“Waving the bloody shirt” is a timeworn political ploy first used by the venerable Republican Party in the aftermath of the Civil War. After the war, in order to get controversial legislation passed through the Congress the Republican Party would not so subtly remind the public in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, just who had fought first to preserve, and later to reunite the Union…and whom had worked to tear it asunder. By using such rhetoric, and by sometimes literally waving a shirt allegedly stained with the blood of Union soldiers spilled in the War Between the States, the Republicans were able to silence Democratic opposition to all manner of policies. “Waving the bloody shirt” was used in part to give us the so-called Reconstruction Amendments that outlawed slavery, made the former slaves citizens of the United States, and granted them the right to vote. The tactic was also used to help in the passage of the first civil rights legislation in the history of the Republic in the years of 1866, 1872, and 1875.

In the decade of the 1960s the Democratic Party brought the tactic back with a vengeance after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nearly every major piece of legislation that Lyndon Johnson wanted passed was foisted onto a mourning public as one of Kennedy’s major legislative priorities, which allowed Johnson to get just about anything through the Congress and onto his desk. It seemed that everything from the Job Corps, to Operation Head Start, to Medicare were packaged by the wheeling-dealing Johnson as one of Jack Kennedy’s most cherished ideas, and in the shocking aftermath of Kennedy’s murder no one wanted to be seen as thwarting the last wishes of King John of Camelot, so several trillion dollars later we are still stuck with LBJ’s Great Society schemes.

Since then, politicians have used some variation of the bloody shirt in nearly every decade, especially when there is a war being fought. John Kerry and his band of lying miscreants used it in the fraudulent Winter Soldier hearings; George H. W. Bush did it when he campaigned in 1988 with the badge of a slain New York City police officer as a symbol of why we needed to fight the War on Drugs; and various politicians use the tactic when they stage photo ops with wounded servicemen to show their support for the troops. The bloody shirt will occasionally recede into the political closet, but it never truly gets retired.

With the death of Edward “Teddy” Kennedy, the Democrats have decided to dust off the bloody shirt again and wave it wildly in a last desperate attempt to resurrect a healthcare bill that seems to be dead on arrival. Senator Robert Byrd (Klan-WV) has proposed that the bill (or bills) winding through the Senate be named in honor of Senator Kennedy, whom everyone recognizes as a staunch supporter of a nationalized healthcare bill in a last ditch attempt at getting the sympathy vote for a bill that the majority of the people of America simply do not want. The line of thinking seems to be that Kennedy’s death should be used as a catalyzing agent to bring any recalcitrant Democrats around on the issue, and to stir up some much needed public support for the failing plan. What this line of thinking ignores is the most obvious point in the whole debate: The people do not support this idea! No matter whom the bill is named for, or said to be in memoriam of, the American people have spoken in poll after poll and the conclusion is always the same: We don’t want government run healthcare or government issued health insurance.

What is really appalling about this idea is the base motives involved in even making the proposal. The vast majority of the members of the United States Senate publicly claim to have been friends and admirers of Senator Kennedy, but before his body could get cold or his family could properly mourn his passing, his “friends” in the Democratic Party began plotting to use his passing as a political tool to pass their beloved healthcare legislation. They had barely begun rewriting the history of his life to make him into some type of tragic/heroic figure before they struck upon the idea to use his death as the bloody shirt they hoped would get them  power over one-sixth of the American economy. Alas, I should not have been surprised with this after the way the memorial for Senator Paul Wellstone was hijacked and turned into an impromptu anti-Bush political rally; yet it is just as unseemly now as it was then, and I had hoped they would avoid exploiting the death of their treasured “friend” for naked political gain.

However, no matter how enthusiastically they wave this bloody shirt, it will probably not have its intended effect. Even if the American people were united in their love and admiration of Teddy Kennedy, it probably would still not be enough to shake them from their fears of the federal government doing to American healthcare and health insurance what they have done with the postal service and Social Security. The American people will not fall for such a shameless ploy, and the Democrats should be embarrassed by their attempts at exploiting the death of one of their own in the pursuit of political power. Alas, we know that they won’t because liberal Democrats may feel your pain, but they feel no shame.

On this past weekend's Sunday political gabfests a theme arose that was repeated repeatedly: Is the recession over? Most of the answers that I heard were ambivalent on the subject, with most leaning towards a qualified "Yes", which was then used as a jumping off point to praise the wonderful workings of the Obama stimulus plan. Now, we all know that the $787 billion boondoggle hasn't quite lived up to the promise of the program, what with unemployment steadily rising, banks going under, and the government taking over private enterprises in order to "save" them. However, the worshippers of the One-Who-Makes-Oceans-Recede do not see it that way, because BHO works in mysterious ways.

But one of the other things that has caught my attention for a couple of years now, and caused them to perk up again was the trotting out of the canard that this particular recession started way back in 2007, so that all that we are going through right now can be conveniently laid at the feet of the not so dearly departed Bush Administration. By pushing the idea that the recession started in 2007, the unholy alliance of the media and the Democratic Party is able to paint a picture that establishes a narrative where the Bush Administration drove the economy off the proverbial cliff, but the ever heroic BHO slapped on his cape, tights, and boots and swooped in to save the day....just before the economic engine crashed into the ground below. Now our Economic Superman, and his Economic Justice League partners are hard at work using the unlimited powers of the government to set things right! Just like an old Saturday morning cartoon!

However, there is just one tiny bit of a problem with that scenario: it is built on one of the basest lies ever told! It is built on a lie that anyone with a computer, an internet connection, an inclination, and a little bit of time can easily debunk. Moreover, it is only a viable lie if the left is allowed to redefine common terms, as it is wont to do whenever a word has an inconvenient meaning for their particular position.

The only way that the left (i.e. Democrats and media) can even start to advance their 2007 recession story is to redefine what constitutes a recession. As commonly understood, a recession is when the economy goes through two down quarters as measured by GDP, or two quarters of negative growth, also known to us plebeians as "a loss".  However, in order to make the year 2007 the beginning of the recession a new definition was needed, so the left created a new definition of recession that substituted negative growth (a loss) for less growth. It may not seem like a big deal, but in reality, it is a huge change. By defining less growth as an indicator of recession, an economy that continues to grow can be declared to be in a recession in the midst of a growth cycle.

Now, I do not claim to be an economist but I can tell you that by no stretch of the imagination did the recession start in 2007. According to statistics published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the numbers for 2007 told a different story on the economic climate than the Blame Bush crowd would have you believe, to wit:

• GDP for 1st quarter: +1.2%
• GDP for 2nd quarter: +3.2%
• GDP for 3rd quarter: +3.6%
• GDP for 4th quarter: +2.1%

Now, I do not know about you, but that seems like four straight quarters of positive growth! Only by redefining the meaning of recession can a case be made that the current recession started in 2007 on the Bush Administration's watch. In fact, the well-regarded Hoover Institution think tank based at Stanford University reports that for the year 2007:

• GDP rose by 2.2%
• Personal consumption spending rose by 2.9%
• Personal income rose by 3.1%
• Industrial production rose by 1.5%
• The national deficit was down by 34%, to $163 billion
• Unemployment stood at 5%...virtually zero unemployment
• The trade deficit was down 7% to $650 billion
• Consumer prices rose by 4.1%
• Consumer credit debt rose 4.2%
• Producer Price Index rose 3.9%

Even with the last three indicators being generally negative, the economy of the US was in very good shape all through the year of 2007. Moreover, things were in generally good shape in the first two quarters of 2008, with growth rates of 1% and 2.5% respectively; it was not until the third quarter of 2008 that the economy began a downturn (-0.5%) before totally catering in the fourth quarter (-6.3%) with the twin collapse of the housing and banking sectors. Yet for nearly three years we have been fed a steady diet of misinformation about the starting date of the current recession, all the better to turn a tough recession into a catastrophe to be simultaneously blamed on the previous administration and used to advance a radical political/economic agenda.

It is well past time that the Obama administration stops lying to the American people about the measures being taken in the name of rescuing a flailing economy; a stimulus that stimulates nothing, continued government takeovers of private enterprises, and continued rising unemployment rates in the face of government promises to reduce unemployment.  It is also time to stop the lies about the economic conditions during the Bush years and take ownership of the mess that BHO campaigned to take control of, and his policies have made worse. Bush is eight months removed from office now, and continuing to blame him for everything that has gone wrong is a mark of immaturity and unprofessionalism. Barrack wanted it, now he has it, and it is up to him to do something constructive about it; the Blame Bush Pity Party is at an end. As they say in this neck of the woods, "That dog just won't hunt!"

I understand that with a voice like that of President Obama on his side, Dr. Henry Louis Gates doesn't need the voice of a lowly conservative on his side, but he's going to get it. I understand exactly where Dr. Gates and his defenders are coming from, because I have been there. As a black man in the South, I have been pulled over by the police simply for driving through the "wrong" town at night after work, had the officers block me in like I was a bank robber, approach my car with guns drawn, and all to inform me that my tags had just expired. And this with my wife and toddler son in the car. My mother was pulled over in the same town coming from another town where she had been visiting her boyfriend and his mother, with the cops demanding to know where she was coming from and where she was headed. In addition, my father was once pulled over by a state trooper on a lonely stretch of NC 64 between Morganton and his hometown, was insulted with a racial epithet, and wasn't even given a ticket! I had a friend who was harassed constantly by the police in my former hometown, mainly because he was Lebanese.

However, with all that said, I still have great respect for the police and the job they have to do. Moreover, in all reality, I would in no way try to defend Dr. Gates, because even if the police overreacted...which I don't think they did...he was out of line in the way he acted. A neighbor of Dr. Gates who saw what she believed were two people trying to break into the Gates home, which apparently had been vandalized recently, called the police. The police responded to the scene, found two men in the residence, attempted to ascertain who the people were, and were responded to by a belligerent man who refused to produce any identification to prove that he lived in the home. What were the police supposed to do in that instance? Take it on faith that the unidentified man actually lived there, simply because he said so?

The completely dramatic episode could have been avoided if Dr. Gates had handed over some identification, instead of trying to threaten the police officer by claiming to want to contact the chief of police, or by using the time he spent braying about how poorly black men are treated in America in showing them that he actually lived there. If Dr. Gates had acted like a professional, instead of like a professional victim and accusing the police officers on the scene racists, there would have been no problem at all. All that Dr. Gates had to do was something like this: "Officer, I live here. Here is my driver's license, with my home address; I was just having some trouble with the locks on the front door and allowed my frustrations to boil over a little bit. But I would like to thank you for your quick response to the scene, and appreciate the fact that the police are on the job." Would that have been so hard to do? Instead we get baseless accusations of racism, of racial profiling, and demands that the officer apologize for doing his job!

Personally, I think that Dr. Gates and bigmouthed Obama owe an apology to the officers involved for accusing them of racism, and to the entire police department for saying they acted "stupidly". Moreover, black folks in general should distance themselves from this foolish conversation, because it accomplishes nothing in the end. No one was racially profiled, no one in uniform did anything untoward, and none of the officers reacted in an unprofessional manner. They did what we claim we want the cops to do; they responded to a possible B&E with no idea of who lived there, showed no favoritism, and attempted to protect the rights and property of the person who lived in the home. Unfortunately, the person who lived there acted like a jerk and caused a public uproar, when none of the drama was needed.

As for the stories that I related in the opening paragraph, they were all true. However, even with that said, I never held those actions against the entire police forces...just the people involved. The same police force that pulled my mother over, and harassed my Lebanese friend also responded quickly to my sister's home when she needed them, and acted in a very professional manner. In addition, the same highway patrol that treated my father so badly has officers that have allowed me and my late brother skate on several speeding offenses with warnings when tickets were really in order. The actions of a few bad officers do not taint the entire profession, and the totally professional attitude of the officers in the Gates case are what we should want in police officers; namely, men and women who enforce the laws without any respect to persons, professions, race, color, creed, religion, or socioeconomic status. The police have nothing to be ashamed of, or sorry for; the embarrassment should fall on Dr. Gates and the clueless Obama, for respectively accusing good officers of racism and impugning the reputation of an entire police force...simply for attempting to enforce the law. Shame on the race baiting Dr. Henry Louis Gates, and shame on the clueless buttinski President Obama.

When Bill and Hillary Clinton were in the White House bringing the office of President into disrepute with their myriad scandals and illegalities, I am pretty sure that we all thought it would be a long time before we saw the likes of that again in the Oval Office. Bimbo eruptions, getting blown on federal time, semen stained dresses, purloined FBI files, and perjury were just the lowlights of the Clinton administration, and it was a relief when George W. Bush took over as POTUS because an adult had finally returned to the White House. And for eight years the only scandals emanating from the Bush administration were basically created by the media, who became sworn enemies of Bush and company when the Goracle managed to blow the election by not even managing to win his home state of Tennessee. And the scandals the media attempted to blow up were all minor league issues that involved no scandal at all; the ‘outing’ of Valerie Plame, the firing of the USA’s, and the constant mantra of “no-bid Halliburton contracts” were all media stories that led nowhere…except in the trumped up perjury charges against Lewis Libby.

So we come to the 2008 presidential campaign and we are treated to Barack Obama assailing the Bush administration and GOP led Congress on their alleged culture of corruption, and his claims that he was going to restore ethics to the executive branch. Gone would be the days of former lobbyists holding high positions in the administration, and gone too would be the days of ethical lapses emanating from the White House. Indeed, Obama promised to deliver on Bill Clinton’s pledge to run the “most ethical administration in history.” Yes, these were to be heady days indeed, if you are a fan of highly ethical government and were wishing to see government cleaned up and straightened out.

But the reality is far different from the rhetoric; instead of an ethical paradise the Obama administration seems more like Chicago-on-the-Potomac. In just the first six months of the Obama reign we have seen a plethora of unethical and/or illegal conduct. Here’s just a quick rundown of the stench emanating from the Hope & Change Express:

·         Instead of locking out all lobbyists the Obama White House began carving out exceptions to the very rules they instituted. While there is nothing wrong with former lobbyists working in the government to begin with, the Obama Bunch promised that any lobbyists hired would not work in areas that they had lobbied in recent months. Yet we have an assistant secretary at the Defense Department whose last job was…wait for it…lobbying for a defense contractor! That’s not the change we had hoped for!

·         The Obama Bunch has openly ignored the established rules of bankruptcy in the cases of General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler in order to reward its political patrons. The Obama Bunch (and the federal courts) allowed the secured creditors of the two companies to be paid pennies on the dollar for their interests in the companies, while the UAW was paid up to twice as much as the secured creditors. And all the while, the Obama Bunch was also threatening the secured creditors with serious repercussions, including setting the White House press corps on them to destroy their reputations, for having the temerity to oppose the hosing they were about to get.

·         The Obama Bunch also continued the illegal policy of the Bush administration in giving money from the TARP to the auto industry in blatant violation of the statute that created the program. The money was specifically appropriated for the purpose of bailing out troubled financial institutions in order to keep the entire system from crashing, yet both the Bush administration and the Obama Bunch misused those funds to prop up failing auto companies. Neither group attempted to even hide their illegal actions, no one from Congress stood up to oppose it, and the media cheered the move (probably the second time they cheered any Bush era move). So Obama took the ball and ran with, dumping even more money down the GM/Chrysler rat holes until he could successfully nationalize the companies.

·         The Obama Bunch has also caused severe tensions between the US and UK after bribing the Bermudans to take some of the Uighur terrorists (yes, they’re terrorists…why else would they have been caught in an al-Qaeda camp?) off our hands. The problem with that little action is that Bermuda, as a British protectorate, has no ability to make those types of foreign policy decisions; all of Bermuda’s foreign policy is supposed to run through No. 10 Downing Street in London. The Obama Bunch had to know this, yet they willingly circumvented the system in order to score some cheap political points by relocating some of the “harmless” terrorist suspects still housed at Gitmo. This may not be illegal, but is sure as hell is hot an unethical move…and they damned well had to know it was unethical. And they did it anyway. That should tell you a lot about the people we have in charge for the next three-plus years.

·         Finally, the Hope & Change Express decided to fire Inspector General Gerald Walpin for having the gall to actually do his job. He discovered that Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson had misused federal money allocated as a grant to his St. HOPE charity, including using the money for attempting to influence the outcome of the local school board election. When Walpin blew the whistle on the whole mess the Obama administration went Chicago style politics on him; they demanded that he either quit or be fired. To his credit Mr. Walpin took the honorable way out and forced Obama to fire him, and fired he was…in violation of a law cosponsored by then Senator Obama that mandated a 30 day notice before termination, and for having a cause for the termination. When challenged, the Obama Bunch opted not to really defend their illegal action; instead they tried to paint Walpin as on the verge of senility by releasing a report that claimed he was “confused” and “disoriented” during one of the meetings he conducted. The first act was blatantly illegal, while the subsequent actions all smack of the “politics of personal destruction” that liberals always scream about…while being the main practitioners of said tactic.

Instead of the super-ethical administration we were promised, we are seeing some of the dirtiest politics we have run across in a long time. I mean, even the Clinton’s made it longer than six months before they were caught up this many scandals! Yet Obama continues to act like he’s as pure as the wind driven snow and that his crap doesn’t stink. But if we are lucky, the people are watching and the new media will be able to keep a running account of what is going on leading up to next year’s congressional races. Maybe by then the GOP leadership will pull their heads out of their collective bung-holes (that means you Mike Steele!) and can use this to make some hay on election day. Because not even the most fervent followers of the O-bomination thought they were signing up for an administration that looks to put even the Clintons to shame when it comes to ethical obtuseness.

As everyone knows, the United States and Iran have a long and tangled history dating back to the middle 1950s. It was then that the CIA helped to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstall the Shah of Iran as the leader of the country. The thinking at the time seems to have been that Mossadeq would have moved the country into the orbit of the Soviet Union, while the Shah was very open to an alliance with the West. During the height of the Cold War it was almost inconceivable that an American administration would allow such an important ally fall to the hated Soviets, and the US went to the mat to prevent that from happening. So the Shah was returned to power and all was well with between the US and Iran… until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

It was in 1979 that President Jimmy Carter (D-Ga) decided to abandon the Shah in the face of the Iranian Revolution that was being led by the religious conservatives in the nation, and who drew their spiritual inspiration from the long exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. President Carter reasoned that the Ayatollah Khomeini would be a wise and benevolent ruler, especially since he was such a religious man. Unfortunately for the Iranian people, the Ayatollah Khomeini was a hard line Islamic cleric who instituted Sharia law, seized control of the press, and became a power hungry dictator…while wrapping his megalomania in the veneer of religious piety. And the Ayatollah bequeathed to the Iranian state several things that plague the nation to this day: a theocracy that subjugates the people and that seeks to export the “revolution” by making Iran the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They bankroll Hamas, Hezbollah, and the “insurgents” in Iraq that work so hard to destroy the budding democratic government in that country.

But to the complete and utter shock of the ruling mullahs the Iranian Revolution has come full circle, and now the Iranian people seek their ouster. In 1979 the young people of the country took to the streets to demand the end of the Shah’s tyrannical reign, shouting “Death to the dictator”; today the young people of Iran take to the streets seeking the death of the religious dictatorship foisted upon them by Khomeini. Then the young people were confronted by the police and security forces of the shah; now they face the thugs sent after them in the name of the Ayatollah Khameini. The 1979 revolution ended with the splintering and replacement of the Shah’s regime, and we can only hope that this revolution meets with similar success.

From the moment that the mullahs attempted to certify a clearly fraudulent election result that would return their hand selected puppet Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to the presidential office, the Western world had been open in recognizing the election for the fraud it was. The European Union, the Germans, the British, even the United Nations has openly questioned the election results in Iran. Yet the leader of the free world, one Barack Hussein Obama has done his best to appear both strong and noncommittal at the same time. His reactions have been lukewarm at best, starting with some pap about “vigorous debate” within Iran to his most recent statement that lets the mullahs know that “the world is watching.”

What Obama seems not to understand is that the world is not just watching the happenings in Iran, but that the world is watching him as well. Our allies are watching him to see how he handles a crisis, and what the United States is willing to undertake in the defense of freedom around the world. Our enemies are watching to ascertain the same things, and to see whether the president is strong or weak. And so far they have seen nothing from President Obama but abject weakness. He seems bent on being non-offensive so that the Iranian junta will be willing to sit at a conference table with American diplomats, instead of supporting the forces that could overthrow the very junta that he seeks to engage.

Obama must realize that at some point, his ‘above the fray’ posture needs to give way to a more realistic position in the foreign relations arena. Pretty words at an Egyptian university do not excuse the President from taking a stand on issues that scream for his attention. The President and his advisors, who are so keen on European opinion, can this one time look to the Europeans and follow their lead. He can follow them in their support for the freedom of the Iranian people who so obviously are demanding their liberty from a repressive, backwards regime. A government for, by, and of the young people of Iran could be the greatest engine of democracy in the Middle East ever seen. These are people who are not antagonistic towards the Western world, who are actually looking to us as a model of what they can be, and ask only that our leadership let them know that they are not alone in standing for freedom. The Senate and the House have answered the call by passing resolutions that affirm that they stand with the people in their fight to be heard and respected by their government, so now is the time for President Obama to finally take a stand for freedom.

Concerns about past acrimony and shop worn bromides about ‘diplomacy’ should be cast aside in favor of taking a stand for freedom. Mr. Obama has plenty of words for his friends at CBS, CNBC, ABC, and the White House Correspondent’s dinner, so why not a few for people who are risking their very lives seeking their freedom? We are waiting to see if Mr. Obama is eloquent in the defense of freedom, or simply grandiloquent in the pursuit of his own power. I pray that the President will find his voice and start to become a leader on this issue.

Now is the time for the President to live up to the words of the Marine’s hymn, “to fight for right and freedom.” Now is the time to lead Mr. President, the world is watching, and history will be your judge.

This Spade posting is going to be a bit different from the norm, because this one is going to be written by someone else. I usually don’t give space up here to other writers, unless they have something to say that I think is very powerful, cogent, and may be missed by my usual readers. I have given up space to a writer from the American Spectator, a local columnist in my area, reprinted an interview with Justice Clarence Thomas, and most recently reprinted excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s 1975 speech at the CPAC conference. And for the most part, that has been it. So it should tell you something that I am giving up space to someone else to actually write a post on my little blog.

The person that I am going to turn the Spade over to this time is my 13 year old son. He listens to me talk politics…ok rant…all the time and he has started forming his own political identity. You see, my wife is a Democrat, as are his grandparents whom he loves very much, respects, and listens to. Yet he has compared and contrasted their political views with mine, and he has come down on my side of the ideological fence. His reasoning as stated to me on many occasions basically boils down to this: When his mom and grandparents talk about politics it all boils down to feelings and emotions. Whenever he asks why they support a certain position they lead off with emotions and seem to end with the standard “Democrats are for Black people” sentiments that so many people have come to believe. When he talks to me, even when I am in my most worked up state of mind, I am able to explain to him WHY: WHY a policy won’t work, WHY a decision is faulty, WHY I hold the views I hold. And it never devolves into an emotional response or an attack on the other Party. So he has decided that conservatism simply makes more sense, is more logical, and can be expressed and defended much better than liberalism.

Last night he and I stayed up late shooting the political bull, and I began to ask him questions about the current president and why he thinks so lowly of him. You see, since the campaign season and definitely since the election, my son has expressed many times that Obama actually scares him. So I started to probe him last night on just what it is that scares him so much about Obama, what it is that he dislikes in the Dear Leader, and what he wants to see happen in this country. See, we adults are always saying that we are worried about the future of the Republic and that we are worried about the future that our progeny face…but we often don’t ask them about the future they would like to see. So I asked him about his feelings for Obama, his thoughts on the Obama foreign policy, what he wants to see in a leader, and where he wants this country to go…because it is, after all, his country too.

So while many of these thoughts and opinions are going to be familiar to you, please take the time to read and ponder them closely. This is the next generation of our nation and of our movement speaking to you. This is the voice of the people we work so hard every day to nurture, to protect, and whose futures we are striving to safeguard. So without further ado, and with a tremendous amount of pride, I yield the Spade to my son, Christian.

FOREIGN POLICY

President Obama is a coward when it comes to world affairs. He will not come out and say what he means or thinks because he does not want to be offensive. NEWSFLASH! Some people won’t like us no matter what; some people love to be offended because they love to be in the spotlight. DO NOT sugarcoat things because Iran, China, North Korea, etc. won’t sugarcoat their feelings about us! As president, Obama can’t show any weakness or our enemies will move to exploit them.

MEDIA ADULATION

The press loves our president and everyone knows it. For example, on June 17 during an interview he swatted a fly and John Harwood {the interviewer} was so excited that he killed a fly(!) he nearly jumped out of his chair! My father has killed flies, spiders, and other insects…but that wasn’t on the news for two days straight! The media talks about Obama all the time, and it is never anything negative. Fox News is the only place you can get straight news without the anchor offering an opinion, while NBC News pats Barrack Obama on the back so much it’s a wonder his back doesn’t get raw!

DUMB DECISIONS

Take GITMO as an example: GITMO is going to close, so you send these terrorists in training to Bermuda?! Heck, I know law abiding citizens that would LOVE to go to Bermuda, but they can’t go…but the government pays for the Uyghur’s to relocate there. Hey, why not just send a serial killer to Hawai’i? This is one of the dumbest things ever! And speaking of dumb decisions, I don’t think the founders wanted the president to take over private companies like Obama has done with GM and Chrysler.

TRULY SCARY

Face it, Obama is a big boob! He has no plans, and whenever he does he can’t explain it. He has no experience and it scares me that we have three more years or more with him as our president. He has a hissy fit anytime someone disagrees with him, and the person disagreeing is quickly labeled as a racist. He doesn’t understand that the government of Iran doesn’t like us; the leaders there still call us “The Great Satan”, yet Obama wants to sit down and talk with these people. And he refuses to realize that Islam is not a ‘religion of peace’ as he claims it is. Islam is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War; basically that means that if you are not a Muslim you and infidel who must convert…or die. We cannot find peace with people that think that way.

WHAT A PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE

I believe that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I believe that Americans should be free. I think the president should be strong in foreign affairs and in domestic affairs. I want a president who isn’t going to beat around the bush about issues, but can be blunt without being bellicose. Lastly, a president should be honest, straightforward, and not buckle under the least bit of pressure. In other words, the president shouldn’t be a thin-skinned ego hound who constantly needs his ego stroked!

So there you have it, the thoughts, fears, and ideals of the next generation of conservatism. So don’t believe the libs when they say that we are losing the nest generation, they just haven’t looked hard enough to find them. As long as we teach our kids that America is great, was great, and it is up to them to maintain that greatness, conservatism will continue to thrive!

Eric and Christian

As  a follow-up to an article I wrote about the granting of Miranda rights to terrorists captured in Afghanistan, I would like to point you to a series of articles by Andrew McCarthy at National Review. The first two are up already, with the first exploring the history of the Miranda decision and other related decisions, with the second dealing with some of the ramifications of that Obama decision to mirandize high value detainees and the threat to national security that is inherent in it. If you don't have the address for National Review there is a link to the site on the blog roll. This is a great read and very informative, and I highly recommend it to all readers at the Spade.