not exceeding the limit

Architects of Their Own Irrelevance

2010-01-01T22:26:00.004-06:00

This is not the first time that I have tried to communicate with the Republican Party leadership about my view of their ineffective, indeed, one could say incompetent, approach to defeating the socialist wave that is rolling over our nation like a locust cloud. My previous attempt was made as an earlier post on Two Cents' Worth, my Town Hall blog, entitled An Open Letter to Mr. Steele and the RNC. But, they have clearly not taken heed of my sage advice, so I will try once, and only once, more. The next attempt will be with my votes for (only) Conservative candidates in all future elections. No exceptions!

“I don’t split the party into conservative or not” - Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman.

I think that is probably as truthful a statement as you will ever hear from Mr. Steele. After watching the carefully choreographed actions and words of the RNC Chairman, I truly believe that he thinks that all Republicans are likely to back anyone who has an “R” by his name on the ballot. The Republican Party, unlike the Democrat, no longer has the luxury of knowing that any and all policies and actions that the leadership embarks upon will be blindly supported by zombie-like party faithful. A lot of us came to the Republican Party in the early Seventies, after helping elect the Bumbling Buffoon, Jimmy Carter, and getting our eyes opened to the fact that the Democrats were desperately working to destroy our rights and freedoms, indeed our very foundation of Government.

But, maybe you should, Mr. Steele! Maybe you should. Surely that would bring you to some appreciation that not all who classify themselves as Republican are going to buy into whatever the “party leadership” dictates to be right and proper. It might even give you some clue about how strong your voting support is going to be in the coming elections, if you persist in assuming that we, the truly conservative element of your party’s unwashed masses, are as unsophisticated (or even stupid) as elitist Republicans keep painting us.

I am reminded of a wonderfully perceptive quote from Gilbert K. Chesterton, early-20th century English writer and philosopher: “It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.” One would think it impossible, but Mr. Chesterton must have had our contemporary Republican Party “movers and shakers” specifically in mind with that particular jewel of wisdom.

We know what the elites think that the solution is, don’t we? It is simply winning the power back, no matter that the Constitution and conservative principles get prostituted in the process. And, of course, the key to winning elections is to broaden the base, right?

The Republican establishment is increasingly becoming viewed, again by those of us who comprise your own unwashed masses, as aiding and abetting the dismantling of our constitutional framework, although with less screeching and outright treasonous intent than is inherent in the Democrats’ actions. I am afraid that the RNC has a consistent record of not getting out in front on issues that are of real concern to those of us who still believe in limited government, individual rights and accountibility, and all other Constitutional protections. Unless you start getting that message, sir, I believe that your party will never survive. It should be increasingly evident, even to those who “can’t see the problem,” that many of us let ourselves be associated with your party only because we have previously viewed it as being the most viable option for staving off liberalism, but that the RNC’s policies and pronouncements now lead us to question whether you read from the same Constitution that we do.

So, I will give you a few examples of the problems that are causing you to be the architects of your own irrelevance:

PROBLEM: Your total lack of situational awareness in calling that socialist Republican in New York “statesmanlike” for withdrawing from the race, only to turn around and bury the Republican-supported hatchet in your backs. At least Mr. Gingrich thought it was truly a good use of your funds. We dummies thought it was pretty stupid.

PROBLEM: Your overriding goal is to be in control in Washington, but nothing is done when Republicans are in control. Do you remember that opportunity to reform Social Security?

PROBLEM: Republican bigwigs don’t want to take us back to the Constitution and its protection of individual rights and property. No, you just want to beat Democrats, so you can determine who gets the spoils.
PROBLEM: You don’t believe us when we show, with our actions and our words, that we are not ever again going to accept and support liberal-lite candidates just because the Republican elitists feel that they can get an (R) in a congressional seat?
PROBLEM: You don’t believe that we will stay home rather than vote for such as John McCain again? But, of course, we won’t stay home. We will, instead, encourage those who can convince us that their love for, and belief in, the Constitution totally trumps any party designation to run as Independents, or Conservatives or even Libertarians, and we will throw our entire beings into supporting them, and we WILL VOTE FOR THEM. Those of you in the “party leadership” will wail and gnash your teeth and proclaim that we are not smart enough to realize that the result will mean that Democrats will get elected.

One of your “distinguished” elitist mouthpieces, the self-absorbed Peggy Noonan, has already gone so far as to say, “The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can’t figure a way out.” Of course, that's just a dried up old moderate trying to curry favoritism with the other elitists, and maybe scoring a few points with the libs.

In the meantime, we unsophisticated types can figure a way out, and it starts with supporting candidates who think like us, and will fight for our way of life.

We have been lectured by the formerly esteemed Newt Gingrich, by Texas Senator (very possibly a temporary position for him) John Cornyn, and by Michael Reagan (the son of Ronaldus Maximus himself) that we must vote for odious moderates (or worse) just so the Republican Party can ascend to the throne of power.

Well, read my lips! I do not care if a Democrat wins a seat because I support conservatives rather than RINO’s. It is more acceptable to have my ideological enemy tear down our country than a wolf in sheep's clothing..

An Open Message to Mr. Steele and the RNC!

2009-12-03T09:52:00.007-06:00

(Originally posted on Two Cents' Worth)

I received a fund-raising e-mail from the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago, specifically attributed to, and signed by, Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman. Now, that is not so surprising, as we all get these relatively harmless missives from time to time.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I very seldom read these things, and I haven’t, to the best of my memory, ever sent any money to the RNC, either in response to one of these letters or any other request. You see, I happen to believe that the RNC has no business taking our money and shoveling it like so much fertilizer to the candidates or groups that they (the NRC) choose to support (fairly analogous to what the Government does with our taxes, I guess). They apparently base their selections on perceived electability as an (R), regardless of whether those candidates are aware of, let alone strong advocates for, the conservative values that the Republican Party theoretically stands for (and that I definitely stand for!).

Tell me if I am wrong, but did the RNC not strongly back Arlen Specter (spit!) in his last election? Heck, even all the way down here in Texas, one could see that he has been a traitor to conservative values for several years now. Could those smart cookies at the RNC not see such an obvious thing, or did they not care because he was electable as an (R)? Either way, they rank right up there with the Government on the list of organizations to which I am willing to hand my money for re-distribution. At least with the RNC, I can make the decision to exercise a choice without being hounded by the law.

But I did read this one, mainly because Mr. Steele had piqued my interest by showing a little backbone a week or so ago and I thought that we might actually be seeing some real conservative leadership. Alas, I was fated to reinforce my developing view that the Republican Party and I have almost nothing in common anymore.

The talking points that were addressed in this email were predictable and, frankly, insulting to the (presumed) target audience. The only positive aspect was that they didn’t point out how smart Obama supposedly is, even though the evidence seems to suggest that he reads a teleprompter very well (an admirable talent, for sure) but in no way takes those words and converts them into coherent, logical thoughts. I am struck by the similarity between logical thought/Obama’s teleprompter and logical thought/authors of this email.

Mr. Steele, you say that “last year the Democrats told voters they would bring "change" to Washington, but their version of change has been to push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined,” and assert that that is why you believe America needs the Republican Party now more than ever before. Are you kidding me? I am sorry, sir, to have to tell you that a lot of us not only imagined, but clearly understood, just how far and fast it would be done. We just weren’t able to get it through to the “bright” guys who happen to have control of the reins.

You say that “some people who were willing to take Barack Obama at his word when he campaigned as a reasonable, moderate candidate are coming to realize the unfortunate truth.” Why did you guys not find a way to get the message out about the lies Obama was telling while he was telling them? It is a little late now!

Come to think of it, where were you when the MSM and the piddle-head Republicans were bashing Sarah Palin during this election you were so concerned about? Oh, yeah! I forgot! Many of those cats were right in the middle of it!

Also, I will believe that you supported the Tea Parties as a “groundswell of popular grassroots opposition” when you can show me that you or your personal representatives helped to develop, fund and advertise them. Until then, I will continue to believe that you are just using the obvious popularity of those efforts to try to hang your fund-raising hat on. That's another one of those things that we "dummies" can readily recognize - the difference between sincerity and BS.

And this thing about chiding the Dimmocrats about lack of fiscal responsibility: What a joke that is! Have you paid any attention at all to the pork-grabbing, as well as other waste and fraud perpetuated by your Republican buddies?

If this was viewed on high as a stirring call to arms of the Republican proletariat (i.e. those of us whose opinions do not count, but whose votes and money are needed), I would suggest that your viewing device, like the Hubble telescope once did, needs a replacement lens. Polish it with liberal doses of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Burt Prelutsky, Michelle Malkin, as well as many others who "get it." Maybe if you actually listen to Rush and Laura and Glenn Beck and even Lou Dobbs, you might get some idea of what we stand for. Instead, you try to gain favor with the press by taking potshots at those who reflect our real feelings.

Don’t waste your paper or band-width asking for money from me. I will be looking to vote for and support the party that has a ticket of Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin, or philosophical equivalents. I’m willing to bet that you and the powers-that-be of the Republican Party can’t even imagine why I feel that way, and very likely do not care.

Trust me! That has become a mutual feeling.

MSM: Squealer Incarnate

2009-09-25T23:54:00.004-05:00

Often, in order to define or understand some modern-day phenomenon, it is instructive to refer to the writings that have withstood the test of time.

It is hard to imagine a more appropriate and revealing application of that truism than the use of George Orwell's Animal Farm to illustrate what is going on in America today. The parallels between Orwell's characters and the current elements of government, other political institutions, and assorted enablers are eerily and precisely striking. It is almost as if Orwell was sitting at a keyboard only yesterday, writing about a 21st century farm, America, instead of at a typewriter in 1943-44, addressing the Russian Revolution of some ninety years ago.

Although it would be a highly interesting exercise to identify and thoroughly develop the 2009 characters, my intent is to only provide the definitive answer to an exercise generated by Bernard Goldberg a few days ago, namely, what the best name for today's media, which clearly no longer is reflective of main stream America.

Well, Mr. Goldberg, I submit for your consideration the term Squealer Incarnate, or Squealer for short, as the perfect name for the collective socialism enablers at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.! etc.! etc.!

The evidence to support my recommendation follows in the form of character descriptions from two sources. I have bold-ed the parts of their descriptions/summaries that I feel are particularly pertinent:

From *sparknotes :

"Squealer

          Throughout his career, Orwell explored how politicians manipulate language in an age of
           mass media. In Animal Farm, the silver-tongued pig Squealer abuses language
   to justify Napoleon’s actions and policies to the proletariat by whatever means
           seem necessary. By radically simplifying language—as when he teaches the
           sheep to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!”—he limits the terms of debate.
           By complicating language unnecessarily, he confuses and intimidates the
           uneducated, as when he explains that pigs, who are the “brainworkers” of the
           farm, consume milk and apples not for pleasure, but for the good of their
           comrades. In this latter strategy, he also employs jargon (“tactics, tactics”) as
           well as a baffling vocabulary of false and impenetrable statistics, engendering in
           the other animals both self-doubt and a sense of hopelessness about ever
           accessing the truth without the pigs’ mediation. Squealer’s lack of conscience
           and unwavering loyalty to his leader, alongside his rhetorical skills, make him
           the perfect propagandist for any tyranny. Squealer’s name also fits him well:
           squealing, of course, refers to a pig’s typical form of vocalization, and Squealer’s
           speech defines him. At the same time, to squeal also means to betray, aptly
           evoking Squealer’s behavior with regard to his fellow animals."

From: GO Work : Summaries and Interpretations : Animal Farm

           "Squealer: Squealer is an intriguing character in Orwell's Animal Farm. He's first
           described as a manipulator and persuader. Orwell narrates, "He could turn
           black into white." Many critics correlate Squealer with the Pravda, the Russian
           newspaper of the 1930's. Propaganda was a key to many publications, and since
           their was no television or radio, the newspaper was the primary source of media
           information. So the monopoly of the Pravda was seized by Stalin and his new
           Bolshevik regime. In Animal Farm, Squealer, like the newspaper, is the link
           between Napoleon and other animals. When Squealer masks an evil intention of
           the pigs, the intentions of the communists can be carried out with little
           resistance and without political disarray. ..."

I suggest that every concerned American read, or re-read, Animal Farm, or at least go to one of these sites and brush up on what George Orwell was saying about totalitarian governments.

And start calling the "MSM" Squealer - it will get under their skin, I'll bet!

I can see clearly, now!

2009-09-23T22:27:00.000-05:00

After his abomination of a speech at the U.N. (Upchuck Nations) today, Obama has cemented in the minds of all who will open their eyes that Sarah Palin, on her worst day ever, was more prepared to be our President than he was, is, or ever will be.

When, in the future, the idiots of the media try to railroad her on the basis of not being prepared for such a lofty position, the vast majority of the American people will just laugh at them.

What are they going to use in his defense: His tasteful selection of gifts to foreign heads of state? His paying obeisance to every thug ruler in the civilized world? His endless apologizing for the exceptional-ism of the United States? His clearly superior way of strong-arming legislators to get things done? His disdain for the American People? His willingness to actually work with Republicans to reach workable solutions on important issues?

There are plenty of other equally revealing examples, but the usual media suspects will, I am sure, be looking for ways to divert attention from them all.

But there is one nagging little problem: a lot of our fellow citizens have opened their eyes, and do not like much of what they are seeing.

Bank of What???

2009-09-23T13:24:00.014-05:00

Have you seen this video of Fox's Meghan Kelly interviewing a Bank of America flack? This was concerning the actions of a BoA branch manager in Gaffney, South Carolina, who removed American flags that were being placed, by a family friend, along the route of the funeral procession for Lance Corporal Christopher Fowlkes, a United States Marine who was killed in Afghanistan. As I understand it, the reasons the manager gave were: it was against bank policy and, some of their customers might be offended by the flags.

I deeply admire Meghan Kelly. In fact, I think she is the best in the news part of the business. She asks tough questions and routinely pushes for answers literally until the time allotted for an interview runs out. Her style is decidedly different from the tendencies of many other Fox news personalities to pander to the interviewee after a good question or two. I just wish she had drilled into this even further in nailing this BoA scum's hide to the wall.

The idiot that Bank of America sent out to do damage control very carefully kept to his talking points, even in the face of the fact that his points were, at best, poorly conceived, and at worst, reflective of a corporate policy of anti-Americanism. But, maybe they just want to go along with Obama's view of where we should go as a nation. After all, he does have America's interest at heart, right? And, there will have to be banks, right? Well, why not BoA? They won't even need to change their name (except maybe to change the "c" to a "k").

I have a seething anger about this, because it was much more than dis-respecting the flag. One expects all leftists to do that. But, one would hope that some of them would have the decency to respect the dead, especially one who gave his precious life to protect the freedoms that allow them to be successful in their crass, greedy, stupid and insensitive politically correct behavior. This was not the funeral of just another old white person trying to help Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's belief that whites should step aside and allow blacks to move into power. This was in honor of a United States Marine who died in the service of his country! Who died to protect the right of BoA's idiot managers and smooth talking spokesmen to commit such despicable acts! BoA is no better than the Associated Press creeps who, in the interest of either greed or propaganda, showed utter contempt for our military and their families just a couple of weeks ago in showing the death of Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, in total disregard for the family's wishes. Anything for money and political gain, huh, AP?

See if this litany of his vacuous BoA bromides, in response to Meghan's pointed questioning, makes you feel better about the unspeakable insult to Lance Corporal Fowlkes and his family and friends: "gonna respect the family's privacy"; it shouldn't have happened; this doesn't represent any policy of the BoA; reiterated to our branch managers our policy; we encourage branches to fly the flag; not acceptable and people know that; should use better judgment, and a few more, just as empty of real meaning or understanding. Man, you sure convinced me!

Obviously! Obviously! Obviously! This guy may have set a record for the use of that shallow catchall word which in reality, just points out that, if it were so obvious, this mind-numblingly stupid incident would not have occurred in the first place. Have you got that, BoA?

Also, I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is not so obvious that you care about anything other than damage control. What is obvious is that BoA has failed to educate its spokesmen in the most important maxim of public relations: that the most important thing is sincerity - once you learn to fake that, you've got it made! This guy failed, not only through his over-use of callow attempts at deflection, but also in the fact that, in his remarks, he never acknowledged that this was a direct insult to our Marine, but just kept insisting that there is no BoA corporate policy to dis-respect the flag.

No corporate policy against the flag? Indeed! How about a corporate policy requiring allegiance to the flag as a condition of employment, with special emphasis on total support FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND OUR FLAG?

I am deeply ashamed to admit that my house mortgage and car note are held by this bunch of blowhard anti-American opportunists! I am considering paying them both off immediately or re-financing through some other institution, and I vow to never deal with this bunch again!

How about you joining me?

Do You Think I'm a Racist Just Because ...#4?

2009-09-21T22:29:00.001-05:00

When I first started my Town Hall blog, Two Cents' Worth, about a year ago, there were some columns appearing which extolled the "sudden advancement" of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency. They were based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away. It was then, and still is, my feeling that racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we are all better off for it.

So, anyway, I had this brilliant idea to do a little survey to hopefully get some idea of what various people thought would constitute racism on the part of an individual, using some basic behaviors or perceptions that many of us have.

It was a modest little effort, and despite getting (I am sure) thousands upon thousands of hits, it got an even more modest response. No matter! It was a good exercise for me then and I am sure that someday my grandchildren will be able to show it off and brag about my farsightedness.

The technique that I used was to do a base post, Do you think I am Racist Just Because..., which established the background and parameters for the series, and, as well, introduced the first scenario just to get things rolling. I then provided additional scenarios in separate posts. See them here at: #2? and #3?

Today, in visiting some sites around the net, I ran across a brilliant chart, entitled Obama Criticism Flow Chart, at Missourah.com. This simple yet powerful chart (included below) graphically reflects the root cause of one's state of mind relative to the antics being carried on in Washington these days. The intense disagreement that you might have with those antics may not be the simple disgust with socialism that you thought it was.

My own feeling is that leftists have a propensity for using the race card when the going gets a little tough (and that seems to be happening at an increasing rate). In fact, I will go so far as to say that the racism charges hurled by Carter, Pelosi and other left-wing ideologues are generally really false claims to deflect attention from their inability to answer tough questions, or to protect some sacred leftist cow. The "r" word, and its use as a tool for intimidation, appears to be much more prevalent by these "tolerant liberals" than it is by any group of right wing hardliners. It is racism, and is despicable, in the hands of either side.

The new president has spent vast amounts of energy, real money and political capital and has squandered our total international prestige to drag us into situations that no American populace has ever had to face before. The socialist implications of following him down the paths that he is trying to blaze for our country are staggering to the imagination, with the very real possibility that within 5 years there will be no individual freedoms left. Probably 25% of our population is chomping at the bit to go with him, not understanding that they will not be the governing class, but are just useful idiots. Other than the relatively small number who would comprise the major and minor party officials and the state security apparatus, the rest of them will be in the same freedom starved state as the rest of us.

He, aided and abetted by the leftist legislators and press, has misrepresented the real probable impacts to individuals as well as the nation, and has stifled opposing views about the "health crisis" even while claiming to be open to ideas from the other side. He has totally ignored the will of the growing number of people who simply want to be heard. And, yet, the people have raised enough of a stink that they can't even pass the bill, even with a veto-proof legislature. So, what's the path to be taken?

Why, as predictable as clockwork, the collective rant from that gang of thieves starts spreading across the land: the only reason these right wing crazies are against this is because our poor leader has the effrontery to be, gasp, black!

So, if you find yourself getting a little miffed with our leader, maybe it's only because you can't be sure whether it is a real concern or if you are just a racist. To clear your mind, just walk yourself through this chart.

In the words of the Missourah.com web-site: "It’s pretty exhausting trying to keep track of what is legitimate criticism of President Obama and what is racial hatred. That’s why I developed this handy flow chart:"

Obama Criticism Flow Chart

Joe Wilson's Truth

2009-09-21T16:23:00.001-05:00

Joe Wilson's only mistake was that he didn't keep talking while he had the floor - he should have spelled out the details until forcibly removed or gagged. Even the Mangy Socialist Media (MSM) would have switched the focus to him just to get it on tape. Those few who were watching for their, seemingly, hourly dose of socialist doctrine would have at least heard some truth, in that evening of studied avoidance of such.

Note: This was the moment in time which forever established the ultimate nickname for our current president. There are a lot of very creative manipulations of the name that he has chosen to go by, and most of them reveal a solid statement on his character or ideology. But, forever, the term ”staring like a deer caught in the headlights” will carry a mental image of Obama’s face at that point in time. Henceforth, he should rightfully be known as Obambi, which many have used before, but which now has the imprimatur of the House chamber and national television cameras.

Obambi's response to Mr. Wilson's contention: staring around for Saul Alinsky or Soros or Ayers, as if to say "You didn’t tell me what to do when someone actually stands up during my speeches and correctly points out that I am lying. What do I do now?” Finding none of them present in the chamber, he abjectly looks to the teleprompter, but no help there, either.

At least he had his wits about him enough to not look toward Heaven for Alinsky, or to turn around for consultation with Ghoul Pelosi or Bilious Biden. I thought for a moment he was going to take the Jeremiah Wright approach, requesting the Almighty to strike down this white American who was telling the truth, and just as he was on a roll with his tapestry of lies!

Then, he remembered just in time that God won’t listen to a person who champions the murder of babies just as they enter the world. More importantly, he realized that he would lose the support of a few million liberals just for pretending to acknowledge that there is a God. Can’t take a chance on shrinking that base!

Now, all of that thought processing might have taken the average citizen several seconds to sort through, but this is a really smart man, as we are constantly reminded by the Sqealers and elitists of all stripes. In a few blinks of an eye, he went through all those possibilities and came to the perfect answer. He calmly looked toward his accuser and semi-forcefully mumbled “not true.”

That is what liberals think of as a brilliant put-down, and he didn’t even have to use foul language, which, of course, further strengthened their view of him as the greatest statesman of our time (maybe forever, but, then, Stalin is a formidable standard for them). They will also sing odes one day to the way he picked right back up on reading his tele-prompted speech after the rabble-rouser Wilson was put in his place.

Of course, one can’t blame Mr. Wilson for not grabbing the opportunity and running with it. He may very well have been looking around himself to see who had dared utter such truth, especially in a chamber that has witnessed so little of that commodity for a half century or more. After all, it is repugnant to think of a member of this venerated House (of ill repute) who doesn’t strive to live up to the decorum and moral standards of the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Murtha, Jerrold Nadler, just to name a few of our courtly representatives. And to think that in this room have sat the tainted (er, I mean sainted) Traitor Ted Kennedy, Chuck "Slimeball" Schumer, John McCain (the Benedict Arnold of conservatism), Lindsey “Can I Find a Way to Compromise on Principles so I Can Look Powerful” Graham, and a host of other craven power seekers.

How can one possibly be so crass as to soil the haunts of that bunch of sycophants and toadies? They, and others, will lead the charge to brand Joe Wilson as something other than “truth teller,” and there is no doubt in my mind that they will herd together to censure him, simply for stating what the vast majority of Americans would have been thinking or saying, had they had the stomach to even watch this charade of a speech.

I like the way Sandy Rios puts it in a Town Hall article. “If the chamber of the Congress of the United States of America isn’t the right place to fight for the future of the Republic, then where is that place?”

In the spirit of truth-telling, and probably to comply with McCain’s campaign reform deal with the devil, I must admit that I sent Joe Wilson a relatively small donation for his re-election effort, as did my wife in a separate action. Mr. Steele and the RNC might take note that Joe Wilson is the type of Republican that I told them I would be willing to support, in my post on Two Cents' Worth, my Town Hall blog, entitled An Open Message to Mr. Steele and the RNC!

Is That A Serious Question? - revisited

2009-09-16T22:25:00.091-05:00

I do not remember ever being particularly moved by anything Pat Buchanan said or wrote. What little I do seem to remember leads me to the conclusion that the man is out to promote himself more than to further any particular philosophy. It's not that I ignore him or turn the noise down or change the channel, as if he were a Clinton, Obama or McCain. With Buchanan, I try to listen, but just tune out after two or three minutes, since that is how long it takes for the self-promotion to kick in. He is very similar in that way to the likes of Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly. Each of these reminds me of the self-centered party goer who brings his own bottle of wine to the party, because whatever the host has is not good enough for him.

Actually (you may find this hard to believe, I suppose), the intent of this post is not to bash Mr. Buchanan per se, but to address a column by him, posted on Townhall.com, entitled Is America Coming Apart? I did read this one through to the end because he occasionally writes something that is worth reading. In this case, I have yet to decide what his purpose is for a piece like this. The obvious choices would be: he needs the money, to keep his name out there, or he was suffering from jet lag. Otherwise, I can't see why he would expend any mental effort on such drivel because it has no meat on its bones. In today's vernacular, it comes across as a fluff piece.

I mean, is there any question in your mind about whether America is coming apart? Has no one been watching the un-constitutional or treasonous actions of our congress and White House denizens over the last couple of decades, reaching alarming levels in 2006 with George Bush totally abandoning even the pretense of conservatism? And now we are at the critical point, with the ascendancy of the socialist congress and the election of a full blown socialist engineer who, through the hiring of dedicated communists, socialists, Marxists and general all around nut cases into powerful positions with no accountability, is subverting our Constitution. I think the question would more accurately be "Is America Purposefully Being Driven Apart?"

It's not that any one of his statements is necessarily wrong, but rather that the totality is just so shallow, based as it is on comparing actions by the Right and Left to arrive at - nothing! No hint is given as to what Mr. Buchanan's personal conclusion is. That is, undoubtedly, a nice approach when the author intends to make one think, but there is nothing of substance to chew on in this article - the facts are what the facts are.

There is one aspect to this that I feel Mr. Buchanan could have addressed to actually salvage this piece and have a chance to influence some thought, that being: what are the implications of the success of the relative positions to our way of life? Instead, his approach leaves one to the inference that he believes that there is moral equivalence between the opposing positions in the examples used - it's just that people have differences of opinion.

Well, there is a major difference between the positions described. All one has to do is to ask the question "What are the opposing positions based on?" The answer, of course, is that the positions of one side are generally based on the Constitution and the belief that we should have the freedom to pursue the best life that we are capable of, based on our own merits and/or hard work. The positions of the other side appear to be focused on leading us into a world that may eerily resemble that of George Orwell's 1984. Each of us has to decide, while we can, whether that should make a difference in what we want our country to be for ourselves and our future generations.

We'll know the early fruits of our collective decision in the results of the 2010 congressional elections. I just wish Mr. Buchanan, and a lot of other "real" conservative writers, with national audiences, would concentrate their considerable talents on the things that really matter: things that would generate a powerful urgency in our fellow countrymen to turn out the congressional scoundrels in 2010, and give us a start back to political sanity.

Keep in mind this observation by William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."

not exceeding the limit

2009-09-15T07:39:00.002-05:00

Posted on my Town Hall blog, Two Cents' Worth, at the inception of my new blog.

Having become more than a bit miffed at the poor treatment of one of my favorite columnists, Burt Prelutsky, just because he dared to write about the real Islamo-fascist activities, I am seriously considering taking my talents(?) and leaving myself.

I also have to admit that I was initially prodded into it by my daughter because she was seeing my frustration with the Town Hall approach.

So, I have started another blog, on the Blogger site, named "not exceeding the limit." I have written my first post for that blog, entitled "Joe Wilson's Truth." I think you will enjoy it and would certainly appreciate the audience. Drop by, please! I will also be posting my favorites from the Two Cents' Worth blog to the new one. Have not decided if I want to do the same in reverse. In case you are curious about the name, it comes from a quote from Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher who died, along with his wife, in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. This is a great philosophy to live by:

"Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit."

2009-09-09T16:59:00.004-05:00

Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.

It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph. The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least. As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article. No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.

Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:

"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:

Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.

Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"

A Revealing Scenario

2009-09-09T07:41:00.001-05:00

Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.

It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph. The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least. As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article. No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.

Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:

"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:

Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.

Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"

Contempt of Citizen!

2009-09-08T16:57:00.002-05:00

How many of us, after watching the treatment of ordinary citizens in these town meetings, still believe that these Magnificent Idiots that were sent to Washington are there to serve us? After seeing video of several such meetings, I never heard a straightforward attempt to answer a single question asked by the public (other than the softballs gently tossed to Obama, who even screwed those answers up).

Any true American has to be awed by the sight of ordinary citizens gathering their courage and walking into these town meetings with these almighty Senators and Representatives, knowing that they will be accused of being un-American, organized mobsters, and/or Nazis. Knowing also that those wonderful champions of the little man are more than willing turn their government subsidized union thugs on them, not only at the meeting, but also that their homes and businesses may be targeted. One must constantly remind oneself that these are the same congressional "representatives" who rushed back from Washington to gather input from their citizen bosses in order to figure how to best reflect the desires of those "folks from back home" in their deliberations. But, of course, that is not what they were doing.

It is clear that the representatives do not "need" input from these citizens. They already know what they intend to do and do not want the citizens to question anything about it. After all, more than one of these arrogant feces outlets said in so many words to the great unwashed: "this is MY townhall meeting" or "you are MY constituents" or the most used answer "that is not in the bill" or my favorite "shut up and sit down, I will vote as I see fit." I can't even begin to comprehend the gall it would require to stand up there and say that I hadn't even read the bill.

Can you imagine the response such arrogance would have received in the early years of our republic? I can well imagine public floggings and some stock time for the antics we have seen from Obama the Racist, Pelosi the Idiot Queen, Milquetoast Reid, Sheila Jackson "Cell Phone" Lee , LLoyd Dogged, Arlene "Now, hold on a Minute" Spectre (wink) and scores of others who are equally guilty. These "servants of the People" take themselves so seriously that they charge ordinary citizens (their bosses, remember?) with contempt of congress if they don't like something that the citizen says to them. What is the old British saying about the world being turned upside down?

Well, I hereby propose that we establish a law against Aggravated Contempt of Citizenry! The punishment would be instant removal from Washington and permanent revocation of rights to ever return. You know, we could turn this thing around in only a couple of weeks!

Long Term Care

2009-08-16T16:55:00.001-05:00

Well, I haven't heard it raised as a question and have not seen it addressed as one of the silly items in the Health Scare Bill, but I am wondering just how all of this is going to affect all those Long Term Care contracts that people have been paying premiums for over the years.

I'm sure that as soon as Otrauma and his Legion of Death appointees figure out that this has slipped through their fingers, they will quickly resolve that oversight!

Don't Drink the Water?

2009-08-15T07:35:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from the July 15, 2009 Town Hall article by Michelle Malkin, entitled “Two Scientists, Two Standards.”
The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."
Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.

There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."

Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."

Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
Now someone please explain to me that we shouldn’t be concerned that Obama is gathering around him all the scarier elements of Nazi-ism (as developed by Adolf and the Gang) and Communism (Soviet and Chinese style).

Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.

There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.

Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist. What do you think?

So, You Believe

2009-08-05T16:50:00.001-05:00

that Obama is being straightforward when he looks into his teleprompter and proclaims that, if you are happy with your current private health insurance coverage, you will be able to keep it? Before you let yourself be led down that path, you might want to read the following verbiage from page 15 of the proposed (and still unread by legislators) Government health control plan:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED INSURANCE OVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
       (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. ---
               (A) IN GENERAL—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
               (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
       (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

The bottom line is: If you have coverage under a private option insurance plan as of the day this piece of crap goes into effect (day 1 of Y1), you will be allowed to keep that coverage. Sounds just like what The One says, doesn't it? But there is a big message hidden in plain sight here. They are hoping that we, the people, won't read this thing any more than those legislators (who, by the way, get a huge salary and lots of "perks" for supposedly representing us).   I have this crazy right-wing idea that "representing us" means reading and understanding bills before they vote on them.

You have to do a little third grade logic to connect with the message, but I'll make it easy: This says no new policyholders for those private companies as of that day, and that any term or condition that gets changed after that day will allow the shut down of that coverage (i.e., all covered persons will have to move to the so-called public option). Now, how long do you think your insurance company can hold out in the face of: initial defections to the ObamaNation plan, older customers dying off, and lack of ability to adapt coverages to changing needs. These private companies will need to get funds from some place to provide coverage. Guess what? Higher premiums, which you can bet will be one of the terms which, if changed, will trigger the shutdown of that insurance plan.

A disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but that doesn't mean I rode in on a turnip truck. I did develop, write, negotiate and administer multi-billion dollar contracts for major space system vehicles and systems for 25 years. I can read, write and interpret government doublespeak with the best of them.

You have been warned!

Lies, Evasion, Obfuscation and Dereliction of Duty

2009-07-20T16:49:00.000-05:00

There is no question that the saddest thing that I have witnessed in my 65 years on this earth is the situation that we are now facing in the confirmation process for Sonia Sotomayor, the current nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States.

My simple view is that the Founding Fathers established and constructed the Supreme Court branch for the purpose of constraining the potential for excesses and human weaknesses which would cause the other branches to stray from the Constitution. No matter how many left-wing crazies or right-wing crazies or moderate do-nothings populate the legislative and administrative branches, the judicial branch should ultimately bring them back to a constitutionally correct path.

It is there to assure that every citizen is protected from violations of the Constitution, not only from other citizens but also from the Government itself. Inherent in this is that there should be no consideration given to the ethnicity, gender or economic circumstances of the parties appearing before the court - all should be presumed as having equal protection by the Court. To allow such things to affect or determine the Court's decision is to, ultimately, deny equal protection under the law and remove the law as the basis for conducting our lives. To allow biased views to affect their decisions is tantamount to increasing the rights of one party and decreasing the rights of the other party. It then becomes a fact that compliance with the law is determined on factors other than the written laws and fundamental fairness.

To populate the Court with Justices who may have agendas different than assurance of full and complete compliance with the Constitution is to make a mockery of the Court. There are those who argue that a sitting President has the right to have his nominees to the Court confirmed by the Senate, almost without any question. While there is no arguing that he has a right to to nominate whomever he wishes, it is the Senate's duty to determine whether a nominee meets the moral and ethical standards for appointment to the Court.

The current confirmation process would be laughable were it not so deadly serious for the future of our country, Lies, evasion, obfuscation of the truth, and dereliction of duty are being practiced by all involved. Sonia Sotomayor is clearly lying and evading truthful answers on matters that relate directly to her fitness for serving on the Court. In her carefully worded way, she is doing nothing more or less than invoking the Fifth Amendment. Should that be allowed for nominees to our Federal Courts? Many of the Democrats, as well as a sitting Supreme Court Justice, are aiding and abetting her in doing that, and the Republicans are, oh, so carefully trying to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. Of course, they all are ignoring the violations of ordinary citizens' rights that will occur in the future because the Justices will have more "empathy" for the other litigant.

I guess Sotomayor, due to her rich heritage and her wisdom and her history of actually getting some decisions right on the bench, has earned the right to lie and cheat her way onto the Supreme Court. I can not give the same leeway to the political hacks that we have in the Senate, both Democrat and Republican. This is too monumental a decision to be left in the hands of small-minded people.

Had the Founding Fathers been able to even conceive of the American people electing "leaders" with such smallness of mind, they surely would have placed term limitations on the legislators and an impeachment or recall process on the members of the Court for treason against the Constitution. I guess they just could not think at such petty levels as we see today.

I think it is time to pursue the process of placing limitations on the terms of the fat cats in Washington, and for establishing some level of accountability for Supreme Court Justices.

But, what do I know? I'm just a citizen.

Don't Drink The Water?

2009-07-15T16:34:00.002-05:00

The following is an excerpt from the July 15, 2009 Town Hall article by Michelle Malkin, entitled “Two Scientists, Two Standards.”
The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House "science czar." John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously titled "Ecoscience" in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication FrontPage Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren's embrace of "compulsory abortion" for American women "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." In "Ecoscience," Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime (that) could control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

Johnson outlined the book's ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdren's stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren's defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.

There, you'll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation's water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:

    "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people
    more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. … No such sterilant exists today, nor
    does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to
    meet some rather stiff requirements: It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses
    received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals;
    it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of
    the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."

    Holdren's planetary regime would also breed out undesirables "who contribute to social
    deterioration" and "insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those
    born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."

Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be "obliged to go through adoption
    proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
Now someone please explain to me that we shouldn’t be concerned that Obama is gathering around him all the scarier elements of Nazi-ism (as developed by Adolf and the Gang) and Communism (Soviet and Chinese style).

Lest you think I’m taking this out of context, you should go read the entire article at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/07/15/two_scientists,_two_standards?page=full&comments=true.

There you will also find that he has selected as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist! Now, why a geneticist? It may be a perfectly logical choice, but most can see why, in the light of historical perspective, there would be some concern about the reasons for the particular combination of talents that the Obama team is putting in place.

Or maybe I’m just another right-wing conspiracy theorist.

What do you think?

Best wishes to Mr. Penske

2009-06-08T11:48:00.001-05:00

I have never been a fan of the Saturn automobile line – lack of headroom and legroom having more to do with that than any aversion to the brand. Nevertheless, I salute Roger Penske and wish him the absolute best in his effort to inject some sanity into this whirling dervish of socialism unleashed.

What we need now is for more of the Penske and Ford approach to managing business affairs (and not just the car business, either). However, my cynicism (about what Obama and the congressional troglodytes are willing and anxious to do to productive Americans) has reached the level at which I suspect there will soon be a Master of Capitalism Control position created by His Obama-ness. Reid, Pelosi and the gutless RINO's will, of course, provide ample funding and vacuous verbiage in their continuing effort to bask in The Glow.

Do you really think that Obama and the troglodytes can, or will, allow any capitalistic efforts to succeed against their state-run “Lada mills”? From Wikipedia (with links removed):

The original Lada was a basic car, lacking in most luxuries expected in cars of its time and was patterned after the Fiat 124. Ladas were available in several Western countries during the 1970s and 1980s, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, though trade sanctions banned their export to the United States. Sales to Italy were forbidden by the agreement between the Soviet government and Fiat, to protect Fiat from cheap imports in its home market. Imports to Spain were also prohibited because the local Fiat subsidiary, SEAT, built a version of the same car.

Eerily familiar, isn’t it? Fiat, low quality vehicles, trade sanctions, suppression of competition. One wonders if Obama and his Socialist buddies are putting life to the old saying about taking over (literally, in this case) by “Fiat.”

If you are not afraid for our country’s future, it is because you are either: totally ignorant of the depths to which these people are willing to take us (inexcusable if you can read and/or think for yourself), incapable of understanding what is really going on (understandable, but sad), or a willing and fervent supporter of the planned destruction of the greatest country in the history of mankind (in my mind, this defines the most insidious form of treason).

A question from the dark side

2009-05-20T11:48:00.000-05:00

How can anyone with a brain have voted for this socialist administration? Even more incomprehensible is how they can continue to worship Obama after seeing, in only 100 days, his plan and capacity for damage to our country.

They are in awe, giggling like schoolgirls, as they watch him fire that nasty old CEO of GM, never contemplating that we just got on a slippery slope to a point where the government will determine every aspect of our lives. Do you really think, once these statists (as Mark Levin has so eloquently branded them) get in full swing, that they are going to concentrate on developing new video games, cars designed for comfort and convenience, new medicines to prolong your life, or other such foolish notions? Do you think they are going to make sure we have a good national defense to keep at bay the despots of the world, who just happen to have the same philosophy that they do? Sure they will, because we all want what's good for America, right?

If you think these guys want to do something to make life better for the little guy, just ask yourself one question: Instead of taking this $2-3 trillion porkulus and using it to take over private enterprises, why didn't they just send you, and every other American (man, woman and child), a check for $10,000 and let you use it to alleviate personal concerns or debts? That would not be right, either, but I guarantee that a lot more stimulating would have occurred! A hint: they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.

I predict that, 10 or so years from now, a lot of formerly free Americans are going to be mumbling to themselves, "Why did they let this happen?" Some will even understand that it is not they, but we, who let it happen. It will, of course, be a crime against the state to say such things aloud.

Just Wondering

2008-12-14T11:45:00.001-06:00

I just saw one of those ads by another of the illustrious "big three" assuring me that I would be able to get one of their less-than-well-designed-and-built cars (my description, not theirs) for what they call their employee pricing rates.

Just wondering. Why don't I get the owner pricing rates since I am now paying my hard-earned tax money to keep them in business? It obviously matters not whether they make a profit or cover their costs, so why don't they increase sales by lowering the prices to those of us who subsidize them?

Also, is it true that Upchuck Shumer (Dem-NY), in the Senate grill room, asked the idiot CEO's what volume of sales it would take to break even, at a loss of $2,000-$3,000 a car?

Democratics and Republicanics

2008-11-15T11:43:00.001-06:00

Have you ever had one of those little nonsensical things that just nags at you and nags at you and ...?

Why is it that a member of the Republican Party is called a Republican , but a Democrat proclaims membership in the Democratic Party?

I mean, if the name of the party is Democratic, shouldn't the proper noun for a member of that party be a Democratic? Or, should members of the Republican Party more properly call themselves Republicanics?

Actually, I had never heard of the Democrat Party being referred to as the "Democratic Party" until, maybe, 8 or 10 years ago. Now, it has virtually replaced the original name. This year they even had that term on the Texas ballots, which I am fairly positive is a new development.

As I said, this is not a big deal in the total scheme of national politics, but it does tend to grate. It is just not consistent with the natural order of things. It is probably one of the unintended consequences of Algore's invention of the internet. It could, of course, be a conspiracy by some of the Democratics to subliminally suggest that the other parties are not little-d democratic, but, they wouldn't be that dumb. Would they?

Wikipedia is, of course, no help. The articles are most likely written by historians. Enough said?

Anyway, it is not likely to be a concern for me much longer. We Republicans are quickly center-lefting ourselves into oblivion, and the Democratics are speeding toward becoming The Global American Socialist Party.

I guess we will then call them the Repugnants and the GASP's.

Global warming?

2008-11-14T11:41:00.002-06:00

I was reading some of the comments in response to one of the Town Hall articles and found a comment by some liberal idiot (I know, redundant!) who calls himself Science Avenger. I could only assume that SA considered himself to be a scientist, or at least to know about science.

SA was on a mini-tirade about, among other things, how stupid it is to deny global warming.

Well, Avenger, I truly believe that the human-generated impact to our planet's environment (throughout the sum of our existence, including our time as monkeys, as you also assert) is significantly smaller than the correllation between logical thought and the liberal brain (i.e., infinitesmal). The next time you talk to Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy, ask them what their fellow dinosaurs thought about a couple of those volcano eruptions. Now, that was what I call impact to the environment!

But, with that said, I will promise you that I can be persuaded to change my mind. All you have to do is show me how the so-called "consensus" on global warming can be proven through application of the scientific method. Once you can do that, there is no longer consensus, there is irrefutable proof.

Surely, as a "scientist," you are familiar with the scientific method.

Or, maybe not!

Do you think I am racist just because...#3

2008-11-12T11:33:00.002-06:00

NOTE: Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.

Do you think I am racist just because...I don't respect Barack Obama and am never likely to, and it is not all due to his shady associations. I reserve the right to change my mind, and will gleefully do so, if he turns out to be a president who governs in a manner that preserves and protects our Constitution.

I have seen absolutely nothing from Barack Obama that gives me any reason to respect him. There is the matter of being a smooth talker, but all of the great con men of the world are smooth talkers (e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even Al Gore at times). As it has with those others, only time will tell if the smooth talk is backed up by wisdom and insight, or just by some brains and a lot of cunning.

I don't respect him because of his penchant for using people and then leaving them by the wayside, particularly members of his own family. He has the temerity to talk in terms of waking up to family responsibilities, and yet he doesn't make even minimal attempts to better life for his own flesh and blood. To me, this reveals a certain shallowness of soul.

I don't respect him for deviously bringing race into the campaign, just to get an edge.

I don't respect him for agreeing to use matching funds, and then backing out. Very cunning move, that, and it worked well for him, but it was not the act of an honorable man.

Most of all, I don't respect him because I perceive that he and the Dems are going to make every effort to lead this country down a path to socialism. God help us, and moreso, our future generations!

Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because...#2

2008-11-11T11:30:00.001-06:00

NOTE: Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.

Do you think I am racist just because... I believe that, in this day and age, black leaders are more to blame for their current social and economic situations than any overt racist activities by individuals or groups?

Oh, yes, there are a lot of racists out there who are delighted at any opportunity to put down a black person, directly or indirectly. Thankfully, our country has made great strides in condemning and suppressing those people, who now have to scurry into their rat-holes when the light is turned on them. We are two or three generations into that particular cleansing process. Why is it still used as a crutch?

I do understand that there are a lot of people who are stuck in places and situations which they have neither the knowledge nor resources to control. I am not pointing fingers and saying that they should just get up and move on to better things. I am saying that they should look around and question their leaders (church, community, political, etc.) about what new approaches can be tried to break with the failed efforts. A perfect example is the almost total adherence to the Democrat Party, despite irrefutable evidence that it uses them for elections and ignores them between elections. Let's see, the Dems gather them up to go vote, and then how long is it before the Dems are seen again? Answer: next election.

That party has done nothing for at least forty years to actually improve their living and educational conditions (and, in truth, it was Republicans and Conservative Democrats who did anything then), and yet the leaders keep accepting whatever the poverty pimps push on them.

One would think that one of those leaders would one day say, "Well, forty years is proof to me. We might as well see what some other group has to offer. Can it be any worse?"

I don't really know for a fact, but I gather that the most influential leaders in Black communities and neighborhoods are pastors. I wonder just what percentage of those pastors point out to their church members the amazing accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, J. C. Watts, Condileeza Rice, or Thomas Sowell and establish them as models for the community. Or do they brand them as traitors to their race, or worse, because they happen to be of the conservative persuasion. What an absolute travesty!

I have heard it said that white people have no right to tell blacks who their leaders should be. That is undoubtedly true, but I do have the right to tell them they are not being very smart about it, IF their interest is to help their followers to adapt to, and embrace, the modern world.

To me, that is a leadership problem, not a racism problem

Do you think I am Racist Just Because...

2008-11-10T11:29:00.001-06:00

We are seeing a number of post-election articles extolling the sudden advancement of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency. The tone and intent of these articles vary widely, for instance, Harry R. Jackson, Jr. (Race Still Matters, Townhall.com, Nov 10, 2008) presents a positive suggestion for the coming together of churches to effect a faith-based approach to closing the racial divide. On the other hand, Ken Connor (Still a Long Way to Go for Equality, Townhall.com, Nov 9, 2008) lectures us about how we have now shown that we are no longer a racist nation by this election. I am afraid that Mr. Connor is being a little devious, in that the real purpose of his article seems to be to get us to give up our bigotry towards other areas of human rights. You should read his article, as he makes some valid points. Indeed, his concerns are, to me, much more valid than his introductory point. I may be a little sensitive here, but it seems that his use of the "racism" term to bring attention to his real agenda smacks of – racism.

These particular articles are, by no means, being questioned as to the intent or sincerity of the authors. They are simply convenient examples based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away. Racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we should all be better off for it. Those of us who understand and applaud the fact ARE better off for it.

Those individuals and groups, black and white, who perpetuate, and try to profit from, the practice of systematic racism need to look deep within themselves and learn to accept people on their merits, not use or mis-use them because of skin color. Will this election put to rest the prejudices and abuses of these people, who truly are racist, no matter their color? Left to their own devices, probably not. After all, even racists have most of the rights in our country. Ironically, it seems that the black proponents of racism (the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons) will likely be more affected by this election than the hate-mongers on the white side. It may be a little harder for them to sell their “snake oil” in the light of facts, such as we have elected a black president. I would suggest to the new president and his old party that, rather than pass a lot of new laws to control the white racists, just ignore them and let that particular brand of hate die with them. It is dying out, you know?

So, all of the above is provided to set the stage for a series of questions and/or comments that I plan to introduce, and hopefully to get some feedback, detailing those things that I think many people attribute as racist attitudes simply because they in some way are connected to a minority. I will define the point and then try to give you my thoughts on the “racial” connotations. I am, obviously, hoping to generate some good discussion, but, if that does not occur, I will have gotten my thoughts down in writing

I am doing this as an informal poll. If you choose to participate, just give me your answer and add any comments you may have. Instead of trying to cram all of the questions into a single post, I will present additional questions in subsequent posts. In that way, we can give each of the subjects its appropriate level of attention.

Do not be mis-led by the seemingly lighthearted approach to my poll. Rest assured that the specific questions or points raised in this effort have been of major concern to me for many years.

For the sake of limiting the tedium, there are a few guidelines on participation:

1. I, and other readers, do not know you and are, therefore, likely to judge your intelligence by the clarity and civility of your writing. Only you know how you want to be viewed by others, but I will appreciate everyone keeping it clean and civil.

2. Remember, we would like to have the benefits of your own thoughts, so no cheating or referring to Talking Points from either party. That will keep us from having to read through the same boring “intellectual stimuli” over and over;

3. Please do not read just the first few words and jump straight to a conclusion. The idea is to generate some thought and maybe even a little discussion;

4. Likewise, maintain a little intellectual honesty in your thought processes. Unless you are using group-think, the only person you will be lying to is yourself;

a. According to exit polls, 47% of Americans think it is pretty dumb to do that (lie to yourself, that is), 33% asked if there was any alternative, 15% said that sounded racist to them and 5% voted “present”

b. The margin for error is impossible to calculate because a number of self-proclaimed moderates changed their responses several times.

c. I used the Washington Ethical Behavior Standard (WEBS) in developing these statistics, so don’t waste your time trying to verify them, or my time (and that of the other readers, if we have any) in trying to refute them

5. Main stream media types, there is no need for you to use your valuable Palin research time (and/or Obama worship time) to participate in our little project. I have already written down your collective “yes” simply because I am a white male, born and raised in an extremely small Southern town;

6. Bill O’Reilly should not vote because it will not sell any books for him. If you want to know the depths of my admiration for this court jester, you can read a couple of my previous posts;

7. Carl Cameron should not vote because no one will be whispering in his excitable little ears for a “major” scoop (see the next item). Need to vet those sources a little better, Carl. You are dangerously close to being grouped with Chrissie Matthews in the “tingly-leg media,” and

8. McCain campaign staff twerps will not be blamed or credited with the results here, so there is no need to clutter Carl’s telephone with whispered un-sourced accusations that Governor Palin is funding this with her lingerie allowance.

Otherwise, all Americans, including those who let themselves be hyphenated and are proud of it, those who abandoned their party and conservative principles when the going got a little tough, and those narrow-minded liberals who never open their thought processes to anything that moveon.org doesn’t tell them, are welcome to interject their Two Cents’ Worth, as it were, into the discussion.

We will, of course, be willing to provide the results to Bill Ayers for inclusion in his soon-to-be-award-winning education reform efforts for the Chicago schools. One only has to look at the state of education in Chicago schools to see that his endeavors are at least as deserving as Al Gore (his personal carbon footprint is growing at an astounding rate) and Jimmy
Rabbits-are-meaner-than-Iranians Carter.

So, here we go:

How many of you think I am racist just because…I voted for John McCain (actually, of course, I voted for Sarah Palin but it has the same force and effect) instead of Barack Obama (and the piteous Joe the Biden)?

The prevailing theory in Democrat circles (including the msm) and the Republican turncoats such as Colin Powell seems to be that everyone who did not take this historic opportunity to vote for Obama did so only because of overt racism (isn't that racist in itself? Oh, of course not, blacks can't be racists, can they?).

However, let me clue you in on a dirty little secret - if Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Lynn Swann or J. C. Watts were running for national office, I would support them in a heartbeat.

You see, it has to do with the agreement that you have, or do not have, with their core beliefs.

Bribes and Republicans!

2008-11-08T11:21:00.002-06:00

In "Top 10 Recipients of Fannie and Freddie Cash," theWire, page 16, Townhall magazine, November 2008, the information is revealing and frankly, disgusting!

It has been fairly widely trumpeted by everyone in the country except John McCain, his campaign, and the main stream media that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the top two recipients of bribe money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wealth distribution officials. Even Bill O'Reilly managed to work up some indignation over that until the cameras were turned off (and he realized that it was not going to sell any books). It was somewhat lesser known that John Kerry is number three. Disgusting, but not the least bit surprising, I would say.

What did surprise, and absolutely infuriate, me is the fact that three Republicans (Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Spencer Baucus and Rep. Roy Blunt) are numbers four, five and six on that list. In addition, Republican Senators Christopher Bond and Richard Shelby have the dubious honor of filling the eighth and ninth slots on this distinguished list of scumbags.

It reveals more than a little about why there was no hue and cry to tree the perpetraitors (new word that) and pick them off one by one.

I was not the least bit surprised about the Democrats. In fact, until I saw the Townhall article, I just assumed that the remainder of the Top 10 would be populated with less accomplished Dem grifters.

But, hold on, Mabel! That was a dumb assumption! I feel absolutely ashamed by the presence of five Republicans on this list. I am not a generally a naive person, and would not have been surprised at one, or even two, but I did think that there were some limits on such behavior, and that we could depend on our party to hold its members to a higher standard. The only difference between this bunch and William Jefferson is that he owns a freezer.

I personally will never see or hear one of those five names again without gagging.

Out with such trash!

Here's a Word For You, O'Reilly!

2008-11-07T07:46:00.004-06:00

Buffoon!

While you and Luntz are sitting there preening and slapping each other on the back, your supposed journalistic credentials are falling down around your ankles.

Indeed, Obama scored high with the little group of "independent voters." And you high-fived one another that he hit a home run with his promise to give all citizens the same insurance coverage that Congress has. Well, as a retired civil servant, I paid, and still pay, about $400 a month for my insurance coverage. The Government pays some amount (probably about the same) as their share of the benefits package that was a part of my total compensation for my work for 30 years.

So you are impressed with the popularity of his answer that potentially translates into about $10-12,000 a year of our tax money for each family which receives it. I'm willing to bet there were no more than one or two people in the room who had a concept of the cost associated with that little promise. And there are no journalists who would even think of questioning it.

Your claim to be looking out for the people is as shallow as your willingness to dig into the facts. I never expect a straight answer from Obama, and I guess it's too much to expect you to try to get one. But, he looked you in the eye and you know he would only speak the truth to you, right?

You, sir, are a buffoon.

By the way, where does your hard-hitting expose of B Franks and the other thieves stand? Just more bloviating, I guess!

Advice for Grover

2008-11-06T07:48:00.008-06:00

This from the November 6, 2008, Townhall column by Michael R. Blood, entitled "Can Palin Resurrect the GOP? Does She Want To?"

"Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin "one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012," along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich."

A leading conservative, is Grover? Is he a "leading conservative" in the mold of those who abandoned the party's candidate when the going got tough? A suggestion, Grover. Maybe you should look over your shoulder and see where the unwashed masses are heading, so you can run over and get in front of us. If you try to force more of that elitest moderate claptrap on us, you may very well find that we have decided that a new party is the way to go.

Sarah Palin has earned the right to be the leading candidate for the next election, if she feels like putting up with the Squealers and the back-biters in the McCain staff (what a bunch of clowns!). Frankly, I will not blame her if she decides to stay in Alaska to shoot moose. That Grover dismisses her as one of five or six does not inspire much confidence in me that they learned anything.

Newt Gingrich is, to my mind, a true conservative hero, but, for whatever reason, he effectively chose to sit this one out. He has some mending to do to get me interested in picking him over Sarah.

I don't know much about Romney, other than his religion. I suspect that item alone will inspire enough divisiveness within the party to render him as less than a true force in a battle to unseat an incumbent, even a socialist.

Rick Perry is a grub! An ultimate RINO! He spearheaded a drive to add a new tax on the profits of businesses here in Texas, and, through his own personal leadership, got it passed. I'll bet you $5.00 right now that he would not even carry Texas!

So, if you can find someone who is better than Sarah, and who convinces me that he is better, so be it. I will be happy to support that person. But beware of buying into the feeding frenzy that is trying desperately trying to discredit Sarah Palin, and be very cautious about trying to cut her legs from under her. We, the non-leading conservatives, may not be nearly as stupid as you think. The Independent Party (or some other) may find it's ranks swelling with dis-enfranchised Republicans.

Can they really be that stupid?

2008-11-02T07:51:00.003-06:00

Are these turncoats really supposed to influence me by their "defections" to support the biggest threat to our country's existence since the Civil War? Colin Powell, somebody named Adelman, Christopher Hitchens, a couple of lily-livered columnists?

To me, the proffered reasons for their actions are as shallow as Powell's insight into the oil-for-food scandal that was going on right under his nose at the U.N. I am left to draw the conclusion that, as some have speculated, the only logical reason for these people to do this is the fear of getting cut off from their social circles in Washington.

I guess one could speculate about the possibility that they are "sleepers," put in place by Moscow many years ago to be awakened by the voice of the Chosen One. As silly as it sounds, that makes about as much sense as the logic they used.

Take a day off

2008-10-28T07:53:00.001-05:00

I see where Obama The Charma is doing some community organizing. He has asked that his followers take off on Election Day (to honor him, I suppose). At least it would not result in a big loss of productivity, since approximately 40%* of his Kool-aid drinkers don't have a job, and another 42%* can't think for themselves well enough to be productive, anyway.

*Based on approximations provided by all the professional pollsters.

Ted Stevens gives Alaska a Chance

2008-10-27T07:55:00.002-05:00

It seems to me that the good people of Alaska can do us all a service. To keep the Dimocrats from cashing in on this old creep's conviction, they should write in Sarah Palin to fill that seat. If she wins that race and carries McCain to victory in the Presidential race, she could then appoint an appropriate person to fill the Senate seat. If The Chosen One manages to buy/cheat/lie his way into the White House (will that now be considered a racist term?) she would go on to serve in the Senate.

Update: Well, upon further digging, it seems that Alaska's laws do not allow what I suggested. They do have a process that could result in her getting elected, though!

A manufactured crisis?

2008-10-23T07:56:00.001-05:00

When Vornado-mouth Biden made his brag/guarantee that a president Obama-the-One would be tested on the world stage within six months of his inauguration, every one assumed that it was just another of his self-defining gaffes. Note that he also asserted that it would look as if they had made an incorrect response but that everyone should be cool and it would be revealed to us that the all-knowing, all-seeing, chosen one would have everything under control.

One has to wonder if there have already been meetings (without pre-conditions, one assumes) with one or two of their socialist friends to generate plans for a little bit of a "crisis" in order to establish the foreign policy bona-fides of the new administration.

Why do I think this is not only possible, but probable? A couple of things lead me to it:

This was a compound-thought "gaffe" from a man who, although highly developed in the gaffe tradition, is not seemingly capable of stringing thoughts together without at least one of them being a fabrication.
These assertions did not sound like the usual Biden exaggeration. They sounded more like a message to the base (see "bin Laden" for the approach and style).
How could he know what their response would be to a supposedly undefined "crisis" that, even assuming he is correct in his estimate of the timing, is six to nine months in the future?

I may very well be wrong about this, but, frankly, it fits so well with the Obama philosophy and background that I just can't shake free of the nagging thought.