rest of the 49 states?

The conservative voices will fail to achieve the ultimate prize and again settle for the second billing with a second rate new comer, a la John McCain and Sarah Palin. I believe the ticket will fail just as well.

We will have the "mainstream" candidate, with 25% of the GOP Primary support, out lasting conservative choices that singularly would do better. When the dust settles GOP pundits and ardents will lay on us why we have to coalesce around the winner for the sake of our future. This election is just too gosh darn important to allow Mr. Obama to win again!

You think I exagerate the influence the successive defeats of the conservatives in the primary season has on ultimate nominees? Consider Bush/Quayle begat Dole/Kemp who begat Bush/Cheney who begat McCain/Palin who begat Romney/?.

All well to the left of right, whose Veep was considered more conservative. Many say the distinctions between the Democrat and Republican are waning.

Well, that is the game isn't it. Sometimes you win and sometimes it comes in spurts. You see that in sports all the time.

But consider also the talk that predictably surrounds all recent primary and general elections. Fraud. Its become routine for some observer to claim or point out the obvious, that voters in caucuses and primaries aren't exactly party members, much less ardent supporters of anyone. More like an Occupy tactic of disruption. Disruption of an nomination process.

Weigh it anyway you want, but obviously the conservatives some how out number mainstream candidates but suffer in the end for it.

The glue that keeps us together, but at some point fails, is the concept that together we share a common enemy, the liberal democrats. If we stand together we have a better chance of winning the top prize.

Maybe that is part of the problem. We think of the left as enemy and the occupation of the White House the prize.

Maybe I'm too indifferent, but I don't see the demonization of the administration or the other side in general as very insightful and inclined toward success on election day. The left did that to Bush but he still won.

The prize is the power to advance the idealogy of smaller government, etc., not just having someone with an "R" next to his name.

What good is it that the predominant thinking of the GOP takes a back seat every four years like an obedient dog standing aside while a better looking or better spoken or more compassionate pedigree takes top spot.

Full disclosure, I don't get a say in the nomination process because there will be a victor by the time my state, Pennsylvania, has its primary. As is always the case.

Maybe that is why I can't dance too tight with a party. I'm practically disenfranchised. Twice.

Conservatives wouldn't be harmed by going third party, history suggest they may need to, to be heard. Jefferson said a little rebellion is good now and then. Conservatives may do well to listen to their best advice, heed what the founders warned about.

My Third Party Rant

2012-01-02T10:09:00.001-05:00

Happy New Year!

"It's getting to the point where I'm no fun anymore. I am sorry."
- Crosby, Stills, & Nash.

Gosh I really like that line, at times it seems like it was written for me to use, and use, and use. When it comes to some political arguments, I gotta fall back on those words because I'm not entertained by the thoughts I'm hearing and I'm no fun in responding.

What got me riled up late last week was the stoking of that age old American quandary of what are we going to accomplish by voting third party.

There may of been a time, but I doubt it, when I was such a party guy that the idea and action of voting for someone outside the two main parties was ridiculed by me. I have been Going Rogue longer than Sarah Palin's been Sarah Palin and I've yet to be persuaded by any opinion that it is contrary to my best interests. I believe voting third party is appropriate and I'll use the line "so be it" in response to the thought that its a vote for the incumbent or the Democrat, whichever the worse case may be. So be it.

I've heard all the reasons, too numerous to recite, but I welcome any that you may have to challenge me and persuade me to vote as you deem fit.

The talk on the radio, where I was stoked, was regarding rumors swirling around Donald Trump. If we are to believe them, those who know The Donald say he is seriously considering a run at President as a third party candidate. Great! Doesn't mean I'm voting for him, but I love the idea.

And so the natural response by GOP operatives and ardants is that he is only going to take away votes from the Republican candidate, thus enabling if not assuring a victory for Mr. Obama in November.

Its sounds plausible and frankly, likely. Buts its not my problem. Well O.K. it is a problem but I'll be darned if I'm going to put my principles and thoughts, well honed over thirty years, aside to vote for someone I don't believe in so that someone else I equally don't believe in will be denied a victory.

Why should I? I don't believe that these two parties are that far apart on so many issues, that having one in office over the other is such a stark contrast. If I did feel that there was such a difference in candidates, I'd be voting for one or the other despite the third party candidate.

If, for example Mitt Romney, can't persuade me to vote for him, a candidacy of Donald Trump is going to persuade me to vote for Mitt Romney either.

I have this crazy idea that when a citizen enters the voting booth, he or she should be selfishly voting for his or her's best interest.

We live in a representative Democracy with yearly elections, weighted every four years with the Presidency on the line. The system is set up so that on those yearly occasions we all migrate somewhere, pull the level or punch the card or hit the button for the candidate we believe will represent ourselves as well as we could represent ourselves.

Collectively, the will of the people is filtered this way, the winner lays claim to be representative of his constituency. Within a representative democracy, it is incumbent upon the office holder to champion his voters positions, but ultimately decide and govern. Compromise if need be to get things done.

But for this system to work well over time, we need to be selfish in the voting both, otherwise we don't get office holders reflecting our values. We get office holders reflecting the muddled values of being electable.

For my part, I'm voting once a year, only once in four do I get a say at the high office. I'm not compromising my views in this context. If I do, that is a conscious decision meant to indicate my displeasure in some way, perhaps as a protest vote.

If I'm displeased with a candidate from the GOP but yet vote that way its a capitulation on my part of my principles. The Democrats win either way because its demonstrating to future GOP candidates that THEY, THEMSELVES, can be positioned nearer to the left and still garner support from the electorate that pretends to be diametrically opposed to the Democrat ideology. Thus future elections are between two candidates that are closer in views than even today's politicians, and thus providing no real choice in the final place.

And in four years we'll hear the same arguments as to why we need not to vote third party all over again.

I've also said a thousands times, we got two parties in this country, a corrupt party and an inept party. Relatively speaking of course. I've come to believe they aren't so different.

Presently, one of the only true distinguishing characteristics of the two parties is the predilection of the conservative block to retain their principles and vote accordingly, even outside the GOP if they are forced to. When that value changes, we will no longer need to worry about having one corrupt party and one inept party. There will be no difference.

I actually enjoy being different from the left. Those critical of voting third party are right in this, the left doesn't splinter. I'm somewhat proud and smug at the thought that I still retain the liberty to vote freely, in my own best interest. I think taking up the argument that we got to get behind the GOP candidate no matter who is boring and reflects a loss of liberty.

To buck the establishment is fun, maybe there is some fun left in me after all.

With Friends Like These

2011-12-25T13:23:00.003-05:00

I began this piece by looking up the alleged Eleventh Commandment, the one about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans.

I read this on Salon.com. Which by now should sound familiar to all those observing current events.

Its been a couple of days now since the latest compromise by House Leader John Boehner. I got the word while running a couple errands, a radio host on one of the conservative national shows was breaking the news, running with the press conference, and then proceeding to denigrate the actions of the Speaker for reaching an agreement with the President on the pay roll tax cut extension.

The thoughts on radio programs, on TV, and in print would be so poignant and profound if those weren't the thoughts we hear each and every time from the word smiths when compromise was reached with this president. As facts would have it, its been going on a lot longer than during this President's term. Since I can remember the titular leaders of the GOP have been pillaged and beaten by the national press over matters of politics far more often than the Democrats.

Two points aside. One, I'm not espousing no scrutiny from the national press, I'm just now echoing the thought that there is a bias. Scrutiny is well, bias needs to be weighed.

Two, rhetorically. For the biased on the right, why doesn't the Eleventh Commandment apply to you?
Obviously the left has an Eleventh Commandment too. Never spoken however, more devoutly lived.

Oh, to be sure, and I never used those three words more seriously, to be sure, there is a leadership deficit in America. I just don't see it as a deficiency in John Boehner when he compromises on any of these issues. I see it as a deficiency in John Boehner when he can't grasp the correct tact to use so that when he does compromise its accepted as not a capitulation, but as a reasoned response to unreasonable leadership.

John Boehner's position wasn't a two month extension, it was a year extension. What's more reasonable? One year, two months, or nothing at all? I'm going to allow for the opinion that nothing at all would be more certain for the markets than two months, but most Americans would likely take two months of tax cuts over none. One year would be the most reasonable. Obviously? I guess not, 'cause someone in the White House thinks two months is ideal, and he got an awful lot of support for this idea. He's also gets less scrutiny on this short term solution.

We do have bias in the media, as a result, truly, I only see what they let me see. I don't have time or patience to listen to and watch C-SPAN to catch all the words and actions Mr. Boehner threw at this. Did he say the words that I would want to hear and it just so happens the press didn't convey those words to me when I went looking? I don't know.

That's part of the problem then too for Mr. Boehner. While acknowledging he does have leadership weaknesses, and who hasn't, I reckon he has argued well enough for me at times, because he has argued well enough for me at times, that his one year plan is more reasonable than Obama's two month plan. That problem is the press general isn't giving him the air time and gravitas as the President gets. Part of that problem is contributed by his own right leaning air wave mavens.

For all the rhetoric that is heard about how stark the contrast is between the right choice and the left choice, when issues get decided, far to often the right pundits sound so much like the left in bashing the GOP leadership, that I've begun to tune them out all together, they aren't helping.

I'm not against scrutiny of Mr. Boehner, yet if we are going to engage in political battle by choosing sides and making careers out of it, as some have don't quite well with, lets artfully, politely too, lay leadership failures at the feet of those who truly deserve it.

A President who promised so much and spends so much, as to be expected, on his programs and politics is the real amateur in this deal. A two month extension is the leadership and dramatic change he professes to personify? Is this where the smart money went in 2008? I'd laugh if it wasn't so unprofound and less poignant.

To The Democrat Thinking

2011-12-19T19:37:00.000-05:00

I got an email the other day, it was short and provocative, it was from a life long, unabashed, unapologetic Democrat.

" Just so you know the Iraq war ends today, the leaders from Iraq didn't attend the cerrmony??? Gee I wonder why?? We did such a good job???"

So I asked back, why? I wonder why too.

"Just like I told you many times before, I never saw an Iraqi on tv saying how glad they were to have us there??? Only you and George were glad???"

Here is a link to a letter from the Iraqi President in 2006.

How did we get here from there?

You have to look no further than the White House. Mr. Obama's White house.

Michele Bachmann said it best, he had victory on a silver platter and screwed it up.

Yet, I don't think Obama was unintentionally degrading the relationship between our two countries. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it would never be questioned by his voting blocks.

The war in Iraq, despite bipartisan origins, became a place where Democrats would never allow a specter of glorious success linger too long. The "failed war plan" mantra began just days into operations, their hand was shown early and they never folded.

Democrats and their cohorts were quite successful in framing the situation, at least to their kindred souls in the Unions, AARP, and Green jeans, as a fruitless mission, destined for failure, and sure to be unappreciated.

And that is exactly what they have today.

Why would no Iraqi leaders be at the ceremonies? Maybe that is just how it was destined to be with a Democrat in the White House.

What should be questioned is how this President squandered a bond like we had, if only for a glorious moment in time, for political purposes, at the cost of so much of our national treasure, both human and monetary.

For years the left complained about the waste of our treasures, well its assured now isn't it? All that vigilance during Bush's term went to naught as soon as one of their own were given the keys to the office.

Thanks for what? Being malcontent and subversive for eight years and then oddly quiet thereafter? Why?

That answer lies in a perplexing disposition that places party above country, rationality subservient to propaganda.

In Response to Glenn Beck

2011-12-13T21:14:00.000-05:00

He not busy being born is busy dying.

So I began this post with that line from Bob Dylan's, "Its Alright Ma(I'm only bleeding)" only because it popped into my head just now. But subconsciously I must know what I'm doing, cause it fits with my thoughts. Sort of.

I was listening to Glenn Beck today, something that I have been doing increasingly more of lately. Today Glenn Beck was dedicated to burying Newt Gingrich.

Readers of my work likely know two things about me, one is I'm a Newt guy, and two is I'm not afraid to listening to other points of views and acknowledge that ideas make sense to me that aren't stereotypical of the label I place upon myself, politically speaking.

What?

I'm a conservative, that's my label. But I have views and ideas that are not going to be found on the Wikipedia page on Conservatism. I'm O.K. with that.

Glenn Beck maybe not so much.

Glenn's villian du jour are Progressives. With that in mind, I'm sticking with Conservative. Don't want to get in the cross hairs of Mr. Beck and his media Empire, I might find myself on GBTV or The Blaze, but not in a flattering way.

So Newt is a Progressive, Glenn told me so, time and again. Now I must admit, he had me lmao mocking Newt's self described "Real Politik Wilsonian" label. But other than that, I was not impressed with his dire predilection of what the fate of our nation will be with another Progressive in the White House.

Obama being one, but not the first, and Newt would be another, perhaps the last. 'Cause we couldn't survive another one....

I just don't buy into it. I don't buy into the hype and fear he attaches to Progressives.

What if it doesn't turn out the way Beck prophetizes? Through the years I've heard alot of opinions of what the future holds, and except for my uwavering support in January 2006 when I knew the underdog Steelers were going all the way to the Super Bowl, I've yet to hear anyone nail the future down.

That list includes profession seers as well as professional politicians, and not one has been able to predict the future well enough to be impressive.

But Beck has the corner on the oracle market? I don't think so.

The reality is, and I agree with him, we got Progressives in both parties, totally immersed in the establishment from both the Right and the Left.

That is where we find ourselves, and if Newt wants to draw himself closer to the Progressives than I would, that is his business. As a voter it is mine too, its just not a deal breaker for me.

Here's why. Acknowledging the influence Progressive have in governing and government, I'm looking for the nuance that separates them. I'm a small government/balance budget Conservative. I believe Newt is too. His track record is good enough for me. I also believe Newt sees a bigger role for government on many more issues than I do, and that he'll have ties with people across the political spectrum.

While I usually want less government, I also am a "Real Politik _____"(fill in your favorite politician's name that has gotten things done), so that means I'm not damning a politician for compromising in the goal of getting something accomplished.

I played the less progress is good progress game already, its over, the era of reckoning is upon us and inaction is the only terrifying thought I have of the future.

You see, I have this relatively new belief that typically speaking, a man or woman with a family is less likely to intentionally harm the community he lives in. I find it hard to believe that certain politicians are only in the arena of public service for the express purpose of destroying the public.

In other words, some people maybe screwing up and their ideas have historically been shown to be fruitless, but that doesn't mean they have bad intentions in the first place.

The Constitution, as Beck places it, is the bulwark against Progressives. Its either them or It in the future. Black and White. We either got the Constitution or we got the Progressive agenda. I used to be a thinker like that, but I've been busy thinking. Busy being born each day.

The Constitution is great, and its the best, and all the platitudes, but evolution of government is what it is. We got Progressive minds all over, and we also aren't going to get back to that mythical time when it was only the Constitution and no Progressives. That time, according to Beck, would be over a hundred years ago, before Teddy Roosevelt.

While there are certain aspects of the era that would be appealing, I'm not sure I'd like it over this era. I'm not big on government, I'm big on getting out of our hole.

Newt did it in the 1990's. Label him what you want, or accept his own label. I'm not in a suicide pact, I want progress. If that makes me a Progressive, I may disagree, but know that I only have the best intentions in mind.

That's living in the here and now, not the painted black future or painted white past.

Rebirth

2011-11-16T15:55:00.001-05:00

What I'm trying to do is, not write about Penn State....

So I went looking for inspiration and in the process chilled my hands, which adds to my cooled disposition.

Its getting cold outside, finally. Snow tomorrow? We'll see.

I came across a small piece on Real Clear Politics.com on the latest hit Diane Sawyer put on Sarah Palin. Pun intended? or does Sawyer go too far herself?

I'm still not passionate yet today.But I did get to thinking about something that Newt is doing that Palin may already of thought about. Something Dan Quayle did not achieve.

Resurrection.

Obviously, politically speaking, Sarah Palin is an ego that is bloodied, beaten, and withdrawn. That she is still targeted by Diane Sawyer provides fresh wounds that may or may not heal, and indicates the mood of the media establishment toward her.

But its not significant anymore, these attacks in the short run. Palin is too damaged to be anything more than a T.V. star for now. Not that its insignificant to be a T.V. star, but its a long way from the White House.

She may of been closer when she was living in Alaska and the Campaign of 2008 wasn't yet a butterfly in her stomach.

But she's still there, lurking, taking more hits, but giving hits out too. Just like Newt did after he left the House of Representatives.

Obviously its not a complete analogy, Newt Gingrich is a heavier political body than Sarah. His accomplishment in the House had already secured his survival, but not without considerable efforts by the opposition to totally neuter him.

Today, more than a decade later, Gingrich is a front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination. Who would of thought that was possible back when he was slinking out the back door after his unsuccessful attempt to convict Bill Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors.

A better analogy may be with Dan Quayle, the former Veep under George H.W. Bush. Up to this point.

Here's what I can believe, cause I think she is that smart, I think she wants to have that second life on the grand National stage that Newt is now living. I believe she has done the political calculations and knows that she has to slow down and recover, not be ambitious, but still show ambition.

I don't know what happened to Dan Quayle. I mean, did he quietly disappear with the intent to never come back? I don't think so, I read his memoir at the time, and though that was twenty years ago, I don't recall him portraying his career as over. Still he hardly ever resurfaced, and will certainly not now.

Newt Gingrich never gave me the impression he was going away, just that he was slowing down for a bit. Rethinking his brand, as is chic to say now a days.

I think Sarah is smart enough to learn the lesson from these two men. That's why she isn't going away, and why the likes of Diane Sawyer still take shots at her.

I don't think however, that I'm smart enough to know what she is thinking, like I don't think I'm smart enough to know what Obama is thinking, but I was just thinking none the less.

The Best We Have

2011-11-13T19:26:00.004-05:00

Some disparate and desperate thoughts from watching the Debate on Saturday night.

How is it that in my lifetime, the candidates are always smarter than the President. Yet its always one of those candidates that gets the job and then promptly looses all of his smarts.

Statistically, we are going to eventually elect a President capable of retaining all those bright ideas past that magical Tuesday after the first Monday is November. Just don't hold your breath that its gonna happen anytime soon.

But it might, because there were some really good ideas put forth last night, not the least of which is that quadrennial favorite, "I'm going to surround my self with the right people." Not at all like the President himself, who typically seems to surround himself with the wrong people. Coincidentally, this selection process begins sometime on or after the Wednesday after the first Monday in November.

I thought there might be something to this approach when Mr. Santorum promised to surround himself also with like minded people. Right and like minded. How could I fault that promise?

Not to be outdone, Governor Perry promised extraordinary people.

With these bold and game changing ideas, I'm cautiously optimistic that we, our nation, can walk that tight rope we find ourselves on in any number of issues.

I was asking my lovely wife, hypothectically of course, how is it we always elect the best candidate, the most promising option, the oracle of truth, only to find ourselves with so many problems and so long in the making, that could sink our everything. Our Everything.

Newt had a terrific idea, his plan for dealing with Iran would include a multitude of covert actions to massage the attitudes of the radical leadership. Of course the current President isn't doing any such thing.

It seems that we come to the point where we even expect the Commander in Chief incapable of grasping the concept of covertness. He'd tell us if he were, duh.

I thought the most efficient user of his 89 seconds was Ron Paul. He made a lot more sense than Huntsman, who I think got about 3 seconds more.

Am I alone on an island here when I say I wanted to hear the former Ambassador to China for more than thirty seconds on his views and approach to our complex relationship with the rising force in the East?

Instead we got more time from Romney and Perry.

Don't ever wonder why I can't be impressed with many of these news men and women.

Romney seemed the most polished, like many successful candidates before him. Bully you Mitt, bully you. Which is about what I expect if he'd win. Another bullied President, ineffectual and unintellectual.

Which brings me back to Newt. Again, he demonstrated a superiority in many facets, amusingly evident when he out wits the press.

I'm still with Newt, but If I can't have him, then, well if I am going to get screwed, as the critics of the GOP contend I will be as a working man, then it may as well be by a woman.

Judging by her minute and a half, Michelle Bachman seems quite capable of that. More than some of those men up there.

Not My Type

2011-11-10T18:40:00.000-05:00

I've been compiling a mental list of how many types of people there are in the world, and its more than two.

I'm letting you in on one of my own personal inner dialogues. Have you ever heard the expression, "There are two types of people in the world, those that...and those that..." Truth is I have a hard time finding just one schism where there are only two sides. There are always more than just two types of people.

But maybe I've encountered, finally, a divide where there are only two sides. You're either with Joe Paterno or you are against Joe Paterno.

That's it, there are just two types of people in the world, for or against Joe Pa.

Let me tell you, so that there is no ambiguity, if you are inclined to pal around, hire, protect, enable, or otherwise allow in your life a pedophile serial rapist, then don't count on me to be in your corner.

I wouldn't want to associate or even be seen in the same room with such creatures, and yes I would judge my friends and acquaintances in accords with my views.

So if you are with Joe Pa, and you're o.k. with the quality of friends and associates he keeps, then you and I are at odds in a singular way, there are just two types of people in the world, and I am absolutely not that type of person.

Adjustments

2011-11-06T07:08:00.000-05:00

Its been a while since I last wrote, and for that I must apologize.

There are a few reasons, I left one job and started another. School and after school activities rose above normal. I read a book by Tom Friedman.

I read, That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back, which is where I left of with this blog over a month ago. While it didn't take me all of a month to read the book, it did take longer than usual to finish it.

Frankly, it's a book that no one would like.

No American that is, surely our enemies would love the narrative of the broken system our proud nations is mired in.

I found it energy draining. Until the end, when Tom and I found common ground again, and that was in his suggestion that we vote third party. The idea would be that by voting this way, we affect the thinking of the major parties. We in effect splash the cold water of reality in their monopolistic faces.

Friedman cites a few examples of it happening in the past, Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot both ran as third party candidates and effectively moved their opponents off the party reservation.

Personally, I've been liberal before and I have liberal ideas, although nothing too important, for example I can't see any reason why the national government should be involved in marriage, but I am not liberal en mass anymore.

Reading this book, I was beginning to wonder about my conservatism, whether the idealogues and candidates today who profess conservative views are as smart as I thought they were. Have they been adjusting to the times? Have their ideas moved in any manor to adapt to the realities of today?

This is natural and healthy skepticism. I've read many liberal books over the years, and been influenced by the them all, but not one has stirred such second thought in my mind as this book.

I don't doubt much of what Friedman writes, although he positioned Obama as much wiser than I give the president credit for. I do doubt that government is capable of solving many of these problems we face with more government.

Which brings me to Newt Gingrich. I watched my first debate last night. Many of my readers know I am a proponent of the former Speaker of the House. There is no one, not one candidate for president( the current occupier included ) who is as articulate, thoughtful, and accomplished as Newt. He created the surplus at the end the Nineties, he reformed welfare, he created the impetus to end the era of big government.

And he, again, provided me with the optimism and confidence that there are conservatives out there, running for high office, who get it. Who understand the world we live in today, and have contemporary ideas on how to fix our problems with minimal government growth, in fact with negative government growth.

I'll give Newt and any conservative who can inspire me with their ideals seven times seventy opportunities to fix the mess we are in before I'd pull the level for a liberal candidate who would rather place more trust in government than individuals in making the right decisions for themselves.

Its All Nuance

2011-10-02T20:27:00.001-04:00

All politics is nuance.

History repeats itself, but for you to believe the narrative, you have to buy into the nuance from filters you believe in. By filters, I mean anyone providing information to you.

Let's be honest and clear, no one, including the President, can be assured of knowing every thing, or even the simple truth. We rely on people to provide information to us. They are all filters.

A filter, by definition, limits what goes through it. Political filters limit the information you are given, so that you only receive the nuance which supports their story.

I'm reading Tom Friedman's new book,That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back and although I'm not far into it, I've been catching myself wondering then why he didn't get behind any of the initiatives of G. W. Bush. Well, of course we know that Bush is a Republican and Friedman is a unabashed liberal Democrat.

Being a liberal Democrat is all well and good, and it goes far in explaining why his talk of the post cold war era begins roughly around 2001. It fits his narrative and filters out the fact that we had a whole decade prior to Bush to do something right, but really didn't.

To be sure, Mr. Friedman and his co-author Michael Mandelbaum don't come right out and say the post cold-war era began in 2001, they merely filter out the 1990's from their story. So far at least.

But in the opening chapters, the authors proclaim that one thing that America is lacking since the fall of the cold war is a common goal, a large mission, a unifying ambition that we could all coalesce around that would reassert that legendary American Can Do Attitude.

So I was wondering where they were when Bush began the War on Terror and its subsequent battles. Of course they were opposed to much of the Bush administration. Its a matter of record, especially accessible from Mr. Friedman writings.

So it maybe too much to ask for all Americans to support war, it is killing after all. But for these two who cite the cold war as an example of our common course and mission, with all its associated killings in third world nations, I wonder why they have a nuance now on the use of American military to fight a prolonged war against enemies both foreign and domestic. The cold war lasted fifty years after all.

Or what about the investment Bush made in green technology or his historic Malaria Initiative.

Surely they could of found something to martial Americans who were necassary opposed to Bush's wars in the above examples.

But no, they didn't. Not then, and they don't recognize the efforts now.

Its all nuance.

However I agree that prior to Bush, there wasn't much put forth from D.C. to address many of our problems that still persist today. They don't say that, but its part of the era that they begin their book with.

That's not to take away from their efforts to identify our common obstacles and provide a solution. My nuance is, read the book, because any ideas to solve our problems is welcomed by me, I reserve the right to disagree in the end though.

A big problem I see in America is that both sides are so nuanced that no matter what the other side does there can't be harmony, the filters won't let it happen. Ironically both sides, from the long perspective of history in regards to partisan politics, are so similiar any more that it is only nuance that separates them.

If they are so close politically, Republicans and Democrats, you'd think we could get more done not less. But its all nuance.

My Immigration Chat

2011-09-21T18:02:00.001-04:00

Earlier today I had a conversation with someone near and dear to me about immigration. Our dialogue began and ended at about where'd you expect, but with a little sprinkling of history thrown in.

My wife works at an airport, she been telling me about the plane loads of immigrants coming in and wondering just how in the heck all these folks are making their way here in America. You know, those basic needs questions. Where are they working, how are they feeding their family, where are they staying? Are they speaking our language?

Apparently I wasn't as worked up as I should of been, cause I had to explain myself. I began that all waves of immigration to this country have been met with various blends of disdain, prejudice, confrontation, and pessimism about what this will do to our culture.

As time has gone by the Irish, Italians, Polish, Russian, German, et. al. have all assimilated rather well by the third or fourth generation. I said that sure, the parents and kids coming over may not speak our language, but by the time the grand kids are running around English is primary and likely spoken better than the natives.

Today, assimilation in our culture is complete for many waves of immigration, and those fears and concerns of our grand and great grand parents never materialized.

The Irish Catholics, the Italian Catholics, the Polish Catholic all built churches a hundred years ago and spoke only the mother tongue, much to the chagrin of the protestants already here.

Now only the Baptist and Mormons have problems with the Catholics, and that isn't going away, but is relegated to Sunday afternoon, or if one knocks on your door for polite conversation.

I suspect it will be the same for the Muslim and African refugees arriving now.

So I slowed her down. She is a fourth generation Italian, so it wasn't hard to see my point.

But, and its a big but, all those waves of immigration in the past I spoke of did so squarely of their own accord or with the help of their communities.

They were not getting government hand outs, or preferential treatments. Perks that we both agreed are not now affordable, nor desirable in this time of high unemployment and large deficits.

Do we really want people coming over here whom we have to support with welfare?

Not that all immigrants get welfare, but many do, and I don't agree with it.

I practice an enlightened self interest in terms of my politics, If I'm not benefiting by a government action, or if I'm harmed by government action, I'm not for it. Frankly, I'm not looking to benefit from government, thus I'm typically not for more government.

I fail to see what benefit it is of mine to take in the world's poor when all they endeavor to do is get here and become the U.S. poor.

I'm not alone, I stand with my wife.

Many Americans do to, and this is certainly one of those subjects that I think needs debated openly and honestly amongst us voters. Government needs to shrink, that has been my slogan for years, here is a prime example of where we can cut back. If they can get here and support themselves like my forefathers did, then fine.

If they aspire to nothing more than getting here and living off our generosity, then we have to adjust that attitude, eliminate the appeal of the U.S. somewhat so that unambitious folk don't want to come here.

Unfortunately, neither party has been successful in demonstrating to me that this influx will come to an end anytime soon.

Yet another reason why any pressure on the two party establishment to reform is good pressure, whether from the left or the right.

In My Time

2011-09-19T20:19:00.000-04:00

Just finished In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir.

In wiser times the well written, well spoken bluntness of the Vice President would widely be appreciated. As it is, many are not going to benefit from a attentive reading of Mr. Cheney's story.

Buy yourself a present, get this book and put it on top of the queue.

Its 500 plus pages, but obviously it could be much larger, he doesn't belabor an issue, just keeps rolling along, writing how he saw it.

As an aside, I've read many books by the major players, its uncanny how they are always on the right side of decisions. I mean, for every issue there is one approach to the problem, and then there is the correct approach. Of course the writer is always making the right decision. Perhaps an exception to prove the rule, Mr. Bush's book was, I thought, a little too hard on the author. Perhaps the most honest of memoirs, and the shortest.

With Chaney's book, the players making the incorrect decisions were frequently Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell. While Don Rumsfeld was highly accurate, as expected -- his own memoir will attest to that.

Paint me partial, but I appreciate Dick Cheney, I'm glad he was there when he was there. Of course you wouldn't expect anything else from a memoir, but his narrative is rather convincing in portraying himself at the nexus of many a correct decision.

I really appreciated his well written arguments, the utilization of language, rightly used, simple and concise. Yet intelligently driven.

A way or writing I'd love to emulate, but I usual lack the brevity.

Rumsfeld, Krugman, & Sargent

2011-09-12T15:58:00.001-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/about-that-paul-krugman-allegation-of-911-shame/2011/03/03/gIQAdwBMNK_blog.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html

These guys are fantastic! They see demons where there aren't any, I wrote last week of our minds being our worst enemy, consider this example given.

Krugman is crying like a kid who got his argument for more flowers in the schoolyard turned down, when what everyone knew was we needed more physical interaction to get the neighborhood bully to back off.

Really, Greg? Really. " I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our president." is your crescendo? Evidence that there was an atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the GOP after 9/11.

Have you ever heard Jimmy Hoffa speak?

Really. Greg, have you ever heard Jimmy Hoffa speak?

What you quoted were politicians being politicians.

Nothing more, nothing less.

2011-09-09T19:06:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g

NY Times will require you to sign on.

Why am I always talking about the Tea Party when we got debates and national addresses to cover?

Because talk is cheap and they always have the right answers, unless they've gotten power, then they have only wrong answers.

We'll see.

But this Tea Party business, this is where the real action is taking place.

I wrote of the pressure this movement exerts on the GOP, its a good thing. Sarah Palin, the first target of the left inside this group, has made progress in cracking open the liberal nut, which has been mostly hostile and blind to the cause.

But she's said it in a way that one of them, and that's a start, is beginning to see clearly. Its not a movement that is in antithesis to anyone, unless of course the shrinkage of government threatens you in some way.

The liberal mind shouldn't be hostile to the Tea Party. Indeed they should be doing the same inside the Democrat Party. Alas they are not.

But Palin, she said it in a way that touched Mr. Giridharadas, who openly admits to not being a big fan. What Palin spoke of was well thought out and presented, yet its not new.

What is troublesome to think about is their lack of observational skills, the gap of honest information earned from independent inspection of the apparatus' surrounding you, that many of our liberal friends may be unaware they are suffering from.

The Tea Party, and the like minded American's who quietly side that way, aren't a malignant condition within the political body, they are more akin to white blood cells that are energized to find the tumor and eradicate it.

Oh, and racist? Don't be silly. At some point in our lives we got to ask ourselves if our perceptions are a little foggy, its a natural maintenance for sane people. Especially poignant if you are finding racists everywhere, which is a behavior someone lacking in fine observational skills may exhibit.

Pressure

2011-09-08T16:51:00.000-04:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342485

I think I made some in roads in conversation the other day, we'll see.

It followed a little instigation by me, I must confess. I was testing the Teamster's thirst, has the taste changed to the new tea in the pot, or was it the Kool-Aid they've been drinking for years?

It was the same old high sugar, watered down product.

The article I found above, lends itself quite well to my argument, which was laid in response to the "stupid Tea Party" comments.

A couple things I feel very strong about, one is its statistically impossible to be against each and every. With each and every being objects with little constraints. If you're against each and every action that Obama takes, for example, I think that goes against the statistically probable. I mean, you got to like something. If only one thing.

The other thing I feel strong about is that we got a two party system that is detrimental to progress. One party is corrupt and the other usually inept.

The thing is, for some Teamsters, as it is for some of many groups, being against everything Republican, although statistically improbable, is naturally abundant.

Usually in conversation, I found that the admission "they all lie" is in response to a "gotcha" moment when their irregular disposition does not apply consistently across party lines.

i.e. Why hasn't Obama gotten us out of the wars you hated Bush for getting us into? They all lie.

In the present case, I ran with the idea that with this horrendous two party system we got, where they all lie, why in the world would anyone be against a group that has risen within this structure, whose greatest success would be reformation of what passes now for political honesty?

The Tea Party is it folks, the only movement today that boldly, daringly, and improbably succeeded against an Establishment political party.

Agree with them and you may find yourself on the right of side change in America, we may create a reality where the phrase "they all lie" is meant only to explain the actions of boys and girls.

Disagree with the Tea Party at you own discretion, but it'd be nice for all of us if you went off and created some sort of pressure on your side to clean up their act too.

I gotta tell you though, the Tea isn't bad at all, they are just asking for self-sufficiency.

Is that to much to ask?

2011-09-06T20:07:00.000-04:00

Here's a video of Jimmy Hoffa, Teamster Boss.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

Practicing the politics of Anger.

...All the usual support is lining up behind Obama. Hang in for a close election, his base won't leave him.

It Takes An Amish Village

2011-09-05T15:18:00.003-04:00

I got into a little conversation over the weekend about the Amish.

I have always thought they are getting away with something whereby they don't pay taxes, but benefit from government. But by morning I have come around 180 degrees. I think the Amish are getting a raw deal.

We are all of course.

The people with the best deal are in the Welfare estate. Best part about that deal? They don't even vote, others are taking care of that for them. Thus they are the ultimate parasites.

Before I wrote anything, I wanted to look into the Amish tax issue, I found this page: http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/amishfaq.htm#top. This site reveals they pay taxes. Most of the taxes you and I pay, just not the self-employed Amish into Social Security. Yet they also don't benefit from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

The Amish practice self sufficiency, and culturally take care of their own in time of sickness and need.

But how much taxes do the Welfare crowd pay? I betcha less than the Amish, and they do get the benefits of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

They mimic a community, but handouts are the economics underpinnings of the community, its more of a Ponzi Scheme.

In retrospect, the Amish are getting screwed. Just not as bad as me.

Which leads me right now to reflect on how our own minds are our own worst enemies, how the only thing holding us back, is ourselves.

The Amish, or myself, or anyone not on welfare, is not genetically different from the crowds who make a living off the government doles. Its a mindset that is preventing self sufficiency among many Americans.

That's bad enough. What worse is how those who speak up against, or run for office opposed to further funding this lethargy are demonized by the champions of this system.

As though the notion of cutting welfare is crossing the line that separates civilized society from the brutal regimes of our darkest past.

If the Amish can make the stand they do by not accepting government dole at all in their lives, while indeed paying a slew of taxes, I think we can put quite a bit more pressure on the lives of those paying much less but taking much more.

We are the champions of work and self-sufficiency, and that is nothing to be diminished. Work is not a blight, idle hands are the miscreants. If we are all working that is progress, if more and more are not working, that is deggression.

Hillary Clinton wrote It Takes a Villageand many a struggling community and liberal laud the idea.

A village I'll acknowledge, but the governmnent I'll refute.

Anger

2011-09-01T18:49:00.001-04:00

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/01/bankrupt-solar-company-with-fed-backing-has-cozy-ties-to-obama-admin/

http://www.quotegarden.com/anger.html

http://bible.cc/proverbs/30-33.htm

From the The Audacity of Hopeto the stirring of anger.

Another reason why I don't think a defeat of Barack Obama in November of next year is a certainty.

His base isn't going to leave him, in the end, they won't be allowed, and it all starts with anger.

He who angers you controls you. This video will anger a conservative, though it will anger its intended audience even more, and they will become protective, and they will vote the right way.

This works both ways. Conservative radio hosts will anger the listener just as well, and for the same ends.

That is what makes it difficult to change peoples minds, and of course they got to change minds from within themselves, anger is going to resist change. It will blind.

It doesn't matter what the topic, choose a general topic important to a general audience. Its a fact that the larger the audience, the simpler the successful message. Plus you gamble big, you win big.

Obama is going to ride the blame bush/racist/reconciler of radical GOP/... messages all the way to the finals next year, and I think its going to be a nail biter.

So how do we switch his base?

Not with anger that's for sure. We can't attack Obama relentlessly, a person not on our side obviously likes something about Obama, we got to respect that. That's the first step of over coming their anger enraged by the liberal sirens.

Just a crack, that's the beginning of it all.

I agree we shouldn't attack Obama on his race, but do we already forget how scornfully Bush was attacked. Each and every day. Even for things he had no way of controlling. I'm just wondering has the criticism of Barrack gone that far yet?

Lets be fair in our time.

I don't think it has.

2011-08-29T19:13:00.000-04:00

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/barack-buddy-buffett-betting-bank-bailout

Speaking of Barack's Base...

Sometimes we forget how tied up with big business Obama really is.

That to me has been curious. Most pundits proclaim that he's an 'enemy of the free market' system, but if that is the case what is he doing with friends like these?

Or is he fooling them also?

I was writing about Obama's base support the other day, and let me add another to that list that won't abandon him, or at least hasn't in the thirty years I've been paying attention.

That segment of his base are those who have no clue how tight Buffett, GE, et. al., and Obama really are.

Let alone know who George Soros is or how he makes his money...wait a minute Soros does want to wreck economies! Maybe there is something to that whole 'enemy of free market' shtick after all.

Anyways, those supporters of Obama do know something about Enron that I don't know about, and they are really pissed at Haliburton. Thus demonstrating bona fide economic credentials. These folks know numbers.

Do you think they will abandon Obama?

After all, the economy is Bush's fault. Just like 9/11.

2011-08-24T17:42:00.002-04:00

I certainly hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm afraid Obama's re-election is just about a lock.

This isn't a position that has struck me like an epiphany, I've been inclined to believe he'll be re-elected and will continue to do so until the day he should actually lose.

There are a number of realistic scenarios and arguments that could line up to create the conditions favorable for an Obama re-election.

First of all, I'm dubious of any talk of Obama losing his base. What is his base? Its a collage of mini bases, and its nothing new. Its the blacks who have historically voted overwhelmingly Democrat for generations. Are they going to abandon him? Exactly.

His base consist of the Unions. Here we have hope. Just like the Unions had when they voted for this guy. But in the end, I gotta see it to believe it.

The Liberals are his base too. Another segment that not in my life have they abandoned the Democrat party.

They are just as steady in their vote for Democrats as the Blacks.

Just the facts.

So I don't see his base breaking up.

That has been my original reasoning for a strong Obama re-election showing.

You also gotta be aware of the traditional presidential scheme to back-load his schedule of achievements to climax with enough time for to fuel his campaign.

What achievements you snidely ask?

Begin with Health Care, which as poorly its regarded on the right, the left will champion it to their benefit.

The economy will rebound. Perhaps my biggest reach, but I return to the re-election shedule, plans were made, programs will commence soon enough to turn the economy around, finally.

And speaking of plans. You reap what you sow. Libya can easily be spinned as a safe and cost effective way to topple governments. Contrasted with the Bush approach that we still have to deal with, nearing a decade later.

Is it any wonder why he hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan yet? They've become useful as they are.

Egypt.

Syria?

Could Iran be far off?

Don't think its going to be a lay up to beat this guy.

2011-08-21T19:15:00.002-04:00

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv

This is a beautiful article to prove a point with.

A reader suggested that he could probably troll the web and find a story or the statistics that would support Buffett and or refute the numbers in this article.

That a little bit of both tax increases and spending cuts is what we need.

I don't doubt that he could find what he's looking for in someone's opinion.

Not one bit.

However, by what margin are they going to refute these numbers?

We're in a deep hole here, to not recognize it as a voter is really a disservice to the idea of a general right to vote.

I'm not even championing a plan or a side, I'm saying that those numbers in my link have to be awfully inaccurate to move me off the idea that slashing government is the first priority.

Increased taxes shouldn't even be a rider on a NEA bill at this point or anytime prior to severe governmental reshaping.

Why punish the wealthy cause the bumbling fools in D.C. aren't half the statesmen they wish to be?

But more pointedly, why would we not recognize that the need to cut government is preeminent?

Are we really that wedded to party affiliation that we'll accept the tax hike plea as the first step in fixing a problem where there is not enough money to tax to fix it with?

2011-08-14T15:59:00.004-04:00

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/reid-expects-tea-party-to-fade-away-127677778.html

The above takes you to an opinion piece by a Mr. Glenn Cook from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Harry Reid is an esteemed Senator from Nevada, so Mr. Cook has the privileged of covering the newly re-elected Senator, entering now his 25th year in service.

I'm happy to reveal that I have wasted no vote nor esteem on this long serving Senator, he's gotten esteem from somewhere, just not from me.

But you'll read that Mr. Reid is now spending that esteem on blocking real budgetary reform all the while continuing the illogical, but self-serving spinning of the Tea Party as a bunch of juvenile detractors and obstructionists who will soon need to grow up and leave the real business of running the country to the trained professionals.

The Tea Party faces its biggest challenge to existence now and through the next fifteen months. They survived a primary and general election, they faced the establishment GOP and have not been whipped. Their sails are tall, unfurled, and full of head winds.

Now they'll face off against the Democrat establishment, and lest the detail be overlooked, the GOP primaries are the perfect spot to quietly sink the ship. Or slice the sails.

The good news is that John Kerry and Harry Reid are taking the charge, handling the knife.

Trust me, this is a good thing. Two long serving Senators upbraiding the heady new kids on the block. Except don't accept their vision.

The Tea Party isn't a bunch of youngster, but just Americans who are still youthful in thinking, in a fresh zest for politics and political reform. Thankfully they hadn't been burnt out from this whorish system years ago. That they are here when needed.

Here is a truth that needs to be disseminated. The Democrats my not like the Tea Party, and the paid bosses will do everything to stigmatize them as undesirable in the minds of their loyalist, but the Democrats have nothing going on to provide an alternative to the GOP's growing Tea Party Brand.

There is an opportunity, like Sean Hannity proffered, to overtake the political opposition for the Tea Party, a The Tipping PointTipping Point.

Little details sometimes matter so much more than their apparent weight, or maybe just the opposite.

A couple of entrenched, long term Senators aren't upbraiding a movement of naive kids who stumbled out of their role, into an arena of politics they have no business being in.

A couple of Senators are exposing a long serving political party that hasn't done much in the last forty years to solve any problems its been confronted with, has only spent tax money frivolously and put priority on the need of government to take more of your money first before reforming.

When encountering a stereotypical negative response to the Tea Party, ask what the plan is from the Democrats.

Little details help reach the tipping point. Why Kerry and Reid, don't they have anyone fresh? Not as fresh as my tea, that's for sure.

2011-08-09T18:02:00.002-04:00

Yesterday the White House and Democrat congressman point the finger in every direction but inwards and the market plunge.

Today the the sound of silence. Markets soar.

Please do not disturb.

(with all due respect to Paul Simon)

2011-08-08T17:08:00.003-04:00

Obviously I was wrong.

I anticipated that the liberal democrats would blame the Tea Party for raising taxes, when that eventually does happen,

I didn't anticipate that they would blame them for the credit lowering.

Its like a sick patient blaming the doctor for his health.

Or something like that.

And to have John Kerry start the ball rolling, as if he hasn't been there in D.C. for thirty years approving every spending increases and opposing every spending cut.

What a joke.

Its time to rally round the Tea Party. They are the target of the Democrats, they will get the "dumb" treatment.

Every attempt will be made to get the dumb label stuck to them, like Palin two years ago, Bush before that, Quayle before that, Reagan before that...

2011-08-07T15:53:00.004-04:00

While I was working out the other day, I caught a little of the Sean Hannity show. Sean was in is usual animated self, the bombastic voice on the edge of the vast right wing conspiracy. Today's the day the left will wreck America, so we need you now more than ever.

But that day, that day Sean said, we were at a tipping point. Conceptually borrowed from the Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference book, Sean enlightened his fellow Conservatives that in the wake of the budget deal, we have reached a point as a movement wherein we have gained the forward momentum, almost irreversibly.

As usual, Sean was engrossed with too things -- historical events to support his arguments, and fervent certainty of his opinions. I agree with Sean most every time I listen, I can't listen often cause I don't agree with his predilection to dire consequences everyday.

As a society we are in bad shape, no doubt. Its not very productive for me to listen to it all the time. I'm glad he's on that wall though, if only it saves me from doing the job myself.

But as to the tipping point reached. I sure hope he's right.

I still expect Obama to be re-elected, and until he isn't I have no belief of my own that enough voters have reached the tipping point.

Yet I like the message, the forward looking and optimistic vision that we have been fighting this fight for a long time, and we've reached critical mass, that political conversation in this land is now directed by the conservative voice, and not the liberal or moderates.

Its certainly the time, as it always is anyways, to push the agenda further, much further.

We need more conversation on the right and correct role of government in this land, and we need to make sure its uncomfortable.

Comfortable conversation hasn't gotten us much. In fact its been counter productive. We have got to take the conservative agenda into conversations and really expose the realities.

Here's a reality that I think we should put on every voters' mind.

Raise your hand if you've been in this conversation before, your talking with an acquaintance and there is a shared lament that there is too much welfare, too much handouts, and that every year there seems to be more.

I happen to agree, I'm fed up with it, and its time we expose the ugly truth to the people who agree with the notion, but who perpetuate and aggravate the situation with their vote.

Before I go further, what I'm expanding upon is a linchpin rationale for my approach to discourage the uninformed or ill informed from voting.

Here's the beef. By and large liberals and baseline budgeting are expanding the welfare state. Baseline budgeting because this a system whereby welfare agencies grow. Liberals, cause, well that's what liberals do, they expend government.

If you want to cite a conservative cause that expands government, then lets villainize that too.

The fact is the people on welfare don't vote. That's a fact. Oh, sure your going to get some people on welfare who make it to the polling grounds on that first Tuesday in November, but usually they have something better to do then, voting for their own best interest isn't high on their list of things to do.

Why is that? The answer is that there are enough Americans willing to do that for them.

There are plenty of voters, not on welfare, who on a chilly November Tuesday take the time out of work or play or family, head out and vote for a candidate or party slate that is going to see to it that more of our tax money is going to people who won't make the effort themselves.

I don't. Any chance I get to vote in my own best interest, I do, when its a vote that is going to work against my own best interest. I choose not to make that choice.

Bluntly, if your a Democrat, and your not on welfare, and your complaining about welfare, then do me a favor, quit voting.

Your voting for people who are too lazy to vote for themselves. Who rely on you to make sure they get more free money. In Pennsylvania, we give them free cell phones now. I know, I live in Pennsylvania. Sean spoke about it too.

If we reached a tipping point, I'd like to see the cell phone program tipped into the abyss.

Now consider this, less than half of eligible voters actually vote. Typically the national vote is split at about 47% one way, 47% the other way, with about 5-6% on third party. That's less than 25% of the eligible voters making the decisions.

That truth is that if can just persuade a small number of the voters to not show up or please just vote responsibly, we can make this tipping point an inflection point.

Look forward to more examples on this blog of how certain voters are empowering politicians who do not have their best interest in mind when setting policy.

I'm inspired, or enraged, by a conversation I had where it was stressed to me that someone who may not know all the issues but votes, is a better citizen than someone who doesn't vote.

I don't think so, voting just for the sake of it, or worse -- out of party loyalty is not being a good citizen. Its also distorting the priorities of our culture in a way where people who don't even make an effort in society are beneficiaries at no cost or investment.

2011-08-03T18:10:00.004-04:00

Many a good political commentary contains a healthy dose of conspiracy or even paranoia. Hopefully, this post is both healthy and good.

I've come out against a balanced budget amendment, and with good reason, which I'll expand upon in a moment. Yet I think it would be great if the gosh darn thing were put up for a vote.

Anytime, in this modern age, where we the people have a more direct role in the laws that are crafted the better we are for it.

As a corollary, anytime that we can keep power out of the hands of the bunglers in D.C. the better we are for it.

Keeping power away from the bunglers in D.C. is why we all should be against a balanced budget amendment. Which is not to say we shouldn't be for a balanced budget.

So we got what we had here last week, if I may borrow a phrase.

Last week the Democrats wanted a tax hike and were against a balanced budget amendment.

This week, they compromised and accepted defeat on both issues. How's that?

Last week, the GOP wanted the "cut, cap, and balance", got it, and many a conservative thinks we lost the budget battle this week after the deal with the Democrats. Truly?

Well, there are many reasons why the conservatives feel defeated, expounded upon quite eloquently by many talk radio hosts.

I haven't heard anyone lay out what I'm about to lay out.

The Democrats haven't given up on taxes. Obviously this war isn't over, though the one battle is. The budget deficits are here, they aren't going away, and this deal is scant relief.

What's more, for some peculiar reason, the basic math of spending more than you take in does not equate to cutting what you spend for liberals, it means taking in more, and more, and more, and more.

Orin Hatch said, they love to take money that isn't theirs, spend over what they got, and say we lack compassion because we don't want to give them more.

But its true, although this spending isn't sustainable, even if you taxed the rich to the utmost, budget cuts aren't a serious consideration for liberals. Its so crazy a notion that I have trouble elaborating on it at times.

But why did they cave on those two issues, tax hikes and a balanced budget amendment(at least a vote)?

Because don't think for a minute that they won't love to have a clean and necessary reason to raise taxes all the while pinning the negative faults on the GOP, the Tea Party, and or the Conservatives in general.

With a Balanced Budget Amendment, they'd get that pre-written invite to raise taxes every year.

And whose going to take the blame?

The well meaning political activist on the right who are pushing for this amendment.

They are pushing and they will take credit for a victory if it should so pass, but mark my words, a balanced budget amendment is not what we want, we want a balanced budget.

Unless of course you're alright with your taxes being raised every year the budget isn't balanced. I'm not, and history doesn't have any examples of a nation taxing itself into prosperity.

2011-07-29T18:58:00.002-04:00

Having a balanced budget is the goal,

having a balanced budget amendment is not.

Its a very serious constraint to put on the government the requirement to balance the budget every year.

Recessions, depressions, and wars( as if )could necessitate deficit spending.

Although with this government we've devolved to, I'm sure they'd just change the law as they needed. Debt Limit? Really, why bother.

There was a time when I wanted a balanced budget amendment, not anymore.

What I want is one of two things, I'm not picky, and am able to compromise.

I would like a repel of the 22nd amendment, the one that limits the President to two terms.

Or I'd like a new amendment to limit congressmen to two terms.

Even the playing field, then we'd start to see real substantial compromise and change and even fiscal responsibility on a yearly basis.

I think we'd even see some of these two bit dictators come around if they new the American president could be around as long as them. . . and that's a whole different world.

2011-07-21T18:58:00.004-04:00

Yea I said it, a couple of post ago, the Obama administration isn't all bad.

Today I'm going to back up what I said, with a little help from Senior editor-at-large of Fortune magazine, Geoff Colvin. Grab the July 25th issue to read the entire interview for yourself.

Mr. Colvin profiled and questioned Vivek Kundra. Who is Vivek Kundra you ask? He's the very first CIO of the United States of America! That's Chief Information Officer.

And you know what he did that is so good, that a staunch conservative like myself can praise him despite his liberal leanings and efforts to elect Obama?

He shrunk the size of government.

Here's a sampler, according to the interview, there are over 2000 data centers in the federal government, Kundra has "plans to shut down 137 ... by years end and 800 over the next fours years, saving $3 billion."

I've been saying for a long time, its statistically improbable to not find anything you can agree with about your political opponent during the course of an administration. It was true during the eight years of Bush, and its true now. If your aren't finding at least one thing you can agree with about the Obama administration, then frankly you aren't paying as close attention as you think.

Conservatives, don't be what the liberals are, find something, if only just one issue, that you can agree with on the president. It will be an aid in tempering your arguments when in disagreement. It will allow you to sound more informed, and if that can't sway your audience, do what I do, encourage your conversationalist to not vote at all.

2011-07-20T16:18:00.005-04:00

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men."
-- Strother Martin, Cool Hand Luke

**** SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING BUDGET TALKS ****
If you haven't heard that line, get the movie, well worth your time.

The budget talks, not so much.

Its a horror flick, with b-rated actors and there will be a climax that is bound to disappoint every viewer. Not at all commensurate with the rhetoric and dire need of reform the poor actors are portraying on screen.

The setting is grand, the legendary capital of a once mighty empire. The plot is strong, the story of a nation's leaders coming together to forge a path toward prosperity and sustainability.

I've seen this flick before, here is what happens.

The stout conservatives, led by a strong man with strong words, will back off their line in the sand and compromise with the weaker antagonist, who in the end will take credit for all the work of the protagonists.

The problem with the budget talks, but not Cool Hand Luke, is that the conservatives are many, by circumstance, not virtue and when one speaks contrary to the rhetoric of the idealogue leader, the message gets compromised. Their position weakens.

The antagonist, the liberal, can be a lone voice, portrayed as sensible and well spoken, not answerable or beholden to any other liberal suggestion.

Eventually, public opinion, which starts firmly with the conservatives, by virtue this time of the elections results, begins to wane. Ultimately a compromise will be struck somewhere between what the conservatives want and what the liberal wants.

In the end, we all lose. There is no happy ending.

2011-07-17T17:57:00.002-04:00

Didn't they pay attention to my campaign, he asked.

That part about hope....

What about the part about change?

I'm hard core, I actually expect a politician to do what he says, but Bush's third term is not what I expected.

To be sure, I didn't think Bush was all good, nor as bad as his critics would have us believe.

Obama has kept so many of the Bush policies, that its fair to call his term, this term, the third Bush term.

Its not all bad, and its not all good, where are the critics from the left?

Of course they don't say anything, but they should.

I expected change, I didn't vote for it, but I expected it.

Merely spending more by magnitudes wasn't exactly what I was hoping for.

The same tired old grandstanding on budgets? Just start cutting, and when you've earned some political capital then come at me with the tax the rich stump speech.

Obama and the Democrats could of taxed the rich into obscurity for the two years they shared power, 2008-2010.

But they didn't

Same old politics.

A lot of Americans hoped for change. That's what I remember about the campaign, but there really isn't any hope left, and certainly no good change.

2011-07-15T19:13:00.002-04:00

Raising taxes isn't always going to work, at some point the economy isn't likely to respond to higher taxes with more revenues, lets not forget that taxes are by definition a deterrent, so raising income taxes deters higher incomes.

It deters jobs.

Now is the time to cut government, we are at that point where taxes are high enough. I won't accept the notion that taxes are higher in other western nations, let them have their high taxes.

At what point, if not now, do we face the tough analysis of what we as a society need out of government. What can be cut, jettisoned, done away with. What will be kept as a rightful function for inefficient bureaucracy.

We feed the poor, the children, the unable. Great. We give cell phones to the inept. Not so great.

Where are we when government is too big that no one wants anything cut, but something needs cut. When taxes are high enough, and the economy bad enough that more revenues are not a lock with higher rates.

Where and when? In 2011 is where we are, and its time to face those tough decisions that smart opinion makers have been saying are coming for decades.

2011-07-13T09:02:00.003-04:00

Taxing the rich always gets my juices flowing, and I'm a far cry from rich!

I've called it a tired old ploy, and it is, but its become a phoenix rising from the ashes of the Democrat defeat in 2010 congressional elections.

It seems that Mr. Obama will use the old slogan to pulverize the GOP during the budget battles, and then, my word, we'll see a close election in 2012, or perhaps a flaming victory for the rejuvenated bird from Illinois.

2011-04-16T21:43:00.001-04:00

Taxing the rich isn't policy, its psychology.

Its also a tired old psychology that is still successful at keeping the sheep herded.

2010-08-25T13:43:00.003-04:00

A couple of themes I've been sharing with people lately.

One is how I'm so unimpressed with physically sculptured young men with nice clothing who buy their convenience store items with a welfare card.

And that I'm not surprised or disappointed so much with how our leaders act, its how we voters act that is sad to me.

For eight unceasing years I heard so many people complaining about 30 and 40 year old problems, but now they don't cry anymore! I presume that the fact a Democrat occupies the White House gives those malcontents solace enough to shut up?

Yea like that is helpful. If you can't get your own party to address your complaints, why for any reason would someone of the other party, again I presume who doesn't share you concerns, be the one to address them?

And they get angry because a Republican isn't addressing them! Get angry with the
Democrats who stoke the anger and discontent when they are out of office, while in office they do nothing.

Until the politicians receive more pressure and uproar from their own voters(which ever party that be)we aren't going to solve any problems. If a politician feels safe with his or her loyalist he or she is complacent. If the loyalist are as unhappy as the loyal opposition, then something will get done.

2010-08-22T12:21:00.003-04:00

"What do you think of this," asked my wife while showing me an email that points out that Mr. Obama does not use American flags nor the traditional red, white, and blue that past American Presidents have staged with at press conferences.

The email in facts contends that the current resident of the White House uses tradition Muslim colors in stead, and quite on purpose.

In my now typical indifference I answered that's his prerogative.

Its really not indifference, its cynicism.

I don't like it at all. Just like I don't like much of what he is doing, or not doing for that matter.

Especially the bowing to foreign leaders.

But in order to live in sane complacency, I've been viewing my government as the biggest horror/tragedy story of all time on the big screen.

Its a real frightening tale of corruption and ineptitude abetted by a grand facade of security and faux vision.

When your expectations are low, as the quality of our leaders mandate, it shouldn't be an enraging moment when the star of the show can't deliver the imagery and on-screen strength of a mighty empire.

I've heard politics are for bad and ugly actors.

Evidently so.

2010-08-16T19:47:00.002-04:00

Whats all a do about the Mosque site in NYC?

Isn't freedom of religion a constitutional right in this country?

Don't act like a liberal and massage the argument to fit your bias.

Some one had a sign that read Muslims build Mosques where they conquer, yea and so did every other religion too.

Frankly, I'm not particularly fond of the idea myself, but it seems to be all paper worked and processed.

The government couldn't allow this to happen if it were wrong, right?

2010-04-26T19:10:00.005-04:00

Recently Ursula Burns(Xerox CEO) was asked about the state of education in the U.S., she replied "Very, very, very poor."

Further more:

"It's one of the most important structural problems we have in this nation. The world is full of opportunities -- everyday there's something new that you can do. . . We are structurally creating an underclass that will be hard to fix. If we don't have people who can create value, they will be servers forever. This is not an insurmountable problem. . . If you look at the list of the top nations and try to find out where we are in reading, math, and any science, it is stunning. I don't look at the list anymore because it's an embarrassment. We are the best nation in the world. We created the Internet and little iPods and copying and printing machines and MRI devices and artificial hearts. That's all science and engineering. Who's going to create those thing?"

By now all this shouldn't be so stunning to anyone, but I like the quote. It is embarrassing after all.

Recently I read a book on Presidential facts by Dr Knowledge (Knowledge in a Nutshell) where he informs that Theodore Roosevelt had a simple mantra, to lead a strenuous life.

Coincidently, old T. R. was called a Progressive back then, 100 years ago. Today Liberals increasingly wish to be called Progressive.

While one could draw a few comparison I'm sure, I'd rather draw the distinction that so called Progressives today don't champion anything remotely strenuous.

Despite, and perhaps in spite of, the many wealthy who are drawn to the Democrat party and the liberal idealogy, in practice the left today are more intent on conspiring to increase the nanny state than they are inspiring self-esteem, self-motivation, and hard work.

Improving our schools and our collective intelligence? We could use that kind of progress.

2010-04-24T15:51:00.002-04:00

I was reading a Fortune magazine blurb reporting on the apparent increase in happiness across America.

I talk politics, so I'm, by nature, cynical about any metric based on people's opinions.

Is it coincidental that more American's are happier now and that there is a new President?

Here's what my mind's eye is seeing: I'm seeing a lot of Democrats answering that question in the affirmative, "Yes, I'm happier."

I envision a lot of Republicans say the opposite, "No, I'm not happier."

This is a topic that could use a lot more developing, but considering nothing has substantially changed in the last 2-3 years, and you gotta wonder why people are happier now.

In fact, all of our long term problems have only gotten worse. More deaths in wars, more deficit, more debt, more unemployed and 'dropping out' of the work force.

Even health care reform won't kick in right away for most of us.

Why are people happier?

My theory is because the squawking and cackling of the news media and Liberal leadership has unceremoniously stopped, many Americans are freed from a negative tyranny that prohibited them from being happy.

But a lot of Conservatives and Republicans where quite unhappy with Bush back then too. We all had a lot be unhappy about, the metric reflected that.

Today, Democrats are allowed to be happy.

A lot of people are just happy anyways, so there is a steady base.

And many Conservatives won't be unhappy just because some people on the Right want to play the same game the Liberals did for the 8 years of Bush -- keep a steady stream of negativity rolling.

I'm part of that last group.

The metric reflects our happiness right now.

I would hope that the Democrats and Liberals who don't pout and whine so much anymore, will realize how good they have always had it, even when their President didn't have a 'd' next to his or her name.

As for the Conservatives who are unhappy now.

The Christian among you should remember your faith and the agnostic remember this too shall pass.

Don't give the politicians so much power, influence, or credit over your life, to allow them to coerce you to be unhappy.

That, and vote.

2010-04-19T17:54:00.002-04:00

After this weekend's back and forth between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton, I must ask the rhetorical, "Why give Bill Clinton the opening?"

Recently I've been affronting people with my belief that most Republicans and Conservatives have been acting just like the Democrats and Liberals had acted during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Mean, angry, hateful, anti-government, and even more.

Its not pretty, and now its being exploited by the Master of the Game.

Instead of taking the high road, we've taken the base road.

I'm not against airing all the dirty laundry that escapes network and liberal media scrutiny, but I'm against all the deviant personal attacks and hysterical hyperbole about the end of society as we know it.

Newsflash: Society as we know it changes everyday as norm, and as fact, the finances of this country are in such poor state due to both parties' negligence.

I don't wish to ascribe that much power to Obama, he hasn't ruined us, but I don't think he is helping much either.

Back to Clinton v. Limbaugh.

If Mr. Limbaugh is going to play his cards just like he did during Mr. Clinton's 8 years, well, I think it would be reasonable to expect the latter learning something about how to neutralize or even turn the tables on the radio Maestro.

And by taking the stand he did, I think Clinton scored one for his team. It was reasonable and somewhat indirect. Direct enough to prove a point, but reasonably general in his target, so that he doesn't look partisan.

Collectively, we Conservatives do a poor job of imitating Liberals. We ought to stick to the intelligent conversations, not the ugly paranoia and implied anti-Americanism.

The facts we can win with, acting like them just plays into their hands.

2010-03-21T13:31:00.003-04:00

I read this report just now about President Clinton, as a stand in for President Obama, at the Gridiron Club's annual dinner.

Quite the comedian.

My thoughts turned to the 1990's and how much the conservatives and Republicans would vilify Clinton. I bought into some of that vitriol, but I've come to learn that what I really got was a facade.

Anyone willing to pay attention now a days to Mr. Clinton's goings on would have to admit that the man is interesting, accomplished, and self-deprecating.

Self-deprecating, I like that.

He showed a lot of respect to the elder Bush and was, considering the hyperbole then, quite mum during the term of the younger Bush.

It's all just a reminder that we sometimes take politics too seriously and misconstrue the other side. We sometimes forget that their opinions may differ from us, but in fact, usually, they have only the best intentions in mind.

Even Barrack Obama!

While the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and Moore's of the airwaves excite us to anger at each other for siding with the Clinton's, Bush's, and Obama's, they all enjoy a nice dinner together, and a handsome stipend, at our expense.

2010-03-19T18:53:00.002-04:00

Have you read that at least two states' Attorney Generals are planning to sue over the health care bill?

This is a splendid development.

If the one good thing that comes out of this package deal is a renewed fight for states rights, then I may be for it.

2010-03-14T15:42:00.004-04:00

What can you do to help the cause? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

When I was younger, and never too shy for a good political argument, I would often end a dialog by acknowledging that although I don't agree, at least we both vote. It seemed a rather tidy and polite way of ending a laborious and circuitous banter.

Not anymore.

If I don't agree with someone, I'm even more polite than I have ever been!

But now I'll quickly go to alternative dialog "B". That's the one where I get real bitter about the whole process and government. In fact I'm so turned off by the whole establishment, that I want you to be too.

While I still vote, and as early and as often as possible, I make a half decent effort to disenfranchise the opposition.

This is great advice for the nascent Tea Party movement. You can accomplish better results if you identify an intractable nature in conversation, and discourage him or her from voting at all.

But you got to find out early on if you can reach these people with your limited government ideology.

Just trying to help. . . .

2010-03-10T07:29:00.002-05:00

That Massa is quite zany, and he's the latest example of the problems with commenting on what you read.

The truth is never easy to ascertain. I'm just looking for a good laugh anymore.

2010-03-08T18:51:00.002-05:00

Where are all the crazed lay Democrats who were led to hysteria over how Bush strong armed his political opposition?

Did you see this strong armed tactic by the President's right hand man?

I can't be entertained by the politicians anymore, I expect nothing but the worst from them.

The lay people, now they are bad too, but I can laugh aloud at them.

2010-03-03T16:01:00.002-05:00

The light bulb is dim I realized. Literally, figuratively, and metaphorically.

Early last summer I went to the local hardware store and came across those new compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). The marketing was such that it moved me to purchase a sizable quantity and replace some of the incandescent bulbs that were in high use in my house.

It wasn't that hard of a sell, I've always considered myself an early adopter, that guy that buys in early on new consumer tech products. I was being increasingly exposed to the inefficiencies of the old light bulb -- mostly heat, little light for all the energy one consumes -- in print and t.v., and like the perfect mark, I bought into it all. The savings were going to be great!

That is until Day Light Savings Time came to an end and I realized I couldn't see as well with these fancy things. And did you know that if one should break, you need to call the local Haz-Mat Team?

Is it only coincidence that advertising for these new bulbs seems to disappear during winter when the deficiencies of the light is inescapable?

Metaphorically speaking, I hope the filters in your life are allowing the dimming of the whole Al Gore/Environmental/Global Warming bulb to be seen in your home.

I'll talk to you later, I just bought a pack of the old Edison bulbs to replace the replacements. I just may break one on purpose, to see that explosion, while I still can.

2010-02-26T17:42:00.006-05:00

"Why We Fight" is a title of an episode of HBO's Band of Brothers. Its a particular moving episode, on the discovery of a concentration camp in Germany, by the Americans, in the waning days of WWII.

My mind wondered to that series when I was asked recently if I've been on an Olympic hiatus from battling the dastardly villains of the liberal left.

The easy answer would be yes. I've been lax because I've been maxed out on Winter Olympics. I can't get enough of the Hockey and Curling Tournaments!

The harder answer is that, in this era of full-bore disgruntled, enraged, and engaged partisans, I'm not entirely.

Even more so, I have trouble finding inspiration from the genre to write about.

True inspiration, not the self-serving, media driven, cult of personality that is passing for inspiration now a days.

In fact, I'm equal parts indifferent and outraged, but they short each other out.

This affords me a sober response to the rhetoric.

I can't trust either side to get the job done, and it needs done like yesterday, if not yesteryear.

I'm a conservative and I vote, its not apathy, its that the GOP can not incite me where they'd rather I'd be incited, all the while I'm rather excited to the point of pulling that voting lever real hard next time around.

I can't follow anything real close anymore not just because both sides get nothing done, but also because all the while they're doing nothing, its claimed the other side is the obstacle and is distorting the issue.

The reality is that when the Republicans were clearly in power, they got nothing done and in 2010 the Democrats can't get anything done. I'm going back decades with some of these issues that neither side has made positive nor substantive change to.

I'm cynical about the whole establishment.

Truth they say is out there, but I can't trust anyone really has a grasp of it to tell me, and inspire me with it.

Book Review: Rome 1960

2010-02-12T19:08:00.004-05:00

For a good read on some Summer Olympic history, try Rome 1960: The Summer Olympics That Stirred the World by David Maraniss.

The Pulitzer Prize winner also wrote Clemente: The Passion and Grace of Baseball's Last Hero and When Pride Still Mattered : A Life Of Vince Lombardi.

What you'll find is a swift moving history of the waning weeks of summer in 1960 when the games played out in Rome. Who you'll find is a cast of Americans that include the young and energetic boxer, Cassius Clay; the noble decathlete Rafer Johnson; and the elegant sprinter Wilma Rudulph.

Also in this retelling of a transitive period in global sports during the Cold War adolescent period, you'll meet members of the Soviet Union team and the last unified German team.

You'll learn about the beginnings of steroids in sports and how geopolitical battles were contested not only on the field, but in the International Olympic Committee meetings as well.

Not to be out done by the East - West rivalry, the two Chinese get catty, not for the first nor last time.

There was also Abebe Bikila, a bare-footed, gold medal marathon runner from Ethiopa.

A most fascinating bit of history to offer my readers is the nugget that after these Olympics were concluded, Americans began to worry about their overall competitiveness and physical fitness.

The new President, John Kennedy, appointed a 'special consultant' to "make it clearly understood that the promotion of sports participation and physical fitness is a basic continuing policy of the United States." p. 386.

Soon schools were testing children across the country in athletic prowess.

Which reinforces my belief that Government can't really do much right. Its been 50 years since, while obesity and sloth have only gotten worse.

Fix health care? Good luck with that one.

2010-02-11T17:45:00.002-05:00

Its easy to target the President in politics, but I'm not intending to blame Obama for everything. In fact, I'm quite lenient on him. I rather not act like he and his party did for the eight years of the Bush presidency. I'm not going to be that guy.

Most problems we faced were around before Bush, and even before Clinton and Bush the elder. Our problems have been lurking for decades.

Instead of solving our problems the two sides agitate the other, the disciples are led down the road of good intentions, bedazzled yet angry at everyone else for the problems that are du jour right now.

Professing to trust none, yet committed to the heard, we split our vote on one of two candidates that increasingly are inches apart, not the miles they'd have us believe.

2010-02-09T17:21:00.002-05:00

Have you read this oped from John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism in the USA Today?

With all due respect Mr. Brennan, but where were you while your boss and his cronies were emasculating the President, and the office of the presidency, all the while Bush was there?

Its a Bizzaro World, the GOP does exactly what the Democrats had done for years, and now again, the Obama Administration uses the same logic as the Bush Administration.

Change?

2010-02-08T17:25:00.003-05:00

George Washington was right and these political parties are destroying the promise of America.

He said in his Farewell Address of 1796:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Reflect on how the founding principles, and in deed the founding fathers, are continuously under attack, ridiculed, and ignored by the cohorts of the Progressive ideology.

One way to counter act that regression of our shared and communal intellect, our degenerative body politic, is to reveal what placed these founders in such high regard in the first place.

George Washington, to be sure, wasn't one of the 'best and brightest', if we can borrow that misnomer from a later era. He didn't write the Declaration of Independence nor draft the Constitution. He was a natural leader of men, a General and President, and when he left public service he shared a lot of advice he learned from a tumultuous time period.

Sadly, we haven't paid heed to much of that advice in recent decades.

The Tea Party movement looks in some way to re-arouse the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton.

The biggest obstacle they'll face is the entrenched party apparatus', but I fear they are our last best hope of salvaging our future.

Any honest projection of the course of our nation going forward will acknowledge the dismal state of our finances: the debt, the deficit, and the obligations.

Neither party can claim superiority over the other in managing our books.

The Democrats have been in charge of the pocket book since 2007, when they took back the House of Representatives. They have failed miserably to not only make an effort to restore balance in the federal budget, but they have also failed to steer the nation toward prosperity.

It seems their leaders are doing their best to emulate Ayn Rand's government of Atlas Shrugged. Surreal is what it is, and frightening.

For their part, the Republicans lost their fiscal discipline at some point in the early '00s and it was not until they lost power that they were born again. Or so they would have us believe.

Consider that I'm only addressing our finances, and not our foreign policy, trade, education, health, or immigration problems!

Is this nation ready to support a third party? I'm a skeptic. In the 1990's I committed myself to voting third party whenever possible, and I'll argue night and day that it has never been a waste of my vote.

Unfortunately, millions have wasted their vote on the same old same old. The reasons are wonderfully articulate, and they have been voiced by such statesmen as Arlen Spector and the late Ted Kennedy.

One strident Democrat, filled with nothing but hate and contempt of Republicans, clued me in that he would vote third party, but there was no one to vote for. I replied, I voted third party all my life.

We live in the same district.

Washington had the courage to do great things, do we have the courage to do the little things, like vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican?

2010-02-05T18:17:00.002-05:00

Political uprisings are not for the faint of heart.

We've got the Tea Party Convention going on right now, and the political undulations which will play their way out from that center can beget some serious unintended consequences.

Like splitting the Republican and Conservative vote, which would allow a second term for Barack Obama, which as they see it, is one of the big problems we have right now.

And don't think that the character assassins from both parties aren't sharpening their knives as I type this. Stepping up and out, an attempt to wrest power from either political party will attract all kinds of the wrong attention, 'they' will not go down quietly.

Sarah Palin. She's already damaged goods. Katie Couric saw to that.

Who will bravely stand up next? We shall see, but be sure, whomever it is will attract the most villainous enemies, those that use their words to destroy a career.

Unintended consequences abound.

More thoughts forthcoming. . . .

2010-01-24T14:41:00.003-05:00

Benjamin Franklin:

"The more I discovered of the former, the more I admired them; the more I know of the latter, the more I am disgusted with them. Men I find to be a sort of beings very badly constructed, as they are generally more easily provoked than reconciled, more disposed to do mischief to each other than to make reparation, much more easily deceived than undeceived, and having more pride and even pleasure in killing than in begetting one another, for without a blush they assemble in great armies at noon day to destroy, and when they haved killed as many as they can, they exaggerate the number to augment the fancied glory; but they creep in to corners, or cover themselves with the darkness of night when they mean to beget, as living ashamed of a virtuous action."

p. 307
A Great Improvisation

The latter being his contemporaries in government.

2010-01-22T18:26:00.002-05:00

Who can you learn more from, an eight year old or an advisor to the president?

My son is a budding herpetologist, he wants to study snakes and other reptiles.

The presumpted sensei is "Charles E. Phillips — president and director of the tech conglomerate Oracle Corporation and a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board."

Today my son asked me to pick a snake that I wanted to learn about and he'll gather information from his books on that snake for me.

I picked the Boomslang, which I learned is the only species in the Dispholidus genus. A Colubridae, Dispholidus typus.

With a max length of about five feet it can be a few different colors, but deadly poisonous. The name means "tree snake" in Afrikaans.

What Mr. Phillips taught me is that billboards in major metropolitian areas will cost about $50,000, and having an eight year affair is even more costlier.

And while its good to know about the cost of advertising in Times Square, I think the eight years I've spent with my son is of more value than the same years Mr. Phillips spent with Ms. Wilkins.

Advantage: The herpetologist.

Plus all this I'm learning about snakes!

My son, following in my footsteps. I studied snakes in college -- Political Science.

2010-01-21T17:23:00.002-05:00

Funny thing I heard today:

Erstwhile Republican, now Democrat, Arlen Spector asks Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)to state what she stands for!

Read the story and the audio here.

There is more, he tells her to "act like a lady."

If only we knew where dear Arlen stands.

He's up for re-election. Its widely understood that he needs years 31 - 36 in the Senate in order to accomplish something for the people, besides the "single bullet theory."

Did I mention he was a Democrat before he was a Republican, now Democrat again?

2010-01-20T14:59:00.002-05:00

In the business of information, truth raises to the top. It may take time, and the sitting champ will fight back, but time is on the side of the more honest contender.

I read that a long time ago, and have believed it ever since.

I had a short conversation a few weeks ago, political conversations with the duration of short require focused generalizations, when my colleague quipped that he doesn't listen to a certain news station.

"They have an agenda," he said.

I appreciated his concern for fair and balanced journalism, but as the news station he shuns is the ratings leader now a days, I dropped my opening line on him.

That is all.

Oddly, today I viewed a number of news sites, wanting to see the coverage on the Brown win in Massachusetts.

The ratings leader had a story on the victory, even an image on the front page of the smiling victor.

The news site preferred by my friend on guard against agendas had a story of the loser's faulty campaign and a story on the first year of the Obama Administration. Nothing on the Brown triumph! No kidding.

You know what, my friend never seen that clip of Brown rebuking the debate moderator about the seat not being the Kennedy's nor the Democrat Party.

Should I let him know who won last night? I hate to come off as a Republican mouth piece. . . .

2010-01-19T19:07:00.002-05:00

Could we be seeing the beginnings of a movement to "traditionalize" certain seats of Congress?

What I'm talking about is that I've read and heard, over the last few times a Democrat seat went open, is a notion that it was someones seat, so only someone with those sames views is appropriate for it.

Like only a liberal and a health care proponent is worthy of the seat in Massachusetts.

It's not said outright, implied little more, but the language by the pundits and the candidates assume the sale.

It gives me pause, I think, could the long view be that of a large number of seats in Congress entitled on a tradition?

New Year, New Focus

2010-01-10T14:51:00.003-05:00

Just read Beck's "Common Sense". In general I like this book better than Levin's "Lyberty and Tyranny". The argument differ slightly, but the conclusions are the same. That we are on the wrong path as a nation is fairly self-evident, the degree to which the cancer is pervasive is unsettled and unsettling in any event.

A must read, a call to action.

I especially love the notion that to dismiss third party voting as a waste implies that we can't do any better than what we got. Heaven forbid.

2009-06-09T19:42:00.001-04:00

I wish for all involved that the Republicans would be more polite in opposition and that the Democrats be more effective in power.

2009-05-13T19:58:00.001-04:00

People ask, "What do you think of Obama?" I answer, "I'm underwhelmed."

2009-05-01T19:10:00.002-04:00

"In a hundred years people will look back with scorn, 'what were they thinking?'", that's what I've been saying to people lately.

2009-04-14T21:02:00.000-04:00

The primary thrust of the anti-universal health care contingent ought now to be the best implementation. The momentum, if not the majority, is on the other side. Pragmatists should realize that the numbers are only going to grow for some plan, they are best serving society by getting involved, to influence, in a positive way, the plan while having their concerns considered.

What's not Right.

2008-09-07T08:10:00.002-04:00

One behavior that regularly stokes my irritation with the left is their constant griping about everything that President Bush does, and now everything that John McCain does, or at this point, lacking power, says.

Alright already, we get it, the loyal opposition is ever vigilant.

However, they never want it reversed. They want to condemn and criticize at will, but they never want to be aired the exact faults of themselves to be made mentioned.

One thing that I think the Bush Administration does exactly right is that they don't entertain the constant harping. He doesn't cry about it, he doesn't plead his case to the press, he doesn't pander and whimper.

Contrast that to the Left.

While Bush has been called Hitler, Obama has been called inexperienced. Bush has left it alone, Obama has cried foul.

That's one lesson that will endure from the Bush Administration for any who wish to acknowledge it. In politics, complaining about everything the opposition does is petty, not enduring it when it comes back at you, that's immaturity.

I don't carry much respect for politicians who politicize everything, but can't shoulder the exact reversal of polarization.

They're All Liars

2008-05-04T19:16:00.004-04:00

I had an exchange with 2 acquaintances of mine on the topic the Democrat Primaries.

One voted for Obama, he was in the Clinton camp from way back though, and has a bet with me that Hillary will be the next president. We made this bet a year ago.

Another guy says he voted for Hillary, and when I said that she lies too easily, he laid the old saw that 'they are all liars.' Meaning, of course, all politicians are liars.

One of those classics. . .

. . . and that is why we get lying politicians.

What's the point in expecting anything better in the people who get elected, if we are knowingly voting for acknowledged liars in the first place?

Is it that hard to not vote for someone who's got caught lying? Hillary or any other.

Or how about the stimulus rebate checks.

I know one fella who was wisely informed that we are just borrowing this money from the Chinese, and then will have to pay it back with interest. I pointed out that 1.) We are going to buy a lot of Chinese goods with this stimulus money, so they are making out even better, and 2.) in response to opinion polls that favor this rebate I ask if this is good now, why was it so bad back in 2001 when it was Bush and the GOP congress that passed the tax rebates over then Democrat opposition.

Its actually a worse idea now because back then we had the money, it wasn't borrowed from the Chinese, today it will be.

At this point he lost interest in the topic.

What has happened since 2001 that convinced the Democrats to silence their criticism of, and then vote for the rebate legislation today? ahem.

Well, that brought silence because the whole idea is Bush's, of course, and the criticism was meant to bash Bush in 2001, not Bush & the Democrat Party today. The past criticism should not be expected to hold water against the party of their enduring loyalty.

So often times it happens that only a bit of factual data links a bash to a Bush. Hey, I'm not defending Bush, I'm asking why stop looking for truth.

Why take just a little bit of an issue and assign blame, why not get the whole picture. Or as much as possible as is reasonable.

But, alas, too often, when it looks like the truth may be a little messier, all interest erodes for sounding informed.

Warren Buffett on Candidates.

2008-04-27T13:23:00.002-04:00

In a recent issue of Fortune Magazine, investment & business sage Warren Buffett is quoted as saying that we have 3 really good candidates for president. To his credit, his ranks John McCain ahead of the other two.

This means one of two things.

Either I'm not as smart as I think I am, or Warren Buffett is not as smart as I think he is.

Productivity is the American Way

2007-10-17T19:35:00.001-04:00

One of my favorite little sayings is that "I'm so productive Greenspan would be proud", or conversely, "Alan Greenspan wouldn't appreciate that." I think productive, productivity, and productiveness are all terms synonymous with the American Spirit. Not the definition of patriot or patriotism, but awfully close, perhaps even more relevant as to the true American identity.

One could be a patriot but not be entirely too productive, or vice versa. I think the American Spirit is a perception earned from years of commitment to a socially universal trait. Each nation earns its Spirit, some become not at all flattering. Think the Soviet Union or France.

I think a core element of the American Spirit is our productivity. We even measure our productivity, and by comparison to other countries its one of the last remaining areas of dominance Americans still enjoy in the global workforce. Innovation is another area we still dominate. Americans are productive and innovative. That is the measure of the American Spirit.

In fact, my biggest gripe of this Iraq War is the lack of progress, its productiveness. We are all upset about this. Sure there are a slew of truly peaceful people out there that were and continue to be against the war. But mostly the discontent comes not from fighting Saddam, but not securing the peace after the fight and that this war has dragged on in its current phase for close to 5 years. Too long. Too Unproductive.

Just about everyone approved of the war in the beginning, except for the hard core peaceful. Most Americans are upset at how un-American it has become.

However, there are the people who are saying that we shouldn't be there in the first place. These are people who are unproductive. That debate was settle a long time ago, and to just deviate briefly, its ironic how they support the people who voted for the war continuously. Without hesitation it seems. Read Kerry and Clinton.

Right, I always say to them. What's the use of debating with someone living in the past? The reality is its 2007, right?

Those people just bought into the hate machine. I'm not saying they aren't Patriotic, that they've lost the love of their country. I'm not saying that. They have lost the American Spirit. They let that spirit die and supplanted it with a virulent anti-Bush spirit.

With that being said, when today I heard President Bush categorize the Democrat resolution in congress to condemn Turkey for events almost a hundred years ago as unproductive I thought Alan Greenspan would approve.

When you find someone who disagrees with the President today, we don't have to smear them as unpatriotic. They've only lost the American Spirit.

This resolution can harm the progress in the war as Turkey has threatened to run military missions into Iraq, which they had been restraining from doing out of deference to the U.S. mission in Iraq.

I'm not here to convince anyone of the value of continuing the war, but I think its awfully important that elected representatives of the U.S. Government not do anything that would incite ours allies to abandon us.

This can lead to American deaths. Isn't that what the Peace movement is trying to prevent?

It just seems that not only is this resolution counter productive, but its also a hypocritical position to take from anyone who slandered Bush for alienating the world and killing American kids for no reason.

It shows terrible judgment. Consider that they can just de-fund the war and end it all. Instead they do what they condemned Bush for.

The Pressure is On

2007-10-12T15:11:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/washington/12memo.html?ei=5065&en=1c7066d2e0c64e4e&ex=1192766400&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1192215841-VBVU5OCbgJ9SYHO4SCs8AQ

While I'm ranting and raving about how liberals are not pressuring their heroes in congress, I've come across a few articles that belie my opinion.

One was anti-war activist camping out at the Pelosi's, another was in Fortune Magazine and dealt with the real change in the Party in regards to free trade(it seems that some have actually worked toward preventing free trade agreements rather than just complain and then turn a blind eye to acts like Clinton's signing of NAFTA way back when).

And now this article above.

Honestly, transgender issues are of no concern of mine, but apparently this is one issue where liberals are going to stand strong on!?!

In the mean time Congress is alienating our allies with more of their silly resolutions.

I was told Bush was ruining our standing in the world, but I don't recall any ambassadors being recalled because of his actions, unlike what the Democrats just caused with Turkey.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, this is where I don't provide a link just to show you that I too can control the information you receive.

In other words if you don't know what I'm talking about then your being fed what "they" only want you to hear, and stories about Democrats straining our international relations aren't for your digestion.

Funny also how despite Bush's attempts to piss everyone off in the world, both Germany and France voted for pro-American leaders this past couple of years. . . .

That isn't suppose to happen.

A Candidate's Test

2007-10-09T17:54:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

This links to a quiz that will match your preferences on certain issues to the candidates.

These are great.

Of course Hillary's positions are updated daily as her positions change that often.

She already dropped the child's saving bond idea.

Yet Another Capitulation

2007-10-09T14:43:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/washington/09cnd-nsa.html?ei=5065&en=5614405c7a9db3a5&ex=1192507200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Another Capitulation.

I don't get tired of presenting these, I feel duty bound in some respect.

You see, I want something in America that hasn't happened in a while.

I want to see Democrats be held accountable.

I want them to do what they promised. To not behave in the way they criticized Bush and Republicans for.

I may be asking much, but really conservatives do it all the time.

I especially want a choice next election. Beyond the Republican candidate and my usual third party choice.

I don't want another Presidential candidate taken from the 'most electable' stack.

I want one with ideas and issues and a track record. Again, that may be asking for much from liberals today but it wasn't always that way.

If we start expecting more from them, then maybe they'll start delivering.

Don't you get tired of all the complaining about how 'things' are with no true efforts to change them despite promises to do so?

Questionable Judgment

2007-10-08T17:08:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html

What am I missing?

She disparages Bush and his administrations perceived shadiness, even gets the ball rolling in condemning a Bush blunder or back room dealing, and yet she hires Berger.

It's actions like this that I can't dismiss.

You can, your free to dismiss or buy into whatever you want.

My judgment is he's a crook, I'd be in jail if I did what he did.

Her judgment is questionable.

But she has a 'd' and the right last name preceding that 'd'.

That's all that matters.

Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove

2007-10-07T11:19:00.000-04:00

click
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/novak-wilson-did-not-forcefully-object-to-naming-of-cia-wife-in-column-2007-10-06.html

This was just an incredible abuse of power.

But not the way its conventionally viewed.

It was so much a story to keep controversy on the Bush Administration, to keep negative coverage going, just in case Bush couldn't bumble his way into any himself.

I had people emailing me about how criminal Karl Rove was! Like they knew all the facts.

What I took from it was the juxtaposition between the way the Bush Administration handled a Special Prosecutor and the way the Clinton Administration did.

Fitzgerald never had his reputation impugned, not once. But everyone knows how dastardly Ken Starr was. That speaks to the kind of person Bush is versus the type of person Clinton is. Even if it was lackey's who did it to Starr. Clinton didn't put a stop to it.

But this story kept voters who needed something, who wanted something, to hate in hate.

These people are so easily persuaded. That's a problem. If you're getting riled up to hatred from inner D.C. politics then your not clear minded. Further more, if your only mad at one side, all the time, then you're so far gone that you've become a cartoon.

I had people emailing me all the time, like I said, about how bad Rove was. Do I actually expect them to feel remorse today about how they slandered Rove? No. I don't even expect them to get this news. They get the first impressions and that is enough, to correct the news with facts is beyond their needs.

Its not important to get the news right for many people. Its important that their world view is preserved. Regardless of the reality.

Politicians love these people, love them for being easily swayed to serve the side that instigates ugly politics.

We are stuck with them. You gotta love them like children, they know no better, and want no better either.

They are the same people complaining about the same issue for years and years and years. They would never expect the side they don't hate to perform, they expect to be fed reasons to hate the other side.

Secede!

2007-10-03T09:50:00.000-04:00

click

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1

Can we really be considered a free society if what these groups aspire to is regarded as unconstitutional?

What happened to the tenets of the Declaration of Independence? Are they invalid now? We have no rights to form a new government anymore?

But we go about the world imposing democracy when we won't honor it here?

Its one of those issues where the question arises within myself, why should I care if Vermont secedes? Or similarly, why should I care if two guys marry?

This country is all about talking freedom but when it comes down to brass tacks we are no worse than sheep.

Vote for the same bland politicians named Bush or Clinton, get riled up to vote because of a constitutional amendment that would ban something, voice anger and hatred at talk show hosts that rehash the news.

But there is still some life left in the old idea of liberty. Maybe the internet will nurture the spirit.

This next election will be an indicator I think. Can a Ron Paul get serious consideration? Who's the indie darling of the left? Kucinich?

Is liberalism dead?

John McCain

2007-10-02T03:27:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.miamiherald.com/367/story/256844.html

Chinese water torture comes to mind.

Who's giving this guy money?

Send it my way instead, I'll do something productive with it.

Rush Limbaugh

2007-10-01T17:40:00.001-04:00

I'm just glad that although this nation faces many severe issues, the leaders in Congress can find time to attack a radio talk show host.

This is why we kicked the GOP out and voted for the Democrats. To stand up for America.

It's about time.

Ironically, its harder to find out what he actually said than to find out what the Democratic Leaders say about him.

I wouldn't even of heard of this if it wasn't for Harry Reid. Thanks Mr. Reid for allowing Mr. Limbaugh to rehash all the unpatriotic words that you said.

Only in America.

I'm not linking to any sites on this story. I spent enough time on this silliness. But I'm on record as to where I stand on this crucial issue facing America, this most important topic that has demanded the attention of the Senate Leader, and that is down with free speech, unless its a liberal calling Bush the devil. Then that is o.k. and patriotic.

There is a Difference

2007-10-01T03:28:00.000-04:00

click
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/

I ran across this article and to me its highlights the contrast in the differences of two major movements in politics.

One the right, Christians do abandon the GOP, and non-christians as well, when the candidates aren't aligned with the cause.

On the left its all about the party.

It's highly unlikely, damn near never going to happen, that a moveon.org or a "A Million Blogs for Peace" group is going to wake up and ever entertain the thought of not voting for a Democrat regardless of whether the candidate aligns with the cause.

Its not healthy. But that is the way it is, been that way for decades. They got KKK members, man-slaughter Senators, and assorted other seedy characters described as liberal and they are cherished by virtue of the 'd' next to their name.

Askthe senior Bush how quickly he was abandoned by the Right after he abandoned the Right.

Its Obama

2007-09-30T13:36:00.000-04:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RVD28G0&show_article=1

I like what Obama says when he confronts Camp Clinton. I think he's right. Hillary says what she needs to say and flirts around the edges of issues.

I don't know much about Obama, he seems progressive and a doer before a talker. Obviously there is something amiss if he is a Democrat, but what you gonna do?

Though its his talk that suggest that he'd be a courageous choice for president from the left side.

However, at present they think Hillary is most electable. . . odd they don't consider that around half the voters wouldn't consider her at all.

Issues aren't important. Just ask those who have the Hillary '08 and the Million Blogs for Peace icons on their blogs.

The Newest Resolution!

2007-09-29T18:02:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27congcnd.html?ref=world

What's to make of this? A Senate Resolution urging the branding of "terrorist" upon the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps!

That isn't a step on the pathway to peace? Or is it?

What I took away from this is the Resolution put up by Joe Biden. Here's a guy running for President and he isn't waiting. His stance is to partition Iraq. OK. His Resolution urges such. Great.

I always wonder that about politicians. If they got such a great idea to justify their re-election, or promotion, then why wait? Like him or not, he's must really believe in what he says if he is already acting upon his words.

Anyways. Its another hollow resolution. Those Democrats. . .So resolute.

Incredible Idea

2007-09-28T16:26:00.000-04:00

click

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RULMJO0&show_article=1

While this idea isn't novel, its still great.

Third party candidates have suggested this type of bond for years, and I've always liked it. I'm not about to change my mind now.

What's great about this now is that if someone with a 'd' next to their name has finally embraced the concept, then so many millions of Americans are going to buy into it without a thought.

Hell, they're bound to give Hillary so much love for championing the little guys with these bonds that I'm going to get sick all over again, like when I see the peaceniks with the Hillary '08 bumper stickers.

What is bad about the idea is that I already had my kids, within the last six years. But unlike the folks who don't like tax cuts if a Republican suggest them, I still support this plan, even though my kids miss out and a Democrat is on it first this year.

Of course, I heard promises from her and others like her in office before. . . .

She is a Senator, get it going on now Hillary. Why wait till your President?

There is no debate about it. . .

2007-09-27T07:00:00.000-04:00

click

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTI22O0.html

As time goes by, its becoming increasingly obvious that the rhetoric of the last 6 years was only that. Talk.

No serious candidate for President on the Democratic side is going to end the War in Iraq.

Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Now the question is what are voters going to do? Go with a Democrat who has been less than honest about this issue, go with an evil Republican, or couragously vote third party and dishonor generations of democrat-lever ancestors.

It's probably going to come down to who in their judgment is the most electable. Issue don't matter on the left.

That's history, not my opinion. My opinion is that their judgment is horrible. Doesn't make them bad people, just not helpful when its time to pressure politicians to get things done.

Elections are great, it reinforces my disdain for the two party system.

Hillary Does Appeal to Republicans!

2007-09-23T22:21:00.000-04:00

click

href="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/23/clinton_says_she_can_appeal_to_gop_voters/7476">http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/23/clinton_says_she_can_appeal_to_gop_voters/7476

I could consider voting for Hillary Clinton. There are just certain benefits to having her as President.

Like having positive stories in the paper for a change.

Also, if I like how things are, she'd be a safe vote.

Only the GOP watches Big Brother 8

2007-09-14T17:08:00.000-04:00

I've caught most of the Big Brother 8 reality T.V. show this summer, and all kept through it all iI concluded that only Republicans watch this show and only Republicans vote in regards to America's player.

Gosh, every task that Eric was to do followed the quaintest of paths. Give a kiss to someone, ah Jessica. Give a childhood toy to someone, yep Jessica.

Anyways, its over now with two episodes to go.

Thanks America and the Evil Dick.

Evil Dick. Just typing that seems like a sinister act on my part.

But he beat the Republicans. Go figure.

Mexican Truckers and the Teamsters

2007-09-13T17:47:00.000-04:00

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2007-09-12-mexico-trucks_N.htm?csp=34

Just some thoughts on this much ado about the Mexican trucks that are about to imperil everyone on the Nation's highways.

To me, and I'm a Teamster Local 264, it seems like more of a symbolic issue than a real issue. It's an issue because Democrats have to repay the Teamsters for their support year in and year out.

Otherwise it doesn't seem like much of an issue. The column above cites that its probable that Mexican trucks are marginally safer than U.S. trucks! This is made mention because that is how the debate is framed most often -- Unsafe Mexican truckers & safety standards aren't on par with U.S.

If there is parity on safety, as mentioned in the USA Today story, then the real issue is how to give something to the teamsters as a quid pro quo.

I'm not ignorant of the job issue and herein lies another symbolic battle. This one is for my benefit.

If you go to the Teamsters.org web site you'll be greeted by an array of flags on the bottom of the site from different countries in the world. While I realize that those flags are placed by the translation service, the Teamsters themselves are an international brotherhood.

If that is correct, as it is, and if they proudly print in their monthly magazine international union triumphs, as they do, then its a tad bit odd to see them fighting their international brethren.

Obviously, not all the truckers are Teamster coming up out of Mexico, but wouldn't the ones that are benefit from longer hauls?

But no, I don't buck the Teamsters position on this issue, they are suppose to be fighting for my selfish benefit. . . .

The rub I do have with the Teamsters is this, they only pay off one type of politician. This isn't good. They are susceptible to emotional arguments. Example given.

This NAFTA/trucker issue is 15 years old. The politicians they pay have no threat of losing the money they gladly take, so they have taken 15 years, so far, to really confront this issue. Lets settle this and put it to bed.

Let the Mexicans drive in, or not. Then lets move on.

The smart money in business pays off both sides and you never hear them gripe, one sided organizations always seem to gripe, and often get little in return from their investments.

Want more proof that the Teamster/Democrat relationship isn't healthy? Bill Clinton, Democrat, signed NAFTA. Yet he continued to receive the support of the Teamsters. As does his wife.

But, for my benefit, the Democrats and Teamsters have chosen to vilify Mr. Bush's NAFTA, never Mr. Clinton's, and for this I repay them with my vote?

Marvel at the thought of Change

2007-09-12T16:42:00.001-04:00

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/giuliani-clinto.html

Seen a Hillary 2008 Bumper Sticker today,

I marvel at the thought that someone has the thought that Hillary is the change we need.

She'll be good for controversy and the continuing of the polarization of America.

Yet she's the best they got on the Left!

Incredible.

What am I missing? What suspension of disbelief it must take to support her.

and piss poor judgement.

I hope she wins, obviously.

The Hsu Cha-Ching Trail

2007-08-29T13:07:00.000-04:00

Leading Clinton Donor Stays Below Radar

Here is one of those stories that in the end will be much ado about nothing.

A Clinton receiving monies from dubious sources, from people with a shady past shouldn't be a surprising bit of news to anyone by now, and its unlikely to change a thing in her presidential election campaign. Maybe she'll give the money back. Big deal.

It would be a bigger deal if this story actually harmed her career, if the media in general will ask her one tough question regarding just this one money issue, if people who bleed blue were actually spending a moment in reflective thought about her character and ability to effect change in America.

Democrats outside the Beltway do not judge the politicians who have a 'd' next to their name the same way they do of those politicians who have an 'r'. Its true, much is said about this on the right leanings airwaves, but often times those radio heads are angling their tirade at the biased media and the DC crowd. Yet its all those common people who turn a blind eye to transgressions by Democrats who are really the problem.

There is no nicer way to state it.

You expect people with power to eventually get corrupt and you expect people who are giving us the news to have a bias. You can expect the two covering each other's back.

What should not be expected, or accepted is blind loyalty to a party. Yeah, its cuts both ways. However, for every one Democrat that has walked away from power in disgrace from a unflattering scandal there are handfuls of Republicans to match.

I'm not writing to attack Hillary Clinton, Mr. Hsu, or the biased media. At this point I've come to expect nothing better from her. This isn't her first suspicious donor.

I'm attempting to stir a civil dialogue with the people who only care about scandal when its a Republican in the wrong. That's not defending Republicans.

The people who nominated John Kerry because he was the most electable. The voters who deeply care about the environment, but shunned Ralph Nader. The lazy chair economists who are against a tax cut, but not when a Democrat proposes one. The peaceniks who don't flock to Dennis Kucinich. The class warriors who hate Republicans because they are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor.

These people exist and they are the enablers of the corrupt culture of D.C.

When they are polled by Gallup their judgment comes to represent millions of Americans and then the media has their acquiescence to continue the bias.

Most troubling, generally speaking, its many of these same people who clamor for change. All the time.

In the meantime, I hear that Senator Larry Craig(r - Idaho) is getting his dose of toxic news coverage for acting like a gay man? Email me and I'll tell you how William Jefferson(d - LA) stole hundreds of thousands a couple of years ago and I bet you never heard of him.

Considering all the sensitivities on the left that gets those on the right in hot water, wouldn't it be a great show on election day if the rest of America judged all politicians equally?

Change isn't going to happen until then. . . .

Gonzales Resigns, and this matters to what?

2007-08-28T03:11:00.000-04:00

Embattled Gonzales Quits As Last.

Today Alberto Gonzales quit as Attorney General. For some life will never be the same. For others, they'll party through the night. I plan on getting some early sleep.

The only curiosity for me is that generally speaking the Congressmen and women who were pressuring this man to resign where eerily silent when a previous AG went about killing Americans.

Oh, well.

Its a big boy sport in D.C. and lawyers will protect their own, but outside the beltway the generalization also holds true.

Some, believe it or not, will act like they've won something today. As though a nefarious plotter has been laid away and liberty is yet again the word of the day.

Isn't it odd?

Janet Reno not only survived more disturbing scandals directly involving her, but to this day she is held in high regard by those who actually gave a hoot about this Gonzales getting away with firing a slew of attorneys.

How is this judgment balanced?

Likely left to be one of those great mystery of American politics.

Brzezinski, Clinton, and the Obama Option

2007-08-25T17:06:00.001-04:00

Brzezinski Embraces Obama Over Clinton

Its rare that I've agreed with such powerful Democrats, but its true, lately I've been agreeing with Obama, Clinton, and now Brzezinski.

Of course, all write ups about Democrat politics must include a Bush bash, so you'll enjoy that here, at the end when Brzezinski says the world hates us.

I guess Germany and France may not be on that list, considering the recent election of pro-American heads of state, but read into that what you will.

In any event, yet another mindful analyst who doesn't see much change coming from a Clinton, as if change came from the first one!

This is Hillary's Time to Shine

2007-08-22T13:47:00.000-04:00

Video of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.

Writeup of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.

Well it didn't take long for Hillary Clinton to come over to my way of thinking did it? The problem for her loyalist is that my way of thinking isn't exactly what they have clamoring for for years.

I've been saying that we can't just pull out of Iraq and leave a blight on the U.S., especially after all the precious resources we've spent, in terms of life and money. Also, in the larger context of the War on Terror, we can't just hand a victory over to the enemy -- what we face in Iraq is not such a big hurdle, we can possible face much more dire and catastrophic attacks any day.

I've have argued for victory, and yet I'm open for the interpretation of withdrawal as a necessary movement based on the squandering of the opportunity the Iraqi's were given and that they are squarely to blame for any such short comings in their stability.

Its seems Hillary is moving toward my position.

However, much of Hillary's support is, and no doubt will be, from voters who like to fancy themselves as peaceful Americans who wanted the U.S. troops out of Iraq as of yesterday.

Its usually these people who like to sermonize what the future holds in Iraq, i.e. civil war, eventual defeat, another Vietnam, they can't understand Democracy. Today, I'll do a little sermonizing.

Hillary Clinton will be the next Democrat nominee for President. She'll get 45-51% of the vote. She may win, she may not. But she will get the support of most everyone of the these Americans who have a placard in their front yard or a bumper sticker on their automobiles that proudly states, "Support the Troops. End the War."

It its these American's who when polled in 2004 said the main reason they were voting for John Kerry was that he was electable. If you recall, this reason for voting for Kerry was the top reason. Above the war, taxes, social security, health care, the environment, deficit, debt. Above everything.

Is it any wonder why Bush won?

Its not to Ralph Nader, nor is it to me.

In 2008, whether the republican wins or not, one thing is almost certain, Hillary Clinton will get the support of the peaceniks despite the fact that she'll speak in terms of not ending the war immediately.

Exactly what they condemned Bush for.

Obama. A Kindred?

2007-08-16T16:41:00.000-04:00

Obama Says Bush Not Solely to Blame

I'm not for any politician at this point, in fact I've just about convinced myself to go back to my third party roots in this next go round, but what Obama say in the first two paragraphs tickles me.

To be sure, he's probably just sealing his fate as a footnote in this race by saying Bush isn't to blame for everything -- those who hate Bush just can't see clearly anymore to acknowledge that there were problems before Bush. They'll rail against Obama and enjoin Hillary to change the country hereafter.

Obama is right about one thing, we can't just change the party in the White House and expect change.

All these Peace advocates are gathering around Hillary? I've personally experienced it with acquaintances.

If we intend to keep our military in the 100 other countries where troops are stationed, then peace ain't coming anytime soon.

I don't hear Hillary talking about that kind of change, so she's a vote for the same old same old.

To hell with change, more of the same!

On Betrayal and the Causes

2007-08-12T17:15:00.000-04:00

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times

I have this acquaintance whom I run into on just about a daily basis. John is about as loyal a Republican as you can get, and there is nothing else keeping him up at night than the thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

I do not at all share his concern over this matter. It's not that I don't think that she has a chance, for I think she has a tremendous chance of winning election, its that I don't think she'll change anything once in office, if she indeed does claim a victory.

I ask John, are you worried that she'll get the nation into a war? No, he says. I could of pointed out she did vote for war. I ask, John? Are you worried she'd spend more money than the government brings in, the classic big spending liberal? No, he says. I could of pointed out that she voted in favor of most Bush proposals during her terms.

He's worried that she'll raise taxes.

And that has nothing to do with the NY Times story I linked to, other than to point out that 'they' are on both sides of the isle.

But I tell John of why I think he'll get his worst fear realized anyways.

It's because roughly 40-45% of the population is going to vote for the Democrat in the election regardless of who it is. If not more this time around due to the real discontent with the Bush Administration.

Loyalty to the little 'd' is one of the persistent characteristics of life in America over the last 60 years.

Obviously, it cuts both ways. Many people will vote Republican, almost as loyally.

However, with a little help from a conservative third party candidate, and just the right blend of voter turnout, a Democrat would be assured a victory. Without a third party candidate, its still more likely than a republican winning, no matter who that is.

No doubts, Bill Clinton can testify, and who could question his integrity?

But as I said, I don't think she'll change a thing, and considering the leftist special interests are already quietly accepting betrayal of their causes, this only further convinces me that a democrat administration, regardless of who it is, will not only retain the loyalty vote but will also experience not a squawk from the corners of the liberal nation.

Without this pressure from the interest who expect change in federal government, its probable that the new President will do little. Why stir the basket when all the discontented are so at ease?

We only have to look at her husband's 8 years to understand how this plays out. About the only thing he changed were gays in the military and funding of overseas abortions, yet he sure made a lot of promises on his road to the White House.

Its horrible. All these people have been complaining for years. Since the first days of Bush's Administration, and yet they are already muting themselves for the benefit of a party. To hell with the ideals and principles.

Look at the environmentalist. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. By 2000 Ralph Nader stood up and ran for president, as a Green Party candidate. He got about 5% of the vote. Al Gore got 50%. Thanks for nothing.

So I don't fear a Hillary Presidency, and I expect a full 8 years from her. I just don't expect her to change much, which is what is sorely needed anyways. Its simple logic, if the squawkers are lacking the courage to vote for someone other than a democrat, who they always vote for anyways, then they sure aren't going to do something that takes a lot more courage than that -- standing up to betrayal.

But voting for Hillary Clinton is a betrayal itself, if you've been against the War in Iraq, or a slew of other issues you have with the Bush Administration.

But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept.

Eerie Atlas Shrugged Parallels

2007-08-02T18:41:00.000-04:00

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and while I'm not nearly finished with the book, I can't help but have this feeling that reality is mimicking the book.

All these goods from China are bad. I can't began to tell you the stories behind all the things lately that I've bought, that are imported from China, that have had to be returned. I can't because I don't have the time, and its really quite aggravating. A short list of items include a handful of 18 inch girl bicycles, a garden hose(s), a pepper grinder, and a coffee maker(s).

But anyways, I just wanted to put that out there in case anyone else has had similar experiences. However, if you're going to lay it all out on Bush, we'll I can't do that. I could blame him for a lot, but I'm not going to blame him for us buying Chinese, and I won't blame him for hurricanes either.

One Should Only Hope

2007-07-23T18:27:00.000-04:00

Newt Gingrich.

Already someone reading this name is pissed.

So anyways,

enjoy these thoughts, you may actually smile.

As to a candidacy, I can only hope at this point.

link:

http://www.examiner.com/a-842080~Newt_goes_nuclear__May_enter_race_to_foil_pygmies.html

link:

http://www.examiner.com/a-842076~Newt_unplugged.html

What Matters Most Next Time

2007-07-22T16:22:00.000-04:00

With the 2008 Presidential election upon us, many people will start considering issues again in a more serious analysis than what a headline would give you. One stance that will get much attention is how a candidate will steer the war on terror. In my opinion, the next President will lose his or her freedom to act rather quickly and as I elaborate on why this is, you may realize along with me, that choosing the congress is perhaps the more important choice to be made next year.

History suggest that shortly after the next president takes office someone or some group will challenge the office holder with an attack on our national interest and/or pride. Obviously some will blame Bush first, that's well within their rights, but for the more sober observers of history whatever event this turns out to be, it'll be viewed as a natural course of events. Ridicule me for my flippancy about this, but Presidents have been challenged in one way or another for decades, I'm not that naive to think that Hillary's cult of personality, for example, will deter or pacify our enemies thirst for American blood.

If your own recollection of history doesn't convince you of this, I'll give you another nation's history to look into for a lesson on uncivilized receptions from the more malicious global community. Israel. However, there maybe something attractive to you about living like the Israelis do, with the threat of attack palpable everyday. To each his own.

In any event, every time Israel elects a new leader, someone bombs a cafe in Tel Aviv. Again, I have no reason to doubt it will not happen in 2008 or 2009 somewhere in the U.S.

At that point, considering no one wants to be a one term president, even Dennis Kucinich is going to respond in a manner more forceful than what he would have had you believe in 2007. Because regardless of what you believe about the American people today in terms of desiring peace, when faced with the choice between a wimp who doesn't respond and a candidate who at least argues to fight back, the choice isn't going to the wimp.

So you have that pressure on the next President to react, and it may very well be more aggressive than personal preferences would like.

Another pressure on the next President is the congress.

I must lay bare that I don't hold very many of these politicians in high regard. Recent history shows that very many of them will vote for a course of action today, but by noon tomorrow will have changed their mind and will be demanding the 180 degree opposite of what they voted for.

Take the recent surge in Iraq. The new generals held few secrets when it came time to explain themselves to congress on what they intend to do in Iraq and how long it will take. After
confirming these men, Congress is now anxiously attempting to pull the plug on the plans months before the the agreed upon time table.

Rashness my quell the impatient, but it isn't useful to quell the unrest in Iraq, nor will it lend strength to the people we want to win, rather to those we want to defeat.

So what is a new President to do? Faced with the realities of being attacked by deadly enemies wherever they can and thus eroding the public confidence and/or being attacked by the less deadly but every bit as effective in emasculating a Commander in Chief congress, I bet the new guy gets tough real quick. There will be little freedom left to him to do otherwise.

In this situation I don't think it will make much difference who wins the next election for the White House. To be sure, there will be plenty of time to attempt dialogues or approaches that Mr. Bush didn't attempt, but a reputation of strength works in the real world, unfortunately we have squandered much of that reputation recently.

Things will be different in many ways, but if we don't collective make a better decision on who is in congress, I think our external enemies will have an unwitting accomplice from a place where our next president and ourselves are expecting better from. We need to consider the reasons why we vote for someone for congress maybe a little bit beyond the letter next to their names. I haven't seen much 'r'esolve or 'd'etermination from our present congress and while the lack thereof from congress may not lose the war, it certainly isn't helping. Which is a change I'd like to see.

I get it. Do you?

2007-07-20T15:25:00.000-04:00

Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said the U.S. "can do whatever it is we want to do to have a dialogue about how to fight this enemy. But the bottom line is that as long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."

I get it. Do you?

Much Ado About Nothing

2007-07-19T17:06:00.000-04:00

link:

Valerie Plame Lawsuit Thrown Out

About the only thing that got done in D.C. in 3 years.

While two fine men sit in a jail house because they shot two drug smuggling illegals.

link:

Choose your read from a Google Search Results for this story.

Why can't these guys get a pardon?

So I ask the left, if you impeach Bush and Cheney will Pelosi free these men?

'cause I'd be cool with that.

What is really sad, a commentary on our press too, is that Valerie Blame has gotten more headlines and justice.

NO, what is really sad is that there is no real pressure on Bush to free these two men. I recollect one congressman speaking out and I'm sorry I don't have his name.

I guess they're all too busy running filibusters, or what they would have us believe are filibusters, all night long.

Its a joke of a label

2007-07-18T19:31:00.000-04:00

In recent news,

Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Its well understood that many on the left have a vicious hatred of Mr. Bush.

But it seems to me quite low class to just call someone a Hitler or a Nazi so easily, but they do it.

Maybe someday they will do some research and learn the truth about the differences between evil men and men who have tried some unpopular tactics and have in the course of events found themselves on the wrong side of the image makers.

A real fascist wouldn't allow Keith Ellison and his ilk the liberty to voice such vile comments, duh.

Isn't this Fascist?

2007-07-13T18:35:00.000-04:00

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

I've written in the past about fascism, so I thought it my duty to inform you of possible fascist traits in the current presidential field.

Limiting speech, named in case it wasn't obvious to you, is a big warning sign of a fascist. If they want to stifle debate amongst their fellow party members, you'll never know what they do once they get power.