The Bottom Line Blog

The Post-Caucus Report

2012-01-05T05:51:00.000-06:00

Winners

Rick Santorum – From single digits in the polls to a close second place finish when it counted. He may not be able to duplicate this performance in New Hampshire, but he’s done a good job in establishing himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

Newt Gingrich – This one may seem to be a surprise, given where he finished in the standings, but he managed to weather a media storm in the month before the Iowa Caucuses and still managed a respectable middle-of-the-pack performance. Having said that, he’ll have a major test leading up to Super Tuesday to get back on track and show the Republicans he is a viable candidate.

Jon Huntsman – He actually got votes in Iowa after pretty much ignoring it! A small victory to be certain, but a victory nonetheless.

Losers

Mitt Romney – He won in Iowa by 8 votes after taking a somewhat schizophrenic approach to the state. At first, he echoed Huntsman’s approach, but as other candidates surpassed him on the national level, Romney came out and was doing his best to appear to be Iowa’s best friend. Considering the amount of money and organization he had in Iowa, barely squeaking out a victory over Rick Santorum snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Michelle Bachmann – One of the early front-runners in the GOP field, Bachmann’s campaign was marred by missteps and controversy that took the campaign’s focus away from her becoming the nominee. Even though she’s originally from Iowa, that wasn’t enough to propel her into even the middle of the field.

Rick Perry – Perry spent a lot of money and time in Iowa, but didn’t get much in return for his investments. Although I don’t think it’s over for him yet, I see a campaign on life support needing something to break their way to get past Super Tuesday.

Barack Obama – Although he pretty much has the Democrat nomination in the bag, Obama had a video conference with Iowa Democrats at caucus sites. Judging from the news coverage of the event, the conference was rife with technical difficulties, sparse turnout, and a lack of excitement. Just like the Obama Administration!

Astroturf the Caucuses – For all the talk of the Astroturf Wall Street movement crashing the Republican caucuses, there really wasn’t much action on their part. Maybe their activities were more bravado than anything else, but there is another possibility: they’re not the media darlings they were a few months ago. In either case, they look foolish for suggesting they would try to pull something at the caucuses, not following through, or following through and being utterly inept at making the news.

The media – In the past, reporters have done their best to explore the state to find the pulse of the people. This year, there were more reporters knocking Iowa as “too white” or “insignificant” than in previous years. Whether it’s because the media have dropped their pretense of civility or they are repeating the Leftist meme about “flyover country” the media have shown their bitter side. That doesn’t bode well for them, as Iowans are seen as some of the nicest people in the country. That’s like mocking Mother Teresa.

Too Close to Call

Ron Paul – Paul has been a force in Iowa since 2007, and his organization is breathtaking. He certainly improved on his 2008 performance at the Iowa Caucuses, but one has to wonder whether it’s because he’s attracting more people or if he was able to mobilize his supporters to go to the caucuses this year. In either case, Paul’s performance should make him a winner, but his responses to recent controversial statements he’s made or that have been uncovered have left him looking less like a contender and more like someone who doesn’t understand politics well enough to be a contender.

The Democratic Party – Normally, I’d throw this group into the Losers category, but something happened that made me think there might be hope for them yet. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz appeared in Iowa and said during a television interview she wasn’t sure if she would have time to meet with the members of the Astroturf Iowa movement. Although some consider this to be a snub (and I’m not saying it’s not), I see it as a parting of the ways between the Astroturf Wall Street movement and the major political party that has given them visibility and credibility. It’s going to be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out, but for now, I’m going to be optimistic for the Democrats for a change.

The 2011 Awards

2011-12-30T19:08:00.002-06:00

Here are the 2011 Awards, representing the very best and worst of the year. Enjoy!

Democrats to Watch: Any Democrat up for reelection in 2012. From Obama/Biden 2012 on down to the city dog catcher, every Democrat is going to be scrutinized by the electorate. Why they’re the ones to watch is to see how many are willing to be seen with the President and Vice President on the campaign trail. If they shun Obama and Biden, it doesn’t bode well for the reelection chances.

Democrat to Forget: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. From vapid Congresswoman who says the most stupid and unbelievable things to garner attention to…vapid DNC Chair who says the most stupid and unbelievable things to garner attention. Wasserman-Schultz makes Howard Dean’s leadership look credible.

Republican to Watch: Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has been skating for the most part this election season, so much so it seems he’s the heir apparent to the Republican nomination in 2012. That’s not the reason to watch him, though. The reason to watch Romney is to see if he’s a Trojan Horse. There are several positions Romney has taken and not quite explained away that should give any Republican voter a reason to pause. If he wins the nomination, Romney may revert to form, leaving the Republicans with a hard sell to more conservatives Republicans and Independents.

Republican to Forget: John Boehner. Over the past year, coal mines have caved in less frequently than the Speaker of the House has. As we move into the next Congressional session, there may be a movement afoot to have Boehner removed as Speaker, and I wouldn’t cry any tears if it were successful. Boehner might, but then again he is the weepy type.

Underreported Story: “Climategate.” What started out with an email stating “hide the decline” has become a major story. Now, the only decline being hidden is the decline in credibility of those who said global warming was “settled science.”

Overreported Story: Astroturf Wall Street. Remember how the media fawned over the TEA Party? Neither do I. To make up for them missing the boat with the TEA Party, they’ve given us wall-to-wall coverage of Astroturf Wall Street (well, except for the violence, drug dealing, prostitution, and anything else negative). I’m sure they’ll get around to cover the TEA Party rallies…eventually, but gosh darn it, they’re just too darn busy whitewashing Astroturf Wall Street to bother with equal coverage.

Unreported Story: The extremism of the “Arab Spring.” For all of the media coverage of the “Arab Spring,” you would think there would be some coverage of just who the protesters were. Except this is the mainstream media we’re talking about here. You know, the same media who vetted Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother’s dog groomer’s ex-husband’s mailman’s second cousin, but couldn’t be bothered to look at any direct ties between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers? Anyway, although Time made the protester their People of the Year, the fact is the Arab Spring protesters are more violent, more radical, and more dangerous than we’ve been lead to believe. No matter how many times the media told us “they’re just longing for freedom” the Arab Spring protestors want nothing of the sort. And our media sold us out by not doing even basic reporting on that fact.

Man of the Year: Glenn Beck. When you consider the amount of energy the Left has put into destroying Beck and the number of times Beck has emerged victorious this year, it’s clear he has more influence than his detractors think or claim he does.

R. I. P.: support for Obamacare. It may have been signed into law, but Obamacare has been challenged since then, and in some cases successfully. These challenges have made Obamacare less popular than it once was, even among Democrats who supported it. As the fight drags on, Obamacare becomes an albatross around the necks of Obama and the Democrats, and the poll numbers aren’t looking good for it.

Flash in the Pan: Astroturf Wall Street. For all of its grand proclamations and stated commitment to change the financial industry, Astroturf Wall Street has accomplished…nothing. Unless you count running up a sizable rap sheet an accomplishment, that is.

The Real Deal: scandals within the Obama Administration. Although President Obama has been touted as one of the smartest Presidents we’ve ever had, his Administration has been plagued by scandals, ranging from the relatively minor (Van Jones) to the more serious (Operation Fast and Furious). Far from being a right wing conspiracy, these scandals amount to rank incompetence, serious malfeasance, or both, and they’re not going away anytime soon.

Raw Deal: Scott Walker being “anti-union.” This is another case where the media forgot to do its job and, well, report the news. The actual collective bargaining deal Walker proposed for Wisconsin public workers wasn’t nearly as bad as the pro-union side made it out to be. If anything, the deal was far more pro-union than the pro-union side. Yet, Walker is called anti-union because he wants to keep Wisconsin’s teachers unions from getting laid off due to a lack of funds?

Missed Opportunity: Republicans sticking up for black conservatives under fire. This past year, we’ve seen black Republicans, such as Herman Cain and Allen West, get clobbered in the media and the Democrats for various things. Yet, one group has been conspicuously absent when this has happened: the Republican Party. With Republicans being painted as racist for decades, this past year was a golden opportunity to turn that around and make Democrats and their pals in the media look like hypocrites. Instead, they sat on their hands. Way to bust those stereotypes!

Defining Moment: The “Arab Spring.” The Middle East changed before our eyes this year, and not for the better. As one leader after another was marginalized, weakened, or overthrown completely, it became apparent a more extremist movement was coming to power, one that wouldn’t work and play well with us no matter how much water we would carry for them publicly. George W. Bush made the same mistake with Hamas, and now Barack Obama owns the mistakes in Egypt and Libya, among others. In both cases, these mistakes are mounting up and will eventually come back to haunt us.

Stuck on Stupid: Eric Holder. Barney Fife was a better law enforcement officer than Eric Holder is. Holder’s record as Attorney General has been rife with inconsistency, incompetence, and illegality. And that’s just Operation Fast and Furious!

The Bottom Line Award: Resa Laru Kirkland. Friendship aside, I have known few conservatives as driven and talented as Resa. She has a passion for life and politics that makes others want to try to keep up. Her vision for a conservative media presence in areas where it doesn’t have a strong foothold yet, such as making documentaries, is ambitious to say the least. For being willing to blaze a trail for others to follow and taking on all the stress that comes with it, Resa Laru Kirkland has earned the Bottom Line Award.

The Anna Nicole Smith Lifetime Achievement Award: Arianna Huffington. Take a struggling joke of an online service, combine it with a rich joke of a website editor, and what do you get? An epic fail. But at least Huffington came away with a ton of money for being ineffective and ham-fisted in her management. Way to be a credit to your gender!

The Dan Rather Award for “Excellence” in Media: Ed Schultz. Over the past two years, Ed Schultz has repeatedly put his foot in his mouth, apparently to prevent the truth from getting out. What has gotten out from Schultz is a steady string of ill-advised comments, out and out lies, and insane jealousy against conservatives in the media. Anger management classes would be more helpful to Schultz than giving him a daily and nightly forum from which to preach to an ever-dwindling audience.

The DEE DEE DEE Award: Astroturf Oakland. After coming out against big banks, where does Astroturf Oakland open up an account? Wells Fargo. Way to stick it to The Man, kids!

The “It Looked Better on Paper” Award: AttackWatch. Obama/Biden 2008 had some success with this same concept when it was known as FightTheSmears. The 2011 version, however, has been met with the one thing the Obama campaign hadn’t anticipated: mockery. Conservatives and independents have had a field day “reporting” themselves and others on AttackWatch to the point no one but the diehards take it seriously.

The Padded Resume Award: Chelsea Clinton getting a job with NBC News. Of course, she earned that gig because she did that…wait, it must have been that piece she wrote for…no, wait, it was because she went to college to study...okay, it’s because she’s a Clinton.

The 14:59 Award: All things Kardashian. When Kim Kardashian’s wedding lasted as long as a bad sitcom and had as many laughs, it’s clear the entire Kardashian 15 minutes of fame can’t expire soon enough.

The WTF Moment of 2011: Iran getting nuclear weapons (and, yes, I believe they have them and have had them for a while now), and the world being mostly okay with that.

The With Friends Like These Award: The Obama Administration’s treatment of Israel. Although it’s safe to say President Obama and Israel may not see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, it’s also safe to say the President’s not exactly a friend of Israel. Whether it’s the ill-conceived pre-1967 borders for Israel as a starting point to Middle East peace or the frequent anti-Israel sentiment coming from Administration officials from Obama on down, it’s clear Israel doesn’t need any more friends like Obama.

The Coincidence? Award: Let’s play connect the dots. The Left wants to expand the number of people who can vote to include the homeless, ex-convicts, and illegal immigrants. A part of this effort includes making it as easy as possible for said potential voters to vote. What’s a major stumbling block to that effort? Requiring those silly little details like proving you’re an actual voter with a real address and that you look like the person you claim to be. So, when states do things to curtail that effort, the Left gets mad and decides to go after those states. And who needs a lot of help to get reelected and has the power to make it tough for states to enact these laws? Why, it’s President Obama! Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

The Pot Kettle Black Award: People who want us to accept Islam without question, but bash Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow for his Christian faith.

Do Republicans Have a Problem With Conservatism?

2011-12-18T13:56:00.002-06:00

Watching the potential contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012, I've noticed something. Every time a conservative Republican comes to the forefront, the bulk of the party isn't that supportive, or are actively hostile towards him or her at the other extreme. Then, when a less conservative candidate leads the party (or in the case of Mitt Romney maintains his 21-23% of the vote), the party faithful circle the wagons to protect the candidate.

As a conservative, I find this trend disturbing. I have serious reservations about both Romney and Newt Gingrich, mainly because of their lack of conservatism. Sure, they talk a good game, but both of them have issues that should make any conservative Republican second-guess whether the candidates are truly being honest with us.

One of the biggest "offenders" in my opinion is Mitt Romney. In 2008, he was touted as one of the more conservative Republican contenders, yet a deeper review of his record showed his actions didn't match his rhetoric. Hello? Romneycare? Government takeover of health care? The blueprint for Obamacare? That's not a conservative in my book.

Gingrich isn't much better. Not only does he have the support of a Romneycare clone on his record, he has a left-leaning environmental agenda. Sitting with Nancy Pelosi may have been a mistake Gingrich has admitted making, but what has he done to distance himself intellectually from that stand?

Yet, to hear Republicans talk, we have to choose between Romney and Gingrich or else we'll get another four years of Obama. However, I would argue getting Obama Lite isn't a step in the right direction, either.

Think of it this way. If you're driving at a wall at 100 miles an hour and you slow down to 95 miles an hour, you're still not addressing the major problem: you are driving towards a brick wall at a high rate of speed. The 5 mile an hour difference isn't going to make you any less dead upon impact. Not even with airbags and seatbelts.

Once you get past the two current frontrunners, the same line seems to come up: "I like Bachmann/Santorum/Paul, but they can't win." In Ron Paul's case, they're right. But as far as Bachmann and Santorum are concerned, why can't they win? Are they polarizing? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not. Leaders tend to be polarizing figures, while people who seek to please as many people as possible tend not to be good leaders. We're seeing that now with the current Administration and their attempts to be all things to all people and failing miserably.

So, why should we replace one failed leader with someone with the same traits as that failed leader?

I think the Republican leadership has let the Left into their heads and made it seem as though conservatism is a bad thing. It's not. Speaking personally, I want more conservative leadership, and that would certainly drive me to vote for the Republican candidate in 2012. But if you keep throwing John McCain 2.0 in my face as the "only choice to beat Obama," you will lose my vote. Say what you will about the Left, they are not afraid of what they are. Republicans, on the other hand, are and it's because the "leadership" has let the Left set the ground rules for political combat.

The GOP has a major problem within its midst right now, and it stands to ruin the party's 2012 Presidential chances, and other chances down the road.

The Real Astroturf Wall Street

2011-11-14T15:09:00.002-06:00

In my continuing "coverage" of Astroturf Wall Street, I did a bit of digging and found the following. (My responses are in bold.)

http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-draft-manifesto-183205447.html

A MESSAGE TO AMERICA FROM THE PEOPLE’S ASSEMBLY IN ZUCOTTI PARK

Dear fellow Americans,

We are assembled in Zucotti Park — which we’ve renamed Liberty Plaza — in the financial district of New York, because we believe that the American economy is heading in the wrong direction and we have a few ideas for what to do about it. Yeah, like taking a crap on police cars.

There is a feeling shared by a growing number of people on the streets of the world that the global economy has become a kind of Ponzi scheme, a global casino, run by and for the benefit of the 1 percent. You mean like Michael Moore?

We believe that it is possible to inject justice into the global economy. We have come up with the following list of things that can be done right now to rejuvenate democracy and economic justice in our country:

• Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly Why? A mortgage is an agreement, and the terms of the mortgage allow for the foreclosure on people regardless of their personal circumstances. There is no exception to paying your mortgage if you get sick, lose your job, or are old.

• Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent Which will result in the rich paying more, unless they find loopholes, and resulting in nothing positive happening. What happens if those taxes don't solve the problem? What will your solution be? MORE taxes?

• Forgive all student loan debt See above regarding mortgages.

• Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the current situation because it comes from the same entity that allowed the banks to do what they did. Furthermore, what about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government or quasi-government agencies who back the majority of the loans out there?

• Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% “Robin Hood” tax on all financial transactions and currency trades You DO realize a) it wouldn't work unless you have an overbearing bureaucracy overseeing it, and b) it would have to include every financial transaction, including donations to charity, right?

• Ban high-frequency ‘flash’ trading and bring sanity to the markets In other words, deny the Internet even exists.

• Break up the “too big to fail” banks that threaten our future How will this help anything? You're actually advocating weakening the banking industry to try to "save" it. If you break up a big bank into smaller banks, you are ultimately making it easier for banks TO fail, thus worsening the problem. Let's just say I'm glad you're not doctors.

• Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice If you were serious about this, you'd be trying to arrest Barney Frank.

• Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington A Presidential Commission started up by the current Administration, with a lot of former Goldman Sachs folks on the federal payroll?

If you agree with any of these demands, then join us! We will stay here in our encampment in Liberty Plaza until President Obama responds to each of these demands. This is just the beginning, there is more to come as we work together to reshape America.

— The People’s Assembly of New York City

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/occupy-wall-street-the-draft-manifesto/#ixzz1dUU6vuPe

When looking over this manifesto, it's clear there are two motivations at work: greed and envy. Their slogan could easily be "You have what I want. I want what you have." And while we're here, is it any coincidence their "solutions" to the problems serve to make the problems worse?

Sorry, Astroturf Wall Street. Go back to the drawing board and come back when you have a serious proposal on the table.

Still Want to Say Herman Cain Is Done?

2011-11-10T05:41:00.002-06:00

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances

The Left has been trying to portray Herman Cain as a sexual predator, but it's backfired in a big way. Cain hasn't lost much support, has seen a spike in contributions since the initial allegations of his sexual activities went public, and we keep finding inconsistencies in the accounts of the accusers.

So far, Cain is having the last laugh. Having said that, we have not heard all of the allegations from all of the women. There may be more substantive charges in the wings, but the problem the accusers face now is the environment created by those who have already come forward and been scrutinized. Even possibly legitimate claims will be cast through the prism of the claims that have been found less than honest, which means they may not be believed at first, if at all.

And the Leftists in the media will be left with a henhouse full of egg on their faces.

Cue the Pointing and Laughing in 5...4...3...2...1...

2011-11-09T21:23:00.001-06:00

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/occupy-oakland-protesters-deposit-funds-at-wells-fargo-after-bank-attacks/

Astroturf Wall Street wants everyone to bank at credit unions...except for them?

This Is What A Rap Sheet Looks LIke!

2011-11-06T11:42:00.001-06:00

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

There are two words to describe Astroturf Wall Street's attempts to appear to be peaceful citizens just upset with business and government.

Epic Fail.

Rebranding OWS

2011-11-05T06:32:00.002-05:00

Recently, I got to thinking about Occupy Wall Street and, after a little digging, I found out just how many members of the wealthiest 1% are bankrolling and/or supporting it. I mean, when one of your biggest supporters is Yoko Ono (net worth $500 million), it's hard to reconcile that with the image of OWS being "average Americans fed up with Wall Street" they're trying to portray.

Instead, I feel OWS is the very definition of what former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said was "Astroturf." Thus, the group isn't occupying Wall Street; they're Astroturfing Wall Street.

So, in that vein, I will be using AWS instead of OWS going forward. And let me tell you, they've earned that name.

The Definition of Irony

2011-11-05T06:27:00.002-05:00

Michael Moore calling someone else a liar...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/04/michael-moore-calls-cbs-reporter-punk-and-liar-asking-about-his-milli

Wait. Didn't Moore recently say he was one of the 1% after denying it? Why, yes he did!

And apparently Moore's estimated net worth is $50 million.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/directors/michael-moore-net-worth/

Mikey, let me suggest you follow your own advice and stop lying.

It Depends on What Your Definition of "Peaceful" Is...

2011-11-04T06:45:00.003-05:00

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/03/occupy-oakland-turns-violent-overnight/

After weeks of the media portraying Occupy Wall Street as a peaceful group, with the advent of thefts, sexual assaults, and now rioting, that line may not be as easy to buy anymore.

And it's showing in public opinion. Recently, polling data showed 37% of Americans surveyed supported OWS. Within the past couple of days, that number has dropped to 30%. Might that have something to do with the Guy Fawkes mask being ripped off OWS to expose a group who is not above violence to make their points known? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Even so, the media will be out front acting like Kevin Bacon from "Animal House."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Yeah. These Guys Can Police Themselves...

2011-11-03T06:17:00.002-05:00

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/31/sexual-assault-victims-silenced-on-wall-street/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/01/what-do-they-have-more-of-at-occupy-wall-street-protesters-or-perverts/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/02/shocker-public-safety-a-very-big-concern-at-occupy-protests/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/31/occupy-wall-street-urges-rape-cases-to-be-handled-internally/

Because as we all know, Leftists chanting at sexual predators makes them change their ways...

OWS = Only Working Selectively?

2011-11-03T06:05:00.002-05:00

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-occupy-d-c-protesters-brush-off-job-applications/

They complain about the lack of jobs...but don't act on actual job applications?

Astroturf Anyone?

2011-11-03T06:00:00.001-05:00

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OCCUPY_SUPPORT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

But from the start, the movement has also gotten support from a long list of experienced, well-funded organizations, unions and political committees - sometimes to the discomfort of more radical protesters who worry about their message being co-opted or watered down.

Wait. Didn't the Left say the TEA Party was "astroturf" for the same reasons?

He Must Be One of the Wealthiest 1%...

2011-11-03T05:55:00.002-05:00

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cafe-owner-claims-he-laid-off-21-workers-because-of-occupy-wall-street/

By the way, OWS's comment on their involvement with the economic slowdown on Wall Street is bogus. Yes, the police control where the barricades are placed, but if you Leftists weren't "protesting" there wouldn't be a need for the barricades. But I guess when you're full of self-righteous indignation against an entity that didn't write the rules, it's okay that you're shutting down small businesses for your "cause."

Way to stand up for the 99%, OWS!

Because I Can't Help But Laugh...

2011-11-02T05:59:00.002-05:00

Michael Moore once again shows his hypocrisy for being a capitalist while bashing the system.

A few days ago, Moore said this on CNN.

http://www.therightscoop.com/ows-spokesclown-michael-moore-we-will-replace-evil-capitalism-with-some-other-system-we-havent-thought-of-yet/

And then a few days later, Moore talked about Republicans...during a book signing where he was benefiting from the very system he bashed on CNN.

http://www.therightscoop.com/michael-moore-republicans-trying-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-liberal-america/

Apparently Moore wants to replace capitalism with...Moore capitalism.

Another "Anti-Science" Type?

2011-11-01T20:33:00.002-05:00

Remember when the Leftist doppelganger of yours truly got on my case for denying global warming because I didn't use "climate scientists" to back up my claims?

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-

And the headline?

GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT

Choke on it.

This Is What A Hypocrite Looks Like!

2011-11-01T06:27:00.001-05:00

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/01/michael-moore-ignores-questions-about-his-wealth-occupy-portland-even

In Honor of OWS

2011-10-14T06:08:00.002-05:00

When I'm Right...

2011-10-13T05:52:00.002-05:00

... I'm right.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/top-ten-richest-celebrities-supporting-occupy-wall-street/

So, Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99%, but allows members of the 1% in their ranks without question?

And let's not forget there's another member of the 1% who has his fingerprints all over OWS: George Soros.

And how did each of these 1% members make their money? By being capitalists. But we can't pay attention to that little detail, can we?

I Am the 100%

2011-10-09T19:10:00.002-05:00

Okay, it's time to clear the air about the Occupy Wall Street slogan "We are the 99%." They're not. Oh, they claim they do, but let's take a look at this logically.

First, let's take a look at the 99% portion of the equation. I'm certainly not rich, so I would fall into the 99% the Occupy Wall Street Leftists talk about. Yet, I certainly don't agree with their multitude of stances, ranging from free college to more regulation of Wall Street, an entity that is already regulated heavily. Plus, I think some of their ideas are utterly ridiculous and unrealistic. The Occupy Wall Street types certainly don't speak for me now, and I doubt they'll ever speak for me in the future.

Now, let's look at the 1%. That 1% includes people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, people who tend to lean in the same direction as the Occupy Wall Street types. To hear the OWS people talk, the 1% is nothing but rich fat cats, but they don't seem to mind some of the rich fat cats. Heck, most of them probably own some piece of technology or clothing made by a...capitalist! To put a finer point on it, every single one of those protesters who owns an iPhone, an iPod, or some other technological "must have" is a hypocrite of the highest order.

It's clear I'm not one of the 99% types. However, I am one of the 100%.

The 100% of people like me who think Occupy Wall Street is a massive joke.

So Crazy It Just Might Work...

2011-09-27T19:24:00.003-05:00

President Obama's health care reform law is going before the Supreme Court soon, and there are already fireworks on both sides of the debate. There are a number of questions swirling about how the High Court will rule, who will be allowed to have a say in the verdict, and why Obama would push for it now, among others.

One question that seems to have a simple answer is how the Obama Administration hopes the USSC will rule on the law's constitutionality. The easy answer is they hope the health care reform law will be upheld. However, I'm not too sure that would be the best possible outcome as far as the Administration is concerned. After all, a victory in the High Court will give Republicans an issue they can use in the 2012 election, and with polling data mixed on whether the law is good for America, it's one that could sway voters to vote for the Republicans.

A loss in front of the USSC would be a public relations nightmare. After months of debate, harsh rhetoric, and growing public discontent, the Administration cannot afford to have their crowning achievement (and, arguably, their only achievement) taken from them. This would certainly give them ammunition and another target to attack, but it wouldn't sway more conservative voters, who aren't thrilled with the President at the moment.

So, what does that leave? A tie.

As odd as it sounds, I feel the Obama Administration is hoping the health care reform bill gets deadlocked at the Supreme Court, and there's a good chance it could happen.

As much as the Left loves to point out there's a 5-4 conservative edge to the High Court, that isn't quite the way it is. There are four known conservative Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), and four known liberal Justices (Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan). That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. That would normally swing the vote in one direction or other, but not this time because of Justice Kagan's work as Solicitor General while the health care reform bill was being devised. That would be a conflict of interest, one that can't be overlooked or dismissed as insignificant.

In order to prevent a PR backlash, the Obama Administration might urge Kagan to recuse herself, leaving only 8 Justices to vote on the constitutionality of the health care reform law. Since the Left couldn't get Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because of his wife's lobbying against Obama's reform law, they can't let Kagan slide for something more directly in conflict with the spirit of the law.

Kennedy is known for being more of a centrist, which means his vote could easily swing towards the left, thus creating a 4-4 deadlock. This leads to the question of how a tie helps Obama more than a victory. Let me count the ways.

1) It doesn't go down as a loss. With Obama's poll numbers slipping, a defeat would lead to at least a short term loss of popularity, and at a crucial time in his reelection campaign. Yet, if he gets the win, Republicans have a ready-made platform that will garner a lot of support from the center. A tie keeps Obama without a costly defeat while not giving Republicans the health care reform law as an issue. It's a win-win.

2) He can use it as a reelection theme. With a 4-4 tie, Obama can go back to his base and tell them, "I tried to get health care reformed, but the Supreme Court stopped me. I need another 4 years to get another reform-minded Justice on the Supreme Court." And his base (as well as those who were counting on the reform law being upheld) will eat it up.

3) It gives Obama another "target" for campaign rhetoric. It's clear Obama has no love lost for the Supreme Court. A 4-4 tie would allow Obama to attack the Supreme Court, something he has done in the past and would have no problem doing again. This, in turn, would fire up his Leftist base, as they see the USSC the same way he does. Plus, it would help diffuse notions Obama isn't as passionate as he was in 2008.

4) It creates a Constitutional question that could take years to untangle. What happens when there's a deadlock on the Supreme Court? Neither side has the advantage, and neither side loses. That alone would keep the health care reform bill on the books and legally enforceable while the matter gets resolved. Inevitably, the resolution wouldn't be something that could be decided over coffee. It has the potential to go on for years, years where the law would officially take effect (and continue to be funded in the meantime).

There are likely more reasons, but you get the idea. This may be a time when Obama plays to tie, not to win.

Day of Rage? Not So Much

2011-09-21T16:29:00.000-05:00

This past weekend was the “Day of Rage” where Leftists stormed Wall Street (when the very people they were protesting weren't there) and talked about “economic justice.” Of course, when pressed on it, these same seemingly intelligent people couldn't describe what economic justice is.

That's because economic justice is a slogan, not an actual plan. From what I understand of it, it's where everybody would be at the same economic level. The rich would become poorer, the poor would become richer, and the middle class would become...well, more middle class.

Guess which group made up the majority of the fans of economic justice during the “Day of Rage.”

You may have noticed this, but people have different abilities and skills. Naturally, that will make them better suited for certain tasks, which can put them in great demand. By the same token, they may have shortcomings where their skills wouldn't be desirable. You may want to pay an NBA superstar millions to dunk a basketball, but you wouldn't pay him to perform brain surgery. (Not to mention, the NBA star-come-brain surgeon might try to slam dunk a patient's brain back into the skull, which opens up a LOT of malpractice suits.)

What I'm saying in short is people are different and, thus, their ability to make money will also be different. When there are differences, equality can only come from two sources: by agreement, or by force. The former requires all parties to agree to an outcome. The latter requires at least one party to agree to an outcome and the subjugation of those who disagree. Right now, those who push for economic justice are trying to persuade. When that fails, and we know it will, it will require force to create a system of equality.

Of course, that's already been tried. Remember the former Soviet Union? Yeah, that didn't work out too well.

The Soviet Union learned the hard way the problems with forcing economic justice. The people involved with the “Day of Rage” on Wall Street haven't.

Opening a Dangerous Door

2011-09-19T19:55:00.002-05:00

This week, Palestine will be seeking official recognition from the United Nations as a state. On both sides of the debate, passions run hot. On the Left, we have people screaming about how Israel has oppressed the Palestinians, stolen their land, and committed all sorts of war crimes against them. On the Right, we have people screaming about Israel being attacked repeatedly by Palestinian terrorists with no regard for peace whatsoever.

Let me say for the sake of absolute clarity that I stand with Israel. For some, that will disqualify and discredit everything else I will say in this blog piece. For others, I will be speaking the gospel truth. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, I ask for your indulgence as I express my thoughts on Palestinian statehood.

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. Give the Palestinians (who have had as rough a go of it in some cases as Israel has as far as acceptance by other countries) a place to call their own, and let them stand or fall on their merits. Not as bad as it sounds, is it? For any Palestinian who wants statehood for the sake of finally having a country to call home, I say we roll out the welcome mat and allow them to join the UN as a state.

Where things get messy is when you consider other Palestinians who have ulterior motives. Let's not forget Palestinian terrorists have been launching missiles into Israel and then hiding behind women and children as human shields. These are not the types of people we would want as neighbors, right? Yet, these are a sizable portion of Israel's neighbors right now. Giving this group of Palestinians statehood is legitimizing their activities while giving them a base of operations by which to attack Israel and its allies.

So, which Palestine is pushing for statehood from the UN? We don't know. What we do know is the UN's long history of being anti-Israel, as well as the number of UN countries who would relish yet another ally in their rhetorical (and, in some cases, actual) battle against Israel. The United States has typically had Israel's back, but in recent years it's becoming more evident we're moving in a new direction, one that would leave Israel all but friendless in the world.

Because there is so much uncertainty on the part of the Palestinians, I cannot in good conscience say Palestinian statehood is a step in the right direction. It may be someday, but only once the Palestinians who want statehood for the sake of identity and not terrorism stand up and take control of their situation. As it stands, I just don't see it yet, and time is running short.

Given the Obama Administration's worldview, I feel their support of a Palestinian state being created is all but certain. They may not be able to say it in full yet, but their actions betray their true feelings on the matter. I wish I could say the Administration has given careful consideration to the implications of what I believe they are about to do, but I can't. Their support of the "Arab Spring" where more radical elements of Islam have overrun radical, yet manageable, leaders leaves me with little hope, but a full knowledge change is inevitable.

If Palestinian statehood is recognized, it's a door that can't be closed without a lot of effort and courage. With so many questions as to the heart of those pushing for statehood, I'm not sure we should be in a rush to open the door just yet.

Yet, America's hand is on the doorknob and just about ready to turn.

Snatching Victory?

2011-08-22T20:25:00.002-05:00

With Libyan leader Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi in hiding, it appears America...I'm sorry, NATO, may have scored a victory in Libya. Yet, I can't help but feel something's not quite right with the celebrations going on in Obamaville right now. Some would chalk it up to right wing disappointment at the victory, but they'd be wrong.

Back in 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter achieved a victory over the Shah of Iran. For those who don't remember or never learned, the Shah was an Islamic leader who was by most standards more moderate than his counterparts. However, Carter undertook the overthrow of the Shah, which opened the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic leader who was more radical. This, in turn, caused American-Iranian relations to deteriorate, leading to the Iran Hostage Crisis that ultimately doomed Carter to being a one-term President.

Call it deja vu, but I get a feeling President Obama has repeated the Carter mistake by siding with the rebels in Libya. You may not get it from the mainstream press, but the rebels are more radical than Qaddafi was. Whether this leads to another hostage crisis, time will tell. However, it cannot be ignored that again a Democrat President sided with a more radical group of Muslims than advisable. If America "wins" anything in this venture, it may be more contempt from the radical Muslim community worldwide for letting us do their dirty work for them.

There is one additional thing to consider, one that might make the Left put down their champagne glasses for a minute.

With the fall of Jimmy Carter came the rise of Ronald Reagan.

And that's one bit of history the Left doesn't want to repeat.

Iowa Straw Poll - Winners and Losers

2011-08-14T20:55:00.002-05:00

Now that the dust has settled in Ames, let's take a look at the winners and losers.

Winners

Michele Bachmann: Although this one could have been considered a lay-up for her, the victory at the Iowa Straw Poll gives her two things she needs at this stage: momentum and credibility. Bachmann has been maligned and disregarded as a serious candidate by a lot of people (namely the Left), but it's hard for them to make that argument now she's had such a high profile victory, especially over the more established Ron Paul. And speaking of Dr. Paul...

Ron Paul: For better or worse, Ron Paul has a following in Iowa. He has the same issues Bachmann has, but on a wider scale. His second place showing in Iowa shows he still has the groundswell of support for his candidacy, which will help him stay in the race longer.

Herman Cain: Cain had a pretty good showing at the Iowa Straw Poll, even in "predominantly white" Iowa, as the media loved to state in their reporting. He may not have fared as well as he would have liked, but he's showing more than a little financial acumen with how he fared. While others spent and spent, Cain didn't, and still managed to come in a respectable fifth place with a shade under 9% of the votes tallied.

Sarah Palin: Yes, she's not an official candidate, but she did wind up having an impact on the Iowa Straw Poll. The media coverage she received from merely hinting at coming to the Iowa State Fair was enough to draw attention away from some of the candidates who needed the attention (see Tim Pawlenty). She wound up being a king (or should I say queen) maker in Iowa, that's for sure!

Losers

Mitt Romney: He shows up for a debate before the Iowa Straw Poll, and yet he bails on the Iowa Straw Poll itself? Granted, it's a fundraising event, but it doesn't bode well for the Romney campaign to ignore one of the early states in 2012. And as an Iowan, I know there will be a lot of Republicans with long memories. Then again, after he blew an easy question at the Iowa State Fair and got visibly upset, he might not have wanted to face people who could have handled the question better than he did.

Tim Pawlenty: With two people from Minnesota in the same race, Iowa voters were split. Typically, Iowans will throw their support behind a candidate from a neighboring state, and Pawlenty was counting on a better turnout than he received, which was a distant third behind Bachmann and Paul. Of course, anyone who followed Pawlenty's campaign honestly knew he wasn't lighting things up on the GOP side. His attacks on Michele Bachmann didn't help either because, unlike TPaw, Bachmann connects with Iowans on fundamental levels. That was his third strike, and as of today, he's out of the race he was never really in to begin with.

Rick Perry: He's in officially, and...not many people care. Announcing his candidacy this weekend was a major stumble on Perry's part, and it could have been avoided if his campaign had given more thought to the announcement. Granted, there's good strategy in not announcing before an event where one of his rivals was presumed to walk away with it and his non-appearance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll left him safe from scrutiny for now. Having said that, to make the announcement when he did when the media attention was elsewhere? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Rick Santorum: Like it or not, Santorum impressed a lot of people with his performance at the debate prior to the Iowa Straw Poll. That translated into a fourth place victory for him, edging out Herman Cain. So, why is Santorum with the losers? Because he hasn't run as solid a campaign as the frontrunners. On top of that, he's going to be going for the same voters as Michele Bachmann, but she's been out there stumping on her conservative beliefs, while Santorum hasn't. Assuming people know you isn't a good way to win over the hearts and minds of voters.

Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Thaddeus McCotter: Collectively, the three of you got less than 3% of the votes at the Iowa Straw Poll. Mitt Romney, who didn't even show up, got 3.4% of the vote. Pack it in, guys, and leave it to the real candidates, okay?

Tell Me What Democracy Looks Like

2011-08-10T18:49:00.002-05:00

This is what democracy looks like...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576500752268924810.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/10/democrats_fall_short_in_wisconsin_recall_effort_110887.html

Of course, it's being bandied about by the Left that the Wisconsin GOP rigged the election (which would, of course, explain why 2 Democrats won instead of 0). Isn't it funny how the will of the people is paramount when it's something the Left agrees with, but insignificant when it's something the Left doesn't like?

On a larger scale, the failure of Wisconsin Democrats to get the 3 seats they needed to take over the Senate may resonate until next year, when these same Wisconsin Democrats vowed to recall Governor Scott Walker. It's a long time from now until January 2012, and this setback may take the wind out of the sails of the "Recall Walker" crowd. A lot will depend on how Walker rules and how motivated the Democrats are to recall him.

The Budget Deal - Winners and Losers

2011-08-01T18:58:00.002-05:00

Since there are so many people trying to figure out who won and who lost with the recent budget battles, I figured I'd throw in my two cents' worth.

Winners

- "Moderate" Republicans: When things looked bleak, moderate Republicans stepped in and appeared to be leaders. Of course, their idea of leadership was to disregard the TEA Party movement and the American people who said they wanted a balanced approach and gave us...something that allows us to spend more in the short term and maybe kinda sorta get some of it back later. Thanks to the tireless efforts of people like Mitch McConnell and John McCain, we're still spending with the hopes we won't later. That's a victory, pyrrhic though it may be.

- Rep. David Wu (D-OR): With all of the talk surrounding the budget, his sex scandal got very little coverage. When asked about it, Anthony Weiner said, "Sonofa..."

Losers

- President Barack Obama: Not only was President Obama AWOL from the bulk of the discussions, when he was involved both parties wanted him out of the room. For the budget issue to get this heated and this bogged down is a failure of leadership. This was another missed opportunity for the President to lead. Instead, he went out, did some fundraising, and attacked Republicans for trying to bring spending under control.

- Speaker of the House John Boehner: Boehner got streamrolled, first by the TEA Party, and then by the Democrats and moderate Republicans. Instead of leading the charge, he looked more like a middle manager trying to move up the ladder by kissing up to people he thinks will get him ahead. The Right had a golden opportunity to make positive change and live up to its rhetoric, and they squandered it for a deal that doesn't help the problem.

- The American people: Lost in all the partisan back-and-forth was what impact any deal would have on the American people. The economy stinks, we've had out-of-control spending for decades, and the working people of America are on the hook for whatever plan comes out of Washington. And what's come out of Washington so far is...we get put on the hook for more.

Too Close to Call

- The TEA Party: Although the TEA Party members in the House and Senate didn't get the end result they were hoping for, I feel if they weren't in power at this point in time we wouldn't have had a debate over the debt ceiling or budgetary matters. It would be business as usual. The numbers weren't with them, but to overlook their impact on this situation would be foolish.

- The Democrats: The Democrats clearly didn't bring their A-game to the table this time around, but it's too soon to tell how much of an impact it will have on their electoral future. One thing is for sure. They ratcheted up the heated rhetoric as the budget battle went on. Calling the TEA Party "terrorists" and saying they "held the country hostage" is rather extreme, and it will certainly energize the Democrat base. Whether it will play to a larger audience remains to be seen.

Hitting the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-31T06:40:00.002-05:00

The budget battles in Washington right now is contentious, but there's one element where there seems to be significant agreement is the idea of raising the debt ceiling, the artificial limit on what Congress can spend. It seems as though most proposals to deal with the looming "default" of the US involve raising the debt ceiling so we can cover our bills.

Isn't that like continuing to raise the credit limit for a shopaholic?

The problem we face isn't one that can be solved by raising the debt ceiling. We have to address the reason why we continue to hit the debt ceiling, which is...spending too much. Raising the debt ceiling doesn't address the fact we keep hitting it by spending more and more.

This is where the budget battle gets me riled up. Democrats insist we need to raise taxes now and cut taxes over 10 years, and the Republicans insist we don't need to cut taxes and we need to spend less eventually. Neither one adequately addresses the spending issue because both plans agree to spending without really looking at making real cuts in spending.

At this point, I need to clarify a point. When Congress talks about "cutting spending," they talk about reducing the rate of proposed spending. To them, saying we should spend $1 billion instead of $2 billion is a spending cut. However, they're still spending $1 billion! That's not a spending cut; that's spending!

What I want are real spending cuts. Instead of promising to spend $1 billion instead of $2 billion, I want to spend $0, especially if it's money that goes to a failed or outdated government program like the Department of Education or Superfund. Additionally, there is wasteful spending on programs that actually do provide some benefit to us, like the military. Not even the "cost-cutting" Republican plans address that. I've been skeptical of the Republican budget cut proposals for that reason, and I doubt the Democrat proposal is any better.

Until we agree to stop spending and start saving money, we're going to keep hitting the debt ceiling and going through the same charade we are now.

Quick Hits - Budget Battle Edition

2011-07-16T07:03:00.002-05:00

The current debt crisis is a target-rich environment, so here we go...

Games People Play The Obama Administration and its supporters have accused Republicans of not dealing in good faith, and if you've listened to the media coverage, you might agree. However, it should be pointed out it's been the Left's position we need tax hikes, even after Republicans have said they wouldn't accept a plan that would include tax hikes. How exactly is that showing a willingness to negotiate?

Obama, the Adult? The Left has praised Obama's efforts to date to try to hammer out a budget deal. Whether it was Nancy Pelosi gushing that the President "has the patience of Job" to Leftists saying Obama was "the only adult in the room" at the negotiations, the narrative is being written and repeated without question. The problem: Obama stormed out of one of the meetings. Democrats are quick to point out Paul Ryan did the same thing earlier, but it's different when you're the President. The expectations are a lot higher, and after the image of Obama being cool and intellectual has been touted for going on 3 years, this show of emotion doesn't help his cause any. Personally, I think Obama has been less than adult and less than statesman in his approach, which the Left has seen and is trying to overcome with spin.

Lies, Damnable Lies, and Statistics At a press conference yesterday, President Obama said 80% of Americans want a balanced approach to dealing with the budget issues, which includes (according to him) modest tax increases. I beg to differ, sir. I think raising taxes is a horrible way to bring in revenue since it takes more money out of the economy and puts it into an entity that has no concept of how to make money or grow the economy. Anyone else see that as a problem? Raising taxes won't raise revenue, nor will it address the primary cause of the budget crisis: spending. Let's ask these same people if they would prefer significant budget cuts or higher taxes and see how many support you, Mr. President.

Let me repeat myself... I advised the GOP some months ago to consider making cuts in some of their pet projects as a means to show how serious they were about getting our fiscal house in order. They didn't take my advice, and now they're having to fight with the President over the budget while at the same time having to fight a PR war to try to persuade the country they're serious. Recent polling data shows the public trust Obama with the economy more than the Republicans. That could have and should have been been avoided by bringing more substance to their budget cuts.

Scare tactics are only for Republicans? During a recent interview, President Obama suggested he couldn't guarantee seniors would get their Social Security checks if the government were to shut down. Actually, sir, you don't make that call. It's Congress who does, and from the way it sounds, we have enough coming in on a monthly basis to pay Social Security and other interests and still have money left over, and that's without raising the debt ceiling. For you to resort to such blatant dishonesty is an indication you know you're losing the battle.

No Quiet on the Leftist Front Finally, Sheila Jackson-Lee said racism was the cause of the current budget crisis. She blamed the Republicans for wanting the economy to fail because Obama is black. No, ma'am. Republicans aren't opposing the President because he's black. They're opposing the President to try to get this country back into the black.

A Matter of Perspective

2011-07-08T19:00:00.002-05:00

Fox News and Media Matters have been engaging in a war of words for the past few months. It started when Media Matters announced it was engaging in a "war against Fox News" to make them a more responsible source of information, according to them. Fox News has fired back, suggesting Media Matters lose its non-profit status because it has engaged in partisan activity, which is against current law.

Although it might be easy to assume which side I'm taking on this, let me clarify a couple of points. First, Fox News isn't exactly a source of good journalism. As a j-school graduate, I can tell when news and opinion get mixed, and Fox News does a lot of that. When it does straight news, it's solid. However, when opinion shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity" dominate the network's daily programming, it's blurring a line between news and opinion, one that I cannot condone. As to whether Fox News is biased, I have no doubt that it is. Having said that, I do think they're conscious of media bias and, for the most part, strive to eliminate it from their news programming. If Media Matters is truly interested in making Fox News stronger, I say bravo!

However, I don't think Media Matters is serious in its claim because it doesn't exactly hold itself to the standards to which it holds conservative media. What Media Matters often does is take a statement out of context, whip out a quick PR release bashing it, and let others run with the story as though it were true. A good case in point is an incident involving Glenn Beck. According to Media Matters, Beck called the victims of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags," which he did. However, there was an important qualifying statement that put Beck's comment into perspective. I know because I was listening to Beck that day and heard the entire comment where Beck admonished those who were looting and committing acts of violence as "scumbags." Yet, if you paid attention only to the Media Matters version of events, you wouldn't get that context. (And didn't the Left get upset at Andrew Breitbart for allegedly taking Shirley Sherrod out of context?)

The problem I have with Media Matters is the same problem I have with Fox News: being an honest dealer with information. Both entities stretch the truth, just in varying degrees. However, even a slight stretch of the truth from a media outlet can become the perceived truth if enough people believe it and don't bother looking for the truth. Having Media Matters call out Fox News for dishonesty is funny on one level, but necessary on another. We should be holding both Fox News and Media Matters to the same consistent standard: tell the truth.

Until either one can accomplish that on a consistent basis, let them try to knock each other out.

Quick Hits

2011-07-02T19:28:00.002-05:00

Yeah, I know I've been slacking with the blogging recently, so to make up for it, here is concentrated bloggy goodness for you all.

Budget brinksmanship: To hear the media talk, we're on the verge of a complete economic breakdown unless Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling. The Republicans want budget cuts (albeit far smaller than this blogger would like) and tax cuts, and the Democrats want budget cuts with higher taxes on the rich. Higher taxes isn't an option because that doesn't bring in the revenue necessary to keep the country afloat. Budget cuts on the level being proposed won't work because they're not really addressing the problem seriously enough. I applaud the Republicans for standing firm, but I wish they would get serious about cutting the budget in the short term. As far as the Democrats go, their calls for compromise should be taken as seriously as the calls for compromise made of them during the health care reform debate.

State governments shutting down: In a related story, many state governments are experiencing their own threats of shutdown. Of course, the Left wish to make this a political issue by comparing the state Republicans of being just like the national Republicans. Here's the thing, though: the states are running out of money, just as the federal government is. We cannot keep running up debt and expect people to keep paying for it. At some point, we have to make cuts, and the states are trying to do just that. With the economy in fragile condition as it is right now, we've come to the point where tough decisions have to be made, and some things we've taken for granted will need scrutinized. The longer we play political games, the less time we have to address the budget issues seriously. And, yes, that applies to any Republican who thought social issues were more important than dealing with the economic issues, too.

Glenn Beck signs off his Fox News show. If you heard massive cheering from the Left this week, it came because they "succeeded" in getting Glenn Beck off the air. Media Matters even held a "going away" party for him. Of course, they don't quite tell the entire story, that being the real reason Beck left Fox News: to start his own network. No matter how much you try to push the line he was fired (which begs the question of why Fox News let him keep airing his show for weeks after he was fired), Beck moved on, but he's not going anywhere. Well, except to Israel in August, but that's beside the point. Celebrate while you can, Leftists. Beck will continue to be a thorn in your sides for a while yet.

Why Sarah Palin isn't announcing yet (if at all). Given the media coverage of the Republican candidates, any candidate with an R behind his or her name is going to be scrutinized heavily. Of course, this isn't a bad thing in my opinion, provided it's done a) evenly, and b) with the intent of finding out the truth, not trying to score petty political points. So far, the media have failed miserably on both counts, in my opinion. Whether it was Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday asking Michelle Bachmann if she was a "flake" to Jon Stewart's adoption of a stereotypical "black voice" to mock Herman Cain, the media have become modern day muckrakers stumping for the Left in varying degrees. I guess when you can't defend the guy you helped get elected President, you have to cut down the people who could oppose him.

The trial everybody should have paid attention to, but didn't. Geert Wilders was acquitted of hate crime charges stemming from statements he made about Islam. Why this is such an important case is because it reaffirms freedom of speech. Oddly enough, I didn't see too many Leftists taking up for Wilders during his case, but I did see more than a few conservatives, including my good friend Warchick, taking up for him. Makes you wonder who really supports free speech in the world, doesn't it?

The trial everyone is paying attention to, but shouldn't. Yeah, I know the Casey Anthony trial has all the makings of a bad Lifetime made-for-TV movie, but should we really be spending time paying attention to it? Or at the very least, could we spend less time on it than we are? I've paid only cursory attention to the case and even that was too much. Let's spend our time on other pursuits that have a bigger impact than Casey Anthony ever will.

You know, like getting the economy going?

The Aftermath of Weinergate

2011-06-19T16:51:00.002-05:00

With Anthony Weiner's resignation, it may be thought Weinergate is finally over after three weeks. I beg to differ. The implications of what happened in that three weeks will have a lasting impact for a while yet. Here are a few examples.

Weinergate underscored a rift between the Left and the Democrats. Strip away the party affiliations for a minute and really take a look at who defended Weiner throughout the scandal without fail. It was the Left. They saw Weiner as a progressive voice within Congress, one that effectively took Republicans to task on any number of issues. When Democrats started turning on Weiner, the Leftists took it personally and started pleading with the Democrats to stand behind Weiner and to take on the Right. When that didn't happen, Leftists went ballistic. There has been a rift between Leftists and Democrats, and Weinergate not only exposed it, but widened it.

The party of women? Think again. Weinergate showed how little respect the Left has for women. When the first stories about Weiner texting a college student came out, the Left was already in "slime the woman" mode until the student came out and issued a statement that was beneficial to Weiner's defense at the time. Then, everything was fine and the "slime the woman" machine was shut down. Then, other women, including a porn star turned stripper, a single mother, and a 17 year old girl, started coming to light. In all of these cases, Leftists had to perform acrobatics to continue defending Weiner while Democrats got tired of playing Twister and tried to cut their losses. Yet, they both have to address how far they were willing to go to defend Weiner by using women. Until they do, women could have second thoughts about supporting Democrats.

A hard look at both parties. Neither major party has a clean record when it comes to sexual escapades. Whether it's David Vitter or Barney Frank, Democrats and Republicans need to clean house if for no other reason than for national security. (There are other reasons, but national security is a pretty big one in my book.) Whenever you inject sex into a political situation, there will be mistakes made. How easy would it be to have a spy seduce and then blackmail a politician? If Weiner's libido is any indication, it's not that hard at all. Therein lies the opportunity any spy would need to steal or blackmail for vital secrets. Granted, we're not going to have politicians going from super freaks to chaste overnight, but it has to be started sometime. From where I sit, that time started three weeks ago.

Cyber-Security? Yeah, right! No matter how much we lock down our computers, no matter how many firewalls and anti-virus programs we have, online information can be obtained, not if, but when. Weiner's inadvertent Tweet becoming public started Weinergate. When you consider something as small as a mistyped command can open up such scrutiny, it's safe to say we're not nearly as secure online as we think we are.

The media aren't doing their jobs. By and large, Weinergate was broken by the "new media." The mainstream media were left playing catch-up as Andrew Breitbart on the right and DailyKos on the left did the bulk of the investigative journalism on Weinergate. Even CNN, the self-professed top name in cable news, had pathetic coverage of the scandal, relying on official statements from Weiner's office instead of trying to unravel the inconsistencies that arose within hours of the story breaking. The journalism profession has taken a serious nosedive, and if their coverage of Weinergate is any indication of its future, it will hit the ground before it decides to try to ascend.

Resign? It's Possible

2011-06-09T08:29:00.002-05:00

One of the most striking statements that came from Anthony Weiner's press conference admitting he lied about not sending pictures to people was his clear denial he was going to resign. That, however, doesn't prevent people from both sides of the aisle from saying he should. Regardless of your political affiliation, it's entirely possible Weiner could reconsider for a number of reasons.

1) It creates an issue for Republicans to use in campaign ads. The timing of the Weiner scandal may not seem to be all that important to the 2012 campaign, but the longer it goes on, the more likely it becomes an issue that can be used, especially if the details are more and more salacious. At a time when Democrats are hoping to take back the House and keep the Senate and White House, a resolution to Weinergate can't come soon enough for them.

2) Weiner committed an unpardonable sin. No, I'm not talking about lying about the photos. The unpardonable sin Weiner committed is he allowed party bigwigs to unknowingly lie on his behalf. That alone cost him some support with Democrat leadership. With a looming House Ethics Committee investigation, it may buy Weiner a little time to change his mind, but it would be difficult to count on much Democrat support for him to keep his job at this point.

3) Weiner made Leftists look foolish. As predictable as ever, the Left came out in force to defend Weiner and attack Andrew Breitbart. There are some who still defend Weiner to this day, even though in the larger perspective, he's used them to provide temporary cover. To their credit, some of those Weiner defenders are coming clean and admitting they were duped and angry at Weiner for making them look foolish. The longer this scandal goes on, you can count on the erosion of Weiner's support from his grassroots, and that can have a negative impact on the party.

4) The media will keep Weinergate going. Weinergate has the perfect storm of media attention: sex, lies, social media, attractive women, a politician, and endless numbers of jokes that can be made. If that's not enough to make Weiner reconsider, nothing will be.

5) The "sympathy card" is being played. Whenever there's a sexual scandal involving a prominent politician, the focus expands to include those indirectly involved with the scandal. Weiner's wife, Huma, has become a public figure in the wake of the scandal, and that in and of itself can create a strain that can ruin her marriage and her life. That, in turn, creates sympathy or Huma and makes Weiner look even worse, especially if the rumors are true that Huma is pregnant. That won't end well for anyone.

Although this list isn't comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination, these five points lead me to believe Weiner may be resigning sometime in the future. It's a matter of whether Weiner sees the signs and when he decides to take (or not take) action.

Watchdogs? Not So Much

2011-06-06T19:46:00.002-05:00

With Anthony Weiner's surprise announcement today confessing to his Twitter transgressions, there is bound to be some fallout. However, there is one group of people who deserve special scorn in all of this.

The so-called mainstream media.

Looking back and watching what newspapers, magazines, websites, and cable news did to cover Weinergate, I can only feel embarrassed for them because they clearly took the lazy way out. Seriously, CNN's in-depth coverage consisted of...talking to Weiner's office and accepting their word as the end of the story. CNN, let me give you some advice. When Jon Stewart mocks your coverage and essentially scoops you, you're doing something wrong.

This is a time when real reporters would have been digging more deeply than talking to a press secretary or repeating a press release. The real reporting on both sides was done by the blogosphere. You hear that, New York Times? Bloggers did your job for you. You may not have cared to spend time researching the story, but DailyKos sure did! And say what you will about Andrew Breitbart, the fact is he got the story right from the start and the rest of the world had to catch up. If you Leftists in the media want to eliminate Breitbart's effectiveness, do a better job than he's doing at uncovering the truth. Weinergate doesn't exonerate Breitbart, but it sure as hell damns the media.

At some point, the media are going to have to adjust their approach to news events. Instead of being PR puppets for whatever side they support, they need to be skeptics, verifying everything. That's not happening today, and I don't see it happening any time soon. Until then, I guess we'll have to get used to the media watchdogs lying on the porch while the blogosphere does the heavy lifting.

A Weiner By Any Other Name

2011-06-01T06:26:00.002-05:00

To call Rep. Anthony Weiner a controversial figure would be an understatement. An outspoken Leftist, Weiner has made a name for himself as a firebrand on the Left, making outrageous (and quasi-true) statements about conservatives.

Now, Weiner's finding himself in a spotlight he didn't anticipate. With the recent scandal involving his alleged sending of a photo to a Washington State coed via Twitter, Weiner's being scrutinized by people of both sides. Yet, as reliable as the sunrise, the Left is rallying around Weiner, suggesting his story holds up and it was all a conservative smear job lead by Andrew Breitbart (since it was one of Breitbart's websites that "Weinergate" broke). The pro-Weiner forces are saying it's reprehensible to post falsehoods about a politician and those responsible should be driven out of business before they do more harm to the unintended victims of this story.

Of course, this would make more sense if the Left hasn't made a cottage industry out of smearing conservatives with falsehoods. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and others are favorite targets for the kind of "reporting" the Left is decrying with Weiner. Go to any Leftist website (Media Matters, DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, Huffington Post, FireDogLake) and you'll see lie after lie being taken as gospel (as well as any number of excuses to discount Weinergate).

When the Left can hold themselves to the standard they've set for Breitbart and the right, they'll have room to complain about how Weiner's being treated in the media.

The Way to Do It

2011-05-26T19:50:00.002-05:00

The recent brouhaha involving MSNBC's Ed Schultz and conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham has set off a series of interesting debates, but the point that's been lost in all of this is Ingraham's initial complaint about President Barack Obama and his seeming lack of regard for what is going on in the Midwest and South right now. I have to say it's a fair point and it fits with the pattern of behavior Obama has shown throughout his Presidency.

However, it was enough to make Schultz go after Ingraham with a vile, personal slam against her and her morality. Regardless of how you feel about Ingraham or Schultz, going that personal with a degrading term as the one Schultz used is beyond the pale. (I'm sure Leftists are saying, "But what about what [insert name of conservative] said about [insert name of Leftist]?" You can pull up all the factoids you want, but the truth remains calling a woman what Schultz did is only slightly less degrading than what Bill Maher, another popular Leftist mouthpiece, called Sarah Palin.

However, Ingraham didn't call for Schultz to be fired or lead a boycott of his sponsors. Ingraham took a different tack: she pretty much ignored it and Schultz. If you listen to Ingraham's acceptance of Schultz's apology, you see she's consistent in her belief there are more important things to worry about than what anyone says about her. And she's right. The people in Missouri don't give two craps about who calls who what name. They have their hands full trying to rebuild and start over.

There are times in our lives that act like a jeweler's cloth, exposing the flaws in our lives for those watching to see. Schultz's behavior in this case was that jeweler's cloth, but Ingraham shone like a diamond in the end.

From Rock Star to Stone Deaf

2011-05-25T20:22:00.002-05:00

In 2008, Barack Obama wowed European crowds with his speeches and youthful energy. Everyone, including the media, got caught up in Obamamania. Some in the press even compared the candidate to a rock star.

Boy, what a difference 2+ years can make.

Obama's recent European trip has people scratching their heads over the President's bizarre lack of protocol. While some conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck take a semi-serious approach to the issue and its impact on American foreign policy, I tend to think of it more in terms of a fall from grace for the President.

When Obama was elected, people believed he would restore America to prominence in the world by taking a different approach to foreign policy than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Gone were the days of "cowboy diplomacy" and in came the era of smart diplomacy.

Then, Obama became President and we got to see his foreign policy shaping out to be...well, less than impressive. In trying to forge a new direction, Obama has successfully alienated two of our staunchest allies, Great Britain and Israel. Additionally, he's all but forgotten Germany, tried to buddy up with France (at Britain's expense, I might add), and taken sides in Egypt and Libya that are fraught with dangerous ties to groups that don't exactly dig our way of life.

One of the biggest problems I've seen with American foreign policy over the past few decades has been we almost seem ashamed to admit we're American. We're expected to sit there and take anything a tinpot dictator from a Third World country flings as us, truthful or otherwise. Then, we're expected to pick up the check whenever that same Third World country needs help from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. And with Obama at the helm, that shame in America among our leaders has skyrocketed.

And that shame has translated into embarrassment for world leaders who have to deal with Obama's protocol breaches. Although some might disagree, I think this is also hurting Obama's image around the world because he doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. All he does is make bigger, more public mistakes, leaving ally and enemy alike to mock Obama.

If Obama was a rock star in 2008, he's becoming a bad Vegas lounge act in 2011.

Then What?

2011-05-20T08:36:00.002-05:00

In a major speech (or at least that's how it was portrayed in the media) yesterday, President Barack Obama advanced the notion Israel should return to its 1967 borders as a means to try to bring peace to the Middle East. Understandably, Israel and its allies are upset at such a notion, especially in light of the fact Obama said he would never allow Jerusalem to be split, which would happen if Israel went back to its 1967 borders.

Let's play a little game of "what if." What if Israel decides to go back to the 1967 borders? Then what? Here's what I think would happen.

1) The violence in the Middle East wouldn't stop. The hatred that's there now would still be there if Israel would go back to the 1967 borders.

2) Israel would become more concentrated. Although it would mean it would be easier for Israelis to dig in to defend themselves with less land mass to defend, it would also make it easier for Israel's enemies to do more damage with terrorist or even military strikes

3) Jerusalem would become like Berlin after World War II. One of the most tragic events after the fall of Nazi Germany was seeing Germany and Berlin in particular split, separated by a wall and an ideology. If Israel goes back to its 1967 borders, Jerusalem will be the second coming of a divided Berlin.

4) Palestinians will be further emboldened. Having Israel pushed further back would give Palestinians more of a reason to keep pushing to get more concessions. And with world opinion seemingly on their side, there will be more pressure on Israel to comply.

5) The Middle East problem will still be there.

What Obama and the people who think his idea is valid miss is the Middle East situation isn't about land. It was and is about the justification of hatred against one particular group. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the Middle East and who is the cause of the strife there. What isn't getting the attention it should is how Israel has accommodated Palestinians who want to live in peace, even being willing to scale back its previous land acquisitions to allow Palestinians a place to live. Yet, no matter how many olive branches Israel holds out, the Palestinians swat them away and hold onto their hate.

No, Mr. President, making Israel go back to its 1967 borders won't bring about Middle East peace. If anything, it will create more problems that will need to be dealt with for years to come.

The Devil We Don't Know

2011-05-07T04:26:00.002-05:00

With the death of Osama Bin Laden and recent news of intelligence on al Qaeda from Bin Laden's computer records, it appears we've struck a major blow to international terrorism. Yet, when taken as part of the totality in the Middle East, we may be looking at a vastly different and much more dangerous landscape soon.

If what I've heard recently is true, al Qaeda may have split in half on religious grounds with a more radical faction ignoring Bin Laden's leadership. If so, this is consistent with what we've seen in Egypt and Libya, where more radical factions have pushed for the removal of less strident or weaker leaders. Even more radical Islamic regimes, such as Iran, could be moving in that direction.

Whether international terrorist groups are leading the charge or going with the flow is immaterial. The real issue is the further radicalization of the Middle East and its impact on the war on terrorism. Dealing a death blow to al Qaeda (or a portion of it) is good, but if we leave it at that, we're setting ourselves up for failure yet again, a failure that could dwarf 9/11.

So, what are we doing about it? From what I'm seeing, not much. President Barack Obama can do as many victory laps as he wants, but he's already come out supporting the forces in Egypt and Libya, both of whom have clear ties to radical Islam. Even former President George W. Bush took his eyes off the ball in the war on terrorism by not following through once Iraq and Afghanistan were more stabilized after our military interventions. Sure, waterboarding and Gitmo worked to nab Bin Laden, but we've wavered on those as well.

Also, doesn't it bother anyone else how quickly the Obama Administration sided with the more radical elements in Libya and Egypt? It's not like those elements have hidden their agenda or their hatred of America, either. Yet, we're content to let them do the dirty work in getting rid of leaders we no longer "need" in power. If they succeed, something will have to fill the vacuum, and I don't think it's going to be filled by Muslims who want to peacefully co-exist with the West.

Although we can breathe a sigh of relief at Osama Bin Laden's death, the war on terrorism isn't over by that one act. There is a bigger storm on the horizon, and if recent history and current events are any indication, we're not ready for it.

Quick Hits - Post-OBL Edition

2011-05-02T19:14:00.002-05:00

Because I'm a Man of My Word: I congratulate President Obama for his efforts in the operation that brought Osama Bin Laden to final justice. There were a lot of factors involved in putting together the operation and I'm glad Obama, his team, and the military personnel involved were able to come together and accomplish a major goal in the war on terrorism. Good on you, sir.

Because I'm a Man of My Word II: The speech Obama gave to the nation, to the world really, about the death of Osama Bin Laden was more than a little disappointing. Instead of focusing on those who risked their lives or those who laid the groundwork for the assault, Obama chose to talk about...himself. In a situation like that, leaders tend to focus not on taking personal credit, but spreading it around. What could have been a great speech was cheapened by his back-patting.

An Inconvenient Truth: As much as I appreciate the sheer joy of Osama Bin Laden meeting his maker, I can't help but think about those who cheered our tragedy on 9/11 and wonder how much different we are from them. And the more I think about it, the fewer differences I see.

So, Who Gets Credit?: Is it George W. Bush? Is it Barack Obama? Is it Bill Clinton? At this point, there is enough credit (and blame) to go around. Leave it at that.

The Political Fall-Out: To many, killing Osama Bin Laden has all but ensured President Obama a second term. I'm not so sure. Time will tell.

The Biggest Mistake We Can Make Right Now: I get the feeling with the death of Osama Bin Laden, people will think we can deescalate the war on terrorism. That would be a huge mistake because the war on terrorism has never been and should never be about getting Bin Laden. Now that he's out of the picture, there are others who will step up and fill the void he left. If the situations in Egypt and Libya are any indication, we may be getting cozy with people as extreme as Bin Laden was, which means another 9/11 becomes that much more certain.

Burial at Sea?: This part has me puzzled. People involved with the burial of Osama Bin Laden said they gave him a proper burial at sea in accordance with the Muslim faith. Yet, Muslim clerics have said the burial wasn't in accordance with the Muslim faith and was actually an affront to it. You know, if I were in charge of that operation, I would make sure to take extra care not to offend the Muslims any more than I did by taking down Osama Bin Laden. That's kind of something you want to be sure to get right if at all possible. Just sayin'.

"Birther" of a Notion

2011-04-30T06:33:00.002-05:00

Earlier this week, the news was focused around the White House finally releasing President Obama's birth certificate, ending years of speculation about his birthplace and citizenship. The media were among the loudest voices heard saying, "See? We told you he was born here and the 'birthers' were crazy!" Others were not as convinced, however. Even Donald Trump, the "birther du joir" as it were, said he wanted to check it out further.

Throughout this controversy, I've tried to keep an open mind. I've listened to both sides, weighed the evidence presented, and kept checking my premises when new data came in. So far, the "birthers" have presented the more convincing argument because they've at least brought forward information to be considered. The bulk of the "anti-birther" argument is thus: If you don't believe President Obama is a natural-born citizen, then you're a stupid, racist, conspiracy theory loving moron.

Wow. The Left's argument is hard to refute...without laughing.

Personally, I think there are enough questions to warrant a deeper investigation into Obama's citizenship, but it's not the only issue on which to question the President. Granted, I don't think there are that many people focused solely on the "birther" controversy, and not even the Republican candidates or presumed candidates are taking it up as a serious issue. (I am excluding Donald Trump from that list because a) he hasn't officially announced he's running as a Republican, and b) I don't think he's going to run. Those are points for a later blog.) Yet, the Left seems to think the "birther" issue is the only issue the GOP has, so if they eliminate it or diminish it, it kills the Republicans' chances in 2012.

Wishful thinking on their part, I'm afraid. Even their attempts to dispel the "birther" movement have backfired on them because they have been so lackluster. Even the attempt this week was half-hearted, but it was enough to make the media try to hammer and bully the "birthers" into submission. Just check out the video of Lawrence O'Donnell's "interview" with Orly Taitz and O'Donnell's demand for an "apology."

Regardless of where you stand on President Obama's citizenship, an honest assessment of the situation shows one side is attempting to present facts to support its point of view, while the other side resorts to name-calling and bullying tactics. Makes you wonder who the real kooks are, doesn't it?

Notes on Libya

2011-03-26T07:29:00.002-05:00

To put it mildly, the Libyan situation is complex and more than a little perplexing to your humble blogger. Honestly, I'm not sure where I stand on our intervention in the region, but I do have some thoughts on some of the "smaller" issues surrounding it.

The Big Question: There's a question I haven't seen anyone but me ask since the start of hostilities in Libya: Do the Libyans want us involved? This is a vital question because a wrong answer can feed into the very perception of America we have been trying to overcome in the Middle East. The last time we got involved in a purely internal struggle was in Kosovo, and neither the Serbians nor the Albanians wanted our help. Yet, we "helped" the Albanians (and, surprise surprise, al Qaeda) to do...exactly what the Serbians were doing to them. Until we know for certain whether either side of the Libyan conflict really wants America's help, we could be making the same mistake we did in Kosovo.

Impeachment for Obama?: Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently raised some eyebrows when he said Obama should be impeached for launching missile attacks into Libya. He has since walked back his comments, saying impeachment would be a "non-starter." Personally, I don't think President Obama should be impeached for the missile attacks, as they were done under the auspices of the War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act gives the President the ability to send troops into combat provided he gives Congress at least 48 hours notice. Since there were no troops actually engaged in the missile strikes, the President was acting in accordance with his duties as Commander In Chief, in my opinion. Thus, impeachment under Kucinich's notion would definitely be a non-starter.

However...: After Obama said there would be no ground troops involved in the Libyan conflict, it turns out there will be Marines going to Libya as ground troops. If Obama failed to give Congress notice, then a case for impeachment could be made under the War Powers Act. However, we would most likely see a similar situation to when Bill Clinton was impeached and nothing would be done. I hope no Republicans undertake an impeachment effort in this case because it wouldn't help.

A Follower, Not a Leader: I've long said Obama was more of a follower instead of a leader. The Libyan situation bears that out perfectly. Whether it was waiting for the United Nations to sign off on military action, allowing other NATO countries to spearhead the attacks while we provide the bulk of the military hardware, or his unwillingness to speak to the American people about our involvement in Libya, we are seeing a man whose actions speak louder than his words. And those actions (or lack thereof) do not speak well of his leadership.

The President's Speech: Many people on both sides of the aisle are urging President Obama to address the nation as to why we're involved in Libya. Democrat strategists, on the other hand, are saying the President doesn't need to make a speech because then the Libyan conflict would be his instead of the UN's. Granted, from a political standpoint, such a speech would be a clear indication of Obama's "ownership" of the conflict, but there is a greater dynamic at work here. Most Americans, myself included, really don't have a sense as to why we're there in the first place. If only to address those questions, the President owes it to the American people to give his rationale. And it sounds like he will on Monday.

What's In a Name?: Does anyone outside of the Administration and the press know what the name of the Libyan operation is? I had to do some digging because the name really isn't all that memorable or fear-inducing. It's Operation Odyssey Dawn. And we're not at war; we're in a "kinetic military action." Is it just me, or do neither one of these make any sense whatsoever?

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts on the Libyan war...I mean the Libyan kinetic military action...soon.

Political Suicide

2011-03-19T19:01:00.002-05:00

The Left has accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of many things, most of them untrue. Yet, no one but the Left could have cooked up this one.

It starts with the apparent suicide of Jeri-Lynn Betts, an early childhood teacher from the Watertown school district. She had a history of depression and was greatly distressed by the current budget situation, especially concerning what it would do to the teaching jobs in Wisconsin. After her death, people suggested...you guessed it, Scott Walker was to blame.

Seriously? That's your next big attack on Walker?

Depression and suicide are serious matters, folks. For anyone to even suggest Walker had anything to do with Betts' suicide is stretching the credibility of the anti-Walker crowd. Whatever good points you guys have made are going to be undercut by the people who think Walker had anything to do with the suicide. Unless you denounce these folks, like the TEA Party denounces racism in their ranks, you're going to be tainted by their statements.

And to anyone who really thinks Walker's actions had anything to do with Betts' suicide, you need to really think carefully about this. Put aside your partisanship and give an honest assessment of the situation. If you think about it and still believe Walker is responsible, so be it, but understand that kind of thinking is no different than Republicans and conservatives who blame everything bad in their lives on Barack Obama. Some things transcend politics. This is one of them. To try to make any kind of political hay out of it is beyond contemptible.

A Leftist Double Standard? Naaaaaaaaaaah!

2011-03-15T19:45:00.002-05:00

The latest sting video by James O'Keefe exposing NPR has the media world buzzing, and not necessarily in a good way. As one might expect, Leftists are complaining about O'Keefe's video, alleging there were edits made to take certain comments out of context and make them sound worse than they actually were. These are all legitimate beefs as far as I'm concerned, especially if they're based on fact and not bluster.

But, I do have to take issue with the Left on this because they're holding someone who does what they accuse O'Keefe of doing to a different standard, solely because of his political ideology. This individual has manufactured scenes, done clever edits to make things appear to have happened in a certain order that didn't, and generally attempted to push a particular point of view, regardless of the truth.

That individual is Michael Moore.

In "Roger and Me," Moore gives the impression that he was at a GM stockholders meeting with Roger Smith and his microphone was cut off at Smith's insistence. Transcripts of the meeting show Moore wasn't in attendance, thus his microphone wasn't cut off when he asked a question. It was all fabricated for the movie.

In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore does slick editing to film a meeting with Charlton Heston about guns and gun control to take different scenes out of order and put them in a way that made Heston look less than stellar. He was also guilty of fabricating a scene in the movie where he appears to get a rifle at a bank the same day he requests one, except he had to make special arrangements for that to happen.

In "Fahrenheit 911," Moore plays fast and loose with the timeline of 9/11 and with statements and actions President George W. Bush made.

In "Sicko," Moore tells story after story about people allegedly denied health care because of insurance companies, only to find a number of those people weren't insured at the time of their care.

In "Capitalism: A Love Story," he blames Ronald Reagan for the state of the economy today, all the while ignoring or downplaying the efforts of Democrats in the 1990s that lead to the current economic problems.

And this guy is speaking "truth to power" while O'Keefe is just a "conservative liar"?

I have misgivings about O'Keefe's style and alleged misdeeds, and if he's proven to be a conservative version of Michael Moore, I'll gladly criticize him in the same vein I criticize Moore.

Will you Leftists do the same to Moore?

That Depends on What Your Definition of "Broke" Is

2011-03-12T07:14:00.002-06:00

There's a new Leftist narrative starting to make its way into the public consciousness. It seems the Left doesn't believe we're running out of money, but rather that the money isn't getting spent on the right things. Van Jones has said it. Michael Moore has said it. And now New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has said it.

The problem is we actually are broke as a country. Just because companies make profits, people are rich, and we can still borrow money, it doesn't mean the economy is rosy. If anything, those situations and the simplistic notions Leftists draw from them mask the real problem. We are still spending more than we take in and hoping we can shift money around so we can cover all the bills in the short term, just like some people do today. It may keep the creditors off our backs for a little while, but eventually something happens that causes the house of cards to fall in on itself.

Right now, there are a lot of things that could cause our national economy to fall apart. Unrest in the Middle East, oil and gas prices on the rise, the number of people on the public dole, unemployment, unnecessary federal spending, all of these and other factors stack up to a monumental fiscal mess.

And what does Krugman suggest? Spend more now that will equate to savings later.

Yeah, that might work, provided we ever get to later. Right now, I'm not sure we can safely make that assumption because we're not willing to make the tough choices now that will shore up the economy down the road. Oh, we agree to it in theory, but in practice...not so much. Just look at the attempts to shave billions off the federal budget proposed by Democrats and Republicans. Both proposals are half-hearted and seek to save sacred cows for their side. Now isn't the time to ignore waste because we like the outcome. If we're going to get serious about having an economic future, we need to turn sacred cows into holy hamburger.

Including the sacred cows of Leftists like Jones, Moore, and Krugman.

A New Hope?

2011-03-10T19:18:00.002-06:00

Since the beginning of the media coverage of the Wisconsin budget battle between Governor Scott Walker and the unions, there's been a whispering campaign that is now becoming a full blown shout-fest. The Left wants the unions to become the Leftist equivalent of the TEA Party. Judging from the commentary on Politico, the Left is warning of Walker "waking a sleeping giant" and his electoral doom is all but certain once that giant awakes and gets moving.

I have three words for any Leftist who believes that: The Coffee Party.

Remember when The Coffee Party was supposed to be the Leftist counterpart to the TEA Party? Yeah. That lasted for about a month before the Left realized it just wasn't taking off like they'd hoped. Seriously, aside from this blog post, when was the last time you hear anyone mention the Coffee Party?

Although the Wisconsin union protests are encouraging, I honestly don't think the union movement is strong enough to be a Leftist TEA Party mainly because the union movement isn't that strong right now. With dropping membership and a badly damaged image over the past couple of decades, the time when unions were to be a feared political machine are pretty much over on a national level. Sure, you'll still have enclaves on a statewide level, but nationally unions are becoming dinosaurs.

And that's who you want to be the next TEA Party?

There is another reason why the labor movement will not be successful as a TEA Party substitute, that being a fundamental difference between the two movements. Say what you will about the TEA Party, they are motivated by a love of country and a desire to put the country back on the right financial course. From what we've seen and heard from the union movement recently, they seem more motivated by a love of money regardless of the fiscal consequences. Of course, they don't come out and say that because it would undercut their credibility as "hard working average Americans."

Just like Air America failed to live up to its billing as a Leftist alternative to talk radio, just like the Huffington Post failed to be an alternative to the Drudge Report, Leftists will fail if they try to make the union movement into a Leftist version of the TEA Party for the same reason the other two ventures I mentioned failed.

The Left doesn't understand Americans as well as they think they do.

It's Official

2011-03-06T06:40:00.002-06:00

Labor unions have jumped the shark. And they have Michael Moore to thank for it.

Moore's appearance in Wisconsin yesterday may have given the union folks a spiritual lift, but if they knew Moore's history with union labor, they might have told him to stay away. Seems Moore wasn't too keen on using union labor during the filming of his documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Of course, some might say this was a one-time thing and that Moore's history of being pro-labor makes up for it. Not so much. Seems Moore has a history of saying he supports labor unions, but he never quite acts on it. Furthermore, Moore talks about his personal wealth while doing his best to come off as a common man. Personally, I have no problem with Moore making money doing what he does, but when he's playing both sides of the fence as he does, it should raise some eyebrows, especially among the union protesters.

The fact that it didn't speaks volumes.

An Open Letter to Michael Moore

2011-03-05T17:27:00.002-06:00

Dear Michael,

It's rare that I agree with you on anything you say. However, sometimes you do say something that makes me nod my head in agreement. During a recent interview, you said the following:

They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.

At first, I scoffed at the notion. After all, as a conservative and a capitalist, why would I support the collective ownership of wealth? Then, I was enlightened. You're absolutely right, Michael. The rich should share their wealth with everyone.

And I can think of no better person to lead by example than, well, you.

According to CelebrityWealth.com, your net worth is estimated to be $50 million. Granted, that's not Bill Gates money, but it's not too shabby a nest egg. As one of the "common people" you so love to claim to represent, I believe I'm entitled to at least some of that nest egg.

For example, I have accumulated medical bills over the past few months. As the champion of the "little guy" in your film "Sicko" as you took on the health care system in America, I would think you'd whip out your checkbook and pay them all.

Also, I have credit card debt. As the champion of the "little guy" in your film "Capitalism: A Love Story" as you took on big banks, I think you'd be more than willing to hand over your Visa and pay off my debt.

More importantly, though, think of the example you'd be setting for wealthy people of your political persuasion. Why, I'm sure Barbra Streisand would be more than willing to hand over her...I mean our money to people like me. She's only going to keep it for herself, right? Ditto with Oprah, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and other celebrities who swing to the left. All they need is someone to lead them.

I believe that someone is you, Michael.

I propose we meet and hammer out the specifics of this arrangement. Let's say, a nice steakhouse in New York City. You'll pay for me to fly out there, put me up in a really nice hotel, take me shopping for some fine clothes to wear to the meeting, and be kind enough to pick up the entire tab without so much as a second thought.

After all, it's our money, right?

Sincerely,

Thomas Lindaman

Scenes from a Rally

2011-03-02T02:45:00.003-06:00

This past Saturday, MoveOn.org organized a series of pro-union rallies in every state capitol in the country designed to show support for the public sector union workers in Wisconsin. As a working man who happens to live in a state capitol, I decided to do what any red-blooded American would do.

I crashed the rally.

Before I go any further, I should clarify I am not anti-union nor am I anti-teacher, anti-worker, or whatever other label the Left wants to slap on people like me. I am, however, pro-taxpayer, and when it comes to public sector unions, we're dealing with union employees whose benefits are paid by taxpayers. In a situation like that, taxpayers are often not represented well, if at all, when public sector unions make demands, which gives the public sector unions a decided advantage at the negotiating table.

That dynamic changed in Wisconsin with the election of Scott Walker and Republicans in their legislature. Instead of having an easy path to getting what they want, public sector unions finally had to put up a bit of a struggle, especially after Walker made it clear he was going to ask unions to make concessions as a means to try to get state spending under control. One of those concessions was to have the public sector unions give up collective bargaining except when it came to salaries. Unions, and MoveOn.org, objected.

That brings us to the union rallies across the country. For the most part, it was a pretty civil affair. There were occasional snide comments about "corporate fat cats" and "politicians in the back pocket of Big Business" (oh, and the occasional shouting match and vague threats of violence against me for carrying a sign reading "Real workers don't have 'sick-ins.'"), but most left me alone.

From my vantage point, I saw and heard a lot of things that gave me pause. First, the union protesters kept trying to seamlessly fuse the public sector unions and the private sector unions, even though there are distinct differences between the two. I understand they wanted to show solidarity with their union brethren in Wisconsin, but it's like swapping a German Shepherd with a French poodle to guard your property. Sure, they're both dogs, but the differences between the two are stark. Plus, the poodle would surrender at the slightest sign of trouble.

Second, the union speakers were complaining about matters that unions been complaining about for decades. Yet, things aren't getting any better. To me, that's a sign of the failure of unions across the country, public and private. With union membership declining, having the same message with the same failure rate isn't a good sign. In a way, unions are becoming dinosaurs, and they may be heading for the same fate as the dinosaurs unless they change their approach.

Judging from the people at the rally on Saturday, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Third, there are still people within unions who try to act as "enforcers," but they don't know how to handle people who aren't afraid of them or who understand their tactics and have ways to overcome them. I did have a couple of minor run-ins with union folks who didn't like my sign or my position on the Wisconsin situation, so they tried to get me to leave through intimidation, by threat of physical harm or legal repercussions. When I presented a firm challenge to their authority, the "enforcers" became toothless and the fight went out of them.

All in all, it was an interesting afternoon among the union folks. We may not have agreed, but the exercise of free speech was refreshing in an era where people take the exchange of ideas for granted.

Cutting the Budget 101

2011-02-21T19:06:00.002-06:00

With the budget battles in Wisconsin garnering a lot of attention, it's easy to overlook the budget battle going on in Washington, DC, right now. And much like in Wisconsin, the battles are contentious. Democrats and Republicans are fighting over what to cut and how much. Although Republicans have introduced a decent plan to cut over a trillion dollars, but after reading some of the proposed cuts (and noticing some of the things that aren't being cut), I'm have to say Republicans aren't serious about it.

Allow me to step in and offer some suggestions for areas to cut.

Department of Education - Since the inception of the Department of Education, America's educational standards have slipped significantly. Whether it's students who can barely read coming out of high school or watching our math and science scores slide further and further down the list of countries, it's clear the Department of Education is failing. Oh, and when you consider Department of Education funds were used to buy the National Education Association a new office building in DC...it's time to make some serious cuts in their budget.

Superfund - The EPA set up this fund as a means to help clean-up efforts at pollution sites. A good idea in theory, but in practice? Not so much. Superfund has constantly been funded, but the number of pollution sites being cleaned is pitiful at best. The list of pollution sites has been growing, but the number of sites actually being cleaned is practically non-existent. Put the clean-up efforts in the hands of private industry and defund Superfund.

Department of Defense - Cost overruns aren't unusual for defense spending, but the amounts are obscene. If you're a Republican House member reading this, you honestly don't see a single cent that could be cut in the defense budget? I do, and we need to get a serious grip on our defense spending so we can stop spending $350 on a hammer. That's mini bar prices, kids. Go to Ace Hardware and pick up a hammer for a fraction of that. Then, let's cut a lot more.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - Does anyone really think the government needs any hand in the mortgage industry? After all, the government only caused the current mortgage crisis. Strip them of funding yesterday.

National Endowment for the Arts - I appreciate a good dramatic play, opera, or art exhibit as much as anyone. But given how Leftists are the ones who claim to appreciate them far more than a guy like me, maybe they should dip a little deeper into their pockets to support the arts. And why not cut out the middle man (i.e. government) and have them donate directly?

The FCC - What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" is confusing to the FCC? The very fact it exists defies the Constitution, and the fact it keeps getting funded is absurd.

See? I've already shaved off billions with only a few suggestions. Come back when you have a serious budget cutting plan, Republicans.

The State of the Unions

2011-02-19T06:47:00.002-06:00

With the budget battles in Wisconsin, America is taking a harder look at labor unions and collective bargaining. At the heart of the budget battle is the Governor's desire to have public servants, except for police and firefighters, to voluntarily give up collective bargaining as a means to try to address the budget shortfalls Wisconsin is facing. This has labor unions, especially teachers unions, up in arms.

In their defense of the Wisconsin teachers protesting the Governor's proposal, the Left paints a vivid picture of just how important labor unions have been. Have a 40 hour work week? Thank labor unions. Glad to know your children aren't slaving away at a job due to no child labor laws? Thank labor unions. Getting good wages for honest work? Thank labor unions. And I'd be hard-pressed to tell you labor unions haven't been essential to the evolution of the working environment. I wholeheartedly agree with the Left on that point.

But, as Janet Jackson once put it, what have you done for me lately?

The main problem with labor unions today is they're stuck in the past. It's like the high school student who is the star of the football team, but doesn't really do much beyond that. Then, when that football star graduates, there's really nothing waiting for him because he hadn't planned for tomorrow. Labor unions have a rich history, but it's still history. The workplace environment has evolved due in large part to the demands of the workers, union or not. If anything, the workplace has done more in recent years than labor unions could have ever dreamed to accommodate the needs of the employees . Sure, there are still areas where labor and management could be better, but when you compare today's working environment to the working environment of the early 20th Century, you have to admit great strides have been made.

However, not-so-great strides have been made in union circles. Over the past decade or two, union membership has been declining for various reasons. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons is workers don't think they need to be part of a union to defend their rights as workers. Most of the time, they're right. Instead of changing with the times, unions have clung to their pasts trying to make them seem relevant to people who are self-empowered. That's a losing proposition.

I think labor unions may have a vital role in the future of the working person, but not in their current state. Living in the past as a justification for existing in the present is no way to do it. Unions need to change with the times and really work for the people they claim to represent, not just be there to argue over pennies towards a dental plan. Until that happens, labor unions will continue their slow spiral towards irrelevance, becoming extinct not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Or a picket line. You know, whichever they feel more comfortable doing.

We're Rebuking Who?

2011-02-17T19:42:00.002-06:00

When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, he promised change. And today, his Administration delivered a big change to our relationship with Israel. In a stunning move reversing years of policy, the Administration announced it would lend support to a UN Security Council statement rebuking Israel for its stance on the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Rumor has it this move was done so the US wouldn't have to veto a UN Security Council resolution by the Palestinians condemning Israel.

Wow. What bold leadership there, huh?

We can debate endlessly over which side is right when it comes to the Gaza Strip, but let's look at some facts.

Here are some facts about Israel, the country we're rebuking:

- Under Israeli law, Muslims have as much freedom as Jewish citizens do, including the right to vote or own a business.

- Although Israel has earned quite a bit of land through military actions, it has given most of the land back through peace treaties.

- Israel has produced numerous Nobel winners in the areas of science and medicine.

- Although the land in Israel is arid, the Israelis have managed to find ways to make the land prosperous.

- Israel is a strong military ally whose form of government is similar to our own in many ways.

- The United States played a sizable role in Israel's reformation in the 1940s.

And we're rebuking these folks?

What Happens Tomorrow? - Redux

2011-02-12T18:07:00.002-06:00

Boy, what a difference a few hours make. After my previous blog post, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down. And in the spirit of the times, I hereby take full credit for it happening.

Seriously, though, we're moving into new territory, yet it's familiar from the standpoint of who is stepping out to accept praise for the immediate turn of events. The media have all but said President Obama and his Administration were the catalyst behind Mubarak stepping down and ushering in a new era of freedom. Some have gone so far as to call the Egypt situation Obama's "Berlin Wall moment," referring to the efforts of Ronald Reagan to bring down the Berlin Wall and signaling a new era of freedom in the former Soviet Union and former Soviet Bloc.

I, on the other hand, am not so quick to jump on that bandwagon. I grant you the Egypt situation was difficult to stay ahead of, but that doesn't excuse what the Administration and Obama himself did during it to erode confidence in our foreign policy. It may seem to be insignificant that we had so many government officials from Obama on down giving contradictory statements, but the world was watching us as intently as it watched Egypt to see how we would handle the situation. When push came to shove, we basically stood out of the way, issued statements, and left it at that.

Yeah. Way to show leadership, guys and gals.

The truly funny thing about the Left praising Obama's efforts with Mubarak is that no one can really point to anything he did that had any direct impact on the events of the past week. They point to a speech Obama gave in 2009 that they claim inspired the people to rise up against Mubarak, but having read the speech and watched a portion of it as it happened, I didn't find anything that had any direct correlation. It was a typical Obama speech: full of high-toned rhetoric, but short on actionable items. Plus, the fact it was given almost 2 years ago makes me less inclined to believe it had any lasting impact on the people of Egypt.

In a way, giving Obama credit for Mubarak's departure is a slap in the face to the Egyptians we're supposed to be lionizing right now. They are the ones who risked their lives. They are the ones who took action when we didn't. They were the ones who saw an opportunity to change the world and took it. Anybody who chooses to praise Obama for the Egyptian situation is disregarding the actions of those who took the risks.

Now, it's up to Egypt to take the next tentative steps towards a new world. Let's not get caught up in the emotions of the moment that we overlook the real struggles ahead. Given America's tendency to get all worked up about an issue like this only to forget about it when something insignificant but more "sexy" comes along, I get the feeling Egyptians may have to go this one alone. And don't think they'll be nice enough to overlook our lack of long-term support, either. If we ignore Egypt once the thrill of Mubarak's leaving is gone, it will take more than an Obama speech to get them to trust us.

What Happens Tomorrow?

2011-02-11T04:31:00.002-06:00

Yesterday, the media were abuzz with the rumor Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was going to step aside amid controversy and protests. The media were ecstatic! The Left was ecstatic! And for the same reason: they wished for and got a change in leadership without violence (at least without violence as instigated by the US government like Iraq was).

Oh, so close and yet so far. With Mubarak's announcement he wasn't stepping down and, instead, transferring some of his powers to his Vice President, the Left and the media are faced with a reality they hadn't anticipated. More importantly, though, their reaction to the possibility of Mubarak stepping down shows a dangerous short-sightedness that may not end well for us.

We've been in bed with Mubarak for decades, and doing so has meant we've overlooked a lot of things we wouldn't overlook otherwise. Contrary to what our Vice President Joe Biden has said, he is a dictator, so our natural inclination is to support his removal. The problem is we haven't thought about the implications of the alternatives. In that corner of the world, there are always extremist Muslims looking to take advantage of any amount of chaos to assert itself, and in this case, it's the Muslim Brotherhood waiting in the wings. Of course, there's always a chance groups like the Muslim Brotherhood won't get much traction, but the odds are against it.

The people cheering yesterday at the possibility of Mubarak stepping down miss the all-important question we should all be asking: what happens tomorrow? If Mubarak stepped aside (or steps aside later), there will be a vacuum that can and probably will be filled with someone as bad as Mubarak has been. In short, the change some of us are hoping for may not be change at all.

That's why we need to be very careful with what we're saying and doing in Egypt. After 50+ years of stupidly contradictory foreign policy in the Middle East, we find ourselves in a no-win situation. If we support Mubarak, we silently condone his practices to date. If we oust Mubarak, we create a situation that allows extremists a chance to cause more chaos by flexing their muscle and asserting themselves. We lose in either case.

But at least we feel good about it because we supported change and getting rid of a bad guy, right?

Reasons Why Obama May Not Want a Legal Fight Over Obamacare

2011-02-02T20:21:00.003-06:00

With the announcement earlier this week of a federal court judge ruling the health care reform bill passed by Congress last year as unconstitutional, the Administration has already issued a statement they will appeal the judge's decision. At first blush, this seems like a good idea. After all, it's been one of the few legislative victories Obama has had since becoming President.

Personally, I think it would be a mistake on a few different levels.

1) It's bad law. This may come off as partisan sniping to some, but it's not. The health care reform bill as passed reached too far with too little legal standing and too many loopholes and exceptions. The federal judge's ruling and justification for it exposed the flaws in the existing law, which will make it tough for the Supreme Court to put up a legal defense of the health care bill, if they even decide to hear the case at all.

2) Obama has been exposed as weak on the issue. The longer this issue goes on, the weaker Obama appears on the issue. From the day he announced his intention to pass health care reform to the date of its passage and now with the legal challenges, Obama has not come across as a strong advocate for the measure. Instead, he came up with the idea and punted it to Congress to iron out the details. Because of his lack of leadership, his crowning jewel is possibly on the verge of being ripped away from him. The other factor along these lines is footage from the 2008 Democrat debate where Obama came out strongly against some of the provisions he signed into law. For health care reform advocates, that has to be hard to justify.

3) A loss in court undercuts Obama's legacy. Health care reform was one of the few bright spots so far in the Obama Administration, if not the brightest. There were bound to be legal challenges to it because, well, the Republicans said there would be. Having said that, the Obama team should have been better prepared for the challenge because of the political implications of a loss at the Supreme Court level. If the USSC refuses to hear the case or takes on the case and rules against the Administration, it strips away Obama's major policy initiative, which leaves nothing much left to hang his hat on for reelection.

4) This one can't be blamed on the Republicans. For as much as Democrats love to paint the GOP as the "party of NO," they held majorities in both houses of Congress and utilized that power to pass the health care reform bill as written. Republicans had little to no influence on the bill itself. That means any failure, legal or otherwise, is on their heads. Forcing a court battle will only bring that fact further to light. Good intentions with bad form don't mean anything in the end, and simply screaming about the "party of NO" won't change reality. This is on Democrats' heads.

And finally...

5) Dissing Supreme Court Justices isn't exactly the best way to get them to rule in your favor.

My State of the Union Address

2011-01-25T18:54:00.002-06:00

President Obama has a State of the Union Address tonight. Although it's Constitutionally mandated that the President deliver a status report on the country, the past few years it's become less and less of a report and more and more of a PR statement from the chief executive. Seriously, what President in his right mind is going to come out on national television and say, "The country's in the crapper and I can't fix it"? Yet, at some point, we do need to be honest about where we are as a country. Since neither major party will do it, I'll do it.

My fellow Americans, we face difficult times economically. This is a direct result of a failure of leadership, Democrat and Republican. We have mortgaged our future as an economic superpower and the time for payment is coming due.

Much of our problem stems from one of our so-called allies, China. Right now, China owns a lot of our debt and holds something else that has a bearing on our financial future: a desire to see us fail. Of course, there are plenty of people who scoff at this notion, suggesting that China would hurt itself if it allowed us to fail. That is true for now, but there will come a point at which China will no longer need us because they will be able to subsist without us. When that point comes, nothing on Earth will stop China from calling in our debt and ruining us.

For the better part of two decades, we have taken the wrong approach with China. From George H. W. Bush to Barack Obama, China has been allowed to gain more and more economic power on the world stage because we have turned a blind eye to their atrocious human rights record. For years, we held their human rights record above their heads as a carrot to try to bring them forward. Since we've abandoned that approach, China has had no incentive to improve. Now, they rival the US in sheer economic strength, and they are not afraid to flex it.

There is a solution, though, one that will help our economy on so many levels and bring back pride in America. We need to start manufacturing again. For decades, we were the country that made stuff, but that changed. Once we moved into a service-based economy, we pretty much stopped making stuff and started making noise about stuff. But that didn't last long, either. Today, we're not even really a service-based economy because we've given up on even basic service. Let someone in India take that customer service job because we don't want it!

That has to change, and it must start today. We cannot sustain our current consumer-based economy and expect to remain an economically viable country. We need to get back to basics and rebuild our manufacturing base. When John F. Kennedy introduced the Space Race to America, we responded with great enthusiasm and put our minds to work. We have the same spirit, but it's been dormant for too long. I say it's time we unleash the power of American intellectual might.

We start by giving businesses a reason to locate in America. That will require massive tax breaks for said companies willing to take a chance on America again. With even the start up of a single manufacturing plant, there will be jobs to be had. To ensure the economic strength is restored, those jobs will need to be good paying jobs, jobs where hard work is rewarded instead of scorned. Furthermore, there will be strict enforcement of immigration laws. Any company who benefits from my proposal in any way must hire legal workers or all benefits will be stripped from them and any benefits they received will be repaid in full, plus applicable legal fees.

To meet the demands of the future requires a greater emphasis on education, particularly in the areas of math and science. We must commit to holding our students and teachers to higher standards, but we must also commit to ensuring schools have the resources they need and the incentive to excel. Therefore, we will do an assessment of the public school system from top to bottom and fix our weaknesses. That will require a level of honesty we haven't seen in years, but the end result will be worth it.

Our choice is clear: continue down the path we are on and face economic extinction, or change our path, blaze a new trail, and reform our economy. I say we roll up our sleeves and change the game. That way China can eat our dust for a change.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

Fanning Out the Cards

2011-01-17T06:58:00.002-06:00

During a recent trip to Salt Lake City, I got to thinking about the recent Arizona shooting and how the Left has used it to justify some of their pet ideas being brought back to the forefront. Here is a list of the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

- gun control
- revamping health care, especially mental health care
- reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine
- "hate speech" on talk radio
- painting the TEA Party as violent extremists

If I were more conspiratorial, I'd say this was more than just a coincidence. However, I don't think it's an orchestrated effort so much as it is the Left trying to take advantage of the Arizona shooting to bring back some ideas they've tried and failed to make the case for previously.

The problem the Left faces in this case is trying to hook too many initiatives to the Arizona shooting when the connections aren't clear or are tenuous at best. For example, gun control advocates say the access to guns by the Arizona shooter proves there's a need for stricter gun control laws. The problem with this argument is it ignores a salient fact: the Arizona shooter was legally allowed to get the gun he used under current federal gun laws.

Put another way, he beat the system.

So, adding more gun control laws will prevent another Arizona shooting? Not so much, and it's not because of the "gun culture" in Arizona, either. It's because their laws are of no consequence to those who aren't going to follow the laws in the first place. You can pass any number of laws you want, but it won't change the fact there are people who won't follow them.

Would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine have stopped the Arizona shooter? Nope. Turns out he didn't pay attention to talk radio or the news. What good would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine do in that case? It wouldn't.

Improving mental health care? It was suggested the shooter seek professional help on a number of occasions, but it wasn't acted upon. Spending more money on mental health won't help those who refuse help or those who ignore the warning signs that someone may need help.

The TEA Party is violent? To date, there have been zero arrests at TEA Party events due to violent crimes. You can point to the video at a Rand Paul rally of a woman being "stomped" as proof to the contrary, but only if it's taken out of its larger context. And while we're here, violence is a staple at Leftist protests (see any G8 protests) or in response to TEA Party and conservative rallies (a Leftist actually bit an old man who responded to his taunts). If the TEA Party is violent, they suck at it.

"Hate speech" on talk radio? A favorite target of the Left in this regard is Glenn Beck, a man who has advocated non-violent protest with regards to Obama's initiatives. Has he said things that could be construed as hateful? Yes, but only if you distort the context, as Media Matters loves to do. Even so, given the fact the shooter didn't listen to talk radio, taking on "hate speech" in talk radio wouldn't have stopped him.

So, to review, the Left is advancing ideas that wouldn't help anything related to the Arizona shooting, but would help them politically. And when the next tragedy occurs, something tells me they'll do the same thing.

Right Message, Wrong Time

2011-01-14T05:34:00.003-06:00

I have to applaud President Obama for his statements a couple of days ago telling Americans we can be better and not inject vile politics into a tragedy like the Arizona shooting. It was the right thing to say and I can't argue with it, given how vile the political rhetoric has gotten in the wake of the shooting.

If you're sensing a "but" coming, you're right. I do take issue with the President's statement from a timing aspect. This was a statement that could have and should have been made on the day of the shooting, preferably prior to the Paul Krugmans of the media world deciding Palin and conservatives were to blame for the shooter's actions (all prior to gathering those pesky things called facts). As it stands, Obama told people to tone down the rhetoric after the rhetorical barn door had already been opened and all the cattle had stampeded out of there.

This speaks to two aspects of the Obama Administration. First, it reinforces Obama's lack of leadership skills. When this series of events was unfolding, a leader would have had the foresight to see the potential for chaos to break out and try to curtail it before it happened. Obama didn't, and chaos ensued.

The other aspect is the pure political nature of the Obama Administration. Rahm Emmanuel loved to say "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and Obama didn't in this case. His delay in issuing a statement telling Americans to ratchet down the political rhetoric allowed people who agreed with him (such as the aforementioned Paul Krugman) to set the narrative on his behalf. The Left ran with the "Palin/Beck/Limbaugh/TEA Party is to blame" idea for days before Obama stepped in and told us to be better. That, I believe, was a political calculation designed to further demonize his opponents in a way that couldn't be linked directly to him and to give him an opportunity to appear above the fray.

Sorry, Mr. President, but you're hip deep in this with your silence. Like it or not, your silence actually enabled the heated rhetoric you're now telling us to discard, and your ideological pals on the Left aren't listening. That undercuts the heart of your message to the point it's now irrelevant.

Raise the Roof, Not the Ceiling

2011-01-04T20:01:00.003-06:00

One of the first tests of the Republican leadership in the House is coming soon over raising the debt ceiling so the federal government can keep the doors open. Republicans have said the want spending cuts instead of raising the debt ceiling, which has made Leftists go absolutely crazy. (Well, at least crazier than they usually are.) After all, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, according to them, the economy will collapse! Vital needs will be overlooked! Ed Schultz might bite the head off a kitten! (In other words, Schultz will be himself.)

The big question I have is why do we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can keep the federal government's doors open. That's clearly not the only option, as the Republicans have so adeptly pointed out with their statements as to why the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised. When you have to make hard financial decisions to stay afloat, most people look to ways they can spend less. They don't just say, "I'm giving myself an extra $1000 this month to pay bills" and then expect everyone else to go along with it. Either you have the money or you don't. End of story.

It's not as though Washington, DC, has been careful with our money, especially not as of late. And, yes, Democrats and Republicans are responsible for that. Raising the debt ceiling enables our politicians to be irresponsible longer and without much consequence, since most people don't even know what a debt ceiling is.

House Republicans have a winner with their proposal with two caveats. First, they have to be willing to make actual cuts, not just reductions to proposed increases. I would suggest they start with some of their pet programs because it would show how serious they are about making actual cuts, not just saying they believe in making cuts. Second, they need to be willing to play on the battlefield the Left has already laid out for them, but beat them to the punch. Granted, Leftists are going to try to paint this issue as the GOP not caring about the poor by denying services to them or some such rot. The retort should be this: We're going to live by the rules the average American has to in order to live right now. You don't think that will put the Left on the defensive, especially when coupled with real spending cuts?

The risk may be great for House Republicans to oppose raising the debt ceiling, but if done right, there will be an ever greater reward waiting for them.

New Year's Resolutions for Other People

2010-12-31T06:55:00.002-06:00

Another tradition I had at CommonConservative.com was an annual column where I made New Year's Resolutions for other people since I was so bad at making them for myself. Since I still suck at it, I put together a list of resolutions for others because, dang it, I CARE. (That, and it makes up for the lack of blogging recently.)

To President Obama, I resolve you pick up a leadership training course and fast. Blaming Republicans for your failures (and there are many) isn't the sign of a great leader. It's the sign of a poor leader who can't or won't take responsibility for his/her actions and instead deflects blame to others as a means to protect his/her ego.

To Nancy Pelosi, I resolve you take a hard look at your performance as Speaker of the House. I know what you think you did, but what you did was to alienate people of your own party in an attempt to force through your agenda. As a result, your accomplishments were meager at best. Sure, you passed a version of health care reform, but it was a bill that will get challenged in court and possibly be deemed unconstitutional. And your lame excuses and stupid comments ("We have to pass the bill to know what's in it.") insults the intelligence of average Americans. But at least you got the menu changed in the House cafeteria.

To Harry Reid,I resolve you count your blessings. You dodged an electoral bullet this past November and by all accounts, you haven't earned your position as Senate Majority Leader, but you survived. The next time, you may not be so lucky. Not every Republican is Sharron Angle.

To John Boehner, I resolve you pay attention to the TEA Party movement and bring the Republican Party back to its small government roots. What has happened over the past two years isn't a fluke. It was the direct result of Republicans moving to the Left in ideology and spending. Ignore the TEA Party movement, and you'll find your tenure as Speaker of the House to be a short one.

To Sarah Palin, I resolve you learn to pick your battles. There are a lot of conservatives and Republicans who attack you, but you don't have to respond to them all. Take the time to judge the legitimacy of the charges and respond accordingly. If you know it's complete crap, laugh it off.

To Janet Napolitano, I resolve you learn to do your job. Since taking the job, you've shown an incredible lack of understanding of even the basic functions of the Department of Homeland Security. Seriously, sending DHS agents to the Gulf Coast to oversee the oil spill? More airport security regulations that make do nothing to help security? Not working on a way to secure our borders? Lady, you're a long way from competent.

To George Soros, I resolve you spend more of your money trying to take down Glenn Beck. That way you lose more money on a futile effort.

To the TEA Party movement, I resolve you stay true to your roots. Now is not the time to compromise with those who want to see your message diluted or distorted for political gains. Stay intellectually honest and stay on our politicians if their ideas run counter to yours.

To Lady Gaga, I resolve you let Madonna know you stole her shtick, circa 1990.

To Sean Hannity, I resolve you expand your horizons to pick up more than six basic talking points to repeat every day and to use other guests than your usual ten who you seem to have on every week for one reason or another. Seriously, you're boring and it's amazing someone else hasn't overtaken your position as second most listened to talk radio show in the country.

To America's enemies around the world, I resolve you remember we have an election coming up in 2 years, and if current trends continue, you won't have Obama helping you by being incompetent.

To America's allies around the world, I resolve you remember we have an election coming up in 2 years, and if current trends continue, you won't have to put up with Obama's incompetence for much longer. We apologize for the inconvenience.

To the manmade global warming cultists, I resolve you get up the courage to admit you were wrong and fudged data to try to hide it. Science isn't helped by your decades of dishonesty, and only after you come clean can you restore what shreds of credibility you have in the scientific community.

To my critics, I resolve you keep pointing out my flaws as you see them. Without you acting as a jeweler's cloth, I wouldn't be able to continue to improve my skills. Even your pointless criticism teaches me something, mainly that there are people out there who will complain about anything no matter how inconsequential.

And finally...

To my fans, friends, and family, I resolve you enjoy my humble musings next year and take me to task when you disagree. This blog is as much about you as it is about me. I enjoy bringing my perspective to you, and I am humbled when you offer feedback. Thank you.

Happy New Year, everybody!

They Blinded Me With "Science"!

2010-12-29T18:07:00.002-06:00

Leftists have always attempted to paint conservatives of any stripe as mentally deficient. Over the past two weeks, though, they've been positively orgasmic over two studies that "prove" their positions correct.

The first is a study by WorldPublicOpinion.org that shows (according to them) Fox News viewers are the most misinformed about matters ranging from the state of the economy to who supported TARP. Since its appearance in the media, I, among many, have taken the time to review the study. To put it mildly, the study's conclusions make global warming look like the settled science Al Gore claims it to be. Without going into too much technical detail, the study's major flaw attempted to create a correlation between actual knowledge and whether that actual knowledge agreed with experts those conducting the study deemed to be credible. (Never mind the fact the "experts" chosen may not have been credible on the subject matter themselves, but that's speculation since the researchers never bothered to ask that question.)

When you try to create a link between something concrete and something that is subject to opinion, the argument in favor of the link had better be solid. In this case, it wasn't, judging from the reseachers' own report where they attempt to define what misinformation is. If they were so confident in their conclusions, they wouldn't have needed the disclaimer they added.

The second study was reported in the Telegraph, and it reflects conservatives (at least in England) have a larger portion of the brain that controls fear than liberals do. After a small bit of research, I found a fatal flaw in the study: the sample size was too small. When a study is done, the sample size must be statistically valid, meaning it's large enough to weed out any anomalies that would presumably occur. The sample size for this particular study: 93 people. Out of a country as big as England (and a city as large as London, for that matter), fewer than 100 people were used to support the conclusions in the study.

There's an underlying question that should be asked at this point: Why now? The Left have claimed science as their exclusive intellectual stronghold for decades and they've tried to use it in the past to establish themselves as intelligent. To have two studies come out in two weeks that affirm what Leftists already believe is no mere coincidence, in my opinion. I feel it's a reaction to the recent midterm elections where Republicans made great strides to advance a more conservative vision for the country. Had Democrats won, I doubt either one of these studies would have seen the light of day, save for Leftist blogs. Given the current situation, however, the studies in question are being touted as hard fact.

The problem is when you push flawed science as hard fact, it's only a matter of time before someone finds the flaws and exposes them. Take, for example, the Climategate emails. Even though the Left had the better part of two decades of nodding agreement because of the scientific community, this past year has shown the depths to which the Left will sink to support and maintain their politically-driven "science."

There's an old computer programming idea that comes to mind here: GIGO. For the uninitiated, it means "Garbage In, Garbage Out." With both of these laughable studies, GIGO appears to be playing out nicely.

The Bottom Line Awards

2010-12-27T08:27:00.002-06:00

Back in the heady days of CommonConservative.com, we would run annual awards celebrating the highlights and lowlights of the year. Since CommonConservative.com is no more, I wanted to continue the tradition, mainly because it's so much fun to put them together.

As always, you are welcome to comment or add awards of your own. If they're good enough, they may become part of next year's annual awards. So without further ado...

Democrat to Watch: Harry Reid. After retaining his Senate seat and his party retaining control of the Senate, Reid is in a unique position: the only name-brand Democrat with any kind of political clout. President Obama hasn’t used the bully pulpit to bully anyone stronger than BP, and Nancy Pelosi has been relegated to a leadership position with the minority party in the House. It may not help him overcome gridlock, but watching Reid come away from the 2010 elections in the position he’s in now will be great fun indeed.

Democrat to Forget: Nancy Pelosi. From the first woman to be Speaker of the House to being the first woman to be Speaker of the House who oversaw the wholesale crushing of her party in a midterm election. Nancy, here’s a clue for you. Maybe the reason you’ll no longer be Speaker of the House come January is because you suck as a leader.

Republican to Watch: Sarah Palin. Last year I picked her as the Republican to Forget, but this past year has made me think she has something else on her plate that would make a 2012 run the last thing on her mind. In the 2010 elections, she had a pretty good track record in picking the winners (around 70-75% if memory serves), and she was instrumental in helping several candidates win. And there are rumors (not circulated by her, by the way) she’s running for President in 2012. Keep an eye on Palin over this upcoming year.

Republican to Forget: Christine O’Donnell. Seriously, hang it up. You may not be a witch, but you sure as heck aren’t a serious candidate for public office.

Independents to Watch: The TEA Party movement. After a year where they were mocked, maligned, and slandered by the Left, the TEA Party movement got the last laugh by fielding winning candidates for public office. Now, comes the hard part: governing by the TEA Party standards. If the TEA Party has any legs at all, this upcoming year will prove it.

“Independents” to Forget: The “No Labels” movement. The great irony of the “No Labels” rally recently was they lamented partisanship…while being partisan attack dogs. You guys are about as independent as Michael Moore, but at least you’re as full of crap as he is.

Underreported Story: the Obama Administration’s bungling of the Gulf Coast oil spill. It’s no secret (except to those who still worship Obama) the President lacks certain leadership skills, not the least of which being knowing when to lead. The Gulf Coast oil spill was a ready-made issue he could have used to showcase his leadership, but instead he let others take care of it for him, and they blew it. Sending lawyers and Homeland Security personnel to the Gulf Coast before sending down the EPA? Monumentally dumb. Blaming BP? Dumber still. The photo ops in lieu of actual policy? Even dumber. Pushing for a moratorium of offshore oil drilling? The mother of all stupidity. For you Leftists who think Michael Brown was a disaster for the Bush Administration, he was competent compared to the multiple missteps by the Obama Administration to address the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Overreported Story: Wikileaks. With the release of secret and embarrassing information, Wikileaks became a major story overnight, and it seems as though every day there’s some new scandal arising from Wikileaks (“Lindsey Lohan Consulted on China Policy”). Given the amount of attention paid to this matter, Julian Assage couldn’t have asked for better advertising, but I think we could have done with a bit more actual reporting instead of the multitude of half-stories regarding Wikileaks.

Unreported Story: the overuse of the race card. The Left has never been scared to play the race card whenever it was useful to their agenda. This year, anything became an excuse to use the race card. Obama getting criticized? It’s because of racism. People opposing the Ground Zero mosque? It’s because of racism. The TEA Party movement gaining favor with the American people? It’s because of racism. And the more they use it, the less effective it became.

Man of the Year: George W. Bush. When the Left isn’t attacking him for every bad thing that has ever happened from the economy to them not getting a bike for Christmas when they were 7, Bush is starting to carve a place in history by being right. One of the funnier aspects of the Wikileaks scandal that isn’t getting covered by the media is how Wikileaks actually produced proof there were WMDs in Iraq. Combine that with the fact President Obama publicly joined the pro-tax cut bandwagon by pushing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts, it’s clear Bush has earned the Man of the Year Award for being a better and more influential President than his critics want to admit. Miss him yet?

R. I. P.: global warming as a scientific certainty. For decades, the Left has been riding its high horse on global warming by citing scientist after scientist stating global warming was real and manmade. Three little words changed that forever: “hide the decline.” With the Climategate scandal where climate scientists out of England were caught fudging results and weren’t able to produce their evidence (a big no-no in the scientific community, by the way), the Left’s high horse has become a Shetland Pony. Ginning up results to promote a position that cannot be justified isn’t good science.

Flash in the Pan: Obama’s global presence. Since his election, Obama has been touted as a departure from George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy,” which would (according to his followers) bring about America’s return to dignified status in the world community. Of course, that isn’t what happened. World leaders treat Obama as badly, if not worse, than they treated Bush. Even our allies have a hard time taking Obama seriously. A stark contrast to the fawning media coverage of Obama’s European trip when he was running for President, to be sure.

The Real Deal: net neutrality. You may not have heard a lot about this subject this year, but it is a vital issue. Leftists are suggesting the government needs to step in to guarantee Internet service providers treat all data the same way instead of picking and choosing what data gets preferential treatment. On the surface, it’s a nice idea, but after a deeper review, it loses a lot of its appeal when you think about the implications of the federal government dictating to private industry how they are to provide a service. And just think, kids. There are some Leftists who think the “net neutrality” proposal already on the table isn’t strict enough.

Raw Deal: The TEA Party being responsible for the GOP not taking back the Senate. A common theme with the Left and some members of the Right is that the TEA Parties cost the GOP control of the Senate, thanks to the campaigns of TEA Party favorites Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. The problem with that line of thought is the TEA Party wouldn’t be necessary if the GOP (especially those who claim the TEA Party cost the GOP the Senate) hadn’t sold out to the Left. Some of the people the GOP establishment were pushing were nothing more than the same RINOs the party faithful have been complaining about for decades. And given how the GOP Establishment wasn’t too keen on helping Angle and O’Donnell on winning, maybe the TEA Party wasn’t the problem. Maybe, just maybe, it was the GOP Establishment.

Missed Opportunity: For the second year in a row, Republicans completely botched the TEA Party situation. Political operatives on the Right started acting and sounding like Leftists when it came to the TEA Party’s influence on the 2010 elections. Instead of taking their concerns seriously, Republicans treated them like lost children needing to be taken home (i.e. back to the GOP voting ranks). They just don’t get it. There wouldn’t be a need for the TEA Party if Republicans acted like, well, Republicans. Until Republicans get this concept, watch for more missed opportunities with the TEA Party.

Defining Moment: Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally in Washington, DC. Although the TEA Party gatherings had an impact on this year, it was Beck’s 8/28 rally that opened a lot of people’s eyes to just how many people felt America needed to get back on a proper course. Hard attendance numbers vary from the laughable CBS-concocted number to the overly optimistic conservative numbers, but it’s safe to say Beck’s rally was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 people gathered together for a non-partisan purpose. That showed people on both sides of the political aisle there are people unhappy with the way the country’s being run, and they will be holding everyone accountable.

Stuck on Stupid: Anthony Weiner (D-NY). With a virtual one man war against Glenn Beck and Goldline, Weiner has shown himself to be arrogant, dismissive of any opinion that doesn’t match his own, and completely in over his head against anyone with a lick of sense. In other words, Democrats have a new Alan Grayson to replace the original after he got booted in the midterm elections for…well, for acting like Weiner is now. At least in Anthony’s case, his last name is pretty accurate for the kind of man he is.

The Bottom Line Award: Chris Christie. The New Jersey Governor has raised a lot of eyebrows since taking control of the state, but he has maintained his brutal honesty and lack of concern over the opinion of those predisposed to condemn him for his political ideology. He’s shown integrity in government, honor in defending women against Leftist boors, and generally shown the traits that make up the Bottom Line Award.

The Anna Nicole Smith Lifetime Achievement Award: Christine O’Donnell. From cute-as-a-button spoiler in Delaware to cute-as-a-button buffoon, all in the span of a few months. In retrospect, it seems she never quite understood the media environment that came after her and continues to make Joe Biden-sized gaffes at the most inopportune times. And with rumors surrounding her lack of financial acumen (read: potential misappropriation of funds), O’Donnell has certainly set back women in politics significantly.

The Dan Rather Award for “Excellence” in Media: Rick Sanchez. The former CNN anchor made quite an impact this year, mainly because of his ham-fisted buffoonery. He lost his job at CNN because he said Jews run the media, as evidenced by Jon Stewart. Of course, Stewart caused a stir by pointing out just how vapid Sanchez was and then laughing about it on “The Daily Show.” Here’s a clue for you, Rick. Maybe the reason you were mocked for being such a moron…is because you’re a moron. And now, you’re an unemployed moron because you let your ego get in the way of doing your job. Congratulations, Rick. You’ve earned this award.

The DEE DEE DEE Award: Alan Grayson. Take a smug Congressman, add a Leftist mean streak to beat the band, and throw in a tone-deaf approach to the electorate…and you’d have a pale imitation of Alan Grayson. He may have been the darling of Leftist radio and TV shows, but he forgot to consider what the electorate wanted him to do and it cost him his job. At least he’ll have a future on MSNBC.

The “It Looked Better on Paper” Award: Obamacare. Any time the government gets involved in health care, the results usually don’t turn out that well (case in point: Medicare). Now, thanks to Obamacare, we’ll all get the same attention to swift, quality customer service in health care that we get at the DMV. And when you get to the bottom of it, Obamacare really doesn’t do anything to address the problems in the health care arena, but does a lot to enrich the very people Obama and his Democrat allies were demonizing throughout the debate over Obamacare.

The Padded Resume Award: Barack Obama. The more we see him try to be Presidential, the more we see how little actual experience he brings to the table. From “Hope” and “Change” to “Hope we can change Presidents soon.”

The 14:59 Award: Andy Warhol once said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, but some personalities are quickly running out of their allotted time. This award celebrates one such personality. This year’s award goes to the “Octomom,” Nadya Suleman. Her claim to fame is dubious at best, and it seems she’s on the verge of eviction from her home in Southern California. Wow. Who would have guessed a media-created “celebrity” could be so bad with money?

Dollars and No Sense

2010-12-05T19:33:00.002-06:00

I've often said Leftists aren't good with an economy because they don't understand the basics of economics. This was made abundantly clear recently with a quiet little event that caught very little attention.

The EU's economy is tanking as badly as ours is. To help matters, America is sending money to some of the EU's banks as a means to help them along. Of course, the first big question is where we are going to get the money since we're still recovering from our own economic downturn. The short answer is...we don't know.

There's another question that should concern us all. As we've seen, the dollar has been losing its value in recent years. While the Left said it was bad under George W. Bush, the Left has said it's great under Barack Obama because a weak dollar stimulates trade by making our products cheaper. However, no one will be forced to buy our products, even if they are cheaper because it's a free market. People have a vested interest in buying products at a lower price, but they're not bound to it.

Now, for the question. What impact will a weak dollar have on the money we're sending to the EU? The answer lies with the Chinese. Right now, China owns a lot of our debt, due to the political and economic bungling of both President Bushs, Bill Clinton, and now Obama. By granting Most Favored Nation status to China, we've given them access to our economy.

And here's the punchline, kids. China will use that against us.

At any time, China can call in our debt, meaning we either need to pay them in full or they essentially own us. And they have told us to watch our spending in recent months. Extending a monetary helping hand to the EU isn't exactly being miserly, especially considering how poorly the dollar has fared against the Euro.

Now for the question. What would happen if China decided to call in our debt after floating a loan to the EU?

The short answer: nothing good.

The longer answer: it would ruin two major global economies, leaving China as a sole economic superpower. America would be unable to pay its debt to China and unable to pay its loan to the EU. The latter, in turn, would cause the EU's economy to continue its death spiral until it either pulled itself together and pulled out of it or crashed and burned. The instability of the EU right now makes the latter the more likely outcome. China will have beaten us and the EU without even firing a shot.

So, does anyone else want to rethink our generosity to the EU?

A Blast from the Past, A Dust-Up in the Future?

2010-11-21T19:00:00.003-06:00

In a name that hasn't been uttered much in politics since 2004, Carol Moseley Braun announced recently she is running for Mayor of Chicago. And given that city's history of electing crooks and dishonest folks, she might stand a chance of winning.

However, this sets up an interesting dilemma for the Left, as former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has also decided to run for Mayor. On the one hand, you have a proud Leftist who is to the left of Barack Obama. On the other, you have a Leftist who has been walking the halls of power with President Obama, so he is seen has having some major political stroke which could be useful in the waning days of Obama's first term as President.

The enigma in all of this is whether the Left still hold Obama in high enough regard to sway voters. As we've seen in recent months, Leftists are ideologically strident, as strident as the Religious Right. Contrary to what you might think, the Left really isn't happy with Obama, namely because they don't feel he's Leftist enough. (Note to the President: Ask Joe Lieberman how that feels.) If Braun stays in the race long enough, eventually the Left will have to decide whether they're going to stick with the "President's man" or if they'll reject Emanuel as Obama-By-Proxy.

This speaks to the larger conversation going on with the Left these days, that being ideological purity. For as much as the Left love to say the Right has litmus tests for candidates, they're not much better. And it's this quest for pure Leftists that will drive the Democrats further out of the mainstream. That cost them in the midterm elections, and it may cost them here. I say "may" because, regardless of how far Left Braun and Emanuel are, it's unlikely a Republican to the right of Al Gore will take the Mayoral election.

Even so, the Left's loose coalition of special interest groups will be tested even more by having to make this choice. The Left is already seeing splintering within its ranks (such as with the budding feud between Keith Olbermann and Ted Koppel), and situations like this will drive further wedges in the Left because it will force them to either compromise or lose. And if the midterms are any indication, they may be doubling down on losing for a while to come.

The Angle of the Rangel

2010-11-15T21:02:00.003-06:00

Today's House Ethics Committee hearing about the alleged crimes of Rep. Charles Rangel took an interesting turn as Rangel walked out of the hearing, citing a desire for legal representation and objecting to the Committee denying it to him. At first, I had the reaction a lot of people did: shock and amusement.

Yet, if you really think about it, Rangel's actions today were part of a brilliant political move designed to minimize the damage to himself and the Democratic Party. At this point, I honestly do not believe Rangel ever intended to testify before the House Ethics Committee because to do so would have meant he would be under oath. Lying to Congress could be grounds for a contempt of Congress charge, which would have made things a lot tougher on Rangel. What he needed was a way for his side of the story to get an airing, but not subject himself to the possibility of lying under oath to Congress.

That's where Rangel had an ace up his sleeve, or to be more precise, two. The chair of the House Ethics Committee is Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). Until Republicans fill that position in January, Lofgren is still the Chair, which means she controls how things will go. That gives Rangel at least one sympathetic ear. The other ace is Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel of the House Ethics Committee. He has direct ties to...you guessed it, Zoe Lofgren. And as Rangel's primary defender before the Committee, he was the voice Rangel needed. That made Rangel bulletproof, politically speaking. He had nobody at home who would take him to task (he won reelection handily in his home District), and the likelihood of the House Ethics Committee punishing him beyond a slap on the wrist during a lame duck session of Congress was high. He really didn't need to be there, so he made a scene and walked out.

This was the best defense he could have concocted, and he played it brilliantly. It also takes a lot of heat off the Democrats because it would have been harder and harder for them to defend him if the hearing went on beyond a day or two. As it stands, the Ethics Committee should be ruling on the matter by the end of the week, thus putting the issue behind the Democrats once and for all.

He may be a dishonest scumbag, but I have to give Charles Rangel credit for such a brilliant political move.

A Failure to Communicate?

2010-11-08T06:40:00.003-06:00

In the aftermath of last Tuesday's midterm elections, a new narrative has come from the Obama camp: the election results were due to bad communication from the White House to the American people. The idea is if they had communicated their successes more effectively, voters wouldn't have voted for Republicans overwhelmingly.

On the one hand, they have a point. The Obama Administration has a communication problem, one they have suffered with since Obama took the Oath of Office. On the campaign trail, the Obama team was effective in packaging a message and getting it out to the people. We may not have agreed with the message, but it cannot be denied that Obama's campaign communication team was a well-oiled machine.

Once in office, however, Obama has suffered with communication missteps, many of which can be left at the feet of former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. While the communication during the campaign was accessible to everyone, the post-campaign communication has become smug, snarky, and condescending towards anyone who holds a contrary view. Look at the Obama Administration's treatment of Fox News, for example. Whether it was the occasional off-handed remark about whether Fox News is a legitimate news network or the more ham-fisted attempts to treat Fox News as illegitimate, the Obama Administration spent a lot more time attacking a cable news network than they did in articulating a message related to their efforts. That shows a poor communication strategy designed not to trumpet their successes, but bleat out a poor tuba solo and blame it on others.

While I admit the Obama Administration's communication hasn't been as effective as it should have been, I can't completely chalk up the midterm election results to it. A huge part of any communication strategy is determining the message to send to the intended audience, while containing as well as possible any unintended messages. In the absence of the former, the latter becomes the message by default. We can argue about what the Obama Administration has done, but it means little if the source of those accomplishments isn't talking. That cedes the ground to third parties on both sides of the aisle, which can lead to a distortion of the intended message.

In this case, the message that was conveyed to the public was a disjointed mess of Leftist arrogance, partisan fear-mongering, and rampant hypocrisy. Combined with the TEA Party's rhetoric energizing people to get involved and the way the political winds tend to shift in midterm elections, it was assumed the Democrats would suffer losses. The question was how many.

Chalking up the political drubbing Obama's party received last Tuesday on a failure to communicate is appropriate, but only to an extent. If Obama wants to avoid another setback for his party (and possibly himself) in 2012, he'll need to address the communication issues within his own circle of power soon.

A Recurring Nightmare

2010-10-25T20:20:00.003-05:00

With the recent suicides of gay teens due to bullying from their peers, our social consciousness is once again focused on the practice of bullying. As someone who survived a lot of bullying in my elementary and secondary education, it's a subject that is close to my heart. It's nice to see that we're paying attention to a practice that can really scar a child or a teen for life or drive him or her to do something far more devastating.

Yet, I can't help but feel that we've done this dance before. Remember how we swore "never again" after Columbine? The two teenage killers were victims of...you guessed it...bullying. Well, "never again" lasted all of about a year before things went back to "normal." How long do you think it will take us to forget about the lessons we're relearning about bullying now?

Sure, we can feel good about coming together and coming out against bullying. What happens when that good feeling you get by "standing up to the bullies" goes away? More often than not, the desire to act goes away as soon as our memories fade. How many more victims are caused by our short term compassion?

And the saddest part of it all? We still aren't dealing with the bullies themselves. Usually, there's a reason a kid or a teen takes up bullying as a misguided hobby, and more often than not it stems from the bully's family life. Abuse, apathy, twisted adult role models, or just general insecurity can all create a bully. In a way, the silent victims of bullying are the bullies themselves. Instead of trying to help them, though, we demonize them and chalk up their behavior to "being a bad kid."

As tragic as the recent suicides are, the fact we need them to remind us of the horrors of bullying is even more tragic. Until we get serious about bullying, count on there being more lives shattered because we fail to understand the problem.

"Mr. Williams? A Ms. Sherrod on Line 2."

2010-10-21T19:46:00.002-05:00

As I'm sure you've heard, National Pubic Radio has fired commentator Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that they felt were "inconsistent with its editorial standards and practices." What did Williams say that was so beyond the pale for NPR?

This.

Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Later in that same segment, Williams also took O'Reilly to task for his statement on "The View" where he painted Muslims as terrorists, saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Timothy McVeigh.

First off, I'm not a fan of Mr. Williams' politics by any stretch of the imagination. But I will stand behind him on his firing because, in truth, his "offense" was taken out of context. When combined with his statement about Christians not being responsible for McVeigh (an odd comparison to make, but that's a blog post for another time), Williams doesn't come off as bigoted as NPR seems to think he is.

It's not unlike the Shirley Sherrod situation where her comments were taken out of context and used as justification for her to lose her job with the Department of Agriculture. Personally, I think Sherrod should have lost her job for reasons other than the comments she made at a meeting of the NAACP, but that's neither here nor there. The Juan Williams situation bears an eerie resemblance to the Shirley Sherrod situation in one important way.

It was white Leftists doing the firing in both cases.

Seems our lily white friends on the Left have no problem dumping a person of color when they become "radioactive," even when the comments in question are taken out of context and whipped up into a frothy glass of self-righteous indignation. But Leftists never take someone's words out of context and creates straw man arguments out of them, right? I mean, aside from Media Matters...and the Huffington Post...and DailyKos...and DemocraticUnderground...and MoveOn.org...okay, you get the picture.

As of this posting, our good friends at the NAACP have yet to weigh in on the Williams firing, but I'm sure they're working on their statement as we speak. Unless, of course, they're too busy whipping up more racist lies about the TEA Parties. Then, their response might be delayed, but I'm sure it will be lightning fast when they do it.

While I'm sure Mr. Williams isn't holding his breath waiting for the NAACP's statement, plenty of people from both sides of the aisle are upset with NPR's rash action, as we should be. Williams was fired for nothing more than expressing an honest personal opinion within the context of a larger conversation, a conversation I might add that the Left doesn't want. NPR's actions reek of the same reflexive desperation that Shirley Sherrod faced from the Department of Agriculture, and I see the same result coming. The white Leftists will eventually cave and give Williams his job back in the hopes that everything will be forgiven and forgotten.

Let's hope Juan Williams forgives, but never forgets.

Five Keys to Republican Victory in November

2010-10-08T19:47:00.003-05:00

Michael Moore recently put out five keys to a Democrat victory in the midterm elections on his website. His winning keys ranged from "growing a backbone" to "supporting a moratorium on foreclosures." In that spirit, I wanted to give Republicans five keys to victory.

And unlike Mike, mine actually might work.

1) Let the Democrats go negative, but respond with a positive. In judo, a student learns to use an opponent's force against himself/herself. This election season, the Democrats are facing an uphill battle, so their natural inclination (having exhausted the possibility that they might run on their records) is to go negative. However, that doesn't mean the GOP needs to follow suit. Running a positive ad after a negative one from the Left will have a positive effect, in my opinion. Take Christine O'Donnell's ad responding to what Leftists like Bill Maher have said about her. It was simple, to the point, and barely referenced politics at all. Even an ad with a "soft negative" like Carly Fiorina's ad using footage of Barbara Boxer asking a soldier to call her "Senator" instead of "ma'am" would work.

2) Don't assume the TEA Party will vote Republican. A common theme with the Right these days is to call for "party unity" over voting for a TEA Party candidate we can support. That's what gave us McCain/Palin 08, another victory for Arlen Specter, and moderate Republicans getting control of the party. Yeah, how'd that work out for ya? The TEA Party may be made up of Republicans in great numbers, but that doesn't mean they'll vote Republican out of reflex. The GOP needs to take some stock in what the TEA Parties represent and work that back into the platform going forward. Saying you're a "compassionate conservative" that votes for continued funding of the Department of Education is nice, but making it so that parents have more say over curricula than some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, is nicer.

3) Make the Left run on the issues. You know the Left is going to go personal this year, but that's because they're desperate to avoid talking issues. With an electorate looking for more than typical politics, give them issues to discuss. Make a Democrat Representative like Alan Grayson defend his stance on health care reform. Make Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explain the benefits of the stimulus package. And watch as they will do anything in their power to avoid giving a straight answer. They have no substance, folks. Time to step up and make the campaign about what the American people want.

4) Take command. Democrats love to say the Republicans are the "Party of No" because Republicans haven't done a good job at widespread articulation of their alternatives. It's almost like Republicans are ashamed to engage in the exchange of ideas, mainly because the Left has done such a masterful job at twisting the truth. In situations like that, you don't get frustrated and cede the battleground to the enemy. You charge ahead and you fight for the ground you're standing on. Democrats counted on Republicans to be lazy and still cowed by their connections to George W. Bush, but with an electorate that no longer cares what Bush did by and large and a Democrat Party so eager to bring up Bush in lieu of talking about the current President, now is a golden opportunity to take back the intellectual and rhetorical high ground.

5) Fight for every last vote. Conventional thinking on the Right has it that certain groups won't vote Republican, so they're written off (case in point: blacks). Yet, even with overwhelming odds like that, there are people seriously rethinking their support for Obama and Democrats in general. That's a good sign for the GOP, especially going into 2012. Closer to home, as it were, you might be able to sway some votes from the Independent and conservative Democrat side by engaging them, giving them some kind of sign that you might actually care about this country and have ideas on how to fix it. Even if a voter is 99% sure he or she is going to vote Democrat in November, there's still 1% that can be used as a foothold.

It may be short notice for the GOP, but using these ideas in the home stretch could mean the difference between victory and defeat in several close races across this country.

Adding Insult to Injury

2010-10-03T06:57:00.002-05:00

Remember when Leftist talk show host Ed Schultz claimed he could get 300,000 people at a rally in Washington, DC, with six months of promotion?

Well, back in June of this year, African-American leaders started talking about organizing a rally to counter Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally. Let's see...late June to early October is...right around 3 1/2 months. Even with unions and the NAACP busing people in for the rally, estimates have the 10/2 rally at around 150,000 people.

Oh, I'm sure Ed will come out with an excuse that "we didn't have six months to promote it like Glenn Beck did," but the point is still that they had the time to promote it heavily, and they failed. Even with the "star power" of someone like Ed Schultz, they couldn't muster much more than half of what Beck's 8/28 rally garnered. (And, no, I don't believe the 87,000 number CBS put out because I've been to the Lincoln Memorial twice now. The length of the reflecting pool alone could accommodate that many people as densely populated as it was at the 8/28 rally.)

But, I guess it bears repeating. There are only two words that fit yesterday's rally in DC: epic fail.

My Latest Sign

2010-10-02T19:36:00.003-05:00

True Faith or True Arrogance?

2010-09-29T05:55:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, President Obama talked about his faith in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After months of speculation, Obama said he is a "Christian by choice" and expounded on how Jesus' teachings impacted his life. So, that puts this whole controversy to bed, right?

Not so much.

The concept of choosing Christianity flies in the face of Christian theology because it makes you the ultimate authority over whether you believe. Put another way, thinking you choose to be Christian puts you above God. In my particular brand of Christian belief, we don't choose whether to believe; it's the work of the Holy Spirit that opens our hearts to God's word.

Combine the "Christian by choice" comment with another concept Obama has brought into the public eye: collective salvation. Obama has said, "...my individual salvation is not going to come without a collective salvation for the country." He has reiterated the idea of collective salvation in speeches to graduates.

The problem? Under Christian faith, Christ died for our sins, giving us salvation. Once we open our hearts to the implications of His sacrifice, we're saved. We don't have to save everyone to earn our salvation because it's already been earned. If we don't save everybody, we're not doomed to Hell.

As much as Obama wants to put this controversy to rest, when we look at the totality of what Obama has done as President and what he's said about his faith, the questions remain. It takes more than saying "I'm a Christian" to be a Christian. As someone who has fallen out of the Christian faith and returned, my life has been fundamentally transformed by my faith, but I don't see that in Obama. What I see is someone who is trying to portray himself as a Christian as a means to hide his true faith, while at the same time elevating himself to a position above the God he professes to believe.

But I'll pray for him all the same. That's what Christians do.

Stupid Is as Stupid Does...

2010-09-26T20:34:00.002-05:00

Democrats and their allies are trying to prepare for losses in November's midterm elections, and when I say "losses" I mean soul-crushing butt-kickings from every corner of this country. So, what do they do? Try to appeal to voters' good graces by asking for another chance to prove themselves? Admit they've made mistakes and beg for the mercy of the electorate?

Nope. They're being dumbasses.

Whether it's the Leftist "news" shows obsessing about Christine O'Donnell's dabbling in witchcraft as a teenager, comedian Stephen Colbert being invited to testify about immigration, or John Kerry saying that the reason people are so upset with government right now is because they're uninformed, Democrats seem to either have it in their heads that either the impending losses won't be that bad or that they'll be able to attract voters by insulting their intelligence. Or perhaps it's a bit of both.

In any case, Democrats aren't helping their case for reelection in the midterm elections. Although I haven't counted out arrogance as a cause, even ego has limits. I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats aren't trying to throw the midterm elections so they have an automatic scapegoat come January 2011. After all, they continue to blame George W. Bush for their blunders well after he was no longer President, so what's to stop them from blaming the potentially incoming Republican majority before it takes control? Also, this would give President Obama a built-in excuse for whenever something doesn't get passed in Congress.

Having said that, though, it would be a stupid move for the Left to blame the GOP for the failures of the Administration and the Congress under Democrat leadership. Right now, people aren't looking for who to blame; they want solutions. Voters went for Obama under the auspices of him being different than George W. Bush and having the answers to problems. As it turns out, his answers were to do what Bush did for the most part, only more of it. Now, that's coming back to haunt the Democrats in a way they hadn't expected. Once they gained control of Congress in 2007, they believed that they would be in power for a long time.

Now, on the verge of the midterm elections, we see how stupid is as stupid does.

A Religious Test from the Left

2010-09-21T04:39:00.002-05:00

On a 1999 episode of "Politically Incorrect" Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell said that she dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. And now in 2010, the Left has made that an issue as a means to paint O'Donnell as crazy and unsuitable for public office. Granted, the Left has no problem delving into an opponent's past for dirt, but this situation seems a bit odd.

The reason the situation is odd is because of the Left's prior positions on religious matters. When it comes to the Catholic Church, the Left takes them to task for their opposition to birth control, their position on gays, and the molesting priest controversies. Their methods may not always be the most articulate (like throwing condoms at Catholic priests during a gay rights parade), but there is a kernel of legitimacy in their criticism of the Catholic Church. Having said that, the Left has extrapolated the actions of a few to malign the entire Catholic Church.

Compare that to the Left's defense of the Islamic "community center" within blocks of Ground Zero. In that case, they take exactly the opposite position that they do with the Catholic Church. They say that the actions of a few do not damn an entire religion, even though the actions of those few are clearly violent, anti-woman, and anti-child (the very things they criticize the Catholic Church for being, I might add). When it comes to Muslims practicing their faith, the Left is right on the front lines defending their freedom of religion.

Then, there's the Left's position on atheism. When it comes to Leftists like Michael Newdow, the Left supports a freedom from religion, oddly enough using the same First Amendment that they use to defend the Islamic "community center." Their position is that the separation of church and state (a phrase that does not appear in the First Amendment, by the way) means that any entity with ties to government cannot promote a single religion because it "establishes" a religion. (Logically, it doesn't, of course...)

Now, we have the Left's mocking of witchcraft as "crazy" by proxy through O'Donnell. I've known Wiccans in my life, and they are far from crazy. They are, however, among the nicest, most intelligent, most articulate people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. You may disagree with their religion, but that doesn't give anyone sanction to mock their faith. The Left using O'Donnell's dabbling in Wicca as a political football to kick around is hypocritical and disgusting. Is there any doubt that if a Leftist dabbled in Wicca and a conservative called him or her crazy, the Left would lash out at the conservative? But when it's a Republican, the Left leads the mob seeking to "burn the witch" politically.

The Left practices situational ethics on a daily basis, but now they're practicing situational freedom of religion. With Islam, the Left screams about the freedom of religion, with Wicca and the Catholic Church, the Left screams about the freedom to mock religion, and with atheism, the Left screams about the freedom from religion.

And in each case, the Left's screaming is intellectually inconsistent.

A New Sign

2010-09-15T18:27:00.002-05:00

9/11, 9 Years Later

2010-09-11T05:09:00.002-05:00

Today is the ninth anniversary of one of the darkest days in our history. In that nine years, we've seen incredible acts of courage and shows of unity, as well as despicable acts of cowardice and abject stupidity. I've expressed this fear before, but it bears repeating, especially today.

We've rolled over and gone back to sleep when it comes to the threat of Muslim extremism.

As much as I'd like to think we're still vigilant against those who would do us great harm, the general prevailing attitude seems to be one of utter ignorance of the threat or of general disdain for those who continue to see the threat. When the Leftist media spends more time bashing a Florida preacher for wanting to burn the Koran than they do looking into the funding of the so-called Ground Zero mosque and the man spearheading the effort, we have a problem.

CNN is far and away the worst at pushing the geopolitical snooze button on Muslim extremism. They have labeled any and all opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" as Islamophobia, suggesting that it's driven more by racism than reason. Yet, they take the Imam at the center of that controversy at face value while raking the Florida preacher who may or may not burn the Koran today over the proverbial coals? As potentially offensive as the Koran burning would be, the establishment of a mosque within blocks of Ground Zero doesn't even raise an eyebrow at CNN, save when people stand in opposition to it.

What's worse? People actually believe opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is driven by racism. Some of it may be, but you'll get that with most movements like that. Most, however, is driven by...oh I don't know...the fact that a few blocks away there are two missing buildings from when Muslim terrorists flew planes into them, and now someone with ties to Muslim terrorists wants to build a "community center" near that site. Is that "Islamophobia" rearing its ugly head? No, it's common sense.

And that's what may be one of the greatest casualties from 9/11. We have been made afraid to listen to our guts when it comes to Muslim extremism. The more the CNN drones of the world tell us it's hateful to be suspicious of the "Ground Zero Mosque" and the more we believe it, the less we're willing to trust our instincts, no matter how right we may be. Since 9/11, we've seen people who were absolutely correct in their suspicions of Muslim airline travelers get smeared by the media, while little to no criticism is heaped on those who perpetrate the acts that raised suspicion in the first place. If that isn't proof that we're living in some incredibly mixed-up times when it come to Islamic terror, I don't know what is.

George W. Bush was right when he compared the war on terrorism to fighting a hydra because Muslim terrorism isn't just one or two groups. The entire Middle East is one big network of terrorist organizations that fund and support one another. Getting rid of the top guys in al Qaeda is nice, but al Qaeda isn't the totality of the terrorist groups out there. There are others that will fill the void even after al Qaeda is destroyed or disbanded. America's approach to fighting Muslim terrorism has forgotten that part of the equation, and I place the blame for that on "both" major parties. George W. Bush had the right approach, but then softened it, and now President Obama is continuing to soften the approach to the point that we've actually talked about sitting down with some of the people who support the people who want us killed. Talking with Muslim extremists will only do one thing: it allows them time to reload.

George Santayana once wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." With the threat of Muslim terrorism and our reaction to it today, Santayana was exactly right. We're back to a 9/10 mentality, where our minds are filled with pop culture fluff and an overwhelming desire to feed our egos. That's exactly what Muslim terrorists predicted would happen because they counted on us losing interest in what they were doing. And, sure enough, we have.

On this ninth anniversary of 9/11, shouldn't we show at least some courage and vigilance and stand up to the Muslim extremists and their allies on our shores? If only to curtail the chances of another major terrorist attack here, we need to be fearless in the face of mindless criticism from the Left and threats of violence from the "religion of peace."

It's the least the living can do to honor the memories of the dead.

Happy Labor Day...Or Is It?

2010-09-06T05:35:00.002-05:00

As we enjoy another Labor Day celebrating the American worker, the state of the economy is weighing on the minds of many. Whether it's high unemployment or companies who make employees work extra hours so the companies don't have to hire additional staff, the employment situation is looking grim. Combine with that the fact that the first stimulus package has done more to grow jobs in the public sector than the private sector and Congress is intent on adding more debt to our backs, and things don't look any better.

Put simply, the economy is in dire need of fixing. What the Washington politicians on both sides don't realize is that the way to fix the economy resides in the working class. Here are some suggestions to help get the economy back on the right track.

1) Cut taxes for the working and upper classes. I know, the Left will say "That's your solution for everything," but it actually works. When you cut taxes, it allows people to keep their money, which they can save, spend, or invest. In each case, the economy is stimulated in some fashion at different speeds. Given the nature of America today, our tendency would be to spend that extra money, which would...stimulate the economy. Funny how that works, isn't it?

2) Cut government spending for real. One of the biggest government scams out there is when politicians and their pals in the media claim that government spending has been cut. What's actually been "cut" is the amount of a proposed increase. The way it works is Party A suggests that the Department of Redundancy Department gets a $2 million increase in spending over the previous year. Party B suggests that the Department of Redundancy Department should only get a $1 million increase in spending over the previous year. Both parties (and their friends in the media) say that the Department of Redundancy Department's budget was cut by $1 million when, in fact, it was actually increased by $1 million. One way to help the economy is to do some actual spending cuts where departments do have to make due with less. Defense spending, the Department of Education, the Department of Interior, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and many other areas could be cut without disrupting services (such as they are) to the American people, which would reduce the amount of tax dollars necessary to keep the country running, which in turn means more money gets kept by the working class.

3) Don't micromanage our lives. At every turn, government is trying to get us to act accordingly (or as accordingly as they say we should). Whenever government does that, a bureaucracy is created to ensure compliance, and with bureaucracy comes cost that the people ultimately have to pay for in the form of taxes. If you question this, check out the environmental laws in this country that any small business has to follow. That particular set of laws is so vast and complex, it's impossible for any small business to keep track, let alone follow them. Why not cut the bureaucracy and allow people (including small business owners) make those kinds of common sense decisions on their own? We may not always make the best choices, but government bureaucracy hasn't exactly had the best track record in making good decisions (see the EPA's efforts with the oil spill clean up in the Gulf). Besides, the money we save could be better spent on getting the economy going.

But, for the Leftists these ideas may be too complex. In the interest of bipartisanship, let me break it down for them.

1) Let us keep our money.
2) Cut spending.
3) Get out of the way.

I Don't Mean to Toot My Own Horn...

2010-09-05T18:13:00.002-05:00

...but Toot Toot. Something I said back in 2006 has come to fruition, and it's all thanks to President Obama and his fellow Leftists.

Back in 2006 and again in 2008, I noticed that Democrats ran on a platform of change. They didn't specify why change was necessary, just that we needed it. And the American people believed it without question. During this time of change from the Left, I pointed out how change isn't always a positive thing and that as much as the Left wanted to change things, eventually change would come back to haunt them.

Welcome to 2010, when the Democrats' slogan has gone from "We need change!" to "We don't need change that badly!" The fatal mistake the Left made is in assuming that the people were behind them completely once they took back control of Congress and the White House. We weren't. Many Americans wanted to give the Democrats a try, and they did. Now, much to their chagrin, they're seeing how their desire for change made them puppets for the Left.

And come November 2010, the Left will have a lot of former supporters to answer to at the polls.

The Witch Hunt Is Back?

2010-08-31T05:57:00.003-05:00

Paul Krugman in the August 29th New York Times wrote an op-ed piece lamenting the return of "Witch-Hunt Season" because...get this...Republicans and conservatives oppose President Obama. Krugman compares Obama's Administration to the Clinton Administration in terms of "political opponents" trying to dig up anything they could on the President, regardless of how far-fetched it might be.

I'll be the first to admit Republicans and conservative bought into a lot of anti-Clinton conspiracy theories and that they're buying into a lot of anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Some are far-fetched, and some have at least some basis in fact.

Kind of like Krugman's column, if you think about it.

Krugman's defense of Obama against "Witch-Hunt Season" relies on a carefully-crafted distortion: that Republicans have no reason to investigate the President. With some of the questionably-legal actions the Administration has taken, I believe there are grounds to investigate if for no other reason than to put the questions to rest once and for all. That's pretty much the same way some Republicans went after Clinton, and as we saw then, there were some highly questionable actions the Clinton Administration and the Clintons specifically did. That's not to say all of the suggested investigations were valid, but suggesting that all of the investigations into Clinton and Obama amount to a witch-hunt is laughable.

Krugman's assessment of the situation seems to miss the 8 years between Clinton and Obama where George W. Bush was assaulted on almost a daily basis with accusations, not unlike what Krugman says happened to Clinton and is happening to Obama. Here's a brief list of the accusations against Bush:

- He didn't really win the Florida recount.
- His brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris conspired to cheat Al Gore.
- He knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen.
- He arranged for relatives of Osama Bin Laden to be flown out of the US days after 9/11.
- Bush went into Iraq for oil.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq having WMDs.
- Bush made up the story about Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake uranium.
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Big Oil
- Bush was ordered to attack Iraq by Israel.
- He stole the 2004 election in Ohio.
- He allowed Halliburton to get no-bid contracts because of Dick Cheney.
- Bush was responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame because her husband was critical of the Administration.
- He controlled gas prices to make money for his Big Oil buddies.
- Bush ignored the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were primarily black.
- He allowed banks to run roughshod and worked against regulating them, thus causing the subprime mortgage crisis.

Most, if not all, of these statements have been made by Leftists who have demanded (and in some cases gotten) investigations into these subjects, regardless of how far from the truth they are. But I'm guessing that Krugman didn't have a problem with these investigations because of a) who was the President being investigated, and b) who was pushing for the investigations. That undermines his credibility, what little he has, on this subject.

And let's not forget that it was Democrat strategist James Carville who talked about going to "war" against the Republicans in the latter part of the Clinton years, suggesting that Democrats would investigate any Republican President as vigorously as the Republicans investigated Clinton. Surprise surprise, that happened. Yet, no admonition from Krugman. Funny, huh?

Seems as though the "Witch-Hunt Season" isn't back...because it never stopped.

Ignoring a Problem Doesn't Make It Go Away

2010-08-29T19:51:00.002-05:00

Politico reports that President Obama blasted "lies" and "disinformation" recently. Although I hoped he was talking about his own Administration, that hope was crushed when he started talking about the controversies surrounding his birth certificate and whether he's a Muslim. Although I'm not a "birther" or an "Obama is a Muslim" type, I do want to make a point about the President's handling of these issues.

Although they are relatively minor issues from the larger perspective, they persist and grow because the President hasn't definitively addressed them. Contrary to what the Left says, the President has not released a Birth Certificate yet. He has, however, released a Certificate of Live Birth, which isn't quite the same thing. And, no, it's not sufficient to quell the rumors that his Birth Certificate proves he wasn't a natural-born citizen.

This is where his actions come into play. Although he has tried to downplay the significance of the issue, his actions or his apparent actions that seem to underscore the validity of the charges. It's all about the actions matching up with the statements. Walking the walk, and talking the talk. When a leader doesn't walk the walk and talk the talk, his or her leadership is understandably questioned, even by people who might normally let him or her slide on other issues. That's a failure of leadership and that failure has come into play yet again with the "Obama is a Muslim" talk. By not walking the walk and talking the talk, Obama has invited the kind of speculation about which he laments.

The solution is easier than the President thinks or wants to admit: start walking the walk and talking the talk. Give a little, Mr. President, and put these rumors to rest for no other reason than to give everyone peace of mind. Plus, imagine what it would do to those people who have said "Obama wasn't born here" and "Obama is a Muslim." It would make them look absolutely foolish and unreliable, while you would come away from it looking more honest (which is something you really need to do right now...). That's a pure win-win for you, Mr. President. All it would require you to do is suck it up and lead.

Something tells me that won't happen.

Restoring Dishonor

2010-08-28T04:56:00.002-05:00

Today is the day of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, an event that could be a historic event in modern times. So, naturally since Glenn Beck is involved, the Left has been trying to tear it down. Here's a sampling of what Leftists have been saying about the event:

- At Beck's "Divine Destiny" event at the Kennedy Center the night before, Media Matters (the Soros funded Leftist lying media organization headed up by proven and admitted liar David Brock) said that the event was "steeped in politics" in spite of Beck's claims to contrary because...some of the speakers spoke out against abortion and political correctness! Oh, horrors! We can't have people exercising their free speech and making points that have religious undertones, can we? By the way, kids, there are people who skew to the left politically who agree with the speakers who came out against abortion and political correctness. Nat Hentoff comes to mind.

- Media Matters also rattled off a list of conservative groups and people with connections (no matter how weak the connection - seriously, they bashed a conservative group for putting ads in one of their publications promoting the 8/28 events) to "prove" the 8/28 event was political. Wow. No wonder Media Matters is so revered by the Left. They dig to find completely irrelevant points to "expose" the Right's "real agenda." Bravo, you magnificent bastards!

- Media Leftists have gone out of their way to portray Beck as a "conservative" and a "controversial talk show host," but have called blacks who oppose the 8/28 rally (like the Rev. Al Sharpton) as "civil rights leaders." Yeah, like Sharpton's new to the controversy scene. Beck's controversial because he said the President has a problem with white people, but Sharpton isn't controversial because he actually does have a problem with white people?

- ABC's Claire Shipman did a report about the 8/28 rally where she took one of Beck's statements out of context and used it to bash him. The statement used in the ABC report shows Beck saying, "Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." However, there was more to the statement. Here is Beck's full statement to put the segment ABC used in context: "Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don't own Martin Luther King." By leaving off the first half of Beck's statement, it changes the context of it all. But I'm sure it wasn't part of an orchestrated effort on the part of the Leftist media to malign Beck and those who are attending the rally today, right?

- NBC's "Today" show featured a report about the rally, Tom Costello suggested that it might be difficult to stop people from having signs "with racial overtones" given how there were similar signs at a rally in DC last year. Of course, when Beck says no signs will be allowed and has done so repeatedly and clearly. I'm sure Costello was going to mention that but just ran out of time, what with trying to drag in Dr. Laura's allegedly racist rant into a completely unrelated matter because Sarah Palin defended Dr. Laura and will be a speaker today.

- MSNBC's Ed Schultz compared the TEA Party movement to the Nazis to try to malign the 8/28 rally and suggested Beck was trying to incite race riots. Of course, the TEA Party folks have clearly said the 8/28 rally isn't anything they are putting on, but why let that fact get in the way of attacking Beck by proxy?

Wow. It's almost as if the Left is scared that conservatives are exercising their First Amendment rights today to express a different opinion than the Left espouses. How radical! How "dangerous."

How utterly predictable. Leftists attack anything they don't understand (which is quite a bit, it turns out) and call anything that deviates from their norm as not just wrong, but morally corrupt and intellectually devoid of anything worthwhile. That gives them the self-imposed righteousness to justify any means necessary to slander the Right. After all, they're fighting evil, so they have to fight fire with fire, right?

Yeah, not so much. See, when you resort to blatant and subtle dishonesty to make a point, your point isn't that strong to begin with. All the Left is doing with Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally is showing how dishonorable they can be.

Surprised? I Didn't Think So

2010-08-26T05:03:00.002-05:00

In the "This Shocks Who?" Department, Shirley Sherrod declined the offer of a different job within the Department of Agriculture this week. While Leftists cheer her integrity for ask for Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to step down, there are questions to be asked about why she decided not to take the job. After all, she said she accepts Vilsack's apology, so that should be the end of it, right?

Not so much. As I suggested in a previous blog post, Sherrod appears to be an opportunist looking for any way to elevate her standing in the world. Going back to the Department of Agriculture, even after the media frenzy surrounded her firing, would not elevate her, no matter how high profile the job would be.

Plus, there's still the possible lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart to consider. With her recent payday from the federal government, she certainly has made money off playing the race card when it suits her needs. If she accepted the job, there is a chance that her superiors might ask her to drop the idea of suing Breitbart, which would mean any potential payday from that venture would disappear. And seeing how she's played her firing so far, I don't think she'd allow that. Instead, she's passing up a sure thing for a chance at hitting the legal jackpot.

And that's a big risk, in my opinion. Filing suit against Breitbart may get her a big payday, but it has a greater chance of backfiring against her, leaving her with legal fees and no job, at least in the short term. And, really, who in their right minds would hire someone who took on her own employer in court?

Sherrod had a chance to show she has moved on, and she didn't take it. That, in and of itself, should show us all where her heart really is.

Distort the Constitution Much?

2010-08-24T05:48:00.003-05:00

The Left has never really been that keen on following the Constitution as written because they feel it is a "living document" (meaning that they believe the Constitution means what they say it means, regardless of whether it's grounded in the Constitution). Now, the Left has taken the Constitution to a whole new level with the "community center" that is proposed to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero.

The First Amendment gives Muslims the right to build the mosque/community center under the Establishment Clause, and if you disagree, you're anti-Muslim, stupid, or any number of other derogatory labels. But the thing of it is...the First Amendment doesn't state or imply a right to build anything, let alone a mosque/community center.

The Left's main argument is that the construction of a mosque/community center is an extension of the right to worship. There are two main problems with that argument. First, a person of faith doesn't require a building to worship openly. In my faith, all that's required to establish a church is two people sharing their common faith. Besides, given that there's a mosque within walking distance of the proposed site of the mosque/community center, there are options that are readily available for their religious needs. If the mosque/community center isn't built, nobody is denied their right to worship. It's not the building that makes the right to worship; it's the exhibition of faith.

Second, the Left is being contradictory with its position on the mosque/community center. When it's come to expressions of Christian or Jewish faith, the Left has firmly come down against public expressions of faith, especially on public land. Their logic in those instances is that people of faith should pray only in churches and synagogues since someone might be offended at a public expression of faith. In short, you can pray all you want, just not where people might take offense.

And building a mosque/community center where Muslim prayer will be allowed within a couple of blocks of an act of extremist Muslim terrorism isn't offensive?

Put simply, the Left has no real Constitutional grounds under the Establishment Clause on which to defend the building of the mosque/community center. There may be other Constitutionally-based arguments that could be made, but suggesting that the building of a mosque/community center is an extension of freedom of religion is intellectually dishonest and a gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

You Break It...

2010-08-23T19:27:00.002-05:00

Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That's my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, "Well, this is Obama’s economy." That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. --- Barack Obama, July 14, 2009

What a difference a year makes. From "Give it to me," to "Don't blame me."

Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. President, but the economy is yours, not just because you're the man at the helm of the American ship or because you said the economy is yours. It's because you took decided action that impacted the economy. From the "stimulus package" that failed to stimulate anything but the wildest dreams of bureaucrats to the various spending proposals that will add to the debt without adding much to the economy, the current economic situation is as much Obama's as it is Bush's, if not more so.

But you'd never hear the President say that these days. Oh, no, he "inherited" this economy according to Obama, so he can't be to blame. However, who will be front and center to take credit for any good economic news? You guessed it.

That's the sign of a weak leader. Although Obama and his followers like to compare the President to Ronald Reagan, there is a vast difference between the two men. Reagan didn't care who got the credit for getting something done as long as it was done. Obama cares about getting the credit, but avoids any criticism, regardless of whether it's legitimate.

Yes, what a difference a year makes. Obama laid claim to the economy, but only when it makes him look good. The problem: he laid claim to it when he thought his plans were going to work. Now that they haven't, he's stuck with it.

The Elephant in the Room

2010-08-20T20:52:00.002-05:00

For the past couple of years, Iran has been making moves to build nuclear reactors, citing their desire to move away from an oil-based energy policy. The Left has cheered this move, marking one of the first times in recent history that Leftists have actually cheered for nuclear power.

But, here's the funny thing. Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. And I can't say that Iran's done much to tap into that reserve. Why would they go nuclear when they have oil? I have a few thoughts on the matter, and none of them are as blissfully ignorant as the Left's thoughts on the same matter.

1) Iran knows they have the US over a barrel. An oil barrel, to be precise. It's no secret that America has a jones for oil. One of our sources of foreign oil is the Middle East, and one of the primary tanker routes is the Strait of Hormuz. And guess where Iran sits. Right along the Strait of Hormuz. Combine that with the fact about Iran's oil reserves that I referenced above and you get a situation that could create an artificial spike in oil prices if Iran decides to cut us off. Going nuclear allows them to hold onto more oil which they can sell back to us as economy-busting prices.

2) They're gearing up for an attack on Israel. It's not secret that the current leadership in Iran wants Israel out of the picture in the Middle East. One of the great advantages Israel has over their Muslim counterparts in that neck of the world is their military. One way to counteract that military is through bigger, more dangerous weapons. Like...oh I don't know...a nuclear bomb. And given that Iran has a deal with Russia to get the kind of uranium used in nuclear weapons instead of the uranium used in nuclear reactors, I'm guessing Iran's going to play a much bigger role in the Middle East's conflict with Israel very soon.

3) Iran will be a battlefront in an impending geopolitical conflict akin to the Cold War. This is a radical notion, but one that has a basis in fact. The fall of the Soviet Union left great opportunity, but also a lot of hard feelings among the communists still there. Although we saw Russia moderate its relationship with the West early on, one would be hard-pressed to say that the relationship hasn't soured again. Blame Bush if you want, but it wouldn't have mattered who was President because they have been planting the seeds for this for decades. Now, consider China's growing influence on the global scene. The fact that China and Russia are on the same page is scary, especially considering both are actively supporting Iran's nuclear aims. Both countries have an ax to grind with America, and they're not above making us fight on ground that isn't theirs. If events continue to unfold like I think they will, once Iran goes nuclear, Russia and China will get more vigorous in their defense of Iran, which would embolden Iran to attack Iraq. That has the potential to draw us into a global war that we won't be able to afford and will most likely lose.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong on these (especially on that third one). But until we're willing to look at the facts and act accordingly, Iran's nuclear capabilities will continue to be the elephant in the room that we're trying to ignore.

And He's a SMART Leftist?

2010-08-20T05:41:00.002-05:00

My Leftist counterpart tried to rip me a new one, and I know he'll be reading this since he needs me for his own blog since he's incapable of original thought. But, as he often does, he misses the point completely.

Here is the blog post in question with comments from yours truly.

Reality Now Has An ACTIVIST Bias!

No. As we'll see, the Leftist blogger has little connection to reality.

Lindaman writes:

With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.

When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.

What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.

Uh... so what judge CAN preside over the case?

That's the point. No judge can preside over this case, but Leftists forced the issue and managed to get a practicing gay man to preside over it. This raises the issue I referenced, and the Leftist blogger completely ignored because it he would have to concede the fact that I was right.

The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.

Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds

That's because... THE LEFT DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE LIKE THE RIGHT.

Ooooh, sor-ray. As we've seen repeatedly (ex. Joe Lieberman, the small number of blacks allowed to head up the DNC in lieu of letting rich white men head it up, the Left's support of Margaret Sanger), the Left does discriminate much more frequently than the Right.

(even though there is no civil right to marriage).

There's no constitutional right for ugly, obese bigots to get married, either. It's not the purpose of the Constitution to explicitly list which rights you have. The purpose is to place restrictions on the federal and state government's ability to limit your rights. What Prop 8 did was to declare that a certain segment of the population are entitled to special rights for no other reason than that they promote the status quo, and you just can't do that under the Constitution.

Actually, that's exactly what the Bill of Rights does by laying out the prohibitions of government to intrude on citizens' rights. And last time I checked, the Bill of Rights is considered part of the Constitution.

The burden isn't to prove why there should be a right to gay marriage, the burden is to prove why it is okay to keep gays from exercising that right.

Under your logic, a straight man has the right to sue a lesbian if she denies his "right" to marry her. Under my logic, the case wouldn't even get to trial because no judge has standing to deliver a just verdict.

There is only a right to marry, not a right for heterosexuals and a separate one for homosexuals. Excluding people from that right without a legitimate government interest is unconstitutional, as anyone with common sense knew all along. The words "No Rational Basis" mean something.

How about the fact that the 14th Amendment secures equal protection under the law? Inventing a right out of whole cloth so that gays can "marry" violates the 14th Amendment at its face, as it does not provide equal protection under the law since it elevates one portion of the population above another. And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the authority to rule on this matter since the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to rule on this matter and the states haven't given up their authority to the federal government.

Oh, wait. I just did. Sorry. :-)

Of course, nobody loves you from either gender... so naturally you're going to be bitter.

Awww...two personal attacks in lieu of an intelligent comment on the issues I raised? I'm flattered!

But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.

ROFL! Considering Rush Limbaugh's preference for Dominican boys, that's not a good right-wing example.

Of course, this lame attempt at slandering Limbaugh would make more sense if I had said Limbaugh was the judge in this hypothetical example. After all the times the Leftist has blasted me for "mistakes" from a "lack of reading comprehension," one would think that he wouldn't have made such a glaring error. But why let intellectual consistency get in the way of spreading another Leftist lie?

You know, like the Right is doing with this case?

The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.

Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want,

Okay! "Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe Homophobe!"

Your attempts to stop being called a homophobe by saying "Call me a homophobe!" doesn't change the fact you're a homophobe. But hey, you've already exposed yourself as a bigot and a racist, and even support anti-semites. So I guess it was about time that you went all the way to the Right and exposed yourself as a homophobe, too.

So, by raising a legitimate question about whether a practicing gay judge can deliver impartial justice to all parties involved and by questioning whether anyone has a right to marry, the Leftist calls me homophobic. That's illogical, even for the Left. Under the Leftist definition of homophobia, wouldn't I have to exhibit a clear hatred for gays? And, no, questioning a "right" of anyone to marry doesn't constitute homophobia, as it covers both straight and gay people. Try again.

but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.

And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.

We can say plenty, liar. For example:

And as far as the age-old right-wing meme of "activist judges!": Should a black judge recuse himself from a civil rights case? Debate over, in one question.

Oooh, sor-ray. See, civil rights cases involve more than just blacks, so a black judge can rule on a civil rights case if the particulars of the case are such that the judge can avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Which is the point I've been making all along.

Oh, look! After all this time, Lindaman finally has a commenter! Now we get to see that "open discussion" you kept whining about on your little "Leftist Coward Watch". Remember that?

For those that are just tuning in: Thomas Lindaman went on a two week bitchfest because I wasn't opening this blog to comments, and he called it a "Leftist Coward Watch". He kept leaving out the fact that this blog was created because he repeatedly backed down.

Actually, it wasn't. The Leftist's own masthead states he is "Exposing Right Wing Lies and Lunacy." Yet, the vast majority of his posts deal with...me. Unless I'm the only "right winger" who lies and is a lunatic, then one could conclude that one of his statements (his masthead or the portion quoted above) is a lie.

And given that he's purposely misstating the purpose of my "Leftist Coward Watch" (which was to point out how it was hypocritical of him to post comments but not allow others to post), it's clear who the liar really is.

And even so, I did offer to open a comment box for him, if he would answer the question as to why he lied about 97% of climatologists being "generic scientists", and why he lied about it again after being faced with that fact. He never acknowledged any of those three facts during his two weeks of bitching. And he still hasn't.

Funny, but I didn't lie about that. Besides, why make it a condition that I accept your discredited premise to allow for me to comment? Shouldn't you want an intellectual exchange if your ideas are superior?

Anyway, now he FINALLY has a commenter on his blog. Let's see what the commenter has to say:

"Karl: It seems the only option is to find a bisexual or asexual judge to avoid the conflict you speak of. Good luck with that. Practicality has to enter into the equation at some point."

Oh, SNAP! This guy ain't one of your good close racist AOLers! That comment is... rational! And a tough one for a right-winger to respond to! Will Lindaman rise to the challenge?

Now, let's see what Lindaman had to say in response to him, after TWO WEEKS of waiting...

Hmm... Lindaman replied with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Of course, the Leftist missed the point Karl made. Karl actually agreed with me. Unless he wanted me to post "dittos," there really isn't a need to respond.

Unless, of course, the Leftist is trying to set up a straw man argument in lieu of an actual argument...

Lindaman... you mean you aren't even going to do what you've done before in your comment boxes, and call Karl a "slapnutz"? Which is an insult that doesn't even make sense, and in fact exposes you as a self-loathing closet case?

Except for the fact that Karl agreed with me. Why would I insult someone who agreed with me?

Of course, now that you've been exposed as ducking a comment, you might scramble for a response now. It won't be easy considering you don't make passive-aggressive smileys on the blog like you did chatrooms.

Ducking a comment I agreed with? That makes no sense, even for a Leftist. :-)

Now that I've spent far too much time pointing out the Leftist blogger's intellectual failures, I think we can all see he doesn't allow comments. He's afraid that a commenter will take him to task for his dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Uncommon Allies

2010-08-19T20:51:00.002-05:00

What do humorist Mark Twain and soon-to-be-ex-talk radio show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger have in common? The answer may surprise you, but we'll get to that in a bit.

First, I have to say that I'm not a Dr. Laura fan. In the few times I've listened to her, I've found her to be sanctimonious, condescending, and above all else, unoriginal. Every problem seems to have the same answer: listen to Dr. Laura's brusque advice. And while we're here, if you rely on a talk radio host as your moral authority, you have bigger problems than shacking up with someone to worry about.

Having said that, I feel the controversy surrounding her use of the n-word is nonsense contrived by the Left to try to take down someone who has been a thorn in their collective sides. It's spiteful at best, but at worst it's dangerous to free speech. Like it or not, racism (even imaginary racism) is protected speech. The thing about free speech is that, although you are guaranteed a right to speak, you are not guaranteed a right to an audience. If you don't like Dr. Laura, turn on NPR, and vice versa.

This is not to say Dr. Laura's without fault here. As a target of the Left, a political group that has no problem taking comments out of context and railing against them (ex. Media Matters talking about Glenn Beck), she should have known the use of the n-word would have gotten them salivating and calling for her to be taken off the air. She unwittingly gave the Left what they wanted: a reason to take her out of context and then take her down.

Of course, the Left never lets a little thing like context get in the way of a good narrative. It's like how the Left has railed against Huckleberry Finn in the 90s. They didn't bother to understand the setting of the book or the context of the use of the n-word. All they saw was the n-word, and on that, they called the book racist. Yet, the book makes a serious point about being colorblind when it comes to racial relationships and points out the hypocrisy in those who saw (and continue to see) only race.

So, what do Mark Twain and Dr. Laura have in common? They've both been criticized by the Left for making a valid point about race relations that the Left was able to take out of context.

Fitzgerald's Fumble

2010-08-18T19:22:00.003-05:00

With former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich being found guilty of 1 out of 24 counts, a lot of people are focusing on one juror as the reason the jury was deadlocked. However, one person seems to be escaping what I feel is well-deserved scrutiny.

US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Blagojevich trial is the second high profile case Fitzgerald has botched, the first being the investigation into who "outed" Valerie Plame. Even after it came out that Richard Armitage "outed" Plame, not Robert Novak or Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald went ahead with the prosecution of Libby and won a conviction over an immaterial point, and only after the jury was stacked and admitted they didn't have any real reason to convict Libby, aside from a desire to see someone take the fall for it.

And now, he earned a similar meaningless conviction against Blagojevich.

At some point, shouldn't we be expecting a federal prosecutor to, oh I don't know, win a meaningful conviction every so often? I know he's a government employee, but damn! Even they have some performance standards.

Fitzgerald's handling of the two big cases on his recent resume shows he's not capable. He seems to love the sound of his own voice, making statements that backfire on him on a regular basis and make him look foolish. Just like Joe Biden, only with the power to prosecute you...badly.

If we were serious about cutting government waste, I'd say a good place to start would be to fire Fitzgerald.

A Slogan By Any Other Name

2010-08-16T20:34:00.003-05:00

With everything on his plate, President Obama is trying his hand at stand-up comedy. During a speech at a fundraiser, Obama said that the slogan of the Republican Party is "No, We Can't." Wow. I'd slap my knee, but it would require me to actually think such a hack line was funny and I'm afraid all the hopeity-change in the world isn't going to make it suck any less.

It's nice that the President is taking the time to take swipes at the Republican Party for being negative, but I think he should spend a little more time looking at the Congressional makeup. His party controls both houses of Congress and they have the votes (at least the House) along party lines to push through anything they want. Calling the GOP the "Party of No" may win you points with the Daily Kosmonauts, but it doesn't work with people who actually pay attention.

In other words, anyone who isn't a Leftist.

And while we're here, why don't we take a closer look at what the GOP has said "no" to and why.

- Republicans said no to extending unemployment benefits recently because keeping people on unemployment won't get them back into a job. And right now, we need people employed more than we need them beholden to government. What will happen after this extension runs out? Wanna bet there'll be another bill to extend benefits out further?

- Republicans said no to a health care reform bill written by the very industry that the bill would allegedly regulate because there was very little actual reform in the bill. Gee. Maybe that's why the health care reform bill was supported by the insurance industry so much...

- Republicans said no to a stimulus package because they realized that it was the federal equivalent of a "honey do" list. The more we dive into how the stimulus funds were allocated and spent, the more we realize just how misguided it was to give away the money in the first place. All it did was make busy work for people who would vote Democrat anyway without actually doing much economic stimulation.

- Republicans said no to a government takeover of the automotive industry because government control of anything tends to make it less efficient and more costly. Plus, with the government's thumb on the scales, it's hard to know for certain whether the automakers who took bailout money actually stayed afloat on their own or solely because the government kept pumping money into them. Seriously, the Chevy Volt? It's a pimped-out Prius!

- Republicans said no to Wall Street reform because...well, because it was exactly like the health care reform bill, only with "Wall Street" being substituted for "insurance providers."

- Republicans said no to a mosque/Muslim community center possibly being built two blocks from Ground Zero because they understand that it's not about religious freedom; it's about radical Islam fooling enough people to allow them to put a mosque near the site of a terrorist act that they committed. Is there anyone on the Left who sees the problem with the location of this community center? I hope so, but I fear not.

Seems to me that the "Party of No" is on the right side of these issues. Sometimes saying yes to everything is the worst thing you can do. It's like asking an alcoholic who is having a rough go of sobriety whether he or she wants some booze. Once you say yes to something like that, it gets harder to say no because you're feeding the very thing that threatens to destroy us. All it takes is one moment of weakness for the slide down the slippery slope to begin.

As far as the slogan, Mr. President, let me help you. The Republican slogan isn't "No, We Can't." It's "No, We Shouldn't." And they'd be right.

A Bad Judgment Call

2010-08-05T20:40:00.002-05:00

With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.

When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.

What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.

The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.

Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds (even though there is no civil right to marriage). But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.

You know, like the Right is doing with this case?

The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.

Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want, but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.

And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.

The Revolving Door

2010-08-02T04:32:00.002-05:00

There's an old saying: "When it rains, it pours." Usually, it's a saying that's invoked when a series of unexpected negative events happens in a short span of time. And given some of the issues that have come up recently, Democrats have to feel like they're caught in a monsoon.

Although it may be raining cats and dogs on the Left right now, there is an element of repetition in the bad news that is coming their way. I get the feeling as this election season rolls on, we're going to see more than a few of the following situations come back over and over again.

- Charlie Rangel's ethics violations. When Nancy Pelosi was preparing to take the reins of power in the House, she promised to "drain the swamp" to take a bold stand against the "Culture of Corruption." With Rangel being brought up on a number of ethics violations and welcoming an investigation into said charges in an attempt to clear his name, Congressional Democrats have to be praying that Rangel will either step down voluntarily or that the investigation ends quickly. The longer it goes into the election year, the worse it looks for Congressional Democrats.

- Maxine Waters' ethics violations. Same as above, but with Maxine Waters instead of Charlie Rangel. And what's worse for the Democrats is that the Waters situation is just getting started. Not good.

- Shirley Sherrod. On the surface, the Left thinks the Sherrod situation is a winner for them, but from a larger perspective, it could wind up being a loser. And the sad thing is that they could have seen this coming if they had paid attention to the red flags that were being raised. When Sherrod couldn't decide whether to take a new position within the Obama Administration but decided to sue Andrew Breitbart relatively quickly, that should have made someone at DNC headquarters say, "This is going to come back to bite us." And I think it will because it reflects a level of incompetence by the Obama Administration that won't help the party make a cogent case for reelection in Congress.

- The economy. Joe Biden's overly optimistic (and often contradictory) statements about the economy aside, we aren't seeing much positive activity with the economy. Elections are driven by voters' pocketbooks, and there are a lot of people who are out of work and wondering when the Obama Administration and Congress are going to do something to help them get back on their feet. And they aren't seeing anything happening. What they're seeing is a bunch of promises that aren't being fulfilled. TARP, the stimulus package, HAMP, nothing seems to be working, and all the Administration and Congress can do is pat itself on the back for averting a disaster that they can't tell for sure they stopped and won't admit they had a hand in causing.

- Attacks on the TEA Parties. The Left's attacks on the TEA Parties have gone from the ridiculous (the TEA Parties are whites-only events) to the sublimely ridiculous (the TEA Parties are irrelevant). As it turns out, public opinion is largely in favor of the TEA Party movement because the TEA Parties echo the sentiments of a wide swath of the population. Calling it racist or out of touch or irrelevant is like saying those things to most of America, and the Left isn't going to win by torquing off voters like that.

- Immigration. Although the Obama Administration may have won a judicial victory by having portions of the Arizona immigration law suspended by a judge, there are a number of ways it could come back to blow up in the Left's faces. By standing against the Arizona law, the Left has stood against the opinions of a majority of Americans, but has also risked losing support of union workers since they will be the ones directly impacted by letting illegal immigrants stay here and take jobs that could go to union workers. And that's not counting other ways that the Arizona situation can come back to haunt Democrats, such as whether local and state officials will be allowed to act on potential terrorist activity given the judge's ruling. Let's see how that works out.

- The growing rift between the Obama Administration and Congress. As I stated in a previous blog, the Administration and Congress aren't getting along as well as expected. The health care reform debate exposed a disconnect between the Obama Administration and Congress, much to the chagrin of Congressional leadership. When Obama pushed for health care reform, Congress expected him to take the lead on it, but instead he took his hands off the wheel and allowed Congressional Democrats to try to steer it. As we saw, they didn't do a very good job, which made the approval process that much longer, and did far more damage to Obama and Congressional Democrats. It's gotten to the point that many Congressional candidates don't want Obama anywhere near them, which is something the Left reveled in when it happened to George W. Bush later in his Presidency. Now, they're experiencing what they mocked, and it's not working out well for them.

These, and others that I haven't mentioned, may become the Left's Waterloo in November. And I, for one, will be enjoying the fireworks.

The Battle for Helen Thomas' Seat

2010-07-31T19:05:00.002-05:00

Politico reports that there is a debate brewing within the White House Correspondents' Association over who should be allowed to occupy the seat once held by Helen Thomas. The contenders: Fox News and National Public Radio. As can be expected, people have varying opinions on who should get the seat, as do I, but I'll share mine in a bit.

First, let's take a look at Fox News. Supporters say it is one of the most fair and balanced cable news networks out there, and it can be argued on both sides as to the veracity of that idea. Critics tend to fall into two categories: those who think Fox News is nothing more than right wing propaganda, and those who think Fox News isn't a real news organization. It should be pointed out, however, that for many years, Helen Thomas was allowed to sit in her vaunted seat without being a reporter. Yes, my friends, for a good chunk of her later career, she was...an opinion columnist. For those who bash Fox News as right wing propaganda, the problem is that the WHCA has set the precedent for Fox News to take the seat, and complaining about their slant now doesn't justify their silence on Thomas' slant for 20+ years.

Next, there's National Public Radio. Supporters say that they are one of the best news organizations out there and without much of a bias. Critics point to the fact that for many years NPR was taxpayer funded (although more recently, they've become much more publicly funded). I've listened to NPR for a number of years, and they do a good job in reporting. However, they do show a leftward bias in subtle ways, from what stories they cover to the way those stories are covered. They're not as bad as MSNBC, but they do occasionally let their personal opinions get in the way of straight reporting.

This leads to the heart of the debate: what constitutes a news organization in today's environment? NPR still reports using old school journalism while Fox News relies more on flash. On the other hand, Fox News has made a bigger impact on journalism in recent years than has NPR. (Whether that impact has been positive or negative is subject to debate, but their impact is undeniable.) Should the seat go to a left-leaning old school journalism outlet or a right-leaning new journalism outlet?

I say neither of them deserve the seat.

The journalism game has changed so much that few people are actual journalists anymore. What they've become is PR agents for a side or a cause, merely repeating what they or their editors believe. And why? So they can get invited to the Washington parties. Reporting the facts has taken a back seat to hobnobbing with the elites, and journalism as a whole has suffered. When a venerable newspaper like the Washington Post has to do a mea culpa for not covering the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation story for over a year, and another venerable newspaper like the New York Times not even doing that much, it's clear that the journalism profession is seriously broken.

So, I don't think NPR or Fox News deserve Helen Thomas' seat, but that's only because I don't think the majority of so-called journalists deserve a seat in the White House Press Room.

History Repeating Itself?

2010-07-31T06:30:00.002-05:00

Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's abhorrent for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath.

Those words came from one Nancy Pelosi after former Republican House member Mark Foley was caught trying to get a Congressional page to meet with him for what was believed to be a sexual encounter. Although Pelosi's point was hysterical hyperbole (since only teenagers can be Congressional pages), her larger point was that Republican leaders knew about Foley's actions and didn't act on them.

Why do I bring this up almost 4 years later? Charlie Rangel.

Anyone who has followed Rangel's Congressional career knows that he's done some pretty shady things over the years, only some of which are coming to light now. And under Pelosi's standard as presented above, knowing about it for years without doing anything about it is wrong and worthy of being hauled before the Ethics Committee to testify about what was known and when it was known.

So, will Madame Speaker live up to her own standard? Will she voluntarily go before the Ethics Committee to testify under oath about what she knew about Rangel's legal issues and when she knew about them?

Let me put it this way. I'm not holding my breath for her to act accordingly.

Dynamic Tension?

2010-07-31T05:17:00.002-05:00

The Charlie Rangel situation is getting more and more interesting. While Rangel himself is digging in his heels and welcoming the ethics investigation into his alleged crimes, President Obama has taken a different position. He said the following in an interview with CBS News:

I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served -- his constituents very well. But these -- allegations are very troubling. And he'll -- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that -- what he wants is to be able to -- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that -- it happens.

Set aside the disjointed sentence structure and rampant ageism by the President for a moment and really think about the implications of Obama's statement in the context of the rising tension between the White House and Congress. It's safe to say that Congressional Democrats and Obama aren't getting along like they used to anymore because the former can't seem to get the latter's help in supporting his agenda. The President talked a great game about health care reform, but left Congress to try to make the sale to its constituents. That didn't go well, and Obama did little to help them. This made the Congressional Democrats look bad, and I firmly believe it caused the health care reform bill to stay stuck in Congress far longer than it should have been. But it wasn't Obama who took the heat for that. It was Congress. And given some of the egos in Congress, that's not going to sit well.

There are a lot of other dynamics in play here, but the tension between the Obama White House and Congressional Democrats are going to get worse in the light of Obama's statement against Rangel before they get better.

The Prez on "The View"

2010-07-30T21:27:00.006-05:00

I figured since so many people were talking about it, I'd chime in on President Obama appearing on "The View" this week. And what do I think about it?

Absolutely nothing.

Seriously, do we have nothing on our plates but the President going on a daytime talk show? Why would we care? If the President wants to go on a talk show, let him. It's his credibility on the line when he does. No skin off my nose. But to hear conservatives talk about it, Obama was disgracing the office of the President by showing up on "The View."

Folks, you have to pick your battles. The President going on "The View" is no big deal because the show stinks on ice. Having the President go on it would be like having him go on "The Joy Behar Show": only a handful of people are going to watch, and usually it's the type of people who already agree with him. He's not going to convert anyone. If he wanted to make an impact, he would get the guts to go on the Glenn Beck show.

It's like the attention paid to Chelsea Clinton's wedding. It's worthless attention paid to an event that doesn't warrant more attention than knowing she's getting married. End of story, kids. Let it go.

Don't get sucked into the tilting against over-hyped windmills. Keep the focus on subjects that matter.

A House of (Race) Cards

2010-07-30T04:58:00.004-05:00

Remember when the Left portrayed President Obama as the "post-racial President"? It seems that, in spite of that lofty (and as yet unexplained) title, some in this country can't get past race. And no, my little Leftist reader, they're not on the Right.

Yes, my friends, it's the Left that keeps playing the race card. Criticize Obama's policies? You're a racist.

Point out that the NAACP nodded and applauded Shirley Sherrod saying that she didn't help a white farmer as well as she could have? You're a racist.

Think that Arizona's immigration law is a good idea? You're a racist.

Agree with the TEA Party? You're a racist.

The Left keeps playing the race card to the point of comic absurdity. In fact, I was once called a racist by a Leftist because I said I didn't care what race Obama was. But such is the thinking of the Left these days. They see racism under every rock, behind every tree, and under every bed.

But, as with so much of what the Left believes, reality paints a far different picture. You wouldn't know it from listening to the Left, but by and large the races get along. There will still be at least some friction among the races, just as there is friction between people. Yet, there isn't the kind of racial animosity that the Left assumes is there.

It goes a bit deeper than that, though. Have you noticed that if you're in favor of something that the Left is against, the Left makes it into a racial issue even when race isn't really a factor? With the election of Obama, the Left has gotten ultra-sensitive about race, while the rest of us have given race the same general consideration that we did before Obama's election, which is to say we don't really care.

Then again, the Left thrives on keeping racial tensions high because it benefits them. Money to candidates, unblinking support of Democrat candidates, the maintenance of the image of the Left defending civil rights, all of these and more that I didn't mention are at stake if the races get along. Instead of accepting the reality and working within it, though, the Left prefers to be destructive rather than constructive. Thus, they keep playing the race card in the hopes that enough people still believe there is racism everywhere you go.

However, what the Left doesn't realize is that they can't keep playing the race card without it losing its impact. That's what's happening now. By spending time and energy inventing racism where it doesn't exist in situations that have nothing to do with race or to defend allies who have screwed up, the Left has watered down real racism, like the racism exhibited by the NAACP in the Sherrod video when members laughed and applauded when Sherrod said she didn't help the white farmer as well as she could. And what is the Left doing?

Going after Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, Glenn Beck, and anyone else who sees real racism in the footage and being unafraid to point it out.

And people are starting to pay attention to the Left's Chicken Little act and rejecting the Left's arguments as being unfounded. The more that happens, the more desperate the Left will get, and the more likely they are to keep playing the race card, which will continue their downward spiral. Unfortunately for them, they don't see the negative impact it's having on their credibility to keep crying "racism" instead of "wolf" at every situation that comes along where the Left and the Right clash these days. They'll keep building their house of race cards higher and higher and hope nobody sneezes.

And the crash when someone does will be spectacular.

In the "This Shocks Who?" Department...

2010-07-29T19:27:00.003-05:00

Shirley Sherrod is planning to sue Andrew Breitbart for posting the video of her speech at an NAACP event. After all, she was the wronged party, according to her! Breitbart was clearly targeting her, a little-known Department of Agriculture employee until now, so she's just trying to restore her good name.

Meanwhile in the real world, we get to see Sherrod for what she truly is: an opportunist.

Granted, everyone has a bit of this streak within them. But not everyone gets to write his or her on history as Sherrod and her ideological allies have done. No matter how the Left spins the facts, the timeline doesn't fit their spin, which puts Sherrod's case in a bit of trouble. See, the courts tend to have a little higher standard of proof than Media Matters. With the media coverage making her into an overnight sensation, though, I'm thinking she's letting her ego write checks that her legal team won't be able to cash. (But maybe they'll get some of that sweet settlement money Sherrod and her husband just received from the federal government.)

Some on the Left say Sherrod is only trying to restore her reputation. Given how she's trying to cash in on a lie, I'd say her reputation has already been affirmed.

Remember What I Said About Context?

2010-07-27T05:38:00.003-05:00

Even when the facts regarding Shirley Sherrod's "firing" by the Obama White House come out, some on the Left refuse to accept that Fox News didn't get her "fired."

Mediaite's Steve Krakauer tried to set the Left straight as to the actual timeline of Fox News' coverage of the Sherrod story, but one poster (who will remain nameless to protect his/her fragile Leftist ego) wasn't buying the facts:

You got the facts right Steve, but I’m not buying your conclusion.

The administration didn’t fire Sherrod because they saw the video on Fox News, true.

The administration fired Sherod because a right-wing smear machine disguised as a news network that has repeatedly race-baited the White House with their “us vs them/Black against White” narrative EXISTS.

If that wasn’t the FOX M.O. then the White House would not have acted so rashly. They knew by experience that they could not expect fairness from FOX when it comes to race and that is what makes Fox at least partly to blame.

If there was no history of Fox race-baiting their would be no reason to act rashly.
I do believe Fox created the ATMOSPHERWE for this to happen and that is why they are to blame.

Fuck timelines..Fox has been doing this since Obama was nominated. There’s your timeline. [Emphasis mine]

So, let me get this straight. The facts were right that showed that Fox News didn't get Sherrod fired as the Left has claimed, but they're still to blame for getting her fired because of the "atmosphere" they allegedly created? The only way you can even remotely make this claim is to invent a reality where Fox News and Andrew Breitbart masterminded a great racist conspiracy to bring down a virtual unknown to get back at the President.

Meanwhile, the real story (that being the NAACP's racism in its midst after chastising the TEA Parties for racists in their midst) is being ignored by the Left. By jumping on the TEA Parties as racist from the very beginning, haven't you created the environment under which Sherrod was fired, using your logic? So, when are you going to man up and accept responsibility?

Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on this. Needless to say, now that the "Fox News got Shirley Sherrod" lie has been discredited, the Left is reduced to creating new reasons to blame them for the boneheaded actions of the Obama Administration and the NAACP. But no matter what narrative they invent, the facts are out there, and no one but them is buying their spin.

Oh, and for Those Who Think I've Been Proven Wrong about Media Matters

2010-07-26T22:00:00.001-05:00

http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/

Choke on it.

A Forgotten Lesson

2010-07-26T21:04:00.002-05:00

One of the hot issues right now is the proposed building of a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. Some say it's a way to heal the wounds of 9/11 by showing that we're above hatred. Others say it disrespects the families of those who died on 9/11.

Guess which side I'm on.

Folks, let me be as blunt as possible. If this mosque goes up, it will prove that we haven't learned a damn thing from 9/11. We're doomed to make the same mistakes of believing hollow words and ignoring real action unless we think through this carefully.

And the place to start is with the fundamental question: why build a mosque within two blocks of a site where Muslim extremists attacked a major American, and dare I say world, city? Wasn't there another spot that is closer to the Muslim community in NYC? And wouldn't the greed and social climbing connected to Manhattan be an affront to Islam on some level? None of it makes sense.

Unless you look at it from the standpoint of a radical Muslim. To them, building a mosque within a short distance of a martyrdom site is highly attractive, especially when it's going a poke in the eye of "the Great Satan." (For the uninitiated and for the Left, that's us.) And let's not forget that radical Muslims are trained to use our freedoms against us and invent scandals to make us scared to speak out against them.

And what does Mayor Mike Bloomberg do? Become the Capitulator in Chief and defend the mosque being built.

There's a fine line between tolerance and allowing people to take advantage of you. And let me tell you, radical Muslims are taking advantage of all of us with this Ground Zero mosque. While the Left attacks Sarah Palin for Tweeting her opposition to the mosque, they miss the obvious: they're being used for a purpose that will ultimately destroy them and, if they bothered to think through their stated positions for more than a microsecond, they would be opposed to, and should be if they had any sense whatsoever. I'm asking a lot, I know, but it's still a dream...

However, to be fair, I am willing to drop my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque on one condition: they allow me to erect two symbols at the entrance to the mosque.

A Star of David, and a Christian Cross.

After all, if it's all about tolerance, shouldn't we hold Muslims to the same standards that they want to hold us to?