About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

An Age Old Conflict

Posted by flagwaver on Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:14:15 AM
First, for those that took my little quiz and answered I thank you. I thought it would be fun to do something a little different, and in keeping with my future career teaching history. You were some of my first guinea pigs, and thanks for playing along. Now for the answers you have all been dying for: #1 Sen. Fessenden, #2 Sen. Sumner. And the occassion, which no one guessed, was the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for his refusal to enforce Congressional Reconstruction, and his attempts to undermine the authority of the Congress.
 
My point in that little quiz was to give you quotations that you may not have heard and see if they sounded familiar...and they did, didn't they? The first quotation sounded just like something that McCain or Snowe would have said, and the second sounded like something one would expect from the Gipper or James Madison. Yet both quotations came from different factions of the GOP in the late 1860s, after the Civil War and as the country was being pieced back together from the rubble of war.
 
Even then the GOP had fissures that had the Democrats of the day, and the "conservatives" of the Party (more like our modern moderates), proclaiming that to follow a certain course was to doom the GOP to total irrelevance. Back then, the "conservatives" led by people like Fessenden (who, as Philo pointed out was from Maine...must be something in the water there) were more than willing to allow Johnson to ignore their laws, many of which were passed over the President's veto, for the sake of not alienating the public and not being seen as undiplomatic. For that group, being right and doing right were less important than following established protocols.
 
For the "radicals" who held that all men, even former slaves, were created equal and were deserving of the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution, established protocols meant nothing. They could see that their political opponents, even within the Party, were men who lacked conviction and were willing to compromise their very principles for political gain. They, as do we, rejected that notion out of hand and fought tooth, nail, and claw to bring the President to heel and do what their convictions compelled them to do...without worrying about political repercussions.
 
Which brings us to the present, where we are constantly being told that we must "go along to get along" or all will be lost. We have to become the pale reflection of our adversaries in policy, deportment, and ideology lest we become an afterthought in American politics, say the learned pundits both left and right. We must abandon our principles and compromise our values in an attempt to gain political respect from the "moderates" in the country, even if that means that means we become indistinguishable from the left. That is our only chance of survival, they say....and this split is also described as "unprecendented" in the annals of the GOP.
 
Yet from the very beginnings of the Party, there have been deep divisions between the "moderates" and the conservatives. It was seen in the split over the way the nation was to be reconstructed; it was in evidence in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson; it was there in the days of Goldwater and Reagan, and it remains with us today. For well over a century, the Grand Old Party has fought these battles, sometimes fiercely, but has usually managed to stay tethered to its basic underpinnings; limited government, fiscal responsibility, prosperity, equality, and security. Today we are still fighting for control of the ship, but even in our most heated moments we understand that the people we are fighting against, for the most part, want to get where we want to go...they just want to follow a different path.
 
So when the pundit class comes out and tells you how the GOP must drift left or essentially die as a political force, I urge you to do what President Obama always tells us he has to do: Reject that false choice between becoming them or ceasing to be. The GOP has survived these battles before, it will survive this one, and it will survive the next. And God willing, when history reports on these days we will stand on the same side as heroes such as Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, and Ronald Reagan and not with the Fessendens of the world who would sell their very souls for a scrap of political acceptance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Quick Quiz

Posted by flagwaver on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:55:49 AM
Hey guys, as we know we continue to hear from the Legacy Media about the continuing split in the GOP and how that is going to be the end of the Party. The "far right" is looking to purge the "moderate" element from the Party and create some "right-wing" monstrosity that will leave the Republicans in the majority forever. The only way to avoid this, of course, is to take on positions that are the spitting image of the Democrats...only less so...and "move to the middle". With that in mind, I want to give you two quotes and I want to get your answers on who you think said them, when they were said, and in a few days I am going to post a piece with the correct answers and an essay about the impending doom predicted for the "leaderless" GOP.
 
"I have been taught since I have been in public life to consider it a matter of proper statesmanship, when we aim at an object which we think is desirable and important, if that object...is unattainable, to get as much of it and come as near it as we may be able to do."
  1. Thomas Jefferson
  2. William Fessenden
  3. John McCain
  4. Olympia Snowe
"Ample experience shows that [compromise]...is the least practical mode of settling questions involving...principles. A...principle cannot be compromised."
  1. Ronald Reagan
  2. James Madison
  3. Lindsey Graham
  4. Charles Sumner

Have a go at it and all will be revealed by week's end!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Communication?

Posted by flagwaver on Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:01:41 AM
Last night's State of the Union address was the final confirmation of what we conservatives have known all along, that despite liberal swooning over the supposed communication skills of President Obama, the man has no idea of how to communicate with people. Take it from me, because I know.
 
As many of you know, I am facing the dissolution of my marriage of 14 years (15 in March) and a great deal of the problems that my wife and I created stemmed from our inability to honestly communicate with each other. We both would talk, but neither of us really listened to the other. We tuned each other out way too often in order to focus on ourselves, and never really cared about what the other person was saying; we just went through the motions of hearing without listening and all it got us was heartache and pain. And that is what President Obama and his cohorts are doing right now, hearing words without deciphering the meanings.
 
Take his constant whining about what he inherited and how this current mess isn't his fault. One of the things that he should have learned after Virginia and New Jersey is that the old "Blame Bush Express" has run out of gas. No one wants to hear how it was W's fault, especially since it wasn't W who is running well into the trillions of dollars in projected debt...and who lobbied Congress to raise the national debt limit even higher so that we can run an even greater debt in the future. The people have loudly expressed their displeasure with such plans, yet the President continues to spend money like a drunk at a strip club. He heard...but he didn't listen.
 
Or look at his decision to double down and continue to push for health care legislation that the people are rejecting in droves. There is not one poll anywhere, done by anyone that shows public support for the President's health care takeover scheme...yet the President and his cronies still push for it. He even uses his SotU speech to let us know that "I don't quit!" You would think that after losing a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in the country to a guy who basically ran his campaign as being the 41st vote, someone in the White House inner circle would tell the President just what that means. However, the President lets us know that it is not the will of the people that he cares about, but simply forcing his will on the American people is his ultimate goal. He knows best, so we may as well just bend over and do an ankle grab! Is that listening?
 
Finally, look at his inclusion in his speech the determination to bring "Don't ask, don't tell" to an end in the military. While many people see the measure as an affront to gays and lesbians serving in the military, I see it as a reasonable idea: keep your personal life personal. Hell, I wish that there was a "Don't ask" policy for all of society, because I frankly don't care who you diddle....and I damned sure don't want to hear about it. But for all of that, I have heard no clamor from the public to repeal the policy; as a matter of fact, hardly anyone even discusses it anymore save for a few hardcore "gay rights" groups who are bent on turning the US military into a playground for left wing social engineering projects. What the people wanted to hear the President talk about is what we are talking about: what is the strategy in Afghanistan, what will constitute a "victory" there, and how long are we staying? Hardly a word on those subjects, yet there is time to tell us how "Don't ask" needs to go? In this one case he has been listening...but not to us.
 
For a man who has ears the size of Rhode Island, President Obama refuses to hear anything that he doesn't want to. All he hears are the daily affirmations of his hand-picked cadre of "yes" people, the pleas of his special interest friends, and the voices of his own grandiose visions rattling around in his oversized head. He has not heard and will not hear the vox populi, choosing instead to believe that finding the right formulation of words will turn his sows ear proposals into silk purse programs. But if he doesn't start listening soon, he and his friends are going to find themselves where I recently found myself. Bruised, battered, and wondering what the hell just happened.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Short Break

Posted by flagwaver on Sunday, January 03, 2010 10:08:22 AM
As many of you know, I am facing some serious changes in my personal life. In order to deal with these challenges, as well as the looming start of my final semester of college, I am going to take a hiatus from posting at the Spade. I am not shutting down forever, just until I can get my legs under me once again and create something that resembles a normal routine again. For anyone with new postings, just leave me a note on one of my posts and I'll be more than happy to hop over to read and add my comments. Thanks for your readership and your support, and I will be back as soon as I can.

Happy New Year to you all!

EDE

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Few Quick Thoughts

Posted by flagwaver on Monday, December 07, 2009 11:24:21 AM
Palmetto Impeachment: Today a South Carolina judiciary panel is set to decide on whether Mark Sanford should have to face impeachment for running off to Argentina to rendevous with his "soulmate" for a few days last summer. It seems that since all of the charges that it seems would have deserved impeachment were found to be inadequate to support any official action, this should have been finished awhile ago. But the charges left point to the purely political nature of the impeachment effort, as they involve whether or not Sanford was derelict in his duty by not designating a plan of succession while he was gone. That charge brings tow questions to my fertile mind: What crisis was going to come up in a five day period in the state that would need the immediate and sole attention of the chief executive, and why doesn't the state already have something like this worked out ahead of time? I mean, when President Obama leaves for his next European sojourn, the executive branch is not going to be in crisis because he's not in Washington, D.C.! He is still in charge, even if he's not on the scene, and if something catastrophic happens he will be in touch and on his way back in a flash. And if something happens to him, then we know that "Plugs" Biden will assume the mantle of the presidency; so why can't they figure that out in South Carolina? It's because that isn't what this is about; it's about Sanford stepping on toes in both parties as governor, and now is the opportunity for some get back for his opponents. What Sanford did was immoral, but doe we really want a bunch of elected officials acting as the morals police?
 
Fox Fumbles: I like Fox News, I really do. I open every weekday morning by checking in on "The O'Reilly Factor" at about 5:30, then it's "Fox & Friends" until I flip over to ESPN's "Mike and Mike" at about 7:00. And I usually cringe and then get agitated when I hear people talking down the Fox News brand as "Faux News" and overly biased, simply because of the slant of its commentary shows. That irks me because usually even on the opinion shows Fox tries to give everyone a hearing and an opportunity to make known their positions. But in the past week I have been really disappointed in Fox, namely in the way that they have covered the Tiger Woods story and the murders of the four police offiicers in Washington State by a man whose sentence was commuted by then Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a host of his own FNC show. First to Tiger Woods, as it is really not a major story to begin with...but you wouldn't know that by watching FNC. I understand if the opinion shows want to talk about it, because it is ripe fodder for conversation: the entertainment/media matrix, attitudes of privilege by star athletes, and questions about how much of a public figure's life should be private can make for some excellent discussion segments. But if you want to keep the news and opinion sides separate, I would suggest not having heavy coverage of a matter like this on your news shows; I don't want to see long segments on "The Fox Report", "Fox &  Friends", or "Special Report" about this garbage! I tune into FNC to get straight news, and often news and analysis that I can't get anywhere else, not a rehashing of the latest TMZ headlines! But the more serious concern for me is the "circle the wagons" mentality that took over when it was revealed that it was Huckabee who commuted the sentence of the murderer of the four Washington peace officers. O'Really had him on to diffuse the blame for this matter to the parole board in Arkansas, Hannity did the same, and "Fox News Watch" did a segment acting as though the Legacy Media was simply trying to torpedo any chances for Huckabee running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 by creating a "Willie Horton moment" for good old Huck. The only thing is, Huckabee does bear a great deal of responsibility for this tragedy, as it was his commutation of the man's sentence that allowed him to be up for parole in the first place. And in a state where the governor appoints the parole board, how likely is it that the board is going to ignore the clear signal that the commutation sends about the governor's attitude about the convict? Besides which, it was conservative alternative media for the most part that advanced the story, and it was Michelle Malkin and The American Spectator (spectator.org) that have been long reporting on Huckabee's penchant for freeing violent offenders who then went on to reoffend. What FNC did in trying to muddy the waters and protect Huckabee was shameful and they have to realize how much their actions can further tarnish their brand, epsecially with those who support them.
 
Good News? So the official national unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10%, and the government and their media lackeys act as if this is the news that shows that we are well on the road to economic recovery. Now, I am no high powered, well connected economist, but I can tell you this....those numbers are not good news. Why not? Because the numbers, from my perspective are indicative of two things: seasonal hiring and the employer soupbone. The decrease in unemployment can be explained by an blurb I saw on AOL news last week about FED-EX looking to hire thousands of people for the holidays, and other places doing the same. These are not jobs that are likely to last, but are jobs to fulfill a temporary demand for help during the Christmas economic spike; after Christmas watch the jobs that are shed when the temps are sent packing. As for the soupbone, the old ladies here in the South used to use a ham bone with just a little meat on it when making soup in order to add some flavor to the soup; when the soup was finished the bone was as empty as Al Capone's vault because all the meat was cooked off of it. The employer's soup bone basically means that employers have already cut staffing to the bare bones, so when the bone was thrown into last month's economic soup, there simply wasn't much left to cook off the bone...hence the low number of layoffs nationally. It is not really impressive to have low layoff numbers after shedding so many jobs in the previous months; all it indicates is that employers don't have anyone left to layoff and still maintain a stable business.
 
Did Climatgate Happen? If you listen to NPR you would have reason to wonder! I listened to a report this morning on "Morning Edition" that dealt with the dropping numbers in opinion polling for the idea that climate change matters to the American people. While there are some polls that show just over 50% of Americans spend their time ranking "climate change" as a real priority, most others show that "climate change" is way down on the list of concerns for Americans, with the economy ranking at the top. What amazed me is that the reporter and anchor both brushed past the Climategate episode of "stolen emails" that show that global warming is a serious fraud cooked up by ideologically driven climate scientists as a reason for the recent spike in disbelief of the concept of global warming. (Whew! Just writing that sentence wore me out! I think I'll take a break for a minute.........Okay, I'm back!) They are saying that when the issue is presented as "green jobs" and the like, the awareness becomes more intense and the numbers go up. But maybe that's because "green jobs" does not address the concerns of the AGW cultists, and it sounds enough like an economic concern that people pay attention to it. But everyone that wants to know knows about the attempts to bury "inconvenient truths" and to destroy the ability of people holding contrary views of AGW to have their work peer reviewed, and it is actions like that which are waking people up to the hoax that is climate change.
 
On the SCOTUS Docket: Today the SCOTUS begins hearing a case that challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley law governing regulatory oversight in financial accounting, but in fact is really a challenge to the entire system of independent executive level agencies in the federal government. In a nutshell, the lawyer for the plaintiff is arguing that organizations like the SEC and FCC are basically unconstitutional because the POTUS does not have the ability to fire the heads of the agencies, even though he appoints them. Most of them can only be fired for cause, which the plaintiffs say means that the POTUS does not have control of those agencies, as he does with the Cabinet posts, where he can fire a Secretary for any reason he sees fit. The argument has been tried before and failed, but it may have a better chance of success with the current make up of the court. You can go to NPR for the full story.
 
So there you go my friends! Happy Reading, and thanks for stopping by!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Don't Want to be Rich!

Posted by flagwaver on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:13:18 AM
Just like everyone else in America that wasn't rich growing up, I wanted to grow up and be rich. I wanted one of those houses like you saw on "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous", the cars, the planes...the whole enchilada. That's what I wanted because that was the American Dream.
 
Now, I'm not so sure anymore.
 
This has become a country where being rich has become something to be reviled. We delight in the miseries if the rich, in their misfortunes, and their failings. Take this Tiger Woods situation, for example. Here's a guy that has never been involved in anything worse than getting caught swearing on camera and having his caddy swipe a camera that was clicking while he was trying to tee off. Until now that's been it in the negativity department for Tiger...except for the usual "Righteous Blacks" complaining that he doesn't take enough stands on political issues, i.e., he doesn't toe the Democratic Party line about the terrible treatment that Blacks recieve in America. But after whatever it was that happened on Friday morning, the vultures are out in force ready to pick at his bones. There are rumors, denied by both Tiger and his alleged paramour, of an extramarital affair and there is all of this outrage that he won't talk to the Florida Highway Patrol...even though he has no obligation to do so. I even saw the Fox News bunch wasting time covering it, with Sean "You're a Great American" Hannity acting as if it has something to do with "personal responsibility." But I have to agree with Bernie Goldberg that this is a whole lot of attention to be giving to a single car accident where there was no serious injury, no serious damage to state property, and no alcohol or drugs involved. But Tiger is rich and famous, so this is "news." But that's a peril of being rich (and famous); people want to see you fall so they can exult in your problems. And I don't think I want that.
 
Another thing that makes me think that being rich isn't such a good idea is that the government will use all its powers to make you less rich. And you don't even have to be Tiger Woods or Oprah Winfrey rich to have the man trying to get into your wallet; hell, under the Obama administration it is taking less and less to be declared "rich", so that the government can take you for more and more of your hard earned cash.
 
I know you have all heard the numbers, but they deserve to be repeated:
  • the top 0.1% of earners pay 17% of all federal income taxes
  • the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all federal income taxes
  • the top 5% of earners pay 57% of all federal income taxes...and that starts with a floor of just $137,000 adjusted gross income
Man, if those numbers aren't as scary as sighting of Oprah without makeup, I don't know what could be (maybe a sighting of James Brown Michelle Obama sans makeup). And that doesn't even count the state and local slaes taxes, property taxes, and income taxes that are used to prop up state budgets. Plus, the feds don't stop even after you have breathed your last on this earth, because after taxing the green off a dollar your whole life they tax whatever you leave behind to your family! And in some cases, most if you're "rich", the top federal estate tax rate is 45% of what you leave behind...and then the states swoop in to take their cut as well. So after years of being left with no more than 69% of what you make (before state/local taxes), the fed leaves your family no more than 55% of what you bequeathed to them (before the state comes in). It's a damned shame when you can't escape the tax man even after you die! I mean, even the Russian Mafia doesn't rob dead people! And now members of the Congress are thinking about levying an additional tax to fund the war in Afghanistan...as if the taxpayers aren't already paying for it!
 
So before we think about getting rich, we had better look at it from all sides. Maybe the bad outweighs the good and it's better to be just a regular, middle class shmoe.
 
Nah, I still wanna be rich...just not "regular rich" but Tiger Woods rich. Then being robbed by the government wouldn't be so bad!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Money Pit

Posted by flagwaver on Monday, November 23, 2009 12:17:02 PM
Back in the mid to late 1980s a young Tom Hanks and a skyrocketing Shelley Long co-starred in a movie called The Money Pit. It was all about a young couple that bought this beautiful old house as sort of a "fixer-upper" dream home that seemed to just need a few repairs to make it perfect. The couple starts the remodeling but it gets more and more expensive, as the solving of one problem leads to the discovery of another; before they know the young couple is up to their eyeballs in red ink, and it starts to fray their marriage. Not the greatest movie of all time, but a good one...well worth watching on a lazy afternoon.
 
Well, we as a nation have our very own Money Pit, and it is called the Gulf Coast, and specifically New Orleans. It seems that no matter how much money we the taxpayers get ripped for in "Hurricane Katrina Relief Funds", or how much private companies and individuals give, there is always a supposed need for more cash. The place is a black hole for relief funding!
 
Think about this: in Fiscal Year 2005 the Congress allocated $62.3 billion for Katrina Relief, in 2006 $577 million was raised by over 400 corporations and foundations, and there was $25.5 billion allocated in the stimulus package for the Gulf Coast region. And that doesn't count the $300 million bribe paid to Mary Landrieu for her vote on the health care scam. According to Sen. Landrieu, she's proud of getting the money to "defer the effects of budget shortfalls." But even excluding her big pile of payola cash, we're still looking at around $88.4 billion dollars flushed down the Katrina Latrina1
 
And what do we have to show for it? A city that is still not close to rebuilt after all these years, a city that is still rife with corruption, and a demand for ever more taxpayer money to bail out the region. We are getting hosed on this "investment" and it's high time we stopped trowing cash down the rat hole there; if NOLA can't figure out how to rebuilt and reboot, while the "rednecks" over in Mississippi can, they need to be cut off from the public dole.
 
It's time that NOLA either learns to sink...which they already did once...or swim. Either way, the 4 year guilt trip needs to end.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Holder for the Defense

Posted by flagwaver on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:41:51 PM
Folks, we are screwed. There's no other way to say it, no other way to express what the Obama InJustice Department is doing to this country. We thought the Clinton-Reno DOJ was bad, but I don't think even they would be this obtuse. And if they were, they would at least have enough savvy to change the focus of the press and public while they screwed us over. But the Obama administration and InJustice Department are a bunch of rank amateurs without the common sense to know that trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not a winning proposition for anyone...except the terrorists.
 
While many bemoan the return of a pre-9/11 mindset in Washington with the Obama Bunch, I think it is much worse than that. While a pre-9/11 mindset is a dangerous thing for people in the White House and at Justice to have, what is worse is to have people in charge that have no concept of truth and justice, or an understanding that "Yes Virginia, there really is a war on terror!" And by deciding to bring KSM to New York to stand trial in a civilian federal court, the Obama InJustice Department, so ably led by Eric Holder, has signalled to the terrorists that we are no longer at war with them. We don't want to win on the battlefield, we want to win in court!
 
Except that I don't think that Holder really wants to win this prosecution. He may talk a good game, mainly because as the chief prosecutor of the federal government he has to, this trial is one that is set up to be a loser for the prosecutors. For all of their assurances to the President that "we'll convict this person with the evidence they've got, going through our system", and the rash statements by Mr. Obama that trying KSM in Manhattan won't be "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him", the government is going to be in a bad spot when the trial begins.
 
The problem is that the things that we know about KSM, the things that he told our interrogators, and the acts that he copped to after a few go-rounds with a certain towel and board apparatus are useless. If the judge who presides over this case applies the law fairly, KSM has a really good chance at winning an acquittal or at least a non-capital conviction. I'm no Benjamin Layton Matlock, but even I could probably get a lot of the most daming evidence against KSM tossed, because no fair minded judge could let any information obtained from him while at Club Gitmo into the record as evidence. The Holder InJustice Department, and the Lord High Inquisitor Obama have all been falling all over themselves to portray the use of waterboarding as torture, so anything gotten from a waterboarded KSM would have to be excluded; we do not allow coerced testimony at trial, and "torture" damned sure qualifies as coercion!
 
Another thing I would expect KSM's defense team to do is challenge any wiretapped calls, or information gathered from wiretaps as credible evidence. Again, Holder, Obama, et al have spent years squalling about how illegal the Bush Era wiretapping of terrorist communications were, and if I am not mistaken there was some federal judge who agreed. That would make any information gathered that way inadmissible, since it was gathered "illegally".
 
Then I would petition for a change of venue, because there is no way on Gore's Green Earth that KSM can get a fair trial in New York. I mean, how can the guy get a fair trial in the very city whose heart he is alleged to have attempted to cut out on 9/11? The media coverage has already been higlhly prejudical and is becoming more suffocating by the day, so the trial would have to be moved elsewhere...pronto.
 
And I would also refuse a jury trial and request a bench trial. By opening his mouth and saying that KSM would be convicted and executed, and by the Attorney General saying that "I have every confidence in the world that the antion and the world will see him [KSM] for the coward that he is" Holder has helped to dirty an already tainted jury pool. And honestly, where in this country are you going to finf twelve citizens who have not already prejudged KSM as guilty? Hell, I try to be evenhanded and all that, but even I know that the sorry son-of-a-biscuiteater is a s guilty as sin is wrong! So where are you going to find 12 good people, even liberals, who don't share that same view? So you get a judge, who has to apply the laws fairly regardless of his personal feelings, and plead your case in front of him. That is a clear advantage to the defense, because appeals to emotion will not be allowed.
 
Now if a non-lawyer like me can look at this decision and see these potential prosecution pitfalls, are you telling me that the Attorney General could not see them? Of course he saw them, but it doesn't matter to him...because this isn't about punishing KSM. This is about proving to the rest of the world that Obama is different from Bush, and it's about being able to hang something really bad...a possible acquittal of KSM...on the "excesses" of the Bush administration. This is all a political sop to the far left, and payback for the Bush administration's termerity in treating terrorists like, well...terrorists.
 
So we're screwed folks. KSM is in a position to use the courtroom to propogate his jihadist views, to inspire his fellow travellers, and to show how weak the West truly is. And if KSM is convicted it is set up perfectly for cries of a kangaroo court and a successful appeal.
 
We're screwed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (32) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Posted by flagwaver on Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:29:20 PM
I was planning on doing a full-on, one issue post this week...I really was. But then the Fort Hood shooting happened, the Democrats passed their health-care bill in the House, Andre Agassi caused some serious upset in the genteel world of tennis, and our dear President Obama decided that his decision on Afghanistan is...to not make a decision. So I figured I would just hit on each of those topics in brief (more or less), and maybe a few more if they come to me.
 
First, what world do liberals live in? For anyone to say that they find the murders at Fort Hood incomprehensible is incomprehensible to me! Here you have a man, Major Nidal Hasan, who has telegraphed his adherence to a jihadist interpretation of Islam go on a shooting rampage on base at Fort Hood, in a readiness center full of unarmed troops either going to war or coming home, and their families...and liberals say they don't understand it. Well, I for one do understand it. It was an act of terrorism by Major Hasan, one in which he probably hoped to be martyred to his bloodthirsty version of Allah, and to say it was anything else is a travishamockery! He is the worst type of coward, as are all terrorists, because he deliberately targeted those he knew could not defend themselves against his attack. May he die a traitor's death for murdering, and attempting to murder, his brothers in arms.
 
But nearly as bad as the actual act of terror was the tepid response of out government to it. We have President Obama using the occasion to take not too subtle shots at the country while praising the troops; we are a nation that is cynical, selfish, etc. And we have Gen. George Casey bemoaning the fact that we have to create and maintain a "diverse" military, so we presumably should not hold it against the murdering Muslim that he fits the same general profile as the vast majority of terrorists that we deal with. And our Legacy Media is bending over backwards to make excuses for Hasan, and to warn America not to allow a conservative backlash against Muslims. Well guess what: we aren't interested in "persecuting" Muslims, but we are interested in destroying the dark forces arrayed against us. If they happen to be Muslim, so what?
 
In the midst of all this, Madame Pelosi (one of my top ten ugliest chicks alive...or dead) managed to get her health-care proposal rammed through the House. While she was all smiles afterwards, does anyone really think this bill has a snowball's chance of ever becoming law? When you have an overwhelming majority on your side, and you still need a Republican to vote with you...so you can win by F-I-V-E votes, that doesn't bode well for future prospects. The Senate doesn't have enough votes to break Joe Lieberman's threatened filibuster, and the House can barely pass any meaningful legislation so....the health-care debacle is likely DOA. For now.
 
After assembling his national security team for yet another jawboning session about Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has decided to...punt. He doesn't like any of the proposals put before him to consider, and refuses to make a decision on Gen. McChrystal's request for added troops to win "the good war". But what is to be expected when all the people advising the Novice-in-Chief are political hacks...including his Secretary of Defense, and the aforementioned Gen. Diversity, um...CASEY. He's even getting advice from that noted political thinker, and political general Colin Powell. Mr. Powell inveighs that the President should "take his time" making this decision, warns him not to be pushed by the left or the right, because this has tremendous implications for the remainder of his term. And this clown used to be a general for crying out loud! No Mr. Powell, and no Mr. Obama, this is not a decision about the rest of your term. It is a decision about the lives of the men we have sent to fight a war in a godforsaken, backwoods, hell-hole, in an effort to deny a safe haven to the very groups that conspired to attack us on September 11, 2001. It is about making sure that the blood and treasure spent in that conflict are not sacrificed on the altar of the Obama Political Altar, so that Obama can win electoral favor with the left. If you lack the will to fight and to see the fight through to victory, then "bug out" as the military parlance goes. But do not pretend to care about corruption in the Afghani government (as if our government is corruption free; see Murtha, Jack and Jefferson, William) or the recalcitrance of Hamid Karzai in allowing you to order him around like he's a member of our lapdog Legacy Media. At least be man enough to admit that you lack the will and inclination to finish the fight that they started, and bring our brave men and women home. That should give them time to rest and recuperate before we have to go right back into that region again, because when we pull out the jihadists will be coming after our soft underbelly, and they will try to finish us off. I just hope that when that day comes, we have someone in charge that understands that in war victory is all that matters, and electoral politics be damned!
 
On a lighter note, I am sure many of you have seen the media coverage of Andre Agassi's revelations in his new book Open. He admits to having used meth as a young man, tells of his virtual hatred of the sport of tennis, a game forced upon him by his Iranian immigrant father, and of tanking matches because he didn't want to play. What has surprised me more than anything is that all the tennis people seem to be focused on is his meth use and his saying he hated tennis. Martina Navratilova went off because he lied when he got caught using meth, not because he used the meth...but because he lied when he got caught! Hello! Who in their right mind is going to tell the organization that he works for that his failed drug test is correct, and that he was using meth? No one, especially if the organization doing the testing will believe a story that someone spiked his Gatorade with meth, and that's why he was positive! Shouldn't Marty Martina be more upset that the ATP bought the excuse equivalent of "The dog ate my homework"? As for people saying that you can't be good at something you hate, that's poppycock...especially in sports. Just last year Elena Delle Donne, a highly sought after female basketball player quit the game because she didn't like it anymore, mainly because of the pressure her parents put on her to play the game. Heck, when I worked in textiles I didn't particularly like my job, but I was the best at it because it paid the bills!
 
Finally, what was Oprah thinking the other day? I don't watch her show, but to have that lady who was mauled by the chimp show what was left of her face on national television was a bit much. But it did surprise me that Oprah didn't do her usual routine with her guests, where everything that has happened to them happened to her. I can just see Oprah saying, "I know how you feel Charla. My face is disfigured too because I was attacked by a squirrel wielding a gigantic ugly stick! He got me right in the face, and he made Michelle Obama look like James Brown! It was just horrible!"
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ANational Emergency?

Posted by flagwaver on Monday, October 26, 2009 1:19:05 PM
On Saturday President Obama officially declared the H1N1 "Swine Flu" a national emergency allowing for some restrictions of producing medicines to combat the illness to come to the market in an expidited manner. Since this is a major pandemic we're facing, something had to be done yesterday to make us all safe from the flu...because if it weren't we are all going to DIE!!!
 
But I swear I have heard this song before about a different variant of the flu. To channel Estelle Getty as Sophia Petrillo, "Picture it: 2003 to 2006." A pandemic that is going to ravage the world comes out of Asia, threatening mankind as we know it. People were urged to get vaccinated,  as it was the only way to combat the spread of the dreaded Avian Flu. The only thing was, the pandemic that we were allegedly faced with never materialized. Even CBS News, despite their alarmist headline had to report that from 2003 when the Bird Flu swept out of Asia like a viral Ghengis Khan, until 2006 there were a whopping, amazing, devastating 184 deaths WORLDWIDE in the "pandemic"! 184 whole people out of population of billions died in this pandemic that threatened to destroy humanity as we knew it! Scary stuff, huh?
 
If the president wanted to declare something a national emergency he would be well served to ignore the PANDEMIC!!!!! warninigs from papers like the Washington Post. According to an October Post story, "Since the pandemic began at least 3,873 Americans have died from complications associated with the flu, primarily the H1N1 virus, including at least 28 pregnant women." See, the Post has proven that Swine Flu is a killer, right? Well....not so much. Because what the Post doesn't tell you is that there is an even deadlier strain of flu to be dealt with that kills more people per year than the roughly 1000 Americans, including 76 under the age of 18, than H1N1 has struck down.
 
If the president were serious about protecting us from a flu bug that has the potential to wreak havoc on America, he would shift focus from the Swine Flu and focus on the real threat. Seasonal Flu.
 
Seasonal flu?
 
Yes, seasonal flu. You read it right, as shocking as it might be.
 
As much attention as the Swine Flu gets in the media and from the government, there have only been about 5000 deaths worldwide attributed to the virus, and as said before, only 1000 deaths here in America. By contrast, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there are on average 36,171 deaths in America alone attributable to the seasonal flu, with an average of 68 of those being children under the age of 18. Yet, we are deluged with stories about the deadly nature of H1N1 and the need to fight it with all of our resources!
 
Why is that, you ask?
 
Because the Swine Flu isn't about the disease or about the health of the people here, it is all about the politics of the situation. Hyping the virus allows the the administration to take focus off of the problems they are having on healthcare reform, and it allows the government to take just a bit more of your freedom from you. When certain government officials start saying that you must get the vaccine, that should raise your hackles. What business of the government's is it if you get a flu shot or not? But if they can force you to get that vaccine, what other medical treatments can they force you to get? And if  the government can get you focused on the H1N1 virus, they think they can get you to stop paying attention to what they're trying to do to the healthcare sector in this country. If they can convince you that H1N1 is the biggest story going, maybe they can slip a public option right past you.
 
Conspiratorial? Maybe.
 
But would you put it past the Outfit in charge in the White House? I wouldn't.
 
So settle in here and watch the crises pile up, at least according to the White House. Because a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Sir, Are No Nixon!

Posted by flagwaver on Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:58:53 PM
With the personal and unrelenting attacks on Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, and now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce emanating from the White House these days, people have been dredging up the memory of Richard M. Nixon and comparing him to the current president. The comparison comes mainly with the development of the Obama "enemies list" that mirrors the now infamous Nixon "enemies list" that he wanted to use to "screw" his political opponents, and certain media types as well. But as the story goes on, many are saying that Obama himself is "Nixonian" in his style...but he's not.
 
First, Nixon was never a media darling and preferred to operate outside of media scrutiny, while Obama has never met a camera he didn't like. Getting Nixon to sit down with reporters was like pulling teeth, but Obama will not shut up: it seems every week that he has some huge speech, or round of interviews, or an appearance with famed harasser talk show host David Letterman. Obama has plenty to say about everything, but has very little to show for all his yapping and mewling, wheras Nixon was a man who was able to get things done.
 
Secondly, Obama is a total lightweight when compared to Richard Nixon, both academically and politically. Besides getting elected by underhanded means in his state and national Senate elections, and riding the anti-Bush "Hope & Change" Express (with a huge assist from a brain dead, feckless McCain campaign) to the White House, what has he ever done? People always talk about how many bills Obama coauthored (google it, I guarantee you'll be amazed) but he was not the driving force behind any major legislation in his career as a senator. And some of the things he did support he will break his freaking neck to get away from it, like his vote to allow born alive aborted babies to be denied medical care. He never was a governor, never finished a U.S. Senate term, never ran a business...none of that. He was just a little old community organizer that worked to make things better for the downtrodden in Chicago...just like Jesus. As for his academic career, we know that he went to Ivy League schools, served as editor for the Haaaavaaahd Law Review, but that's about it. We aren't allowed to see anything he wrote as editor of the Law Review or to see any of his academic records. But we are expected to accept that Obama is one of the best and brightest our country has ever had.
 
Compare that to the academic record of Nixon, and his vast experience before becoming president and it is no contest. Nixon graduated from Duke Law School, the Harvard of the South, second in his law school class. He then served in the U.S. Navy from 1942-46 in the Pacific theater, rising to the rank of lieutenant commander. He won his first election in 1946 when he defeated a 5 time encumbent Democrat and while in the U.S. House he served as chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee that outed Soviet agent Alger Hiss. He served briefly in the United States Senate before being tapped as Vice President for Dwight Eisenhower, where he served as acting president while the president recuperated from a heart attack.
 
Nixon was elected president in 1968 (sworn in 1969) and extricated the U.S.from the Vietnam War, opened up trade with the Communist Chinese, signed the SALT I arms treaty, and it was under his administration that man first reached the moon. Now he had his flubs like creating OSHA, getting a lot of enviromental legislation passed, and instituting a doomed program of wage/price controls...but he at least got them through a Congress that was always hostile to him. He had real accomplishments, whether you agreed with them or not, unlike the Rhetorician in Chief.
 
So don't be misled when the press (some of them at least) calls Obama "Nixonian", because he is not anything close to Nixon. Nixon, even in his most paranoiac moods, was twice the president that Obama will probably ever be. To paraphrase a well known quote, " I knew Richard Nixon, and you sir, are no Nixon!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Worthless Trinkets Redux

Posted by flagwaver on Friday, October 09, 2009 8:40:06 AM
It seems that not so long ago I wrote this little ditty when Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for making a fraudulent "documentary" all about the threat of global warning. At the time I thought that the award had been reduced to being a worthless trinket, used mostly to reward people with far-left political leanings. And this morning the Nobel Prize committee proved me right.
 
Because, if anyone has missed the announcement, President Barack Hussein Obama...MMM-MMM-MMM...was just awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace! Now what he has done exaclty to earn the award is a mystery, since he hasn't accomplished one damned thing to promote a more peaceful world. And he was nominated for the prize after having been in office for an entire two weeks!!! But in that two weeks he evidently did enough to warrant a nomination, and in the time since he has obviously done enough to win the prize.
 
Maybe it was how he ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or how he backed the North Koreans away from their long range missile tests, or his piece de resistance, his talking the Iranian regime down from the nuclear ledge. Or maybe it was his strong defense of freedom when the Iranian dissidents were protesting a clearly fraudulent election result, or how he made sure to welcome the Dali Lama at the White House in defiance of the wishes of the Chinese government, or maybe it was his strong stance with the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress when it ousted the would be dictator Manuel Zelaya from office.
 
Or maybe it was the brilliance with which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handled the Russians in her first meeting with them, or decision to stand with Israel in the face of the growing nuclear menace known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Or possibly it was his courageous stance against a resurgent taliban in Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to allow General McChrystal to have the resources needed to implement the president's new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
But since this incompetent boob has done NONE OF THE ABOVE, why in the blue hell is he getting the Nobel Prize?!?! I suppose that just being "Not George Bush" is good enough, and people who have actually accomplished something meaningful (other than beating John McCain in an election) need not apply.
 
The Nobel Prize is, as I said before officially a worthless trinket.
 
So congratulations to President Barack H. Obama for winning....absolutely nothing!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rethinking the 17th

Posted by flagwaver on Monday, September 28, 2009 11:10:42 AM
I started out to write a piece that defended the 17th Amendment as a necessary to giving the people a greater voice in the running of their national affairs. Why, if electing the members of the House of Representatives and the President are good enough for the people, then why not Senate positions? These folks are supposed to represent us just like the rest of them, right? I also have long been perplexed by the animosity that conservatives had for the direct election of Senators, because direct election just seems like a conservative ideal; let the people decide for themselves who gets to represent them, and leave them alone!
 
What I had not stopped to consider was that while there were problems with legislative elections of senators, with some internal state battles leaving some states unrepresented, or under-represented, there was no political class culture like we have now. It seems that the era of longtime membership in the Senate club, ramapant corruption, and influence peddling only became edemic to the political class after the ratification of the 17th amendment. It was then that demagoguery became part and parcel of Senate elections, it was then that "special interests" became the power brokers in DC, and it was then that Senate members began to simultaneously court their constituency and ignore that same constituency.
 
The system as it stands now is a broken down, rusted out wreck when compared to what it should have been. Legislative selection of Senators generally brought the best of the best to Washington, and they did their best to marry the needs of the nation to the expectations of their state populations. They were in many ways ambassadors of their states to Washington; they made sure that the needs, wishes, and desires of their home states were represented and taken into account when votes were being cast. It may have made for a rough time in passing presidential agendas, but isn't that supposed to be the role of the Senate? Aren't they supposed to be the place where passions are cooled and logic reigns?
 
The direct elections of Senators has basically destroyed that paradigm, and has turned the Senate into possibly the most partisan place in DC. Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, and John Kyl are not exactly interested in representing their states, but in pushing their particular political agendas and ensuring that they are able to hoodwink enough of their voting populace to get re-elected. It is not about making sure that legislation will benefit the communites that sent them the Senate, because if it were would Kay Hagin be all for cap and trade, when she represents a state that is already bleeding the bedrock manufacturing jobs that cap and trade will ultimately destroy? Would a John McCain be a proponent of illegal immigration amnesty if he were honestly representing the people of Arizona who are uder seige by illegal immigrants, and the Mexican drug cartels whose wars have spilled over into their state? However, since they do not have to truly represent the interests of their states because they simply have to convince a 51% majority (in some cases a plurality) to vote for them, they are more inclined to do the bidding of their parties and their egos before considering the people they "represent". That is also why a person like me in North Carolina has a real and abiding interest in the outcome of a Senate race in Pennsylvania; the Senate has gone from a deliberative body made up of people chosen by their state legislatures to a body that can help move the country either left or right by its very makeup. Moreover, the Senate has become the instrument of the President's will more than a reflection of the state that sends them to Washington. I mean, does anyone really think that Virginia is as liberal as Mark Warner, or that New York subscribes to all the crackpot utterances of Chuck Schumer? However, that is what direct election has wrought: if Schumer can carry NYC and its liberal suburbs, he won't have to leave the Senate until he decides to.
 
So, while I understand why so many states intially were in favor of direct election, and I understand the momentum of getting the amendment passed, I have had to move from my intial idea that the 17th was a good idea. In the warm light of day, it is just what Thomas DiLorenzo said it is, "one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (18) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Media-Hound-in-Chief

Posted by flagwaver on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:17:39 AM
David Letterman. David. Letterman. David Freaking Letterman.
 
When I saw that our president was going to appear on David Letterman, I was outraged. And I don't get outraged by a lot of things, but this was one of them. The idea that a sitting POTUS would go on Letterman, after having appeared on Leno earlier in the year, was too much for me to take.
 
Why?
 
Because the office of the president is not some celebrity position, that's why! And I resent like hell any president that dishonors the office in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I resented Richard Nixon for attempting to abuse the claim of executive privilege during watergate; I resented Jimmy Carter for...well...just about everything he did as POTUS; I resented Bill Clinton for his tryst with Monica Lewinsky; and I resent Barack Obama for reducing the office to a laughingstock by appearing on a celebrity driven late night talk show.
 
Does this clown not understand that he is the United States while he serves in office? Does he not know that he is the current living symbol of this nation? Does he not grasp the fact that whatever he does, for good or for ill, reverberates around the world and shapes the image that the world has of the United States? And what image does it send to the rest of the world when the POTUS spends his valuable time yukking it up with Alfred E. Ne....uh, David Letterman in advance of the UN General Assembly meeting? You think Vladimir Putin was trying to get onto TMZ this week? Was Mahmoud Ahmedinijad appearing on Entertainment Tonight? Was Hugo Chavez angling for a spot with Conan on the Tonight Show?
 
Everyone keeps telling us that Obama has the best and brightest around him to guide his presidency, but my question is: Where the hell are they? Whose brilliant idea was it to have the POTUS become just another celebrity "get" for the bookers at Letterman? And where are the savvy political operators who should be telling him that he needs to act like a president, not some B-list movie star promoting his latest flick? Why are these people not acting as good stewards of the highest office in the land?
 
I guess that John McCain was right when he called Obama a celebrity, because he seems more concerned with his public image than with his public policy.
 
2012 cannot get here fast enough!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Evangelical Environmentalism

Posted by flagwaver on Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:53:17 AM

As I sit back and listen to more and more evangelical Christians join the AGW bandwagon, I am moved to speak to them about their decision. On the scientific side there is still much to be learned about whether AGW even exists, as many climatologists are not convinced that any undue warming is even happening today, but the theological underpinnings of this for evangelicals is shaky at best.

While I understand that we are to be good stewards of the earth and all of creation, I flatly reject the notion that we should be joining forces with the environmental left in trying to stem the tide of AGW. There is no scriptural basis for the belief that man is powerful enough to destroy this creation of God, and in my view is borderline blasphemy. We are not, I repeat NOT, able to destroy this earth no matter what we do.

Many have searched the Scriptures and have hung their claims on the words of Revelation 7:3 which reads, “…Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees…” but that is totally divorced from the Scriptural context. This entire passage is actually the words of the angel that is about to seal the foreheads of the 144,000 from the tribes of Israel; it has absolutely nothing to do with man not harming the environment. In fact the Bible in several places makes clear that this earth is going to last until Jesus returns. Jesus is going to return to Israel, to the very place that he ascended to Heaven and no amount of alleged global warming is going to change that fact. Psalm 24:1-2 tells us that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness it holds is His. How can we destroy the thing that belongs to God Himself? Further, Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 tells us that the earth abides forever, the sun will rise and set, and there is nothing new found under the sun; in the face of that, the belief by Christians that we can destroy what God has said will abide forever is blasphemy. It is saying that we do not believe what God has told us through his Holy Word, and that we are more powerful than God Himself in that we are convinced that we can destroy His creation.

There is nothing wrong with Christians being concerned about being good stewards of the earth that God has allowed us to inhabit. It is a good thing to take care of the environment, it is a good thing to be concerned about pollution levels, and there is nothing wrong with doing our part to keep this creation in good shape for the One who has entrusted it to us. But we must be careful when allying ourselves with the AGW true believers, because their belief is a quasi-religious one that elevates the creation over the Creator. And when we ally ourselves with those forces that are pushing a basically pagan religious belief under the guise of “saving the earth” we do so at the risk of allowing our love for the Creator to be overwhelmed by devotion to His creation
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (30) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…1516Next »