About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Finally He Finds His Voice!

Two days. Forty-eight hours. That's all it took for President Obama to find his voice in order to condemn the so-called "coup" in Honduras. It took him about ten days to find himself at a place where he could look at the stolen election in Iran and the ensuing crackdown by the ruling mullahs and be more than "concerned" about what was happening. It took him two whole days after the "coup" to openly stick his nose in the internal affairs of the Honduran government, yet to this day he is still trying to avoid "interfering" with the protests in Iran.
 
Obama's rush to condemn the removal of Manuel Zalaya as "illegal" while standing mute for so long on the Iranian situation says more about him than any words he can ever speak. While saying that his stance on the removal of Zalaya shows that America "will stand on the side of democracy", Obama joins his voice with the voices of such antidemocratic leaders as Hugo Chavez, Raul and Fidel Castro, Rafael Correa, and Daniel Ortega in calling for the reinstallation of Zalaya. Obama rushes to point out that Zalaya was 'democratically elected', which is true; yet he totally ignores the true reason that the Honduran military seized Zalaya and deported him in the first place.
 
One of the reasons that Hugo Chavez has pledged his support for Zalaya, even going so far as to make an implict military threat if he was not reinstated, is that Zalaya is a close ally and is attempting to follow in Chavez's footsteps. Zalaya was removed for attempting to hold a referendum that would have allowed him to serve beyond his constitutionally mandated term limitation, a referendum that both the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court had warned was illegal. Zalaya was determined to press ahead with his Chavez inspired attempt at remaining in power beyond his term limit, and in a move that was made to preserve their constitutional system the military removed him. There was no military junta put into place, the new president is a respected member of the legislature, and he has been appointed to serve out the remainder of Zalaya's term, with elections to be held at their regularly scheduled time. If this was a coup, it was one of the strangest of all time.
 
Yet Obama chooses to ignore the facts involved and perverts the word freedom by acting as though Zalaya is an agent of freedom. Obama has thrown his hat in the ring with the leftist, anti-American governments of Central and South America in saying that the removal of a president who defied the legislature, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution of his nation is illegal, while the unconstitutional actions of said president go unremarked upon. The same Barack Obama who cannot find it within himself to condemn the slaughter of innocents in the streets of Iran, people who are trying to throw off the yoke of governmental oppression has no problem condemning the Honduran authorities who are protecting the rule of law there...something that Obama loves to invoke at every occassion. And this same Obama stood by silently while the Iranian government murdered its own people in the streets in order to avoid accusations of "meddling" wastes no time in meddling in the affairs of the Honduran people when a fellow traveller is removed after trying to seize power that he has no right to hold. I am sure that I am not the only person who sees a problem with that, right?
 
People, we are in the hads of a total novice...which is bad enough. But what is even more worrisome is the knee-jerk leftism he has displayed here by siding with Chavez, the Castro brothers, Correa, and Ortega in demanding the reinstallation of a power mad politician, bent on taking over the government of the Honduras. But hey, maybe Obama is just finding his place among his fellow travellers and letting them know that he is ultimately on their side. Obama's words and actions here lay open the leftist sentiment that animates him and what "freedom" and "rule of law" mean in the Brave New World of Obama.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Few Quick Thoughts

What is the deal with the idea that the GOP is finished in 2012 because Sen. John Ensign and Gov. Mark Sanford were caught having extramarital affairs? What has surprised me the most is the number of commentators and pundits of all stripes who are looking at the failures of these two men as the fall of the GOP and the end of GOP opposition to Obama in 2012? The truth is that as much as people may have admired the stances the two men took on a variety of issues, such as illegal immigration and financial responsibility; neither man was much of a serious contender for the GOP nomination process that takes place…in three years! Ensign was not particularly well known on the national political scene, notwithstanding his position as a US Senator, and until the dustup Sanford had over attempting to refuse federal stimulus money for South Carolina not many people outside the state and his region had heard of him. Yet as soon as the two men were caught in their sex scandals, they suddenly became the two GOP frontrunners for the next presidential cycle. Is that because they actually were, or is it because they fell down and can be used to dump on the GOP and their future electoral chances?

I was watching the news today and saw the giddiness of people at the sentence of 150 years for convicted swindler Bernie Madoff, and had to wonder what is wrong with people. Yeah, Madoff deserved some serious jail time for his Ponzi scheme, but 150 years for stealing money seems extreme to me. We give mass murderers less time than this for killing people, yet we go to the mat to slam a thief! My problem here is two-fold: I don’t like judges using a defendant’s sentence to “send a message” to others, and I think that this slamming of Madoff lets his “victims” off the hook for their roles in his scheme. First, I thought a judge was supposed to look at each case before him individually, weigh the merits of that case, and hand down an appropriate sentence. Instead, this judge has done what so many others have done in the past; he has decided that it is his job to make an example of one man in order to scare potential miscreants. Now, if Madoff deserved 150 years in prison…cool; give him 150 years. However, do not sentence him out of anger or public outrage, because that is not justice. Second, most of the “victims” of Madoff’s schemes were willing participants in the scheme. These people saw a deal that was offering too good to be true returns on their investments, and they ignored the ages old warnings about things that are too good to be true and caved into their greed. They gave him their money to play with hoping that they would get a better return than other investors would and instead were burned for being greedy. They, in most cases, bear the burden of their losses since they willingly signed up with a swindler.

I also saw today that the SCOTUS has struck down Judge Sonya Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case. Good for them! The 5-4 majority has decided that discrimination based on race, even if you’re white, is not going to stand in America. Well, I say it is about damned time that the courts recognized that if we are to live in a society that is not based on race then we cannot discriminate against any race for any reason. We would not stand by and allow it if a woman, and Asian, Latino, or black was denied an earned promotion for no real reason, so we cannot let it stand against white men either. Moreover, if the GOP has any sense (which is debatable) they will ignore Patrick Leahy’s statements about this not being an issue and put it right out there for all to see. Being repudiated by the SCOTUS in such a public manner on such a highly charged case is very relevant, and must be stressed in the upcoming confirmation debate.

Finally, this has been a long weekend for the entertainment community. It started with the death of Ed McMahon and ended with the sudden death of ubiquitous television pitchman Billy Mays. But of course, the two biggest names were Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson. For men of a certain age, Farrah Fawcett was the “It girl”, and her 1970s poster was one that helped many a young boy move to young manhood. She was a talented actress, and frankly one of the best-looking women we have ever seen in the entertainment industry. Her battle with cancer was in all respects courageous, and it was sad to hear that she ultimately was unable to beat the disease. The death of Michael Jackson was a total shock to the system, and in my household, a few tears were shed at the news of his death. Heck, even I had a lump in my throat when I heard the news. For me, Michael Jackson’s music and videos were a huge part of the soundtrack of my life, and the idea of speaking of Jackson in the past tense still takes an effort. What is even sadder is that it seems that he died in some respects a broken man, allegedly hooked on prescription pain medications, and in increasingly poor health. Nevertheless, I prefer to remember him as the man who wowed me with the “Smooth Criminal” and “Remember the Time” videos; made me smile with songs like “The Way You Make Me Feel” and “Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough”; and touched me with songs like “You Are Not Alone” and “We Are the World”. RIP to Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, and Billy Mays. My prayers go out to all their families, and they will all be missed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mr. Daley Goes to Washington

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.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Full Circle in Iran

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.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Father & Son: Special Edition

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

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on Miranda

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.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Saw It Coming

When the SCOTUS handed down the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that granted habeas corpus rights to foreign fighters captured on foreign soil and kept at the Guantanamo Bay naval base the fear was that once habeas rights were granted to those guys all sorts of constitutional protections would suddenly be applied to them. And when the DC Court of Appeals used the Boumediene decision to justify the granting of habeas rights to detainees at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan we thought we had seen the culmination of a bad, politically motivated decision as it was being applied to people captured in battle against out troops. These are not members of any recognized armed force and they are not Americans captured by American LEO's on American soil; they are terrorist fighters waging war against the United States.
 
But the one thing many of us feared and brought up has come to pass. I heard it mentioned by others and in one of my poli-sci classes I mentioned it as a possibility, and we were all roundly criticized for bringing up the idea. It was not a possibility, it was just a scare tactic, and the government would never do it...or so we were told. But with the compliance of what Rush Limbaugh aptly describes as 'the state-run media', the Obama DOJ has started reading Miranda Rights to detainees picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan. That's right folks, Obama and Holder have turned a war zone into an episode of Law & Order, with soldiers or on scene FBI agents getting a captured terrorist disarmed and saying "You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney and if you cannot afford an attorney thee state will provide one for you."
 
When the Obama administration decided that the words 'war' and 'terrorist' were no longer part of the national security lexicon we were afraid of the return of a pre-9/11 mindset where we dealt with terrorism after the fact, and as a law enforcement matter. We have now seen a total abandonment of the war fighting mentality in this administration and it has been replaced with an attitude that slapping the cuffs on the perps is going to solve the problem of terrorists. It is amazing, and shocking how little coverage this is getting in the MSM...but not surprising. They are totally in the tank for Obama as we all know, yet this story deserves some serious reportage to find out what this means for the nation. Yet we can just about rest assured that NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC will not do that work because it may just cause the Chosen One some difficulty with his perception as a wartime leader and wise halfblood prince. And we cannot have that, can we? Obama must be propped up at all costs, so don't expect him to take any heat for this horrible policy.
 
In the aforementioned poli-sci class, I was asked what my policy would be if I were in charge of the war in Afghanistan and the situation with Gitmo. After saying that I would rescind the executive order to close Gitmo as a detainee camp, take time to figure out where the detainees should go, and find a way to repatriate many of the detainees I was asked what to do about any new people captured. And in essence I gave them a solution that BrianR advocated here for the longest time in dealing with terrorists.
 
One twelve cent bullet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where'sMy Cut?...And Other Burning Questions

Every day I hear the media talk about how the government is "investing" taxpayer monies into failing companies, such as GM, Chrysler, and various banks. And when the government eventually takes over those entities and begins micromanaging them, we get treated to government officials, neutered company officials, and the media lapdogs swearing up and down that the taxpayers are going to get "repaid." My question is, where the hell is my cut of the cash that will be "repaid" to us? I mean, I can see where the investment comes from when I see the money deducted from our paychecks on payday, but when do I get that money back that was stolen from me and handed to Chrysler? Am I getting a direct deposit, a check, or what?
 
Watching the speech President Obama gave at Cairo U. (what are they, the Slavedrivers, Jew Crushers, or Stoners?), I have to say it was about what I expected. He apologized to Iran for our meddling in their affairs in overthrowing the 'democratically elected' regime of Mossadegh and let them know we are perfectly okay with their having nuclear power. He also let the Muslim world know that we are not at war with Islam, which I am sure they were delighted to hear. Especially that one cat who kept shouting "We love you Obama!" like a pre-teen at a Jonas Brothers concert. But my question is, when  have we ever claimed to be at war with Islam? I heard 6 years worth of George W. Bush saying the exact same thing and proclaiming Islam as the "religion of peace"...so what was Obama talking about? The problem is that while we may not be at war with Islam, Islam is surely at war with us. The quicker we recognize that, the better off we will be.
 
Another thing in the speech that caught my attention was a comment about how many in the West allegedly condemn women for choosing to wear the hijab and the abaya. Who condemns those Muslim women who come here and choose to respect that custom? We have no problem with that, just as we have no problem with Jews who choose to wear the yarmulke, or sikhs who wear the turban. The problem we have, and Mr. Suddenly Muslim should have as well, is that in the very countries he was trying to impress..uh, I mean reach out to...women have no choice in the matter. They either wear it or face beatings or the death penalty...so why in the world is he apologizing for the West on the matter? I guess he just can't help himself.
 
Finally, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday when he said that he could possibly ignore Sotomayor's racism if she was a strong pro-life judge when Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC had a "Breaking News" update about what he said! That was amazing enough in itself because the guy is a talk show host, he stressed that of course he had no power so his support was only rhetorical, and he did not back off of anything he had said previously about Sotomayor. Yet there was a major "news" organization covering his comments (and distorting them) like he was a world leader. My question is why don't more Republican "leaders" take a page from Limbaugh and company, articulate and advance the conservative message, and get this type of coverage for themselves? The problem we have in the conservative movement (and the GOP) is that people get too caught up in being nice and worrying about how they are perceived by the other side, so they won't say anything that could be construed as inflammatory. What needs to happen is the conservatives (and the GOP) better have the attitude Gene Hackman had in "Mississippi Burning": When told by his supervisor that the FBI could not be dragged down into the gutter to fight the Klan, Hackman's character said, "These guys climbed out of the sewer, so maybe the gutter is exactly where we oughtta be!" That's what we face, back alley brawlers and we had better drop the Marquis of Queensbury rules or we are gonna get our butts kicked every time out of the gate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Giant Falls

I am not usually the most sentimental of creatures, but today's bankruptcy filing by General Motors put a lump in my throat. I come from a family that was a GM family from my grandad on down. He owned Chevy's, never drove anything but the big bowtie and my dad owned Pontiacs, Olds, and now drives a Chevy. He also owns a Ford pickup and a Jeep Cherokee, but his primary ride is a Chevy Cavalier. My first car was a 1983 Honda Accord that I paid $1500 for, but my first new car was a Chevy Cavalier, then I had a Pontiac Grand Am GT, and now I drive a Cutlass Supreme. And I have loved every one of those cars; they were great cars and the GM brand runs in my veins.
 
That's why it's so sad to see GM brought to it's knees today and facing an uncertain future, and a future that will be dominated by government meddling...Obama's statements notwithstanding. This should have been done so much better and cleaner, and it would have been if the company had been allowed to reorganize in Chapter 11 from the start. Instead we have a situation where the government propped GM up with taxpayer money, and despite Obama's protestations to the contrary, is poised to become at best a ward of the state...and at worst a subsidiary of the US Treasury Department. We are looking at a company that is going to answer to the very union that helped run it into the ground with it's outrageous salary and benefit demands, and an administration that is diving headlong into the auto business when even the socialist governments of Europe are keeping their distance from the same sort of things.
 
So while the once mighty General Motors goes into the bankruptcy that should have come earlier, let me say that I take no pleasure in it. The fall of GM is not just about a single company, but is sadly emblematic of the path I fear Obama wants to put the entire country on; create a super welfare state with governments hand-outs, and then close the book on any signs of the freedoms we have always known. I fear that Pravda was correct when they wrote recently that America is rushing down a path towards Marxism and the sheeple are marching quietly to their doom.
 
RIP General Motors, I'm gonna miss you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Compelling State Interest

By now everyone that has been paying attention to the news is familiar with the story of 13 year old Danny Hauser and his mother who fled the jurisdiction of a family court in Minnesota after refusing to submit to chemotherapy to treat his blood cancer. His family has claimed that their religion discourages the use of medical procedures such as chemo, and they prefer to pursue a treatment based on alternative medicine and herbal/natural remedies. The medical establishment claims that the only effective treatment for young Mr. Hauser is the chemotherapy, without which they assure us he will most likely die. And when the medical establishment makes such a pronouncement and involves the courts, the courts come down squarely on the side of the medical establishment and decide that there is a "compelling state interest" in making sure that the boy goes through the chemo, because the state is committed to maing sure that he lives.
 
Maybe it's just me, maybe I have a little strak of the libertarian in me, but this decision reeks of statism. And it also smells of one part of the establishment using its coercive powers to prop up and legitimize the opinions of another part of the established order. It bothers me that on the say-so of medical experts the courts have decided that they have the right to tell the Hauser family that their religious rights have no effect in the life of their child. They are not allowed to make a decision on the medical treatment that their child faces, because it is not the normal way things are done. The court is in essence saying that they, in consultation with medical experts have the right to force a medical treatment on a child in spite of the wishes of the parents, and in the face of their religious beliefs. According to the state, the state has a more compelling interest in the child's well-being than the parents!
 
I do not really know what the religious practices are of the Hauser family, but it worries me to see a court decide that they have no religious rights that the court is bound to respect. We make allowances for religions that sacrifice small animals, we allow Wiccan worship, we allow radical Islam to be practiced in this country, but we suspend religious toleration when the medical establishment makes a godlike pronouncement on life and death? What is the point of a Constitution or the rights it lays out if courts and doctors can abrogate them at will?
 
I don't know what the right course of treatment is for Mr. Hauser, but I do know that I stand with the parents in their defiance of this court ordered treatment. If liberty is to mean anything, if we are to be truly free then we should be free to choose our own paths in life...including any medical treatment we choose to seek refuse. I refuse to believe that any judge, doctor, state employee, or government official is better able to make parental decisions or has the best interests of a child in mind more than a loving parent. While I understand the state have an interest in protecting the lives of children in abusive or neglectful circumstances, I don't see that interest in this case. What I see is a state and a medical establishment telling the parents of this boy, "The doctors say he will die without the treatments they are paid to dispense, and we know better than you how to raise your child. So do as we say, or we will hunt you down like you are the Unabomber." And that to me friends, is where statism butts against the rights of the individual...and I will always stand for the rights of the individual over the encroachment of the state into our lives.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Few Quick Thoughts

Do any of you watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC? I usually don't but I switched over this morning from "Fox & Friends" (who wants to watch another story about that danged dog protecting its mother anyway?), and I saw Bob Shrum on there swearing that Nancy Pelosi had been consistent in her statements about the CIA lying to her and Congress. Is it just me, or is the Democratic Party filled with professional liars, who think we are too stupid to know when we're being lied to?
 
Since Obama finally gave his much discussed commencement address at Notre Dame, I am going to put my two cents into the discussion. The media has done its level best to turn this into a situation where those protesting Obama's speech are trying to shut him up, when that is not the case at all. This is all about ND ignoring the edicts of the Church and honoring a man with degree who stands diametrically opposed to the Church's position on abortion. The President, as well as any other speaker chosen by the university has every right to speak, and no one was objecting to that. The objection was to the university putting the wishes of the administration for a speech by the Pope of Hope over the words of the actual Pope of Rome, who is supposedly in charge of the Church.
 
Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what 'cap-and-trade' is? I hear about it, and I think I have something of a handle on it but can someone give me a layman's version if it? I am having a terrible time wrapping my head around it all, so anything that helos me clear it up will be greatly appreciated.
 
Finally, I know that this may be pretty unpopular, but does the $20 million bail amaount for accused murderer Drew Peterson bother anyone but me? Our Constitution says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed...", yet the court in Peterson's case found a $20 million bail to be reasonable. Now, I understand that bail should be imposed, but $20 million for a guy who has never had that type of income? And it seems to me that he isn't being held for the single crime that he has been charged with, but for every other crime he is alleged to have committed. And if our system is based on a presumption of innocence, where the state is tasked with proving guilt, then does not the imposition of such a huge bail amount not send a clear signal to the community and prospective jurors that Peterson is dangerous and is to be judged guilty of some crime? I'm sorry, but no matter what the public mood is, no one should be held out as guilty before trial and astronomically high bail amounts do just that!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Unionized States of America

Once upon a time labor unions were all about protecting the interests of their dues paying members; making sure that they had safe working condidtions, fair wages, good benefits, and solid pension plans. They were not overtly political, in that their politics were all about getting what they could from management and to their members. They didn't care what political party you were from as a candidate, so long as you were on their side they were on yours.
 
Times have definitely changed, as the union bosses have morphed their unions from their original purposes of looking out for workers to being politcal heavyweights and king-makers. And the only kings they seek to make are members of a Party that is represented by a donkey...any others need not apply. The vast majority of unions, at least their leadership, are not really independent entities but fundraising arms of the Democratic Party, that demand politcal favors in return for their cash contributions.
 
Now with Barack Obama safely ensconced in the Oval Office, the unions are in a more powerful position than they have ever been before. There have been numerous pro-union presidents who have served, but none so willing to turn power over to the unions as Mr. Obama. There are two very high profile cases that illustrate that the unions have become less king-makers in this administration and have taken on the role of a quasi-king: the cases of the SEIU and the UAW.
 
By now everyone knows how the UAW has benefitted from their close alliance with the Obama administration. For a mere $4.9 million the UAW has basically been rewarded with ownership stakes in both Chrysler and General Motors (or what's left of them); a 40% stake in GM and about 55% of Chrysler. But worse than that, the adminstration willing abrogated existing bankruptcy laws by attempting to strong arm Chrysler's secured creditors to take 33 cents/dollar on their debt, while guaranteeing the UAW 50 cents/dollar; and in the case of GM the secured creditors were only given a 10% stake in the company, while the UAW got the aforementioned 40%.  Now the stock and stake in the company may not be worth very much right now, but if the companies manage to rebound under government supervision, however unlikely, it still is amazing that for a mere $4.9 million the UAW has been given control of two of the Big Three carmakers...after their unreasonable demands and unsustainable retirement benefits helped drive the companies over the cliff. That is serious ROI, my friends.
 
The curious case of the SEIU is more of the same, but on a grander scale. In an administration that made much noise about keeping lobbyists out of the loop, it is a sight to see a union actually shaping White House policy. The state of California passed a measure recently that would have cut wages for home healthcare workers in the state, in a bid to create some budget relief for a state that is looking at a $20-plus billion deficit in the coming fiscal year...even with the savings created by this measure. According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reported that the Obama administration threatened to pull $6.8 billion in stimulus funds alloctaed for the state because the decision to cut the wages of the home healthcare workers allegedly violates the stimulus law. The governor also stated that the adminstration sent a letter on April 30 affirming that the plan to cut the aforementioned wages violated the law, and later the administration set up a teleconference to discuss the situation. And guess who else was invited to be on the conference...that's right, the SEIU!
 
That apparently is what $33 million in campaign contributions buy you these days...total access to the White House decision making apparatus. The very group that represents the healthcare workers in California was invited to be a part of the talks between the US government and the California state government on whether or not federal monies would be withheld from the state! All because the SEIU handed over a large chunk of change to get Obama into office, they now get to help decide the fate of the state of California vis-a-vis the stimulus funds, and may help sink the state further in debt to satisfy their own short term interests.
 
From card check, to the UAW, to the SEIU strongarm job on the Governator, the Obama adminstration has shown exactly where its priorities and allegiances lie. They have not done a thing to really safeguard the jobs of the autoworkers; witness the talk of a revamped GM having to outsource the building of certain cars to Mexico to become profitable again. But they have paid off the people at the upper echelons of union management with their awarding the unions majority stakes in two of the formerly Big Three, and they are paying off the SEIU by undermining a bipartisan effort in Lefti...I mean CALIfornia to find a way out of their budget deficit by standing not with the state, but with the union. The destruction of the concept of federalism in this case notwithstanding, it is a truly scary sight to see a federal administration using its powers of persuasion and force against a state that is simply attempting to handle state business...all to benefit a powerful union contributor.
 
The way things are going, we are soon going to be forced to change our name from the United States of America to the Unionized States of America! And for some strange reason, I don't think this was what Lincoln, whom Obama claims so much to admire, meant when he said his first priority was to preserve the Union!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

See, What Had Happened Was...

Watching Nancy Pelosi squirm on the dais at her press conference yesterday was absolutely priceless! She stumbled, she stuttered, she rambled, she sounded like a person going through the early onset of dementia, and she proved herself to be a total and complete liar. I mean, she was working on what...her fifth version of this story? First she wasn't briefed, then she was but couldn't so anything about, then she just heard about the briefing, then she recieved a second hand account of the briefing, and now she claims that she could not do anything about any harsh interrogation techniques short of electing Obama. That, my friends, is Democratic leadership at it's very best!!!
 
But what is even richer than watching Pelosi stumble around trying to find the place in her statement that spells out what she heard about waterboarding, was listening to Democrat apologists trying to blame this on everyone but Madame Pelosi. The Pelosi camp is putting out statements from other Democrats that claim the CIA misled them in the past to burnish her claims of the CIA having lied to her (at one of those briefings she didn't attend, I suppose) and then the apologists have gone to their ace-in-the-hole argument...the Republicans set her up!
 
Now this is the same GOP that couldn't get Colin Powell to endorse or vote for his wet dream GOP candidate in 2008, that has lost more races than Kyle Petty, and that was just declared DOA in every mainstream media outlet for the last two months or so...right? This is the same GOP that endorses Charlie "Lil' Specter" Crist in the Florida senatorial race, thinks that John McCain is a statesman, and that is working overtime to take the Dems advice to move left on order to survive. And this group of nincompoops is alleged to have dreamed up a scheme to entrap Nancy Pelosi...in her own words, no less...to turn the heat away from themselves? Are we really supposed to believe that the GOP leadership is that smart or effective? I think not!
 
The problem that Madame Speaker is having is that she has been caught in her own net and her own web of lies and misstatements. And she has accused the CIA of being a criminal organization that has broken the law by lying to Congress, even though not even other Democrats are backing up her claim. The GOP has been handed, gift wrapped with a bow, a way to beat the living hell out of the Democrats and Madame Speaker on the issue of national security and they seem inclined to do it, for a change. Kit Bond has been all over the place, as well as Pete Hoekstra endorsing the idea of some type of hearing or truth commission that would have members of Congress being called as witnessess as to what the CIA had to say about waterboarding in those briefings...and Madame Speaker would be a star witness in the proceedings. And wouldn't that be delicious...watching Madame Speaker have to take an oath and tell the real truth about what she knew and when she knew it!
 
And it was fun to see the media on the attack against a Democrat for a change, I must admit. It was obvious that Madame Speaker was not getting any breaks from the assembled press and she literally fled the scene when the questioning got tough! Suddenly the media remembered what it is there for; to hold the politically powerful accountable for their words and deeds. And their questions of Madame Pelosi were well thought out and were backed up with great follow up questions...which is why Madame Speaker felt the need to get the hell outta Dodge!
 
Madame Speaker has just found out what it's like to be caught up in your own lies, and it's not fun at all. If she would have just been honest...or kept her mouth shut...she would have been just fine. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the CIA is not going to be accused of lying to Congress and not respond, and when they start to fire back the heat is going to ratchet up even higher on Madame Speaker. And it is going to be a sight to see Madame Speaker trying to refute the black and white evidence of her knowledge of the interrogation techniques that find their way into the press, especially if that performance yesterday was how she handles pressure!
 
The people of California must be so proud...NOT!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Words of the Leader

Everyone and their mother these days has an opinion of what the GOP needs to do to survive and thrive going forward. Most of the people weighing in have the opinion that after losing successive elections the GOP basically needs to move even further left to chase the 'moderate' voters out there. "Expand the base" they say, or "Become a big-tent" they say...as if the doors to the GOP have ever been closed to anyone. Some even say that we must abandon the image and ideals embodies by Ronald Reagan, the last truly conservative president this Party has been able to muster; they claim that his vision does not resonate with the people, that he is no longer relevant. But I say that he is even more relevant than ever, and that his ideals of conservatism are exactly what the GOP needs at this moment, maybe more than ever before. But don't take my word for it, take his. What follows are exerpts of Ronald Reagan's speech at the 1975 CPAC convention:
 
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached "the gospel," in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own...Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed.
 

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The "Young Turks" had campaigned against "evil politicians." They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals -- and pursue them they will.

 
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked...
 

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called "Economics and the Public Purpose." In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a "first strike" possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber...
 

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, "Deal falsely with our God," we shall be made "a story and byword throughout the world."

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of "peace at any price."

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

---Ronald W. Reagan, March 1, 1975;
 2nd Annual CPAC Convention.
 
In the words of Stan Lee, 'Nuff said!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Time Is Now

By this point everyone and his brother is talking about the Specter switch and what it means to the GOP and the future of the Party. The media has gone to the usual suspects, Snowe, Collins, and Graham to tell them what they want to hear about the demise of the GOP. They are saying that the GOP is not 'big-tent' enough; that it is being dominated by conservatives; that 'moderates' are being forced out, and that ideological purity is a hinderance to electoral success.
 
But a couple of things strike me when listenening to the whiners out there braying about the direction of the GOP, and giving their prescriptions on how to change the Party going forward. First, what GOP have they been a member of since 1989? When Ronlad Reagan left office, the 'moderates' in the Party officially took control of the apparatus again, and have held power ever since! Look at the people who have served as President or had the GOP nomination since Reagan left the scene: George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Not a conservative among them, including the alleged 'compassionate conservative' himself, G.W. Bush. So where is this group of conservative bully-boys the 'moderates' are so afraid of? Look at the leaders we have had to deal with in the Congress, and point out the conservative to me....I'll wait, and if you can find me one strong conservative voice that the GOP congressional power brokers didn't try to silence, please add the name in the comments section.
 
Second, why is striving for a consistent ideology such a bad thing? To be totally honest, I respect the Democrats at this point a whole hell of a lot more than I do the GOP because if there is one thing the Democrats do well it is enforce the Party ideology among its members. Very rarely are you going to see a prominent Democrat doing the types of things that John McCain spent 8 years doing to his Party and his president and not pay a serious price for it. Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut is exhibit one on this issue; when Lieberman decided that he was going to buck the Party and side with President Bush on the Iraq War, the Democrats summarily drummed his butt right out of the Party, and were threatening to strip him of his place on the committees he served on. Now I am not saying that such draconian practices are the way to go, but at least the Democrats let it be known that there are times when Party unity is a must, and if you break that unity you will be dealt with. The GOP NEVER does things like that, which is why McCain can go all 'maverick' because he got his tender feelings hurt in 2000, Graham can be McCain's loyal lapdog, and Snow/Collins can basically caucus with the Democrats on every issue...and never hear a discouraging word about it!
 
In all honesty, the Specter defection now gives the GOP the chance to redefine the Party and its goals, and to marginalize the members who spend all their time voting as Democrats and running as Republicans. If that means that Snowe and Collins feel the need to switch parties, then fine...I'll even fly to DC to hold the door open as they leave, if they want me to. But this should be the time for us to actually move the Party back to the right and fulfill the talk of a right-wing takeover of the Party. And now is a time for conservative Party leadership to emerge and let it be known that disloyalty and disunity are no longer going to be accepted practices within the GOP; either stand together or stand alone. Finally, it is time for conservative voters to let their representatives know that we the people are no longer willing to tolerate the usual practice of rewarding the people who turn their backs on us after garnering our votes by returning them to office.
 
And one last thing: I know that many have been uninspired by Michael Steele, but I personally loved his response to the news that Specter had officially changed parties. He immediately called it for what it was, simple personal political preservation and dispelled the notion that Specter was trying to create of it being some noble decision, driven by personal conviction. Specter showed himself for what he truly was yetserday, and Harry Reid revealed what a turncoat he has been for the last three years, and Mr. Steele called him on it publicly. For that he gets a big HURRAH!!! from me! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive