Resolution X

THE GLOCK 25TH ANIVERSARY PROMOTION - GLOCK

2011-09-10T22:38:00.000-05:00

Win a free trip to Austria to see the birthplace of the Glock? Heck yeah! Awesome!

THE GLOCK 25TH ANIVERSARY PROMOTION - GLOCK

Summertime Blues

2011-08-16T13:22:00.000-05:00

Feeling blue is a common summertime ailment from which there is apparently no cure.
The phrase “summertime blues” has, in modern parlance, evolved from the sentiments of a kid working a summer job to encompassing any and all feelings of lethargy during the long, hot days of summer. The “dog days,” as it were.
The original “Summertime Blues” was written and recorded by musician Eddie Cochran in 1958 and reached #8 on the Billboard charts that year. It was later covered by several bands including The Who, The Beach Boys, and country superstar Alan Jackson. It expresses the frustration of a kid with no car, working long hours at a summer job and unable to take his sweetie on a date. In a theme often repeated in popular music throughout the ensuing years, it is an anthem for teenage angst.
Modern application of the phrase is puzzling. While the hot, humid days of summer can be wearisome, summertime is nonetheless preferable to the icy cold and snow of winter for many. The warmth and plentiful sunshine generally contribute to a more positive attitude.
Activities abound and the weather is much more conducive to outdoor excursions. Afternoons are spent enjoying picnics in the park, lounging by the pool or frolicking at the beach. No need to bundle up in a parka, hat and mittens. A sundress for the ladies and short-sleeved shirt and light pants for the guys will do!
Thunderstorms are frequent and displays of lightning are impressive and sometimes frightening. But there’s no need to spend hours clearing a driveway buried in wet, heavy snow or waiting for the snowplow to clear the road. Rather, just hop in your car, open the windows, and cruise – that is, assuming you have one, unlike the teen in the aforementioned song.
And like the teen hoping to take his sweetie on a date, summertime offers a multitude of pleasurable outdoor jaunts with a significant other, from outdoor concerts, movies at the drive-in theater, or even a simple, quiet evening under the stars. Winter, of course, limits dating options to mostly indoor activities.
Heat and humidity can be dangerous in the summer, especially for the more seasoned citizens. Relief from the heat is often just a cold beverage away or a comfortable chair in a cool, air-conditioned room or home. Larger cities often offer “cooling centers” for those in need of such facilities. And few things are as pleasant as a tranquil summer night with the windows open. Don’t try that in the winter!
So is there really no cure for the summertime blues? Summertime is the cure! The sun is shining and it’s a beautiful day. Get out and enjoy it! Winter, after all, is always just around the corner.

The Green/Food Police

2011-08-14T16:42:00.002-05:00

The pervasive environmentalist culture (or, to be more accurate, Mother Earth worshipers) are trying to tell me what I can and can't eat? What's wrong with these people and their moral superiority complexes? Why do they always want to control people?
Funny thing is when it comes to an issue like abortion these people don't want anyone telling them what to do with their bodies of the bodies growing inside their bodies.
I'm going to eat whatever I want, and leave as many carbon footprints as possible.

How much protein do you really need?

Rigging elections? Pot, meet kettle.

2011-06-20T22:50:00.000-05:00

The left is up in arms over voter ID laws making their way through various state legislatures.

Hey, remember how you used to have to be a land-owner to vote? Wow, that was totally crazy. What were those wig wearing crazy old dudes thinking? Not letting people who had no stake in the outcome vote on the use and control of other people's resources and property? It's like they didn't want other people's wealth forcefully redistributed by a centralized governmental bureaucracy or something.

Washington Post - How states are rigging the 2012 election

The Demonizer in Chief

2011-04-21T14:46:00.003-05:00

What's wrong with being rich?
Liberalism is predicated on emotion -- specifically envy. It's not fair that they're rich and you're not!
But how is it fair to confiscate what someone has earned?  Rich or not? How is it fair to confiscate someone's property? That's what wealth is. Property. Even the wealth of someone who inherits it.
But envy is the basis for all of modern liberalism. Remember the Bible verse? "The love of money is the root of all evil." Well, liberals love rich people's money and they want it. They want it to buy votes. They want it to buy power and influence. They want it to buy control.
President Obama is campaigning again, hoping to be reelected by playing the familiar games of class warfare and demonizing his opponents as friends of the rich, haters of the poor and killers of the sick and elderly. The constant class warfare from the president is nothing more than an effort to exploit people's baser instincts. Envy and jealousy can be very powerful motivators.
Never mind that the president actually cares very little for the people he is manipulating (Lenin had a term for such people -- I believe it was "useful idiots"). It's a very callous tactic.
Thus he demonizes the wealthy. He portrays them as the most evil examples of humankind -- oppressors of the poor with nothing but the most despicable of intentions.  Thankfully he will be the one to protect the poor and downtrodden from the abuses of the evil rich, and he will exact vengeance on their behalf. In Barack Obama's world, everything the rich have is stolen from the poor and infirm.
If that's the case, why have there never throughout the history of mankind been laws that have specifically punished rich people for such criminal behavior? Surely they would be prosecuted for robbery and thievery if that were true, wouldn't they?  If the rich are so lawless and crooked, why are jails not filled with the formerly rich? Why then is the only way to exact "justice" through the very subtle means of taxation?
And why do proponents of high taxation for purposes of fairness couch their motives in such veiled language as "redistribution of wealth" and innocuous sounding terms as "social justice"? Surely, if the wealthy have committed such crimes wouldn't criminal prosecution be common and accepted?
Even the most "progressive" (read: socialist) countries in the world enact punishment no harsher than high taxation to correct these supposed wrongs.
Apparently simply being rich is a crime against humanity.
Thus, the president resorts to stoking humanity's baser instincts -- envy. It's not fair that they're rich and you're not, after all.

Memories...

2011-01-15T00:33:00.000-06:00

American History 1918

2011-01-13T23:17:00.000-06:00

More fascinating American history -- Medal of Honor acts of heroism --

The U.S. M1911 & The Medal of Honor

Pajamas Media » Why Liberals Hate the Constitution

2011-01-13T22:24:00.000-06:00

Ha! Take that, hippies!

"You can’t hear [the Constitution] without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies."

Pajamas Media » Why Liberals Hate the Constitution

There's Just Something About A 1911...

2011-01-13T21:27:00.001-06:00

A little something for the American military history aficionados out there -- from Arms and the Man, April 6, 1911 --

The M1911: The Greatest Pistol in the World

A Concise Definition of Leftism

2011-01-13T17:25:00.000-06:00

Collectivist homogenizing, morality equivocating, enlightened despotism.

The Authoritarian Media - WSJ.com

2011-01-12T12:40:00.000-06:00

The Authoritarian Media - WSJ.com

President Palin?

2011-01-12T12:18:00.000-06:00

I don't know whether Governor Sarah Palin will run for President, nor have I decided how I might feel about it were she to run for the office. I will tell you this -- she sounds very Presidential here:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Leftist Non-Hate?

2011-01-12T09:37:00.001-06:00

This is what passes for civilized, benign discourse on the left, apparently. For a supposedly enlightened liberal, Bill Maher sure holds a negative, narrowminded opinion of conservative people. I wonder if he realizes how uninformed, intolerant and, dare I say, hateful, he sounds?

Woman's candy egg seized at border - Yahoo! News

2011-01-11T16:31:00.000-06:00

America, we hardly knew ye!

Woman's candy egg seized at border - Yahoo! News

Michelle Malkin » The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

2011-01-11T12:19:00.000-06:00

Michelle Malkin » The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:3-5

Parody is the sincerest form of flattery...

2010-12-31T12:19:00.000-06:00

Wait, or is that "imitation"? I forget.

Didn't they do this on Futurama?

2010-11-15T12:27:00.001-06:00

Or Total Recall? Scientists watch way too much TV.
Apparently scientists are proposing sending old people away, out into space, never to return.
Scientists, worried Earth will become uninhabitable due to the left's favorite existential threat, global warming, are suggesting one-way trips to Mars to colonize the Red Planet.
"'You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that'... That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea...
Still, [scientists believe] many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.
The Mars base would offer humanity a 'lifeboat' in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable."
It would be pretty wild to visit Mars, though.

Scientists Propose One-Way Trips to Mars

Government Spending?

2010-11-10T20:30:00.000-06:00

And people wonder why we're freaked out about government spending...

2010-11-10T16:35:00.001-06:00

Suppose your friends, Bob Frank and Larry Bean, started a business manufacturing sporting goods. Your friends started out small and grew their operation through hard work and intelligent business practices such as not taking out too many loans to build a factory addition or hire more employees before they were ready. They were smart. They waited until their business was a thriving, successful sporting goods manufacturer. They waited until their business had become profitable enough to reinvest those profits into building their business. Only then, when they could afford it, did they hire new workers and build a new wing of their factory dedicated to manufacturing basketballs.
Imagine, then, how their business would fare if Bob and Larry decided to hire dozens of new employees to do nothing but paperwork? Imagine how their business would fare if they decided to pay their dozens of new employees twice what the sporting goods manufacturer down the road pays their employees? Imagine how their business would fare if they took out loans to build twelve new factories in twelve different states, before they even had enough orders to fill the capacity of their first factory? And imagine your friends Bob and Larry ignored every single business consultant you referred to them and mocked every single piece of friendly advice you offered.
Common sense tells us your friends' ball company would fail. Common sense also tells us Bob and Larry are stupid.
Yet our federal government is behaving in the same way. USA Today reported today that federal salaries have skyrocketed. According to the report, "The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office." Yet while Social Security recipients are not receiving cost of living adjustment for the second straight year, the President plans a 1.4% pay increase for federal workers.
By comparison, private sector workers in comparable positions make half what federal workers are paid, according to a USA Today report from August.
And this is just one example. Instances of unbelievably reckless government spending are legion.
The difference is the federal government can print money, inflate our currency and devalue the dollar. Your friends Bob and Larry will be rewarded for their reckless stupidity by losing their company and possibly their fortune and putting their employees out of work. The federal government's reckless stupidity will hurt the poor whose money is now worth less.
Politicians must have some cojones to look the American people in the eye with a straight face and tell us they are concerned about spending and deficits. This is our tax dollars, our hard earned living, and our federal government gone off the rails.
This is one of the messages last week's election tried to convey. Republicans seem to be listening, Democrats are not. Democrats are like your stupid friends who screwed up so completely they had to sell their life long dream, Frank and Bean's Ball Company, to China.

Michelle Obama's going to be mad...

2010-11-10T15:36:00.000-06:00

On the heels of First Lady Michelle Obama's recent campaigning to urge restaurants and food companies to offer healthier options and default menu items, fast food chain Wendy's announces new, better tasting, more sophisticated french fries.
Apparently they didn't get the message from Mrs. Obama and her patriarchal food police. Offer an apple or carrot sticks instead of french fries, she instructed them. Make customers specifically ask for fries, she chided. We're not telling you not to offer fries, she reassured the businesses whose business is to know what customers want, what customers will buy, and what will keep their businesses operating. We just want you to offer the choices that we think are better, she admonished. No, there's nothing wrong with a bit of gentle coercion, is there? Of course not. Consumers just don't know what's good for them.
Mrs. Obama's probably not going to be visiting Wendy's for her next double cheeseburger...
Wendy's sells new fries with potato skin, sea salt

The American Trinity

2010-11-04T21:53:00.000-05:00

You've seen the butcher.

2010-11-04T16:14:00.002-05:00

I'll let the regular news prognosticators prognosticate about the historic nature of Tuesday's election in which voters butchered Democrats, liberals and leftists all about the fruited plains. Here are some of the election lessons I think are important.
This election, while a monumental achievement for conservatives, or to more accurately describe voters -- Mainstream America -- is really just the opening salvo. To borrow a phrase, "There be no shelter here."
Conservatives must keep up the momentum that's been building the past two years. This is really just the beginning of a long and very difficult war to subdue leftism in America and reverse the monumental damage progressives, liberals, socialists and communists have done to destroy the individual liberties and freedoms of American citizens and to dismantle the very structure of America. Progressives have been at it for a hundred years, trying to undo the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, trying to squash the idea that a man can be free to govern himself. This is a process. It's taken a hundred years to take apart this much of America, how long will it take to put America back together again?
Having kept the Senate in Democrat hands, the president will not have any sort of legislative cover for his agenda that he might have believed he had losing both houses. He can't blame a Republican congress for obstructing his agenda when his party still controls the Senate and the White House. Though he will continue to blame Republicans, just as illogically as he did even with his party controlling the House, Senate and White House prior to the election, nobody's falling for it. But whoever said narcissism was logical?
It also keeps pressure from the American voters on Obama and especially on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who miraculously was able to retain his seat. He benefited from the very visible House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as an arrogant, flamboyant lightning rod for much of the voters' anger. Now the boot of the American electorate lands squarely on his neck. (Don't you just love those nice, friendly colloquialisms Democrats have introduced into mainstream political discourse?)
To be honest, conservative enthusiasm and momentum is the least of my worries. President Obama will not moderate his agenda. I think he is unable to move to the center and will continue to push his leftist agenda, only much more stealthily. Fully aware that he would lose the House and possibly even the Senate, the president threatened "hand to hand combat" after the election. Furthermore, in the weeks leading up to the election it was reported he would pursue his agenda via executive order and regulatory fiat. For two years he pushed his agenda fully aware he was sacrificing many of his own party members at the alter of a leftist authoritarian, paternal ideology. After two years of intense opposition to his policies by large majorities of Americans, why would the fully expected results of this election change his mind?
I fear it will only strengthen his resolve. After all, like most leftists, he knows better than us. The goal of conservatives, in fact, the mainstream of America, is to support the newly elected opposition to President Obama's agenda. They need us to be their backbone.
The president still seems to indicate he believes he has a communications problem. His agenda is good and wonderful, but his messaging is still not getting through to the American people. We should have loved and thanked him by now, but perhaps we are too hard headed, too ignorant, too unsophisticated to fully understand his magnificence. Being president is a hard job, he admitted.
Apparently the American people have a communications problem too. We're still not getting through to him.

It's time, son...

2010-11-01T23:01:00.000-05:00

I remember when I watched the premier episode of the WB teen superhero drama Smallville. Poor Clark Kent with all his new, frightening powers. He sulks, in a fit of confusion and ever-present angst, when his father approaches him and says, "It's time, son."
"Are you telling me I'm an alien? And you have my spaceship stored in the attic?"
"Actually, it's in the storm cellar."
Well, as unrelated to tomorrow's pivotal election as that story may be -- don't worry, it will all come together, give it time! -- this message is clear: It's Time.
It's time for traditional America to fight back the hundred year march of the progressive movement to socialism. It's not exaggeration, it's not hyperbole. It's actually very apparent when viewed with an open, reasoned mind.
While America was getting jobs, raising families, building businesses and living lives, progressives were entrenching themselves in every elemental facet of the structure of America. Business, education, the bureaucratic governmental complex, you name it, they dug in. Stop and think for a moment: Why do you think the federal government is the largest employer in the country? Why do you think the tax code is so incredibly, unbelievably, mind-explodingly complex? Why do you think government employee unions are so powerful and only support Democrats' campaigns? It's a generational assault in small steps against intrinsic American freedom and individual autonomy. The parasite comparison is actually pretty appropriate.
It's Time. The leftists have now removed all pretenses and have shown their intentions.
Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, in an effort to boost support for his infamous "Stimulus" bill, he chastised his opposition. A lot of people say that it's just a spending bill, he acknowledged. Then, with as much smugness as any overly self-important, pretentiously intellectual urbanite could muster, he chided, voice raised to fever pitch, condescension and animus dripping from his razor sharp tongue, "Well what do you think a stimulus is?!"
Personally, I think that's when he lost half the country. The rest bailed when he suggested a woman should just give her elderly mother a pain pill, rather than the government suffer providing life saving heart surgery.
It's Time. Remember the tremendous power of We The People. It's more than just heat vision or the ability to fly. It's the power to tame a land and change the world. It's time for this generation to pick itself up, dust itself off and remember that what made this country great is the slogan found on its currency, even if it is just flimsy paper -- E Pluribus Unum. From many, One. This country is a nation of empowered individuals, working to achieve greatness separately and together, free to fail and free to succeed.
This election isn't just about a President and his party, it's about a country remaining free for generations to come. This is not just a referendum on a man, it is a referendum on an idea he holds -- that America is no longer great and that the concept of a constitutionally limited government is a relic from the past to be discarded. This should prove to be monumental in its rebuke of Leftism and an optimistic, beautiful affirmation of Americanism.
It's Time. Get out there and Vote.

Historical Accuracy...

2010-10-30T16:38:00.000-05:00

The Opposition

2010-10-28T10:43:00.000-05:00

How nice of the leftists in this country to so clearly display why they are the fringe minority in political thought. They are, unfortunately, also some of the loudest voices. This is why conservatives must defeat them.
Here, America, is the Left.
"We have Democrats for one reason - to drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th."
"...They're too stupid, they're like a dog."

The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen

2010-10-26T15:21:00.000-05:00

National Politically-correct Radio | The Weekly Standard

2010-10-21T09:56:00.000-05:00

National Politically-correct Radio The Weekly Standard

Mean Girls

2010-10-20T23:32:00.000-05:00

I wonder, is it possible for a woman to be a misogynist?
Esteemed New York Times writer Maureen Dowd does not like conservative women. “We are in the era of Republican Mean Girls,” she writes. “…Whether they’re mistreating the help or belittling the president’s manhood, making snide comments about a rival’s hair or ripping an opponent for spending money on a men’s fashion show, the Mean Girls have replaced Hope with Spite and Cool with Cold. They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate.”
Interesting. What do psychologists call it, “Projection?”
The irony seems lost on her. Attacking so-called “Republican Mean Girls” with more meanness is pretty weak, coming from a celebrated intellectual New York Times columnist. Even if her accusations were true, the vibrancy of her “counterattack” (I guess you could call it?), is disappointing. I find the left’s unwavering belief that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right, fascinating and a little disturbing. Maureen’s a positively gleeful character assassin.
What is it about liberals that makes them so angry? Seriously? Especially liberal women? You’d think a liberal woman would be pleased as punch in summer to see successful women be successful. Instead it sounds like she wants to punch them in the head.
This sort of thing makes me suspect the feminist movement has more to do with advancing leftism than feminism. No – this sort of thing just reinforces that suspicion.
All this talk about conservative women – mothers and grandmothers, successful businesswomen and executives – hurling cafeteria insults or spray-painting lockers. Intellectually, socially, on some level, Ms. Dowd seems like she’s still stuck in high school.

Proud to Be a Republican - Dennis Prager - National Review Online

2010-10-19T21:43:00.001-05:00

"...every single Republican was prepared to fight the left, whatever the political cost."

Proud to Be a Republican - Dennis Prager - National Review Online

T-Minus Two Weeks

2010-10-19T20:15:00.001-05:00

It's an interesting time in the Land of the Still Mostly Free. America's been given a hefty dose of leftism and she's spitting it out like bad seafood.
With the November 2 election looming like a cartoon anvil over the heads of the president and the Democrats, the consensus is the Republican party will retake the House of Representatives with as many as 55 seats. The Senate may be in play as well, with the GOP at least lopping a limb off the Democrats' majority. Recent polling shows that 70 percent of the American people support the basic principles and ideas of the tea party movement -- drastic spending cuts, lower taxes and major reduction in the size of government.
Despite excuses from the president and his party, the problem is not a "communication" problem. The brick wall of opposition is not because he didn't explain his policies well enough, or because legislation the Democrat-controlled House and Senate (hurriedly and forcefully) passed was too difficult for the American people to understand. The opposition is in response to un-American policies and legislation that are understood all too well.
The president has taken to using quaint metaphors to convince the electorate to give his party more time to continue their agenda. You see, the Republicans were driving a car, and they drove it into a ditch. (Never mind that his party was in the passenger seat and switched a couple miles down the road. Remember when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007? Anyway, it's best not to be bothered by pesky details.) Now that he is in charge of the keys, he's pushing the car out of the ditch. And he's not going to give the keys back to Republicans. And he's going to put the gearshift into D for drive. Get it? D for Democrats! You know, everyone was totally right about him. He is brilliant! Anyway, while he wants to go forward, Republicans just want to shift to R for reverse, and go backwards, and drive back into the ditch. And maybe slash the tires while they're at it. Because Republicans hate everyone and everything.
Call me cynical, but this delightful metaphorical story might work a lot better if the unemployment rate weren't still at 9.6 percent.
Distrust of crushingly massive, centralized government was built into the foundation of America. The Constitution enumerates limited power for the federal government and checks on that limited power by distribution into three branches of government. Additionally, the press was at one time considered a fourth branch in its ability to check the power of the federal government and further ensure protection of Americans' individual liberty. At some point the press abjugated its responsibilities and, especially in the case of the current power structure, became a mouthpiece for leftist causes. Journalists vote Democrat en masse, to such an extent that the media's leftist bias has become fodder for the president's self-aggrandizing humor. As a result, a monolithic power bloc has built a monolithic power authority.
So, how big do you want your government to be? How important do you want your government to be? How important do you, the individual, want to be? The visceral recoil to Democrats' policies is a direct response to these elements -- Americans do not like Big Government.
This is just the beginning. This election is shaping up to be a very loud and very angry rebuke of an increasingly centralized, intrusive regime. Voters intend to elect representatives who remember that small government equals big individuals. Voters intend to elect representatives who will limit the power of an authoritative, centralized government. Representatives who will stand up for traditional American principles and protect Americans' liberty and freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
Let's hope America is still the Home of the Brave.

So how do you really feel?

2010-09-22T13:52:00.000-05:00

Ohio Democrat Party chairman Chris Redfern does not like the tea party movement, apparently. CAUTION: explicit language is used.

The Bearded Marxist vs. The Witchcraft Dabbler

2010-09-21T21:28:00.000-05:00

Delaware is crazy.
There's actually a debate over voting for a marxist or a woman who messed around with witchcraft in high school. This is in the United States of America, a major party candidate who is a marxist!
There should be no debate like this in America. Marxism = bad. I think world history has pretty much proven that out. Of course if the public school system had not actually been taken over by stealth marxist, communist and socialist revolutionaries, perhaps people would still know that.
But just the fact that the modern Democrat party in America is fielding a marxist candidate should be evidence enough that something is very wrong with America. That's why the tea party movement is standing up to make the voices heard of regular, non-marxist Americans. You know, the true crazies who believe in crackpot notions of private property and individual autonomy.
You'd think people would be a little more wary of a political ideology responsible for subjugating and murdering hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people.
Plus, vampires are cooler than witches these days.

Conservative or Republican? Questioning the "Buckley Rule"

2010-09-17T16:46:00.000-05:00

There's a concept in electoral politics popular in modern mainstream Republican circles called the "Buckley Rule." Postulated by William F. Buckley, founder of National Review magazine, it suggests Republican voters ought to support the most conservative candidate who can win. Tuesday's primary in which conservative Christine O'Donnell defeated liberal Mike Castle for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate seat in Delaware, Joe Biden's old seat, seems to question that rule.

Going by the Buckley Rule, a liberal Republican like Castle is the better Republican choice in a blue state such as Delaware. Castle has enjoyed a long political career in Delaware, serving as governor and as a nine-term United States congressman. A well established politician, his victory seemed all but assured. But he is, in mainstream parlance, a moderate. The conventional wisdom is that conservative Republicans can't win over independent or even some Democrat voters like a moderate Republican can. Incidentally, moderate John McCain didn't seem to have any luck winning those independent voters in 2008. But I digress.

Democrats also have a rule: Elect the most liberal candidate.

The modern Democrat party is unabashedly leftist and feverishly ideological. It bears more similarity to European Social Democrats than to the traditional American Democrat party. The party has long ago excised moderate and conservative Democrats from their ranks. They support, vote for and often elect, occasionally dubiously, their most liberal candidates. How else can you explain Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and dozens of others who identify as liberal or even socialist? How do you explain Al Franken's election to the Senate? Or even the election of President Barack Obama, who as a Senator was known as having the most liberal voting record of all?

Leftism (progressivism in polite company) is predicated on radical and often revolutionary progress. The only way for Democrats to achieve their ultimate endgame is to elect leftists using, as hero of the left Saul Alinsky was so fond of advocating, whatever means necessary. The ends justify the means.

The choice Delaware voters faced was between a true conservative Republican who would always vote Republican, and a liberal Republican who had often voted with Democrats. Castle supported the Democrats' massive energy taxation scheme "cap and trade." Republicans in Delaware chose conservatism, rather than Republicanism. Principle versus Party. As a result, the mainstream media talks about a civil war within the Republican party. The tea party versus the establishment. The Democrat civil war happened years ago. Their base is pure leftism, they've kicked their moderates and conservatives to the curb. Conservative Republicans just want to be recognized as the base of the Republican party and showed it in their primary votes.

O'Donnell may or may not be the best candidate, time will tell come November. She will certainly have a much steeper climb to pull out a victory. But she is now the Republican candidate, and the party must support her as vigorously as they would support Castle. There is wide agreement of the danger the Obama administration poses to the future of a constitutional, free America. Our endgame is a return to liberty, freedom and constitutionally limited government. Our argument is over the means to achieve it.

Democrats have no such argument.

How Obama Thinks - Forbes.com

2010-09-17T16:01:00.001-05:00

How Obama Thinks - Forbes.com

"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."

Capitalism at its finest...

2010-09-13T22:01:00.000-05:00

Nothing like capitalizing on distrust of the current regime, in a twist of the left's recent anti-Bush mantra. I know it's kind of cynical and maybe even a little mean-spirited...

http://www.cafepress.com/posewear

Don't worry, there's fun stuff too.

The President could learn a lot from Spider-Man

2010-09-01T14:08:00.003-05:00

"With great power comes great responsibility."
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom." It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion. Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion. Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs. They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy. Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples. Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world. Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world. As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested. He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction. Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:

For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.

At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth. He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq. He reminded us that he kept his promise.
But the story is not over. The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves? The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians. Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate? The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions? Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea? We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda. He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda. How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom. As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe. The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly. Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy? He lost his uncle. If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will? And what will the world lose?

The New American Caste System

2010-08-30T21:44:00.002-05:00

Casting the current political divide in terms of a new caste system crystallizes the visceral, instinctive outbreak of opposition toward the Obama administration's policies and the current ruling class in Washington, D.C. The sort of aristocratic arrogance of our leaders is open and obvious; the Tea Party movement and this past weekend's apolitical Restoring Honor rally, hosted by Glenn Beck and attended by an estimated 500,000 patriots, are examples of the elemental American inclination to resist oppressive governance.
This article is required reading:
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

Setting the table for the Party of No

2010-08-25T21:32:00.001-05:00

Democrats have gotten very good at setting the rules of political engagement. They have been allowed to frame every argument and set every agenda for every issue.
Let's take, for example, the argument over the health care reform bill, Obamacare. Democrats came out firing with both barrels -- interesting since most leftists oppose the individual right to own firearms. They set the terms of the discussion with the claim that "health care in America is broken." Unfortunately, many Republicans and conservatives agreed. "You're right, health care is broken, but our way to fix it is better."
Or, take for another example, recent legislation to extend unemployment "benefits." The way I see it, there are no benefits inherent anywhere in being unemployed. Again, Democrats said, "We need this." Republicans said, "Yes we do. But lets just do this and that. We should probably make it 'deficit-neutral,' or at least give it that appearance."
It's a weak, weak argument. It's the same argument the liberal and liberal-lite parties make all across Europe, and the reason they have not been an economic force in two hundred years and routinely face chronic high unemployment and ethnic groups that refuse to join the common culture.
The problem is this type of weak opposition reinforces an original premise which is wrong from the start. It's awfully hard to counter an argument with agreement.
As a result Democrats have been able to push nearly every item of their socialist wish list with nary the meekest opposition from Republicans. And, as a result, America is on the cusp of becoming a third-world banana republic dictatorship ruled by an elite class of "intelligentsia."
Think about this the next time you and your buddies crack open a 30-pack of Coors Light. Your pal says, "Let's drink the whole case!"
But you don't think drinking an entire case of 30 cans of light beer is such a good idea. You might say you "oppose" his idea.
"No, I don't think that's a good idea," you counter. "Let's only drink most of the beer."
So you and your friend rock out and polish off 26 cans of beer, black out and awake weeks later on a Japanese whaling ship cleaning carcasses.
How's that for opposition?
Republicans need to embrace the concept of opposition. They need to become obstinate. "Party of No" ought to be badge of patriotic honor. Conservatives have it right. We know what works, and have mountains of empirical data to support it. If we fight harder for our liberty maybe we'll be able to keep it.

Intellectual Dishonesty and Moral Equivalence

2010-08-24T12:02:00.001-05:00

The furor over the Ground Zero Mosque is illustrative of the unbridgeable moral chasm between the left and the right. The left tends to equivocate moral issues, rather than understand or accept the absolutism of morality that the right, especially the generally more religious right respects and embraces. It is dishonest and intellectually dissonant.
Outspoken voices on the left are incorrectly and even antagonistically comparing the opposition to building the mosque to racism and bigotry. It's the typical leftist deflective straw man. Recent polling shows the majority of Americans support, understand and respect the concept of property rights and religious freedoms. Yet the issue for those opposing the building of the mosque is purely an issue of propriety and sensitivity. The gaping would left by terrorists who attacked in the name of Islam is still painful. Opponents of the mosque are simply asking for compassion, for it to be built somewhere less confrontational.
But the left, long opposed to any semblance of religion in public life, and those who support the building of the mosque have inexplicably and suddenly found respect for religious freedom. Is it because they are Muslim, rather than Christian? A Greek Orthodox church was also destroyed in the attacks of 9/11. Yet bureaucratic impediments have prevented it from being rebuilt for nine years. The left always feels compelled to support its perceived victims of oppression. Once again Muslims are, in the minds of leftist equalists, being persecuted by an intolerant America.
The left is taking an argument based on an unrelated principle and twisting it. Recently prominent members of the media have made comparisons to Timothy McVeigh's supposed Christianity, equivocating opposition to the mosque to Catholic and Christian churches in proximity to the federal building that was bombed in Oklahoma City. "What if people had asked for Christian churches to be moved away because Timothy McVeigh was Christian?" they ask. Perplexingly, Christianity and Islam are equivalent in the mind of the leftist. Never mind that Timothy McVeigh's purported Christianity was completely irrelevant to his actions, if he was even Christian to begin with. His faith, or lack thereof, was not readily apparent, whereas Muslim extremist terrorists routinely and blatantly commit their acts of horror in the name of Islam.
Besides, according to the left, at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh was driven to his despicable actions by the words of radio talk show hosts.
The right generally understands the concept of absolutism. It is an integral component of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Good is good, and evil is evil. Law is law. There's not a lot of wiggle room. Consequently the moral relativism of the left is maddening. The acts of horror committed by a crazy man are attributed to a supposed Christianity equal to a violent Muslim extremism and convenient to today's argument, equated to a completely unrelated situation. Moral acrobatics worthy of Barnum and Bailey.

7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com

2010-08-15T22:53:00.000-05:00

"Tax cuts only for the wealthiest!" Such is President Obama and the Democrats' invective whenever the subject of the Bush tax cuts, or lowering taxes in general comes up. It's the same old game -- class warfare at its bloodiest. "The rich don't pay their fair share!" If 40% of the nation's entire tax burden is not their "fair share," then what is?

7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com

The newest reality television sensation!

2010-06-03T21:33:00.004-05:00

Reality TV kind of makes me sad for the future of humanity. It's fascinating, enlightening and a just little depressing observing cultural degradation. Watching bits and pieces of “So You Think You Can Dance?” last night (bits and pieces of reality TV already strain my brain's limits) spurred me to contemplate the depths of our Romanesque debauchery. …Anyone remember "Elimidate?"

Reality programming frequently features certain broad commonalities across different show concepts. Like a lion staring down a sickly antelope, producers often lock onto the weakest participant. Let’s just say, “Least Likely to Succeed” if there were a vote.

This is, of course, not to say that watching someone try and fail is not thoroughly entertaining television. My life would be a ratings juggernaut!

What is depressing is the inappropriately overconfident individual is usually blindingly unaware of his woeful lack of talent, ability and good sense. Shameless in his ignorance, the indignation after being told by the judges he “doesn't have what it takes” is amazing. At some point someone should have grasped him by the shoulders and shaken him vigorously, telling him, “Stop! You are not good at this! Learn a trade!”

Instead he will likely return for the next audition not having practiced, studied, or worked to improve in any appreciable manner, expecting to be ushered into an exclusive world of awards shows and all the free gift bags he can carry.

Meanwhile, out in the real world rogue nations are plotting the destruction of their neighbors and devastating disasters are occurring daily. Imagine for a moment that Iran made good on its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Chaos would ensue, not to mention a likely US versus The World apocalyptic cage match of World War Three proportions. The real show is just outside your living room window.

Which brings me back to our current fascination with reality television. The allure and the illusion is that fame and fortune are available to anyone – not just the lucky, gorgeous and/or talented. The "stars" could be you or your neighbor. With a modicum of effort, a strong stomach and an astronomical embarrassment threshold anyone can achieve Hollywood Nirvana.

There was a time when people understood lazy entitlement and hedonistic obsessions are counterproductive to a prosperous and safe civil society. Have we too allowed ourselves to become so preoccupied with pleasure at the expense of our own safety, or even our own existence? The indomitable Roman Empire seemed invincible – until it was conquered by barbarians. So much for “The Eternal City.”

Can we survive? And if we do, what will we watch after dinner?

I'm thinking about pitching the networks a new show. I'm going to call it, "So You Think You Can Survive the Apocalypse?"

Remember...

2010-06-01T00:01:00.000-05:00

It's important on this Memorial Day to remember not only the men and women who died to protect our Freedom and Liberty but also for what they sacrificed their futures, lives and sacred honor. They died for an Idea, a grand experiment in freedom and diversity, openness and opportunity and a civil society based on the novel approach of Self Government.
In breaking the millenia-long tradition of imperial rule by kings and monarchs in which a class of privileged few ruled largely uneducated masses of subjects destined for meager existences in poverty and obscurity, the Founders of the United States of America introduced the concept of individual rights and citizen service, or government of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea that man can govern himself and in doing so achieve a wealth of freedoms and successes beyond the wildest dreams of mere serfs, slaves, servants and subjects. In the United States of America, the people are Citizens.
In the process individuals are freed to go their own way and fulfill their own destinies.
As a result of the sacrifices of the men and women of all races, countries and origins who won our freedom from tyranny to lay the Foundation of this Nation, to the soldiers serving presently in Iraq and Afghanistan to help bring freedom to others, we are at liberty to worship freely, speak freely, travel freely, and dream freely.
Remember them, and remember US.

Oh noes!

2010-05-12T16:10:00.005-05:00

Okay, I am totally freaking out. Just freaking out, all over the place. Which is weird, because being of German Lutheran descent, stoicism is in my genes. But LOST will be finished in less than two weeks and my brain is about to implode like the hatch.

I just need a moment to catch my breath.

We began with a simple story about a plane crash on an island. A very mysterious island. Really, regarding the plot, it's not that complicated:

Some strangers crash on an island and try to survive the strange things that happen to them. They run around a lot. Some leave, then they come back. Pretty basic stuff.

The pleasure in watching LOST lies deeper than simply following the relatively simple storyline. Like a good mystery (or an onion), peeling back the layers reveals more of the story and sometimes makes you cry.
LOST is a story about more than just an island and the people who crashed on it. The most interesting and engaging element of the series, by far, is the deep characterizations of the survivors. Most of the characters are incredibly flawed or severely damaged in some way. Early in the series we were introduced to a major theme that has recurred throughout the series. Everyone gets a new beginning on this island. Using the flashback to marvelous effect, LOST has explored the depth of these characters, their motivations, their neuroses, their flaws and foibles, their successes and more often their mistakes to animate and illuminate each character for the viewer. Consequently we get a vibrant character study that enriches and often informs the individual episodic plot and the greater storyline in the process. This is what makes LOST so intriguing. Each new answer leads to even more questions.
Naturally, so near to the end many of our long-standing and much hypothesized questions and theories are being answered or at least alluded to, and I have consigned myself to the realization that we likely won't be given all the answers. All will not be revealed, and I'm okay with that. Much of the enjoyment in watching interesting television and movies or reading good books is arriving at your own conclusions. For example, just what is it that makes the Island so special? The most recent episode and the second to last prior to the finale gave us some hints, moreso vaguely and cryptically than anything decisive. But as a viewer I don't really want to be led by the hand, as though the finale would include a scene with one of the characters finding some special book of "LOST Island Secrets" hidden away in a cave and spending the last moments of the show reading them in list form to finally satiate the very uninquisitive and unimaginative.
No, imagination is another important element in the success of LOST. How many television shows can you think of that have sparked such imagination in the minds of viewers? How many television programs have ignited the minds of millions of viewers to dream up their own theories and ideas about the island and its mysteries? A simple Google search will find nearly 3 million hits. Such a basic premise has blossomed into nothing short of an historic television sensation.
Having watched since the beginning, in fact having been ensnared by the mysteries of the island and enthralled by the characters I have come to know and love despite their numerous flaws and shortcomings, I will be sad to see LOST go on to that great mysterious electromagnetic island in the sky. But it's been quite a ride.

Stand up for the underdog!

2010-04-01T20:29:00.002-05:00

And now for something completely different...

Join Vimeo and vote for the "Dobbs" video! This is an entry for a short film contest called The Story Beyond the Still presented by Canon and Vimeo.

The competition is tough. Help my friend, a non-pro, beat the pros!

Dobbs from John Behrens on Vimeo.

How about an individual firearm mandate?

2010-03-22T20:58:00.000-05:00

There's much debate over the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate in the recently passed health care legislation. There shouldn't be, but there is. I believe the majority of Americans understand that the individual mandate, forcing every man, woman and child to purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy essentially as a condition of their birth, violates the Constitution. In fact, the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: we are all "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness." The individual mandate automatically places constraints upon every citizen. There is no liberty in force. The federal government that was bound by the people has turned those shackles upon the governed.
One obvious argument posited by those favoring the mandate is that universal coverage only works when everyone is covered. It is therefore viewed as a benignly pragmatic solution to a general problem in regard to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to enact certain laws to provide for and promote, you guessed it, the general welfare of the people. In other words, the argument is that it works to the general well being of every citizen to mandate insurance coverage or levy fines. But this is a flawed argument based on too broad a premise, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. (Apologies to Mr. Spock) The history of this country celebrates the power and ingenuity of the individual, not the disordered weight of the collective. Individual decisions made freely unleash and unbind the individual from the impediments of an unwieldy, ponderous collective. Think of it this way -- a small knife does a much better job of opening the box your new 50 inch plasma TV came in than a chainsaw. Okay, not the best illustration, but it speaks to a better point. The individual, small as he or she may be, making individual decisions, is the basis for the monumental success of the American experiment, not some enormous, lumbering mass of a collective.
So if the insurance mandate is so vital to the general interest, it should follow that there are also some other instances in which a mandate would serve the general well being of the American people.
For example, perhaps it would serve the general interest to mandate that every American must buy a gun. It's a dangerous world out there. North Korea is ruled by a crazy man with nuclear weapons. Iran is ruled by some crazy clerics who want nuclear weapons. China is undoubtedly getting anxious to at some point get a return on their $7 trillion dollar loan to us. Is it that unreasonable to assume that, given the attacks of Pearl Harbor or September 11, there is not at least someone, somewhere in the world who has an axe to grind? Therefore, if every American citizen were armed, perhaps another terrorist attack could be thwarted and America would be safer. And what about domestic crime? Again, it’s a dangerous world. Perhaps if every American were mandated to own a gun to defend themselves, crime would be diminished. Perhaps if every American were required by law to own a gun it would provide for and promote the general welfare of the American people.
It's like those algebra problems that used to give me fits. If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, they X equals Z. If the federal government can mandate one thing, naturally it follows that they can mandate another, and then another, and then another. In the end, X equals American citizens as slaves to their government and a formerly representative republic now resembling a feudal fiefdom.
I kind of like the gun mandate idea. Good luck getting the Left to sign off on that one...

Better not get sick.

2010-03-21T22:17:00.002-05:00

In a very sad ironic twist in the US House of Representatives, Democrats voting on a "health care" reform bill just killed America. It was a vote of 219 to 212 to pull the plug on Freedom and Liberty. Every Republican opposed, as well as 34 Democrats.
So tomorrow all of us will wake up in a different country. We are no longer born free. Thanks to the individual insurance mandate in the bill which just passed, all of us will be required to buy health insurance. That's right, it's the birth penalty. We are required to pay money to exist. Call it the "Breath Tax."
Tomorrow we all wake up subservient to Washington, slaves to the State. Better not get sick...

Civil Disobedience

2010-03-17T22:11:00.002-05:00

If the current health care legislation passes, perhaps the Obama Dictatorship and the ruling radical Left should prepare for the conservative Right to pick up the mantle of civil disobedience.
Long the intellectual property of the radical Left, the unfamiliar notion of protest may well become very familiar to conservatives, libertarians and independents who do not take kindly to being told what to do by an oppressive centralized government. In essence, the health care mandate is unconstitutional, and even more so, un-American. It defies the American ideal of individual choice.
Furthermore, unlike the Left, most Americans oppose the idea of federally funding abortion, which, despite the President's false claims, is part and parcel of the health care legislation. These are people who believe mankind has almost and nearly irrevocably damaged “Mother Earth.” These are people who have preached the gospel of fanatical environmentalism and calamitous overpopulation. That there are too many people using finite resources. These are people who have proposed population control via sex education in elementary schools at best, and forced sterilization at worst. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that they would embrace the idea of killing your baby on the government's dime? But therein lies the problem. Therein lies the sick, twisted truth of the radical Left's atheistic humanist ideology. Life does have value, and that value is instilled by God when he gives life.
The crux of the issue is that health care is a good, a service, not a right. Rights are intangible. Rights are natural, or of nature. Therefore government providence cannot create nor provide rights. In fact, government of itself cannot provide anything. Not one thing. Everything government does is with someone else's money.
So when President Obama misleads, claiming the bill will not allow for federally funded abortion, he is lying. The reality is your tax money and mine will pay to abort helpless children. The federal mandate to buy insurance, or pay a fine, means your taxes and mine, your contribution to the operation of government and mine, will kill unborn children.
So perhaps in this new, Bizarro America in which citizens are utterly subservient to their government, average Americans, not just the fringe radical Left, will get used to the idea of civil disobedience. Perhaps millions of Americans will protest by not agreeing to the mandate. Perhaps millions will stop paying their taxes to stop the funding of abortions. Perhaps millions of Americans will stand up and say "Stop!"
How will the Leftists in charge react if they become the target of civil disobedience?

Is there such a thing as a good one-term President?

2010-03-11T12:30:00.000-06:00

President Obama has stated that he would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Is there such a thing as a good one-term president?
Last year the Chicago Bears signed potential franchise quarterback and supposed team savior Jay Cutler to much fanfare and great optimism and eventually even more criticism and greater disappointment as the team went on to an underwhelming 7-9 record and Cutler led the league in interceptions.
After trading away draft picks, incomprehensible personnel moves and questionable coaching decisions, Bears General Manager Jerry Angelo and Head Coach Lovie Smith are on the hot seat. Conventional wisdom is they have a year to get it right. Make the playoffs next season or find new jobs.
But suppose that everything works out. Suppose the sun shines everyday in Chicago and flowers bloom in the winter...
Suppose new offensive coordinator Mike Martz transforms the team from offensive pauper to powerhouse. Suppose Cutler performs as the Pro Bowl quarterback-of-the-future he was supposed to last year. Suppose the defense doesn't allow opposing offenses to carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Suppose the team makes the playoffs, or, perhaps, even returns to the Superbowl. Which, then, is more likely? That Angelo and Smith will be sent packing? Or will there be much rejoicing among the formerly hostile fans and once again fawning media celebrating their brilliant job in turning the team around? Contract extensions, perhaps?
So, again, is there such a thing as a good one-term President? After all, a one-term President is a President who is not reelected. The two most recent one-term Presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, were both disappointments in that respect. Carter's incompetence led to the Iran hostage crisis and economic stagflation. Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes.
But what about President Obama? Essentially what President Obama is saying is that he would rather achieve his wildly unpopular agenda and policy goals rather than win reelection. That means he wants his healthcare reform, he wants his climate change legislation, he wants his immigration reform, he wants his financial reform. It also means he understands his centralized authoritarian policies are disliked to such an extent that the American people will not want four more years of him in charge. Yet he intends to push ahead with his agenda anyway despite the wishes of those who elected him. It is obvious in his recent, even more accelerated and forceful push for his type of government run healthcare.
A one-term President doesn't get his contract extension. A one-term President is told to take his playbook and take a hike so someone else can clean up his mess and return the team to glory.

What can Brown do for you?

2010-01-20T16:12:00.002-06:00

In the wake of the stunning upset win of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate, the leadership in Washington has a choice: Listen to the people, or find a new job.
The election of a Republican to the seat held by a Kennedy for five decades in a state bluer than B.B. King without Lucille should send a strong message to the White House and Democrats in general, especially moderates, about the strong opposition the majority of Americans harbor to President Obama and the Democrat leadership’s agenda.
Of note was that Brown campaigned in part specifically as the 41st vote against the currently proposed health care legislation, which as we have examined is not at all about health care; rather it is about aggregating and centralizing federal power while reducing if not completely dissolving the American idea of self-governance. It’s command and control, U.S.S.A. style.
But the people have spoken. Perhaps this time their message will not be ignored.
The “tea party” movement in protest of the Obama administration’s epic spending and unflinching push towards government-controlled health care over the past year had been largely ignored by the Democrat leadership as nothing more than a nuisance. A minor inconvenience at best, and at worst, in the words of some of the left’s loudest and most abrasive voices, dangerous mobs of violent, racist rednecks.
Yet despite the growing discontent, they pushed on.
Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey in November did not dissuade them. These were aberrations, simply local races fed by local issues.
But Tuesday marked a change that simply cannot be spun otherwise. A Republican won the Ted Kennedy seat. The people backed up their words with their actions in the voting booths.
The problem for the Democrat leadership now is the Democrats, specifically, moderate Democrats who see the results of this election and realize their careers may be on borrowed time if they continue to follow their Progressive leaders. Radical Progressives in Congress and the White House, their friends in the media, not to mention their comrades in the celebrity community, will be tempted to force their agenda against the will of the people who have just spoken loudly and convincingly. According to Saul Alinsky, author of the playbook for radical Progressive social change and hero and spiritual leader of the modern radical Progressive movement, the ends justify any means. And radical Progressives desperately desire government-provided health care.
The question is which Democrats will win? Will it be the ruthless Progressives or the traditional Democrats who, in contrast to the sharp leftward shift in which the Progressives have driven the party are now considered moderate, even conservative?
The Scott Brown victory will hopefully embolden moderate Democrats to stand up to their Progressive leadership and put a stop to some very, very bad ideas. Americans do not want a centralized government bureaucracy determining what health care is appropriate for them. Americans do not want exempted politicians forcing them to buy health insurance. Americans do not want to be penalized for their health insurance coverage just because they don’t belong to a union. Americans do not want to subsidize other countries for supposed sins against mother earth. Essentially, Americans do not want arrogant, condescending, elitist intellectuals telling them what is good for them. This election has sent the message that this is still a center-right country which still cherishes individual liberty and the American concept of self-determination.
What can Brown do for you? One day after a shocking political upset a message is being sent: Listen to the people.

Delusions of Transparency...

2010-01-06T23:52:00.002-06:00

President Obama promised several times on the campaign trail to broadcast health care reform conferences on C-Span. The House and Senate are currently hammering out their partisan radical progressive liberal dream plan like the door panel of a Yugo behind closed doors and away from the prying eyes of the electorate...

Merry Christmas?

2009-12-24T10:14:00.017-06:00

Earlier this morning the Senate passed their version of Obamacare. The train is rolling along at high speed, horns blowing, and your late-model sedan is stalled on the tracks and your seatbelt is stuck. From the AP article posted earlier this morning and subsequently scrubbed to remove any allusions to their single payer government run health care agenda: "Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history."

Much longer wait times, doctor shortages, procedures, operations and medicines denied by a government cost control board, massive cuts in resources and funding and the destruction of innovation-based medical advancement...
Much higher health insurance premiums, greatly increased tax burdens, a federally enforced purchase mandate punishable by fines and jail time...
Crushing debt as far as the eyes of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren can see and the slow, devastatingly excruciating death of the concept of the "American Dream"...
Merry Christmas indeed.

Congratulations, Mr. Obama. Your place in history is secure. You will forever be remembered as the man who destroyed America.

The Center-Left Shift

2009-12-22T17:48:00.028-06:00

Why are the Obama Democrats pushing health care legislation the Wall Street Journal called "The Worst Bill Ever?"
Why is the Democrat leadership forcing a bill "so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve?"
Why do Democrat leaders need to buy votes for a complete overhaul of a health care system claimed to be in such crisis as to threaten our very survival? Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson got a sweetheart deal, the "Cornhusker Kickback." Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu got fat stacks of cash, the "Louisiana Purchase." Not to mention Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's pay-for-play school subsidy sweepstakes...
Why are Democrat leaders so apparently willing to sacrifice seats in Congress and to pass legislation that more than half of the American public viscerally oppose?
The answer can be found in President Obama's own words when he promised to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." We're starting to see exactly what he meant.
The United States has throughout its history traditionally been considered a "center-right" country, meaning a nation that relies on the power of the Individual to achieve, to drive innovation and economic growth and provide the cultural foundation for our society. Our wealth and prosperity are grounded in a generally religious worldview that celebrates and encourages the sense of hard work, entrepreneurial risk and accompanying reward, and the protection of values such as a respect for life and a strong traditional family. Tradition is not a dirty word and can exist peacefully with benign progress such as technological advancement and educational improvement.
The culture of the Progressive Left, however, is much less concerned with traditional center-right values. How many times have we heard President Obama impudently dismiss the "failed ideas of the past?" In order to achieve Progressive Enlightenment, the culture must be changed. There's an old saying, "To change the country, first you must change the culture."
We have seen the cultural transformation occurring in this country for decades. From the Summer of Love to the drug culture of the Eighties; to the proliferation of sexual content in television, movies and music to the sexualization of adolescents in school halls and parentless homes; to the glamorization of recreational drug use, today's cultural center has shifted to the left. Self-reliance and self-control have become laziness and self-indulgence.
The Left has been waging this battle over the center of the country for a century. It is the struggle of the American body politic between more government or less, more economic market regulation or less, more restriction of personal freedom or less. The current health care recklessness is ultimately the final blatant, arrogant, autocratic attempt of the Left to permanently shift the United States from its traditional center-right to the left. It is the framework, a means to an end.
The end result is a left-leaning, European style governance which assumes centralized governmental authority rather than individual empowerment. The concept of self-determination and rugged individualism is eliminated in favor of political group-movement and communal collectivism.
The argument will no longer be about how much government intervention is appropriate in citizens' private lives. Rather, much like European politics, governmental intrusion is assumed, and opposition will bicker over which party can better manage centralized, top-down market regulation, massive bureaucracy administration and entitlement distribution. Once this health care entitlement is installed and the federal government will inevitably by design have no choice but to intervene in the market, the argument is no longer "Should we have the federal government provide health care?" but "Which party will provide your government health care better?" No longer is the question, "Should the federal government intrude in your personal private life in this way and to this extent?" but "How should the federal government intervene in your personal private life and which party will intervene better?"
This is goal of the Obamacrats, to install a permanent, monolithic entitlement that completely eliminates Conservatives' ability to appeal to the innate desire of all people for personal freedom and to exercise that desire for freedom in the voting booth. Self-indulgence and generous entitlements have the amazing ability to guarantee power for the providers of entitlement benefits. That "freedom" thing? Who needs it when your governmental benefactors provide?
Change we can believe in? "Fundamental transformation" from free citizen to slave.

Tom Coburn: The Health Bill Is Scary - WSJ.com

2009-12-17T22:50:00.001-06:00

From Dr. Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma --
"When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care."

Tom Coburn: The Health Bill Is Scary - WSJ.com

The Conceit of Power.

2009-12-08T13:42:00.023-06:00

When will we learn? To borrow a cliche, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Case in point -- the current "climate change crisis" and global government.
For years we have been told that our very existence hinges in the balance unless we constrict our emission of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular. Never mind the fact that CO2 is absolutely essential to life on this planet. How many trees and plants will go extinct upon reduction of the very element necessary to their growth? How will reducing CO2 affect green plants' ability to provide the oxygen we need to breathe? Regardless, according to the "experts" the climate crisis threatens our extinction.
We have seen that the climate change crisis is in large part global redistribution of wealth -- taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.
But wait, there's more...
According to a report by the U.K. Guardian, a leaked document drafted by a select few participants of the Copenhagen climate change summit proposes handing power to control global climate change regulation and financing over to a few wealthy countries including the United States, the U.K., and Denmark. Developing countries are understandably furious.
According to the report:
"The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as 'the circle of commitment' — but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark — has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions (emphasis added)."
The progressive agenda is centralized control over many by few. This interventionist world view determines only enlightened progressives working within the power and scope of a broad, far reaching Government can fix the problems and solve the injustices of society on a personal, national, and even global level. But this world view is also dependent upon perpetuating a class system of sorts which ensures the wealthy and powerful permanently retain their elite position of influence over the poor and subjugated.
Perhaps it is time to take all those "New World Order" conspiracy theories seriously. There is no question there is a progressive element of society which vigorously supports the idea of a global governance by which wealth and resources are distributed from richer to poorer nations and through which laws and treaties are drafted and enforced. Climate change is a mechanism to achieve that goal. Given this report that conclusion holds greater merit. This also ensures an even greater divide between the few extremely wealthy and powerful and the rest of the populace likely in near poverty, and most definitely powerless. Government can not provide for anyone without taking from everyone.
The powerful few with control of regulation and finance can distribute wealth, technology, opportunity and, ultimately, freedom on a global scale as they see fit.

Robin Hood goes global.

2009-12-01T08:33:00.034-06:00

"Steal from the rich, give to the poor."
The motive behind the global climate change movement has been revealed as nothing more than global redistribution of wealth, as the AP reported Sunday. According to U.N climate chief Yvo de Boer, "Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012."
Apparently those of us in the modern, developed world were all wrong for using fossil fuels to achieve the highest standard of living and greatest wealth in the history of the world. In doing so we must have committed some great atrocity against the rest of the world and must be punished. For shame!
What is the answer? Take from the rich in the form of punitive taxation, and give to the poor to grease the wheels of like minded progressive governance. The World Bank estimates it will cost wealthier nations $75 to $100 billion per year for the next 40 years to "assist" the poorer nations. Some of those poorer nations would like upwards of $350 billion per year.
The green crowd has been pushing for punitive taxation to punish the perceived damage industrialized countries supposedly cause the planet's environment and prop up undeveloped and underdeveloped countries for decades, much to the delight of the poorer countries. This time they are flaunting their intentions openly as they unabashedly perpetuate the global climate change myth. And, really, who is going to say no to free money? Who won't continue to demand more? According to the report, if poor countries aren't offered enough, it could jeopardize the whole climate change conference.
Interestingly, however, the green movement wishes to prop them up only to a point. Poorer countries will use money from the wealthier countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Green technology for all! You may, however, have to forgo such luxuries as turning your lights on when you want to. The incredible technological, societal and economical developments that coal, oil and natural gas enable are too damaging to the environment. The unimaginable leaps and bounds developed countries have enjoyed because of fossil fuels must be hindered for developing countries. Rather, still inefficient wind, solar energy, and fat stacks of cash will have to suffice.
So what will all this redistributed money do? According to the AP article, the initial "kick-start" money "would go to 'capacity building' — training, planning, getting a fix on needs, local emissions and related concerns." Sounds like slush funding on a global level. Furthermore, "upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States."
Generally speaking, I am not opposed to the idea of offering financial assistance to developing countries in the form of a loan or perhaps a stipend of some sort. As a wealthy country we have the option of generosity. We can choose to assist developing countries with resources to build infrastructure, propel scientific discovery and build up businesses to create jobs and raise the standard of living.
And as an aside, all the furor over businesses and jobs moving overseas, then, is puzzling. Isn't that what we want? Better conditions for all? In the worldview of progressives if private industry rather than government is doing it, it's wrong. Furthermore, the way progressives equalize is to bring down, rather than raise up. After all, citizens who have the means to provide for themselves are much more difficult to control.
Blaming yourself for the supposed ills caused another country based on science that despite claims is anything but settled is ridiculous. Promising to write a blank check based on science which at best is still unsettled and at worst is a complete hoax, is just stupid.
Funny how Robin Hood wears the color green...

All good things...

2009-11-23T14:29:00.016-06:00

The Senate's version of the disastrous health care "reform" bill passed it's first hurdle under the cover of darkness and weekend family activities Saturday night on a pure party line vote. The bill will now move to debate on the floor of the Senate. Shortly thereafter the government mouthpiece media began assessing the broad opposition to the Democrat leadership's proposed "reform." In keeping with the Obama administration's arrogant, ignorant, aggrandizing "me first" mentality, their stenographers, public relations hacks and disciples in the media "analyzed" the opposition as simply a strategy of the minority party to inflict a "punishing defeat" upon President Obama.
Despite what government mouthpiece "journalists," the Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermanns of the world would have you believe, the broad encompassing passionate opposition to the President's attempts to replace God and Self in the lives of the American populace with the omnipotent hand of Government is about something else. Keith Olbermann may enjoy lining up for government "services" like a john clutching a crinkled c-note waiting for his turn with the skanky stripper named Lola in the private "love lounge" in the back of some seedy joint named "The Road House." Most Americans, however, are not interested in catching diseases.

Like the similarly contemptuous House vote, the Saturday night Senate vote to debate this grievous piece of legislation shed daylight on the disconnect between the progressive liberal leadership and the rest of the country outside of Washington, D.C. and the elitist disdain for middle America, "fly-over country." The progressive leadership stubbornly believes an enlightened centralized government can micromanage individual lives. Surely government can live your life better than you! Nothing could be further from the truth.
This debate about "health care" is about something greater than just coverage for pre-existing conditions or Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. This it about self-determination.
There comes a time in the course of the rise and fall of every civilization when the weight of society collapses upon itself. The Roman Empire is a good example. At some point the expectations of a population lazily concerned with pleasure and self-indulgence becomes too great. The invisible iron fist of a society receiving benefits, direction and services from its government rather than providing for itself will crush it. Suddenly a once-great civilization is weak and vulnerable and its citizens are helpless to control their own fate.
Yet the heavy hand of the Obama government continues to punitively levy taxes, grossly expand the deficit to unimaginable levels, and as a result shoves more citizens out of positions in which they can support themselves and into positions in which they rely upon government services for sustenance and survival. Such as the case with this sweeping health care reform. All the talk about bending the cost curve, reducing skyrocketing premiums and being deficit neutral is like a birthday cake prop on television -- sweet, tasty buttercream frosting on a cardboard box.
Remember what happened when Rome fell? You may recall the ensuing years as the Dark Ages...

Health ‘Reform’ Is Income Redistribution - WSJ.com

2009-09-28T21:39:00.001-05:00

Michael O. Leavitt, Al Hubbard and Keith Hennessey: Health ‘Reform’ Is Income Redistribution - WSJ.com

Obama Denies that Individual Mandate is a Tax Increase - WSJ.com

2009-09-21T10:41:00.003-05:00

Remember the video of President Obama taking umbrage with ABC's George Stephanopoulos and the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "tax"?
From the Wall Street Journal --
"The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good."

Obama Denies that Individual Mandate is a Tax Increase - WSJ.com

His powers of logic escape mere mortals.

2009-09-20T21:51:00.007-05:00

As usual, President Obama's logic is impeccable. A government mandate, featured in his health care "reform" plan, requiring everyone to either purchase health insurance or pay a hefty fine, obviously cannot be considered a tax increase. Not even Merriam-Webster can sway his firm grasp of the disingenuous.
In other news, Pluto has just been reclassified a planet, as has the Moon and Michael Moore.

Tell me what you want...

2009-09-18T11:33:00.003-05:00

Government run single payer health care system? Way more federal control? Much higher taxes? These are a few of his favorite things...

Fear and loathing in San Francisco...

2009-09-17T17:59:00.005-05:00

Nancy Pelosi was nearly in tears today, lamenting the potential in the health care/health insurance "reform" debate for violence which she perceives is being encouraged by strong rhetoric from the right, especially talk radio.
Who has been violent? Let's see...
There were the SEIU labor thugs who beat up a conservative black man. There were the death threats and middle-of-the-night visits to a stay-at-home mom who dared to question Arlen Spector and a father who was worried his disabled son would no longer be eligible for care under a penny-pinching government cost control panel.
And then there was the health care "reform" proponent who bit the finger off a protester.
Yeah, Nancy, we on the right have a real violence problem. Okay. Whatever you say.
This admonition seems appropriate given the subject of debate:
"Physician, heal thyself."

Lamar Alexander: Energy ‘Sprawl’ and the Green Economy - WSJ.com

2009-09-17T17:36:00.000-05:00

Green is the new black. And windmills are the new trees.

Lamar Alexander: Energy ‘Sprawl’ and the Green Economy - WSJ.com

Arlen Specter Pushes for Card Check - WSJ.com

2009-09-17T17:34:00.000-05:00

Health Care, or Health Insurance, or whatever Obama and his acolytes are calling their latest freedom-killing "reform," is just the tip of the iceberg...

From the Wall Street Journal, Arlen Specter Pushes for Card Check - WSJ.com

Cracks in the armor...

2009-09-16T12:07:00.018-05:00

The Obama administration thinks it is invincible. Case in point, David Axelrod, senior adviser and propagandist, in response to the march on DC over the weekend which some have estimated at more than 2 million attendees, claimed the protesters were not representative of the rest of the country. In an even stronger affront to popular sentiment against the President's destructive policies, Axelrod chastised "They're wrong."
In what may well become the worst presidency in the history of this nation, not to mention the presidency that may very well destroy America as we know it, the administration has hunkered down in bunker mode.
President Bush was excoriated in the months and years after 9/11 for telling the world "If you aren't with us, you're against us."
The Obama administration is telling the country, "If you aren't with us, we'll destroy you, reputation, your livelihood, your family, your children, your children's children, and we'll even shoot your dog in the face for good measure."
The wild accusations of fear-mongering, name calling, character assassination and blatant disregard for obvious poll data, however, tell the real story. The administration is flailing about wildly to hang on to power.
In a last gasp effort to distract from its own policy failures and exploding unpopularity and impugn opposition to a destructive radical agenda, the Democrats have turned back to the first page of their "101 Dirty Tricks to Play in Politics" playbook and started splaying about accusations of racism against pure policy opposition. Surprisingly, they have also trotted out a secret weapon -- former president Jimmy Carter, widely regarded by Republicans and Democrats as a colossal failure.
President Carter, in an interview with Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News, charged policy dissenters and Obamacare opposers as racists.
In a similar twist, when he dropped his ice cream cone after the interview, he accused the intern who handed it to him of spearheading a hate campaign against the dairy industry.
It is, frankly, almost unfathomable to see a former United States President accuse the country of racism. The only possible reaction will be even greater alienation of the American people and even stronger opposition to Obama's policies. Worse, Carter's allegations further strain racial strife. Viewers who simply oppose President Obama's policies will see this as a personal attack and a condemnation of their very character. Even those who voted for Obama cognizant of the historic racial nature of his election and who are now concerned about his sweeping agenda will feel wrongly accused.
For a man who was elected partially on the promise of healing the racial divide, these charges will only foment stronger resentment toward Obama and even stronger opposition to his policies. Even more damaging, Obama looks like a liar and the worst kind of partisan politician and all that is wrong with politics. Even worse, it opens wide a wound that's taken decades to start healing and pours salt in it.
The polls bear this out. Opposition to Obama's health care proposals is at its highest level at 55%. Further, only twelve percent believe the opposition has anything at all to do with race.
After a summer of arrogant antagonism from the White House, Democrats in Congress, labor unions and other Democrat constituencies and special interests, and now wildly offensive accusations of racism, the Obama administration continues to think it is invincible.
But there are cracks in the armor. We need to keep applying pressure to split them wide open.

We're all racists now.

2009-09-15T09:02:00.023-05:00

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an absolutely brilliant piece the other day regarding South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson's outburst in which he unceremoniously blurted "You lie!" during the President's address to Congress last week.
Showing such malicious disrespect for our greatest President was certainly uncalled for. Protocol dictates that Congressional members treat with respect and dignity the office of the President, especially in the House chambers. High on the list of offenses is calling the President a liar. Certainly Pete Stark, Democrat Representative from California, is aware, as he addressed the House in 2007 when he chastised President Bush regarding the children's health care program SCHIP, "You gonna tell us lies like you're telling us today? ...But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq."

Rep. Stark's accusations regarding the previous President, however, were undoubtedly accurate and highly appropriate, and well-justified, as were nearly all criticisms of the previous administration. After all, Bush's words were nothing but complete, almost unintelligible fabrications, unlike those of President Obama, who has obviously proven himself to be nothing if not completely honest and forthright. Honest Abe, make room on Mount Rushmore for Honest Obama.
Which brings us back to Rep. Wilson's uncouth transgression of last week. Ms. Dowd, with her usual brilliance and perception, notes the underlying tone of Wilson's attack. A black President, admonishing Republicans for their vicious obstruction, half-truths and misleading accusations, called out by a white Congressman... from the South, no less! She writes, "what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
It's racism, plain and simple, evil and insidious.
She later makes it even clearer. "For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both."
It is blatantly apparent now that Wilson had the stain of racism in his heart and on his mind when he objected so vocally to admittedly ambiguous claims. Ms. Dowd is sagacious enough to note the obvious. "Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
Furthermore, when you factor this underlying racial distrust and even intolerance into the strife of the past several months, the fog lifts and the picture becomes even clearer. Finally the right-wing extremist hyped "Tea Parties," the angry voices at town hall meetings, and the million-plus nutjob protest in DC this past weekend start to make sense. As Ms. Dowd laments, "I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race."
I'll admit, I could not see at first that Wilson's callous accusations were charged by racism and bigotry. I cannot look into the man's heart. But as Ms. Dowd astutely instructs, there is, obviously, no other explanation. Democrat Rep. Stark, as you recall, did not raise his voice in the aforementioned instance. The fact is no Democrat has ever shouted at a black President. Ms. Dowd hammers the final nail in Wilson's coffin, "But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."
The unpleasant, if not hostile reaction from the obviously misinformed, prejudiced, intolerant racists to the election of this man, this brilliant, educated, eloquent black man, is evidence to Ms. Dowd's point. They are just not ready for this. Some will never be. Some, like Rep. Wilson, as well as the bigoted deep south, the close-minded inhabitants of the "heartland" of middle America, the hate-monger Tea Partiers, the conspiratorial right-wing extremists and, to be honest, the vast majority of the country resist a black man in the White House. Like it or not, the country as a larger whole must come to grips with the reality of this brilliant black man's rise. Ms. Dowd writes, "Now he’s at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension. Even if he and the coterie of white male advisers around him don’t choose to openly acknowledge it, this president is the ultimate civil rights figure — a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe."
We, Ms. Dowd, the media, the enlightened leaders in Washington and New York, the inspired scholars in academia, are living in an enlightened, progressive age, in which many have yet to come to such an understanding about this President and his almost messianic ascendance. We who have chosen the side of history that punishes white men hollering and discredits old people protesting things that they don't know are good for them, have an historic, charismatic Black President in whom we have been inspired to place all of our trust, our faith, and, yes, Hope.
Maureen Dowd clearly understands these rifts are purely racist, purely prejudicial and, obviously, are not in the least related to President Obama's antagonistic words which have incensed his opposition which grows by the day, his perplexing actions which the majority of Americans fear are dangerous to their liberty, or his policies which most Americans realize are destructive to the very Republic for which they have given sacrifices of blood and treasure. No, Ms. Dowd scolds them. This is about nothing more than race.
By the way, Ms. Dowd, if, by some unlikely chance you can extricate yourself from your tired, intellectually desolate, vapid hack-liberal "racism" rebuke clichéry and happen to read this, the preceding remarks are something we, the undereducated, unintelligent unwashed masses of inbred populace who according to your omniscient wisdom can't abide a black man in the White House call "sarcasm." Look it up.

Charlatan-in-Chief by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online

2009-09-13T17:02:00.002-05:00

Charlatan-in-Chief by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online

Shared via AddThis

Perhaps the president missed his true calling...

2009-09-12T20:26:00.005-05:00

Snake-oil Salesman-in-Chief...?

(regarding President Obama's speech to Congress this past Wednesday)

Where Is Obama's 'Center'? by Mark Steyn on National Review Online

2009-09-12T10:54:00.002-05:00

Where Is Obama's 'Center'? by Mark Steyn on National Review Online

Shared via AddThis

Do you remember?

2009-09-11T13:35:00.008-05:00

I awoke to chaos and horror on the radio as the second plane crashed into the second tower. I rushed to turn on the tv, and watched incredulously as the events played out. I called my brother, and we watched the towers collapse.
I remember that day. I was in school at the time, and classes were cancelled that day. Vigils were held at the chapel and the church on campus.
My heart felt like it collapsed as well.
President Obama and the Democrats intend to "reframe" the country's solemn remembrance of September 11, 2001, rather than a testament to the brave people who died and memorial for the victims who perished, to a national day of service, and an homage to Mr. Obama's radical, statist ideology. Of the 364 other days from which he might have chosen, why 9/11?
Today is also a stark reminder of the realities of a much more complex, much smaller world, in which oppressive authoritarian theocrats intend to harm us.
In their attempt to scrub the horrors of 9/11 from the American memory, the president and Democrats are promoting a sort of forced community service as a distraction from the Bush administration's successful war on terrorism efforts of the past eight years to protect our country and our people from another devastating attack.
The memory of such an unprecedented attack on our homeland is minimized, much as acts of terrorism are now "man-made disasters" and the war on terror has become an "overseas contingency operation."
It is unfortunate that such disregard for the American people has become the norm from the leaders on the left. Americans do not need their elected officials telling them what to think. Americans do not need an ever more intrusive government admonishing them to help their neighbor. And Americans certainly do not need a solemn day trampled to serve their ever present president's narcissistic political agenda.
Today is not a day to distract. It is a day to remember. Do you remember?

Mark Mix: Read the Union Health-Care Label - WSJ.com

2009-09-10T15:18:00.001-05:00

Just pray the surgeon doesn't go on strike halfway through your bypass operation...

Mark Mix: Read the Union Health-Care Label - WSJ.com

Personalizing your demons...

2009-08-14T15:31:00.014-05:00

Mr. Montgomery showed up at the town hall meeting with the President in Belgrade, Montana and personalized the current enemy of the Democrats' health care reform agenda, the big bad insurance companies.
The President and the Democrat leadership have retooled their attack message in recent weeks, accusing insurance companies of arbitrarily dropping coverage for the smallest of mistakes and most trivial of reasons. These immoral insurance companies are only interested in making themselves sick rich at the expense of the sick and poor, we're told. If you have a pre-existing condition the evil insurance companies will laugh as they drop the hammer with the "DENIED" stamp on your forehead.
All hyperbole aside, there are undoubtedly instances in which people lose coverage or go without. Hyperbole, however, is Mr. Obama's stock and trade.
During the town hall meeting Mr. Obama even recounted a tale of a man whose coverage was suddenly dropped in the midst of chemotherapy treatment for developing gallstones. He died. You may too. It's only a matter of time before they get to you, before they drop you, before you go bankrupt.
But then the President took a question from an unassuming fellow in a light blue colored shirt, who explained that he sells private insurance for a living. "Why are you vilifying the insurance companies?" he asked.
Suddenly the big bad insurance companies have a face. Those evil, immoral insurance companies the Democrats have been demonizing now look like a gray haired, soft spoken middle-aged gentleman with a job and a family.

Obamacare: The "Post Office" of Health Care Plans

2009-08-12T11:44:00.003-05:00

Obamacare: The "Post Office" of Health Care Plans

Shared via AddThis

Call 1-800-CHEST-PAIN - Mark Steyn - The Corner on National Review Online

2009-08-09T11:55:00.001-05:00

Call 1-800-CHEST-PAIN - Mark Steyn - The Corner on National Review Online

Shared via AddThis

Spreading disinformation...

2009-08-05T13:15:00.002-05:00

Keep them honest?

2009-08-05T12:18:00.009-05:00

One of President Obama's tactics in pushing his health care takeover is a claim that a government run public option will keep insurance companies "honest." This begs the question -- Who will keep government honest?
So far we have heard many claims from the Democrat leadership pushing this plan that can only be described, at best, as dishonest.
They claim we will be able to keep our current health care plans. This has been proven false. Large companies will be given a five year grace period before being forced to either offer a "qualified" plan comparable to the federal mandate or shift employees onto the public plan. All others will be shifted to the public plan if even the minutest change is made to their current plan.
They claim the public plan will increase coverage to an additional 47 million people while reducing costs. Again, false. This is simply illogical. How can you drastically increase a program without drastically cutting costs? Several independent studies, including from the Congressional Budget Office, have showed the plan will cost far more than any potential savings and will add far more to the deficit, to the tune of nearly $2 trillion. There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. The only solution to reducing costs under the plan is to limit services, which leads to the next point.
They claim their plan does not promote rationing. Wrong again. Without a substantial increase in numbers of doctors to serve the additional 47 million people, rationing and denial of services will necessarily follow. Despite the claims that the elderly will not be affected, much of the administration's book-cooking is from shifting funds from medicare. Not to mention the "comparative research studies," which is simply a euphemism for cost-benefit analysis. The elderly cost too much for too little benefit. Who is more likely to qualify for a heart valve replacement -- a 50-year-old who will live for thirty more years, or a 70-year-old who will live for ten?
They insist the public option is not just an innocuous means toward a government run single payer health care system. Wrong again. We've explored this previously. Their own words bely their true intentions.
The Democrat leadership is now claiming the protesters showing up at town hall meetings are "manufactured." False. These are real people who are concerned and upset about the direction in which President Obama and the Democrat leadership are taking the country, people who just want to be heard, who do not want their voices silenced. It's funny, the Democrat leadership is calling the movement of the people "astroturfed," phony grass-roots, which is a concept invented, coincidentally, by Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod.
Before they accuse insurance companies, doctors, and average citizens of deceit, perhaps the President and the Democrat leadership should try to keep themselves honest.

GM Profits from “Tax-Loss Carry Forward” - WSJ.com

2009-07-30T21:54:00.003-05:00

More Chicago-style politics from the White House. President Obama has claimed he has no interest in running a car company. That may or may not be true. There is no question, however, that he has an interest it their money and their votes. The administration has a vested interest in keeping their interest groups happy, including the reliably Democrat-supporting United Auto Workers union.

"As everyone else’s taxes rise, one favored outfit may not have to pay federal taxes for years: General Motors. In another sweet deal from its benefactors on Pennsylvania Avenue, the government-owned car company is set to profit from billions of dollars in tax breaks not available to other businesses in the same predicament.
...[the Obama administration] has handed a $16 billion tax gift to GM that isn’t available to Ford or other auto makers that didn’t take bailout cash. It’s one more example of the way the political class has stacked the deck in favor of Government Motors."

GM Profits from “Tax-Loss Carry Forward” - WSJ.com

'Cash for Clunkers' Runs Out of Gas - WSJ.com

2009-07-30T21:39:00.000-05:00

"White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government's cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program's $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week."
And they want to run health care?!

'Cash for Clunkers' Runs Out of Gas - WSJ.com

Redefining the term "nanny state."

2009-07-30T16:21:00.019-05:00

Fortunately for us dimwits in the rest of the country, President Obama, the Democrat leadership and the gentle hands of the federal government intend to save us from that most imminent disaster, that most frightening calamity, possibly even the greatest danger to the very survival of the human race -- raising children.
From the so-called "health care reform" bill in the House for which President Obama is relentlessly campaigning, H.R. 3200, we find a provision that will relieve us all from the fear and loathing and constant ingestion of antacid tablets that we who do not have access to magazine subscriptions, bookstores, a library, the internet, or even parents and friends, experience upon the blessed arrival of a brand new little bundle of doom.
We are all totally freaking out here!
The bill features a provision, Section 440, titled "Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children and Families Expecting Children." Its purpose is "to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation."
Sure, every parent wants to improve the well-being, health and development of their children. Yes, the bill stipulates its voluntary nature. Consider, however, what the term "voluntary" could mean in the scope of the entire bill. With the very much increasing involvement of the federal government in the nature of health care in the bill, especially the focus on preventative health and promoting a healthy lifestyle as part and parcel, how long will it be before voluntary becomes mandatory?
Part of the grant application to receive funding for home visitation programs is a report of a statewide needs assessment that details the "number, quality, and capacity of home visitation programs; the number and types of families who are receiving services under the programs; and the sources and amount of funding provided to the programs."
The language is vague. It is hard to tell whether these are state run programs or programs serviced by other charitable organizations as well. The bill stipulates "the State will promote coordination and collaboration with other home visitation programs (including programs funded under title XIX) and with other child and family services, health services, income supports, and other related assistance."
Also as vague are the intended benefactors of these programs, although the bill does indicate a preference for serving underserved communities. According to the bill, "the State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment."
Certainly high-need communities will receive preference, but are these programs intended for everyone? And just how invasive might these "statewide needs assessment[s]" be? Who will perform these assessments? Will these assessments be performed as part of census collection data? There are several unanswered questions throughout this bill.
One question answered in detail, however, is the content of these home visitation programs and their purported benefits to the aforementioned dimwitted parents. These programs intend to:
"provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners);
knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;
knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;
modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices;
skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development;
skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills;
and, activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children."
I visited my brother and his wife last week, and their brand new baby boy. I found something supremely intriguing there -- a parenting magazine! In fact, they had several of them! And, even more surprising, my sister-in-law has siblings who have many children! I wonder if the thought ever occurred to her to ask them for advice... No, that can't be. Only a behemoth as unwieldy as government is capable of truly advising new parents.
Instead of spending more taxpayer dollars to install immense new government parenting programs, why not save all that money and buy everyone in the country a subscription to a parenting magazine? I ran some numbers. A subscription to "Parents" magazine for three years for every single person in the country, all 300-some million, would cost around $3.6 billion, or a mere .36 percent of the health care bill's estimated $1 trillion price tag.
How incompetent have we become that the "smart" people in government think they need to reach into our homes and help us raise our own children? Is this "Brave New World" and we are so preoccupied with our "soma" that we need a whole fleet of government babysitters to help us do what parents, after thousands and thousands of years, can apparently no longer do?
Not to mention something that parents have been doing without taxpayer assistance. The bill appropriates $50 million for the first year of the program, 2010, and increases funding to $250 million by 2014, an increase of 500% over five years.
No, we are not incompetent. We still raise our children well. Government has become incompetent, arrogant, and highly disrespectful.
Although, given the cost of all those magazine subscriptions, $750 million over five years and a government provided babysitter does sound like a pretty good deal...

The zombie apocolypse is coming...

2009-07-29T15:18:00.010-05:00

Given the Obama administration's apparent nonchalance regarding North Korea and Iran's nuclear aspirations, it's no wonder people are worried. Gun sales are up and people are preparing for survival.
When half the planet is a smoldering pile of radioactive rubble and the zombies are marching en masse with an insatiable hunger for brain, you've got to be ready.
I think I've found the perfect zombie repellent:
The Mossberg Just In Case, 12 gauge, pump-action, six round, complete with pistol grip, survival kit-in-a-can and waterproof carrying tube. Perfect for the rugged individualist on-the-go who needs to kill zombies...

The blueprint for a government takeover of health care.

2009-07-29T08:31:00.023-05:00

The public option is simply a step towards a complete government takeover of health care. For evidence we need look no further than student lending.
As part of President Johnson's Great Society, government began guaranteeing student loans offered by private lenders, which became the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL).
In 1993 President Clinton signed into law a provision which would phase in a direct government lending program, the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, which promised to control costs for students and taxpayers and reduce the deficit. A sort of "public option," schools could choose in which program to participate.
In April of this year, President Obama called for the elimination of the FFEL program, and a House committee has recently passed a bill that does just that. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR3221) terminates federal loan guarantees under the FFEL program beginning on July 1, 2010.
According to Daniel De Vise in the Washington Post, "The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 would eliminate an entire category of student loans issued by private lenders and subsidized by the federal government, vastly expanding direct lending by the government."
Further enticing students to utilize the Direct Loan program rather than private lending, and entrench themselves in a life of government bureaucracy at the expense of a vibrant private sector workforce in the process, is the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.
Apparently indentured servitude is an appealing solution. The program "forgives" the balance of the loan for graduates after 120 monthly payments while employed full time by an approved public service organization, AmeriCorps, or the Peace Corps.
Essentially, private lending of student loans would be all but eliminated in favor of direct government loans. What remains is a single payer system for student loans, and a prescription for the future of the health care public option.
President Obama is relentlessly campaigning for his brand of health care reform including the so-called public option, which he promises will control costs and reduce the deficit. Sound familiar?
While campaigning in 2003, however, he admitted he supports a single payer, government run system. Congressman Barney Frank openly admits the public option is "the best way to get single payer."
The blueprint is there. It's time to make the connection.

5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform

2009-07-28T15:30:00.009-05:00

There's a great article by Shawn Tully of Fortune magazine on some of the "sacrifices" Americans will be forced to make under Obamacare. I've also linked to it at the bottom of this post, you should read it.
Let's hit the bullet points:
First, you can't choose what's in your plan. The government option requires a level of minimum coverage. The required minimums are also subject to change according to the recommendations of government committees.
Second, costs are equalized regardless of health. The government option bases coverage on a "community rating," which equalizes costs among those with low or high costs. Young people with lower actual costs would pay proportionately more, and sick or older people with higher actual costs would essentially pay discounted rates. The real cost of health care would be skewed by legislative manipulation and subsidies.
Third, you can't choose how to spend your money. Many companies offer Health Savings Accounts, which include matching coverage from employers and allow workers to choose high-deductible coverage. Employees pay for routine care themselves and are more conscious of costs. The government option could eliminate the concept of consumer choice in health care.
Fourth, despite the President's assurances, you can't keep your current plan. Most large companies pay claims themselves and would be exempt from the approved government option. Under the new legislation, however, after five years they must begin to offer only "qualified" plans to employees. For employees of small businesses, or who get their insurance themselves, any change disqualifies you from your current plan and sticks you with the government option.
Finally, you can't choose your doctors. Under the government option, you are assigned a primary care doctor, who chooses your specialists and controls your access to services. Furthermore, your assigned doctor will be "guided" by a government committee's "comparative effectiveness" research (remember this provision in the "stimulus" bill?) which determines the cost-effectiveness of treatments.
Obamacare ought to require a warning label: "Caution, Obamacare may be hazardous to your health and freedom."
Read the article here:
5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform

More on the health care "public option" Trojan Horse...

2009-07-09T17:10:00.011-05:00

The so-called "public option" is a debacle, simply a pleasant sounding means to an unpleasant government controlled end.
Proponents, including the President, claim it is intended to lower costs and keep the private sector "honest" through competition. Instead it will achieve neither. The math simply does not add up. How can you increase health care coverage to 50 million more people while simultaneously reducing costs? Without a price-control mechanism, likely rationing, costs will skyrocket.
Regarding keeping the private sector "honest," the only honesty will be in the phone calls tens of millions of people receive from their private sector insurers. "To be honest," they will tell you as they inform you they can no longer cover you or your family, "we cannot compete with the government."
One reason health care costs are increasing is simply because health care costs increase as you age. As the baby boomer generation ages, there are simply more and more older people to take care of. So costs naturally increase.
Furthermore, the high costs of a medical education are contributing to fewer people becoming doctors, especially general practice. The prohibitive costs of malpractice insurance and excessive lawsuit compensations bog down the system in a mire of bureaucratic sludge and misappropriated wealth.
If the so-called "public option" is installed, costs will not go down, they will skyrocket. And instead of just paying your health care costs as you get older, you, the tax payer, will pay for everyone else's as well. Assuming, of course that the governing body deems you worthy of receiving care on an inevitably cold hearted cost versus benefit scale.
Stopping President Obama and the Democrats from radically transforming our health care system, the best in the world, into another entitlement that rewards politically connected interest groups, strengthens the Democrat voting block, further entrenches their political machine and destroys the freedom of the people in the process, is crucial.

Read this article at the Wall Street Journal Online for more --
The Public Option Two-Step - WSJ.com

Just for fun...

2009-07-09T15:19:00.002-05:00

(The song is "White Lines" by Duran Duran, a cover of "White Lines (Don't Do It)" by Grandmaster Flash and Melle Mel)

Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com

2009-07-07T21:19:00.001-05:00

Or, "How the so-called public option really reduces health care costs."
The short answer? Rationing. From the Wall Street Journal article regarding the U.K.'s version of public-provided health care which Democrats wish to model, "it has by now established the principle that the only way to control health-care costs is for this panel of medical high priests to dictate limits on certain kinds of care to certain classes of patients."
"...The core issue is whether those decisions are going to be dictated by the brute force of politics (NICE) or by prices (a private insurance system)."
And when contemplating the "brute force of politics," recall that President Obama built his political career in Chicago as you ponder this quote from the film The Untouchables:
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

From the Wall Street Journal, Of NICE and Men

Isn't that why they were elected?

2009-07-06T12:09:00.004-05:00

I thought President Obama was elected because he was supposedly more able and better equipped to "fix the economy," as though he was better with a wrench and a leaky faucet than McCain.
Nevertheless, according to Joe Biden, the administration "misread" how dire the economic situation was. Nevermind that all throughout the campaign Obama and Biden crowed that we hadn't seen as severe an economic situation since the Great Depression.
So evidently they are saying the situation was actually worse than the Great Depression, and that even Barack Obama, in his infinite wisdom, does not understand the economy or know how to fix it.
And now there is talk of even more "stimulus" spending.
Of course, I still maintain that Obama and his cohorts are intentionally dismantling the country's economic system in accordance with their radical agenda as acolytes of Saul Alinsky, but that is a discussion for another time.

From where do our Rights originate?

2009-07-03T16:48:00.018-05:00

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words, from the Declaration of Independence, declared and signed July 4, 1776, illustrate precisely from where the Rights of man originate.
Rights are given by God. Or, to put it secularly, these are Natural Rights. These are Rights which are inherent, by virtue of man’s very humanity, an elementary human condition. Rights from the Creator, God, or Natural Rights, are unchangeable, unalterable, and eternal. These rights exist apart from man, yet are a part of man. They cannot be bestowed by man. This is what the writers of the Declaration and the Founders of our country understood: All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Whether you believe man is created by God, or that man evolved, these rights are natural and inherent. This is what most Americans also understand.
By contrast, the philosophy of many modern liberals, Progressives, Statists, is that rights are bestowed from man, to man. Or, more specifically, from government unto the governed.
Hence, we see President Obama viewing the Constitution is a charter of negative rights allowanced by government. In the controversial 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ, he speaks about “constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” In this context he is speaking about the concept of redistribution of wealth, when during the civil rights movement the Constitution did not allow the Supreme Court to advance the concept of a right to “economic justice.” This is instructive of a general philosophy regarding the Constitution and the general philosophy of Statists and Progressives that rights are bestowed by government unto the governed.
He continues, “Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He objects to be the limits the governed place on their government. The writers of the Declaration understood that government must be permitted by the governed: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Obama believes the Constitution restricts what government must do for you, or give to you. Notice the words on your behalf. By emphasizing the responsibility of government over the governed, he shifts responsibility for the endowment of rights from God, or nature, to government, or man. The question then, is what rights can government allow? Or, in other words, what rights can man allow?
To phrase it more instructively, then, these rights are no longer rights, but privileges to be given or to be taken by the will and whim of government. The governed are disempowered, while government is obligated to provide.
Again, this is the philosophical difference; that rights are given from man, to man. Or, by extension, from better man, to lesser man. Government, being the better, bestows rights unto the governed, the lesser.
By this reasoning, the modern liberal concept of “classes” is clearer. Candidates campaign on promises to tax only the rich. Politicians promise to provide free or cheap health care for the uninsured. They implicitly promise to punish the privileged and recompense the underprivileged. The concept of redistribution of wealth is purported as reparative and righteous “economic justice.” Contemplate recent hate crime legislation. Instead of all crimes being criminal, some are categorized according to a “protected class” of person.
Class envy, class warfare, proletariat versus bourgeoisie, these are pretexts to classification, separation and subjugation. A sort of apartheid in the guise of compassion for the weak, underprivileged, underrepresented, or oppressed.
Our God given natural rights are repealed by men under the pretense of empathy.

Some good news from Ford.

2009-07-01T16:08:00.008-05:00

While Chrysler and GM continue to hemorrhage blood and lose limbs, Ford is suffering flesh wounds. June auto sales numbers were announced today. Chrysler sales fell 42% and GM sales declined 33%, while Ford sales fared better, falling 11% in June, compared to last year, a smaller decline than expected by analysts. More importantly, Ford increased its market share 3%; second-quarter and first-half market share also increased.
What this means in the long-term is still unclear, given the nearly bottomless government-sponsored pockets into which GM and Chrysler can plunge their graspy hands, looking for loose change. I take it to mean that the general American public is perhaps not so ignorant as many in Washington may believe. Recall Ford did not receive federal assistance and has not been forced into bankruptcy. Perhaps these sales numbers reflect the general distrust of governmental interference in private industry and misgivings regarding the Obama administration's machinations in the private sector.
Another reason for Ford’s better outlook is surely the strength of their current product lineup. I am tremendously intrigued by the new Taurus SHO, and am completely enamored of the 2010 Mustang.
Ford’s outlook seems to be improving. Now that government has a financial interest in the performance of GM and Chrysler, however, that may change, as the potential for new federal regulations that put undue, unfair pressure on Ford is very real.
Regardless, today's positive news gives me another reason to feel optimistic and promote Ford, the Last Great American Car Company.
Read all about The Ford Story.

Why is the Obama Administration siding with the dictators?

2009-06-30T18:45:00.005-05:00

Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office early Sunday morning by the Honduran army, on the orders of the country’s Supreme Court. He was deposited in Costa Rica in his pajamas, and the Congress appointed a new president. The media, the White House and regional leftist despots are calling it an illegal military coup. In reality, this is a forced impeachment.
Zelaya proposed a referendum to change the Honduras constitution, which imposed term limits on the president. In attempting to follow in the footsteps of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and assume a lifetime office, Zelaya miscalculated, believing he could strong-arm his country into allowing him to disregard his country’s rule of law. He pushed ahead with the referendum, against Honduras law, Congress, and the Supreme Court, at which point he was deposed.
Secretary Hillary Clinton says this should be condemned by everyone. President Obama said, “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras,” claiming, “We stand on the side of democracy.”
The White House is joining a chorus which includes Venezuelan dictator and Zelaya's close ally Hugo Chavez, who himself had successfully maneuvered into a lifetime presidential term, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who earlier this year railed against the United States in a speech before President Obama, and Fidel Castro, as well as unanimous condemnation from the U.N.
Honduras was well within its own rights to depose Zelaya to protect its constitution and its democracy, despite President Obama and other leftist leaders’ accusations that this action trampled democracy.
Zelaya routinely riled up the poor in a proletariat versus bourgeoisie type of populist “democracy”, much to the detriment of Honduran prosperity. According to Ray Walser, writing in the New York Post, “Honduras is a poor nation, and got worse on Zelaya's watch. But rather than blame the global downturn or his own failures, Zelaya sought to rally the masses behind him by fingering the nation's elites as behind the nation's woes.”
The success Hugo Chavez had securing a lifetime presidency inspired Zelaya to emulate it. Instead, Honduras resisted and is now being condemned by the one who should be celebrating the safeguarding of constitutional law and the democratic process, and thwarting a dictatorship, the President of the United States.

It's a better game than checkers.

2009-06-17T22:24:00.033-05:00

The new "smart foreign policy" of the United States is apparently uncontested concession. Whereas France, long the butt of jokes and mockery for their foreign policy style of surrender, has stepped up to condemn the sham elections in Iran, the United States now resembles George McFly in the beginning of Back To The Future.
"I'm afraid I'm just not very good at confrontations."
Gordon Brown, Great Britain's maligned Prime Minister, also had strong words for Iran's leaders. "The regime must address the serious questions which have been asked about the conduct of the Iranian elections."
Meanwhile, Barack Obama does not want to be seen as "meddling" in Iran's affairs.
If the United States, the Light of Liberty in the world, does not stand with an oppressed populace, who will? Iranians are being killed for protesting. They are risking their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of their friends, all for the slightest shred of freedom. President Obama is sending all oppressed peoples buried under harsh, cruel regimes throughout the world the message that the United States will not stand with them.
It makes sense, given President Obama's worldview of moral equivocation. The United States has committed atrocities in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and throughout its history at home. Perhaps we, in our previously flawed condition, have no right to condemn Iran's atrocities. Perhaps we are more to blame than them.
But President Obama's squishiness denies the good that America has done. Iraq, for example, is now freer than is has been in many years. We have built schools, hospitals, infrastructure. This is America's Exceptionalism, that, by virtue of our freedom and liberty, we are free to help others and to free others. This is not to say that America is better than other peoples or nations. Rather, we are freer.
President Obama's apparent compulsion to straddle both sides of a debate is weakening him, weakening the United States, weakening our allies, and strengthening the resolve of the worst factions. Even more dangerous, his weakness worsens the plight of the oppressed in these regimes. Those whose sole goal is to attain a sort of worldwide dominance are hastening their ascent.
North Korea has ramped up their braggadocio, largely in response to Obama's tepidity. President Obama called North Korea's antagonistic accelerated nuclear weapons program a "grave threat." North Korea replied with a threat of a "thousand-fold" military retaliation to any U.S. actions.
As a former educator, perhaps Mr. Obama will be familiar with this scenario:
Teachers often encounter one student whose goal, it seems, is not to learn, but to continuously, antagonistically, test the limits of the teacher's patience. When told to sit in their desk, the student will instead run around and poke other students. When told to be quite, the student will instead talk incessantly to any student who may or may not listen. When told to hand in an assignment on Thursday, the student will instead hand in the first page the following Wednesday.
It's a lot easier when the teacher can simply send the student to the Principal's office to be disciplined, or send a note home to the student's parents. Perhaps, in a university setting, the teacher can simply drop the offending student from the class.
The game changes when the teacher is the final authority, but is reluctant to dispense any sort of punishment. Or when the principal, allegorically, the U.N., is as toothless as an old man who forgot his dentures, eyeing an apple.
Or when the student's rogue actions could destroy half the planet, and leave the other half in the darkness of nuclear winter.
North Korea is reportedly preparing additional tests of long-range missiles that could reach the U.S. According to the Associated Press, a Japanese newspaper report suggests North Korea might fire a long-range missile toward Hawaii in early July. North Korea is thought to possess enough plutonium for several atomic bombs, and is reportedly enriching uranium.
Aggressive threats from North Korea, Iran and other unscrupulous, unpredictable regimes require consequential responses. Potential destructive acts wreaked upon South Korea, Japan, Israel, the United States, or even upon their own citizens will require necessarily strong punitive actions. A foreign policy that relies on concession, or in President Obama's case, perhaps overly self-confident personal charm, will fail. Kim Jong Il will have his nukes if he wants them. So will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs in Iran. The stakes in this game are too high, and the consequences too dear.
Historically, for better or worse, the United States has assumed the responsibility of maintaining the peace, so to speak. It is in the interest of our continued liberty, but is also the product of a general lack of resolve for a cooperative, forceful effort among other nations. The U.N. can impose sanctions or pass resolutions, but is often powerless to enforce them.
The saying goes, "To whom much is given, much is expected." President Obama must now assume responsibility not just for the safety and welfare of the American people. As the leader of the free world, now he must lead.

What have we got?

2009-06-17T13:00:00.000-05:00

There is a story that, after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A Republic", he replied, "if you can keep it."
In this country today we have a president who criticizes one particular news network he does not like for a perceived lack of "positive" stories about him.
We have a news media which has discarded all pretense of being impartial as they fully and openly support and endorse a president and ideology.
We have a president, a party in power and a complicit media who silence opposition.
We have a president who eliminates people who threaten to expose his friends' corrupt or criminal behavior.
People do not yet realize or understand what is taking place under their blissfully ignorant noses. The threats America faces are much subtler and much more subversive than a nuclear U.S.S.R. threatening children cowering under their school desks, fearing an impending shower of missiles raining radioactive death.
America faces the threat of losing itself to insidious forces working from within to destroy it. America faces a crisis of identity.
"A Republic," if we can keep it.
Barack Obama, President of the United States, leader of the free world, in an interview on CNBC Tuesday singled out and accused a TV news network of being "entirely devoted" to attacking his administration. In an unprecedented, egregious abuse of the Office, President Obama indicted Fox News Channel claiming, "You'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me."

Since when have "positive stories" been a prerequisite of responsible journalism? Is it the job of the journalist to please the President or to report the truth? Is favoring an egotistical, narcissistic demagogue the new journalistic ethic?
When President Obama claims all he wants to do is bring "competition" to the health care marketplace with a competitor that by its very nature fights unfairly, is it not the responsibility of the journalist to report his deceit?
There was a time when the news media was considered the fourth branch of government. They were entrusted to act as a watchdog for the people of this country. Their job, once upon a time, was to keep government honest, so to speak. Those days have passed. Like George Orwell's 1984, the news media is a government appendage. Or, more specifically, a tool of the Democrat party. In this "Big Brother" world news is state-run. All Obama, all day long.
On Wednesday, June 24, the ABC network plans to air their nightly news program directly from the Blue Room at the White House. Unfortunately that is not a trendy new nightclub. Rather, in broadcasting directly from the Obama White House, it is a blurry Obama/media cooperation to fundamentally alter society and suppress dissent. ABC will also air an hour-long special from the East Room at the White House entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" to advance the Obama administration's health care "reform" agenda. ABC is literally in bed with Barack Obama. A fine example of unbiased journalism from the All Barack Channel.
And what happens when you displease President Obama? He will either demonize you, as with Fox News, or he will extend his reach into your workplace and eliminate your job. Recall the unceremonious firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Centuries ago monarchs would simply have critics and rivals killed. In these civilized times, political murder is too extreme. But imposing your dictatorial will in a formerly independent private sector is, apparently, perfectly acceptable.
Last Wednesday Barack Obama fired the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service with little notice and for flimsy reasons. Apparently Obama did not have the "fullest confidence" in Gerald Walpin, whose job was to act as a watchdog to ensure taxpayer money used by volunteer organizations such as Americorps is being spent responsibly. He was investigating alleged misuse of grant money by Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, former NBA player and Obama friend and supporter.
The President is required by law to give 30 days notice and proper reasons for firing an inspector general. The White House notified Walpin and gave him one hour to either resign or be fired. He refused to resign, so Obama fired him.
The job of the inspector general is to protect taxpayer money from misuse for political reasons. A lot of money floats around among service organizations, volunteer and other government services. A lot of politicians want to use that money for their own interests. This firing is another dangerous precedent set by the President, circumventing and politicizing the oversight and independence of such organizations.
Eliminate your foes, reward your allies.
Benjamin Franklin understood the potential promise and the imminent danger of the new American government. "A Republic," if we can keep it.
President Obama seems intent on transforming his office into a monarchy, unchecked, unregulated, and unquestioned.
What has happened to our country?

A tale of angst, love, sorrow, vampires and "saved" jobs...

2009-06-08T22:36:00.007-05:00

Perhaps President Obama's third book will be young adult fiction, because the media squeals like teenage girls when he spins his yarns. Here's a helpful tip: vampires are popular.
William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal of the President's rhetorical slight-of-hand, "Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has 'saved or created' 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin."
But it's not just President Obama weaving fantastical tales of far-off lands, where leprechauns are all happily employed, dancing and singing folk songs in a lush green valley teeming with unicorns, rainbows and pots of gold.
The media is complicit as well, a fawning accomplice, as though all their adolescent dreams have come true as they transform Newsweek and the New York Times into Teen Beat. "So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already 'saved or created' 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved."
President Obama is the magician and the media is the ditsy assistant in the skimpy dress. The American people are the guest from the audience who gets called up to the stage to participate in the grand illusion at the end of the show.
Except the President hasn't practiced this trick. We're going to get sawed in half.

The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims

Welcome to the Obama Recession.

2009-06-08T14:28:00.021-05:00

Despite constantly blaming the Bush administration for our economic woes, this is now the Obama Recession.
President Obama met with his cabinet today to discuss the economy and his "stimulus" spending program.
He made clear the difficult position in which he purports to be entangled. "We're still in the middle of a very deep recession that was years in the making."
Had he done nothing, he posited, our economy could have gone into a tailspin. It's a disingenuous rhetorical maneuver, as the option of doing nothing was never suggested. But, in his relativistic view, that matters little.
What does matter, however, is the economic maelstrom of his own making.
Last Friday documented unemployment reached 9.4%. The economy has shed more than 2.7 million jobs since January and 6 million since the recession began.
Since the "stimulus" package was passed more than 1.6 million jobs have been lost. Yet Obama claimed the 345,000 jobs lost in May are a "sign that we're moving in the right direction.
Obama as much as conceded his "stimulus" package has not been effective, however. "I'm not satisfied. We've got more work to do."
Again, in his position above the fray, he bears no blame. He is too much of a transformative, inspirational figure for such petty squabbles. Likely because, as we learned last Friday from Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, Obama is god.
No, he places the blame squarely at the feet of the previous administration. "When we arrived here, we were confronting the most significant recession since the Great Depression. It was bad and it was getting worse."
He went on to promise to accelerate distribution of "stimulus" spending to create 600,000 jobs this summer, although the White House conceded nearly a quarter would only be temporary summer jobs. Considering his promise the "stimulus" spending would create or save 3.5 million jobs, they have a long way to go.
In the reality in which the rest of the country lives, after more than 100 days the "stimulus" plan continues to fail. Of the $787 billion spending spree, only $44 billion has been distributed. President Obama claims 150,000 jobs have been "saved." If we are on track to create or "save" approximately 50,000 jobs per month, it will take ten years to recoup the 6 million jobs lost during this recession.
The illusion of jobs "saved" is nothing more than statistical slight-of-hand. There is no way to accurately and reliably quantify jobs "saved". If you know how, email me. Then email the Department of Labor, because they have a very high-paying job for you.
Public support is waning as well. According to a recent Rasmussen poll from June 1, only 31% say the "stimulus" package helped the economy and 27% say it has hurt the economy. 31% say it's had no impact.
Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, which owns Fox News and many other media assets expressed worry today that unemployment could reach 10 or 11% and would likely continue to rise. Factor in the inevitable tax increases and hyperinflation as a result of all this "stimulus" and irresponsible, extreme deficit spending, and America is bracing for stormy weather.
Welcome to the Obama Recession.

A Look Into the Auto Industry's Future Lineup - FOXBusiness.com

2009-06-07T18:00:00.000-05:00

From Fox Business:

"Ford Motor Company, the only domestic auto maker not to ask Uncle Sam for a loan continues to receive success from its popular 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid.
...'I think Ford will clean the floor up with GM and Chrysler with its changing product and tremendous product line,' [Erich] Merkle said. 'Ford has a stunning new Taurus coming out and the Focus, Explorer and Fiesta will have newer designs and be affordable and economic transportation.'"

A Look Into the Auto Industry's Future Lineup - FOXBusiness.com

Posted using ShareThis

Throwing good money after bad habits...

2009-06-06T17:37:00.061-05:00

President Obama addressed his desire to reform the American health care system in his radio and internet address today. The text can be found here.
According to Obama, "Fixing what’s wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve – it’s a necessity we cannot postpone any longer.”
He went on to say in his most mellifluous, yet ominous tone, "If we do nothing, everyone’s health care will be put in jeopardy.”
Okay, Chicken Little. You're making the sky fall.
This sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric he used to ram the mammoth "stimulus" plan through Congress. So far there has been little evidence that, to paraphrase his words, we've turned the economy from the cliff. Initial jobless claims fell slightly this week, yet unemployment has risen to 9.4%, its highest level in twenty-six years. The immediate future looks grim, as economists expect unemployment to continue to increase through next year.
The reasons for his haste are obvious. Obama is still riding high on public approval and enjoying his honeymoon with the electorate.
His goals seem laudable: access to quality health care for all Americans.
"I’m talking about the families I’ve met whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy or forcing them to go without the check-ups or prescriptions they need. Business owners who fear they’ll be forced to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers."
There is, however, considerable danger in his ambitions. Let's take, for example, the business owners whom Obama mentioned. The Wall Street Journal reports initial legislation has been circulating in Washington that "would require employers to cover their employees or pay a penalty." Conveniently, Obama's plan makes the choice for them.
Obama went on to say, “My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues.”
Given the nearly $800 billion "stimulus" spending plan which he heartily championed and the vigor with which he promoted "fiscal discipline" when he required his cabinet to trim their budgets by $100 million, I am not reassured by his promise of "rigorous spending reductions." He is correct that his plan is historic, however, in that he is proposing an entitlement program epic in size, complexity and cost. Costs to the taxpayer could explode to more than $1.5 trillion over the next several years. And it will be the taxpayer who "covers the costs," in Obama's words, through "appropriate additional revenues."
One of the additional revenues of which he spoke may be a value added tax, or VAT as it is known in Europe. The value added tax is essentially a national sales tax which will affect everybody from the poorest to the richest. A value added tax of 10% to as much as 25% has been suggested in Washington recently as a method to pay for Obama's health care plan. Other options being discussed by lawmakers are increasing taxes on alcohol or taxing sugary beverages. Additionally, lawmakers are considering taxing employee health benefits.
The most dangerous of Obama's ambitions as he pushes his health care reform agenda may be the hidden costs Americans will pay with their freedom.
President Obama addressed the cost of his health care reform promising, "we can’t welcome is reform that just invests more money in the status quo – reform that throws good money after bad habits."
Bad habits?
He continued, "We must attack the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs." One of the biggest contributors to rising health care costs is the increase in obesity. In 2007 the CDC reported that more than 34% of Americans were considered obese. Health care costs connected to obesity approximated $117 billion in 2000, according to the CDC.
With an administration reaching farther into the private sector than ever before, controlling executive pay and firing CEOs, how much further can their reach go? Can it extend into the personal lives of private citizens?
In the interest of keeping health care costs low, the door may be open to regulation of "unhealthy behavior." Government mandated exercise and physical activity programs, government designed diets? Perhaps not. Every behavior which could negatively impact health care costs, however, could and likely would be regulated, subversively, through taxation. Consider the high taxes on cigarettes. Given the legislature's recent proposal of a tax on sugary beverages, a general "behavior tax" may not be out of the realm of possibility.
Perhaps President Obama's health care reform will be funded with a "fat" tax. After all, obesity contributes to many diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, stroke, osteoarthritis, and a host of other ailments which burden the current health care system. What better way to deter weight gain than to levy prohibitive excise taxes on Snickers bars, pizza and ice cream? What better way to regulate the populace than to make things people like harder to get? And as an added bonus, less heft would contribute to better fuel efficiency. Lose weight, save the planet!
So how, then, can government intrude into your private life and personal decision-making, such as what to eat for dessert or whether to exercise or sit on the couch all day? What if you want to ride your motorcycle when it's raining? What if you want to swim less than an hour after eating?
At the same time, abortion has been ruled as a protected right, citing the right to privacy.
President Obama's intended health care reform is less like reforming health care and more like reforming government's role in people's personal lives. Much like some people start going to church, and some profess a deeply profound, personal relationship with Jesus.
It's not about health care reform. It's about power and control. It's always about power and control.
Obama claimed his intent was to "protect consumer choice." In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed, "a new public health insurance plan would benefit consumers by providing more competition in the market." How competitive can a private company be when its competition can print its own money?
Further, how competitive can a private company be when its competition makes the rules? The federal government makes the policy, sets the rules, and regulates the industry. What is to stop lawmakers from making laws which only they can follow? Or making policy that benefits them and increases their hold over their "customers"? Or, if you're still under the illusion it's still a free market and it's still a fair playing field that means what stops government from increasing their market share, if not service or price?
The ones who make the rules always win, and the ones who are bound by those rules always lose.
That includes everyone President Obama intends to "help." Just imagine standing in line at the post office the next time you break your leg and have to go to the emergency room. Don't get too attached to that leg, you won't have it much longer.
Perhaps eating a Snickers bar is dangerous. I'll take my chances, and I'll make the choice.

Despite criticism to the contrary, Rex Grossman can play.

2009-06-03T23:33:00.006-05:00

I must preface this with a disclaimer:
I am, always have been, and always will be, a Chicago Bears fan. No matter what.
I just came across a column on cbssports.com which basically validates much my criticism of the Bears for some three years. Surprisingly, this comes from Pete Prisco whom, in my estimation, is no Chicago fan. But he does, apparently, understand that Lovie Smith and Ron Turner are less than fully capable of running a dynamic NFL offense.
Not to sound completely arrogant, but I had Tony Romo figured out a full week before opposing defenses determined his flaws. Granted, my initial response was "make him throw from the pocket," which is undoubtedly a simplistic gameplan. That is, however, just what happened the next week. But my point is the commentators, prognosticators and talking heads are often ignorant bandwagoneers.
Anyway, to my original premise: Rex Grossman can play. Many of his struggles can be blamed on lousy play-calling or an aged offensive line. Any quarterback, no matter how good, will struggle to make big passing plays in an obvious passing situation. And I can't count the number of times I saw Grossman sacked, on his back with three or four defensive players all over him while three offensive linemen were standing at the line of scrimmage, looking for someone to block.
I've maintained that if Grossman were in a system that played to his strengths, his live, accurate, very strong arm, he could be more successful. There are few quarterbacks who can throw as pretty a deep ball. Protect him in the pocket and just let him throw. I'm not so naive as to suggest, however, that Grossman is an elite quarterback. But, given the right circumstances, he possibly could be. He has the talent.
One last observation -- Grossman was pummelled for his tendency to throw interceptions. My theory is he threw recklessly at times because he could. He had a big arm and could make strong throws few other quarterbacks could. So he took chances.
As an aside, Jay Cutler, the big-time Pro Bowler for whom the Bears sold the farm, is a gunslinger as well. Just something to think about...

Barack Obama is blind to his blunders over Islam | Amir Taheri - Times Online

2009-06-02T16:18:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama is blind to his blunders over Islam Amir Taheri - Times Online

Why Obama Voted Against Roberts

2009-06-02T10:45:00.010-05:00

The Wall Street Journal has a transcript of Barack Obama's remarks regarding his reasoning for voting against confirming John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
According to Obama, "he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process." Apparently Obama thought Roberts was a racist.
Not only that, Obama also thought Roberts discriminated against women, claiming sexism. "He seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."
Obama voted against Roberts because he claimed Roberts consistently sided with people who ignored or even perpetuated racial discrimination and with people who ignored or perpetuated gender inequality.
Obama claimed that as a legal academic he weighed methodology rather than results. "What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision."
Despite his words to the contrary, however, Obama voted against Roberts based solely upon political ideology and societal activism. Despite his claims to the contrary, Obama did not respect his "intellectual rigor and honesty" in his decision-making. Obama claimed, "I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power."
Obama also spoke very highly of Roberts as highly qualified, of good temperament as a judge, and a decent, respectful person. According to Obama, in 95% of the cases Roberts would serve as an excellent Supreme Court Justice. The other 5%, however, those cases which require "empathy," disqualify him in Obama's mind.
"In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
According to Obama's judgement, Roberts did not possess the right kind of "empathy" to merit a seat on the Supreme Court. Never mind that justice is supposedly blind.
Thus we get the nomination from now President Obama of a candidate who does possess his preferential "empathy" in which justice is not blind, rather it keeps one eye open as it shows preference based on economic status, race, and gender.

How GM Filing Bankruptcy Affects Ford Motor Co.

2009-06-01T16:56:00.004-05:00

In a statement from Ford Motor Company President and CEO Alan Mulally, "We look forward to working with the Obama administration to ensure that the government’s majority ownership of GM will not change the industry’s competitive dynamics and that a level playing field will be maintained."

How GM Filing Bankruptcy Affects Ford Motor Co.

Posted using ShareThis

In defense of autonomy...

2009-06-01T11:42:00.032-05:00

Blue Oval or Bow Tie?
It's time to embrace car partisanship. The perpetuity of Ford correlates directly to the prosperity of the American Dream.
First things first. With government intervention on behalf of GM, the deck is already stacked against Ford. GM has a potentially unlimited source of funding from taxpayers and the dollar factories where the Fed is printing money like toilet paper. Further, Obama is practicing unabashed protectionism and bowing to the UAW by restricting GM from importing popular European small cars to meet his "green" standards. GM's European subsidiary Opel is up for sale. Potential buyers will be restricted from selling them in the U.S. or China. A few years ago to make the Saturn brand more profitable and desirable GM imported rebadged Opels and sold them as Saturns. They were widely regarded as superior to previous Saturns, and many domestics in general. Obama apparently prefers mediocrity. Not to mention the enormous cost of retooling current factories to build what may be essentially the same small car.
Obama claimed today he does not want to run GM, yet reserved the right to exercise governments ownership rights in "all but the most fundamental" decisions. Decisions such as choosing board members, closing factories, eliminating dealerships, vehicle types and specifications. Obama is already making these decisions and will continue to do so. Any rhetoric to the contrary is simply that, empty rhetoric.
And don't forget the decision to shift towards much smaller "green" cars GM will now build at government's behest, whether or not the buying public wants them. My guess is they will be forced to "want" them.
Obama has stepped into a serious pile of conflicts of interest. Government has pumped tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into GM, and may continue to do so indefinitely. At the same time, government will continue to regulate safety, efficiency and the like for all cars sold in the U.S., not just the GM and Chrysler vehicles they are now building. That includes Ford, who did not take bailout money. The potential for favoritism, or preferential regulation, is precipitous, since as a shareholder government will expect a positive return on its investment. As just one example, the TARP bill included a $7,500 tax credit for purchasers of the Chevy Volt, GM's expensive forthcoming plug-in hybrid electric car. Obama will try to subsidize his way success with GM, perhaps at the expense of Ford.
For all of Obama's machinations, we, as consumers, still have power. If the President can choose sides, so can we. It seems there are signs that we are. According to a Wall Street Journal article today, Ford has seen its market share increase over six of the last seven months, and that trend is expected to continue when May numbers are reported Tuesday. Ford also plans to increase production in the third quarter. Ford was in better shape to weather the economic storm than its rivals, having borrowed and raised operating capital in 2006, which cushioned the blow of the recent economic troubles.
There is no question, however, that the road will be difficult for Ford. Their profit leader is a large truck. They must also comply with the new fuel economy standards. As the Last American Car Company, their competition is now the United States government with all its interest groups, constituencies and other assorted wards of the state.
They also have a large number of American consumers on their side who still remember what free enterprise and a free-market economy meant for prosperity. It meant if you had a dream and followed it, if you had a good product you wanted to share with others, or a service you could better provide, you could achieve success and prosperity. You could build a better life for yourself and your family. You could get the big house with a big back yard and the nice car that you could wash, wax, and detail in your driveway every Saturday afternoon without worrying about competition the entire United Stated federal government, who can print money.
Fundamental business decisions should not be made by government. They should be made by autonomous businesses, not beholden to interest groups as political payback. They should be guided by consumer demands and market compliance, not ideological scientists and sheltered academics.
A business unfettered by government intervention is a free business, free to make its own decisions. Autonomous, it is free to succeed or fail on its own merits. Free to reap rewards, free to suffer consequences, free to learn from mistakes, free to try again. Free to pursue excellence.
Until GM and Chrysler are able to break the shackles of government bureaucracy dictating their every move, GM and Chrysler will never be free. They will always be beholden to a clumsy, inefficient leech whose unlimited funding ensures unlimited control. Indentured servants of the state.
From an article on Marketwatch.com today, "Ford's ability to survive the historic industry downturn without the help from Uncle Sam has clearly struck a chord with consumers exhausted by the bailouts and clamoring for the free market to take its course." Consumers still have power. The President is not a dictator yet.

I'll take one in black.

2009-05-31T12:40:00.012-05:00

Every one of us should be given a brand new GM car.
GM is expected to finally enter bankruptcy Monday, at which point our government will assume 60% ownership of the automaker. And by government I mean us, taxpayers, whose money, tens of billions of dollars, is being used without our consent to prop them up.
Government Motors, formerly General Motors, will be able to stay in business thanks to our money, paid in to the federal government via tax revenue, and distributed by the federal government to an ailing company to keep it afloat. Generally if an individual wishes to invest in a company, they may do so at their discretion. In this case, however, we have no say in the matter.
Never mind that in doing so, the Obama administration is interfering, possibly permanently, in the free market by essentially choosing which company succeeds and which fails, despite their actual performance. The repercussions of this will likely be enormously disastrous and will be felt for years, possibly decades.
Therefore, since it is our money which is being used to keep GM in business, each one of us should be given a brand new GM car. Call it a company car if you like, since it is ostensibly our business now.
It's our money, now it's our company. Make mine a Corvette, and I'll take it in black.