We in this country are saddled with the most myopic media in the history of mankind. These people are some of the biggest navel-gazers that have ever come down the pike, and they are absolutely convinced that they speak for “the people” on all types of issues. We see it in both the “mainstream” news media, and in the sports pages; people that never take the time to really talk to the people they claim to represent.

Take the coverage of the Iraq War and all of its related stories and issues in the major media. It is all the same, all the time, no matter what paper or network you watch for your news and information. From the beginning of the war, the media have taken the view that the war was contrived, a political ploy, or some grand conspiracy to seize oil from the Middle East. And every major media outlet has reported it the same way, in the same vein, and using nearly identical words. There is hardly ever any deviation from the accepted party line on the failures of the administration or of the belief that we are not fighting the broader war against Islamic aggression by being in Iraq. And the media is always right there to tell us that they are reflecting what “the people” think of the issue.

In sports we see it in the way that the home run chase of Barry Bonds has been covered. When Bonds hit #756, ESPN---the self proclaimed “World Wide Leader in Sports”---made sure that the first person they interviewed about it was one of the authors of “Game of Shadows” who immediately threw cold water on the moment. And they did it as a reflection of the negative views they assured us that most people held of Barry Bonds and his historic accomplishment.

The thing about both of these situations is that they are really only reflective of what the media thinks of the situations! Most of the news media are anti-war, and most of the sports media are anti-Bonds; they simply think that since they are the media that most people must see things the same way they do. But more likely, they are listening not to “the people”, but to their media buddies, and that is where they form their opinions.

Take the war for instance; most people, regardless of their views on President Bush, are supportive of the idea of us prosecuting this war to a positive outcome. In other words, while the media agitates for us to pull troops out and absorb a defeat, the people want to win! And in the case of Barry Bonds, there are plenty of people that are supportive of the new home run king, while the media---many for strictly personal reasons---have nothing at all to say positively about him.

The media in this country is very insular, and they are much more concerned with how their peers think than what the people think. They write their article to impress their media pals, and to earn accolades from them---not to adequately inform us, their readers.

So the next time they claim to speak for us, think about this: How many of this insular bunch has ever taken time out to talk to the people they claim to speak for? I know most in the media do not speak for me…how about you?

So this is what we have come to, members of the United States Senate taking to the floor of that esteemed chamber to denounce the words of a private citizen. The speeches made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Tom Harkin show just how out of touch the members of the Senate truly are and just how much they are lockstep with liberal media groups of all stripes. But most importantly, it is a stark illustration of just how power mad the Democrats in the Congress are, and how dangerous they can truly be.

Of course by now most everyone has heard about Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment, and has seen the media and political tempest in a teapot that as arisen from it. Far be it from me to defend Mr. Limbaugh, as he has a 3 hour radio show broadcast all over the world that allows him to defend himself much better than I could dream of doing. No, my intention here is not to really discuss what “El Rushbo” said on his show, nor to rehash all of the anti-military statements made by a bevy of Congressional Democrats. What I want to point out is how this Democrat controlled Congress is using the bully pulpit given to them by the people to attack a private citizen, and how this activity is exactly the type of thing that we conservatives have always known the Democrats would do if allowed to gain power.

There is something unseemly, and a tad bit frightening about seeing members of the United States Senate going onto the floor of the Senate and denouncing a talk show host for saying something that they don’t like. These people, who write the laws that govern this country, have attacked a private citizen in public for saying something they claim to disagree with, and are sending a letter to his syndicator to pressure them to publicly repudiate him. And they are preparing a resolution---legislation, people---to condemn Rush Limbaugh!  For a Party that claims to support free speech, they sure seem intent on stifling any speech that contradicts the Democratic Party line.

But in all seriousness, it is disturbing to think that our elected officials are so partisan that they allow themselves to be sucked into low brow mudslinging against citizens they don’t particularly agree with. Senator Harkin’s cheap shot at Rush about his past addiction to painkillers is symptomatic of the Democratic Party’s willingness to say anything, do anything, or hurt anyone they think is standing in their way politically. And what is really disheartening is the fact that citizens of this country continue to send such mean spirited, angry, hateful people to represent them.

And don’t think that this assault on the free speech rights of one citizen is an isolated incident; it is part of the new Democrat’s DNA. They have stood behind those that would ban religion from the public square, which would restrict gun ownership to the point that only the police and military could possess them, and who have worked to deny the people any real say in determining who can represent them---and for how long. These people have no love of freedom, and no respect for your rights; all they see and care about is political power.

Be watchful of these Democratic demagogues, because it may be Rush Limbaugh being legislated against today but it won’t be long before it is you in the dock. After all, opposing the Democrats is a hate crime---right?

The past weeks have been dominated by a couple of stories in sports and the news that have brought race into the forefront. In the news category we have seen the situation with the "Jena Six" and the march in Jena, Louisiana and in sports it was Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's comments about the increased scrutiny that he feels that Black quarterback receive. Both situations opened up a firestorm racial commentary and conversation, and for me it put into perspective what I see as a racial divide among White people.

There seems to be several schools of thought that come to the forefront among White people when the issue of race is brought up, and they sort of go this way: one group acts as though race is the only consideration, there is a group that acts as though race is never a consideration, and the group that has decided that Blacks are the true racists. And when race enters the conversation, it is never a question if these attitudes get expressed, but how quickly.

Take the reaction to Donovan McNabb's answer to a question posed on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. When McNabb told interviewer James Brown that he feels that Black quarterbacks have to "do a little bit more" than White quarterbacks, and that he felt that some of the criticism that he has faced has had some racial elements to it, the sports world exploded! Why, McNabb is only saying this because the team is struggling, he should just shut up and play, race has no place in the conversation, and he is "playing the race card". No one actually stopped to think that what McNabb actually said came from his personal experiences, that he has dealt with in your face racism as a child, and that he was not trying to indict society or every fan that has ever criticized him. No, the reaction was just what I expected, people coming out of the woodwork to say that race was either the only factor or a total non factor.

Then with the article that Mike Gallagher wrote at Townhall.com about the situation in Jena, the reaction was again what I expected. The responses to Mike's column ran the gamut from people, mostly liberals acting as though the hanging of the nooses was a symbolic baring of the American soul, to many conservatives minimizing the hanging of the nooses, to the fringe members who decided that Blacks were somehow the culprits in the entire matter. These people decided that once Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up, there was nothing to the matter except a chance for them to seek the limelight. That may have been true to a certain extent, but that is not the entire story. It is, however, a good example of how easy it is for some White people to use their presence on the scene to support their idea that race is not really an issue in this case, or any other.

The thing is that all 3 perspectives have some elements of right in them, but are also infected with some ideas that I feel are simply wrong. I understand, and have said and written, that race is not the major factor in the struggles that Blacks have in this country. But I also realize that there are situations where race is a factor in the way that people and situations are viewed; maybe not the only factor, but a factor nonetheless. I also can understand those that feel that Blacks have been given a pass at times due to race and have been allowed to use race as a crutch. But that does not mean that all Blacks do that, nor does it mean that all Blacks agree with those that do.

White people need to realize that race does matter, and that our views on race are going to be different due to our life experiences. Take the McNabb comments for example; I can understand where many would think that he was just trying to use race as an excuse for his poor play, but I can understand exactly where he is coming from. He is coming from a position where Blacks that play the position have different expectations placed on them than White players. Listen to the way that many commentators speak of Blacks that play the position, and how they describe them; too many times the talk about Black quarterbacks focus on their speed and athleticism and less on their ability to be "field generals". Those are the accolades that get handed out to the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's of the world; and that is not just conjecture, it is right out there for all to see.

We will never make any real progress in race relations so long as there are such divisions between races on racial matters, and within races about racial matters. Race is not the only factor in many matters, but we have to stop pretending that race is never a factor in anything that happens. So long as we continue to do that, and we continue to allow people to turn every racial incident into an example of Black racism we aren't going to move forward. We will be doomed to spin our wheels on this issue until we are no longer here.

I ran across this item while visiting NewsBusters.org tonight, and if I hadn't seen it there I doubt that I would have seen it at all. Some idiot "teacher" in California sent letters home with his students from a US history class urging them to renounce their American citizenship. Of course his school's administration took his lame @ss excuse to be credible, and announced that he had "no political agenda" in accusing America of rounding up people, tapping the phones of US citizens, and torturing the prisoners at Club Gitmo. Nah...no poltiical agenda there at all, just a way to get a classroom conversation started with middle school kids! Heck, I go to college and our discussions in the poli-sci classes I have had weren't conducted like this! But don't take my word for it read about it here and let the comments roll!

I guess that any excuse is better than none, but it is high time for the Black community to stop making them. It is well past the time that we as Blacks stop looking outside for the reasons for our failures, and started looking inside ourselves and our communities for the reasons that we seem to lag behind in America.

It is also time for us to realize that we have it good here, and that there is nowhere else in the world that could give us the opportunities for success that America offers. We have the choice, all of us, to either work to succeed or to accept failure and defeat. Sadly, too many of us are way too eager to accept failure and pass the blame for it to someone else.

We listen to millionaire rappers tell us how hard life is in “the hood”, and we accept it when they glamorize the worst aspects of ghetto culture. We revel in their tales of p*mps, hoes, rock slinging, and bling-blinging; and all the while, these rappers are getting themselves out of those circumstances. They stress “keeping it real” to a younger generation, while they get their money, gather their families, and leave the ghetto. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just the hypocrisy of it all that stinks to high heaven.

We use being poor as an excuse for every conceivable ill in the Black community, and it is killing us softly---to quote Roberta Flack. We are much too willing to accept that being poor means that you should not strive to do better, that you should not chase educational opportunities, and that you should just accept the fact that being poor now means being poor in the future. But that is just not true, and I have lived a life that proves it.

When I was a kid, there were times that my family was po’---that means we were so broke we couldn’t afford the o and the r. We struggled, and many times we weren’t sure where our next meal would come from. We lived in houses without indoor plumbing, sometimes without electricity, no A/C in the summer, and no heat in the winter. But my mother never stopped working, she never let us go hungry, and she never let us give into the temptation of just packing it in. She made sure we had food, clean clothes, and that we went to school; she didn’t want us to have to struggle as adults and so she sacrificed for us. Our extended family was there to lend a helping hand, because that’s just what families did.

And today I look at where we are; my eldest brother was a minister and musician before he passed away, my older brother is an Army veteran and social worker, my older sister is in middle management with her employer, my younger brother is a civil engineer, and my younger sister does in-home care for developmentally challenged kids. We rose above some very tough circumstances to be healthy, productive members of society.
 

See, we had the attitude that the Evans family had on the old show “Good Times”, and not the self defeating attitude that is so prevalent in hip-hop music nowadays. On “Good Times”, the Evans family did not care about their “street cred” or “keeping it real”; their sole focus was to get themselves out of the situation they were in. James Evans worked as many jobs as possible to move towards getting out of the ghetto, and the parents did their best to keep their 3 kids from falling victim to the ghetto lifestyle. Contrast that to the lyrics found in nearly any rap song nowadays, and it is no real wonder that the Black community remains mired in ghetto culture.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but it is because we let it be so. We will defend publicly every vile thing that these clowns say, while privately we bemoan it. But we defend them anyway, out of some misguided sense of loyalty and solidarity. And as long as we enable them and their message to be spread, our communities will continue to pay the price.

When we finally decide that we have had enough of this tomfoolery, and that we want to do better we can change things for ourselves. But as long as we continue to support the rot inside our communities, defend them out of a sense of shared Blackness, and continue to blindly offer them support nothing will change.

It will just continue to be a hot, ghetto mess.

Once again we see the GOP doing what it does best, abandoning their own. We have two sterling examples of the Republican compulsion for self immolation in the news right now, with the resignation of Alberto Gonzales and the "scandal" involving Larry Craig.

In the case of Alberto Gonzales, there has been almost a festive mood in some conservative circles over his resignation. The GOP, and some conservatives, always felt that Gonzales was not up to the job and did not do the things that they wanted to see. Many felt that he was too close to President Bush and was**gasp** doing the President's bidding and pursuing the President's agenda for the DoJ. Silly me, I always thought that was part of what any member of the Cabinet was supposed to do, but apparently I was mistaken. Obviously, the members of the Cabinet are supposed to be totally independent of the person who nominated them and are to pursue their own agendas, regardless of the wishes of the White House. We see how well that works at State and the CIA, but I digress.

When Gonzales went before the Congress and stated that he dismissed 8 US Attorneys because of performance, instead of saying that it was for reasons that were political, the Democrats pounced. They started calling for investigations, accusing the President and Attorney general of politicizing the hiring and firing of US Attorneys---even though they are POLITICAL APPOINTEES---and they called for either the firing or resignation of Gonzales. And like night follows day, the GOP jumped right in with them, calling for his head right alongside of Reid and Pelosi. Columnists at Townhall wrote pieces saying everything that the Democrats were saying, only they couched their calls in language that pretended to be about protecting the GOP. And when Gonzales finally resigned, the columns started flowing like water again about how bad Gonzales was, how it was a good thing he was gone, and about how self absorbed he was.

Then came the Larry Craig "scandal" involving his plea to a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct in Minnesota. According to the cops, Senator Craig was using the supersecret hand and foot signals to show the he was up for some "afternoon delight" in an airport bathroom stall. Apparently, Sen. Craig swiped his hand under a bathroom stall and attempted to play footsie with the cop on potty patrol, which is the supersecret signal that lets all gay men in the area know that you are "open for business", so to speak. This all happened months ago, but very recently made it into the news and you know the reaction. The media and the usual liberal talking heads labeled it a scandal, and for good measure claimed that it was somehow a black mark against the Republican Party.

And as per the usual, the GOP jumped right on the bandwagon. They are calling for ethics investigations into Senator Craig, wanting him to resign from committee appointments, and many are calling for him to resign from the Senate...all for allegedly giving the supersecret hand signals to a cop! He didn't proposition the cop, didn't offer him money, and didn't try to get into his trousers, yet for this the GOP and conservative talking heads are screaming for his head on a platter.

What bothers me about these situations is that the GOP never seems to learn that abandoning their own is never the way to go. The rush to distance themselves from anyone that the Democrats and media do not like is disturbing to me, as it shows that the GOP "leadership", and the conservative talking heads lack cohesion and conviction. The right whines about the left and their attempts to take down any conservative that threatens the liberal's power---and then helps them do it! Republicans are the biggest bunch of idiot cowards that I have seen in awhile; idiots because they never learn, and cowards because they always run from a fight.

They have never figured out that Democrats don't really care what you do, they just want to create a scandal and try to damage the GOP brand. Take Gonzales for example: No matter what he said before Congress they were going to react in the exact same way! If he had said that the President wanted people in the US Attorney's offices whose ideals matched his, the cries would have been the same. The Democrats were going to accuse him of corruption, illegality, or cronyism no matter what he said, and they were going to launch an investigation, no matter what; piling onto the criticism was not going to dissuade them from their course of action. In the case of Craig, kicking him while he's down is not going to separate him from the GOP because the media is not going to allow it to be anything other than a Republican scandal. Yet the GOP piles on, as if there is ever going to be a time when the media does not equate the misdeeds of one Republican with all of them. So in the end, what does abandoning your man in that situation gain you?

The GOP just never seems to learn that there is a time to cut your losses, and a time to circle the wagons. But the GOP never seems to get that message, and its compulsion to give into the demands of media and Democrats continues to rear it's ugly head!

We have all heard the famous line “Failure is not an option”, and that is how I feel about the situation in Iraq. We cannot afford to fail in this endeavor, not just for our reputation’s sake, but for our safety and security and that of our allies. There is more riding on the outcome of this conflict than just the future of the Iraqi people, much more.

We are being watched to see how we handle our situation in Iraq, not just by the Islamic radicals but by our allies and other rivals. Our allies are looking to see if we have the resolve to finish what we started in Iraq, so they can decide if it is worth it to them to remain allied with us. We have allies in this world that depend on us for support and protection, and it is very important that we show them that we are willing to go the distance to finish this fight, so that they know that if they need us they can count on us to stick with them.

The rivals that worry me the most are China and Russia. China sits poised to take Taiwan and to unleash North Korea against South Korea, in order to consolidate their power in Asia. All of their industrializing and going to a market based economy does not change the fact that they are still a communist dictatorship, and that they see themselves as the rightful rulers of Asia. The only thing holding them back is us, and the resolve they feel we would have in defending the nations that we have pledged to. But if we run away from this fight, which directly impacts on our national welfare, how much of a deterrent force would we really be to them in the face of a defeat in Iraq? Why should they fear our retaliation for grabbing power in Taiwan or sending Kim Jong IL into South Korea? We would have shown them that we do not have the stomach for a fight to the end.

And Russia is longing to reclaim the empire in Europe that they feel was stolen from them in the 1990s. The Russian government has tried every way that it knows how to gain influence over the governments of many of its former satellites, and has allegedly gone so far as murder to silence dissidents. The former Soviet satellites look to us, not Europe, for strength and reassurance and the Russians know that. If we declare victory in Iraq and slink home, do not think that will go unnoticed in the halls of the Kremlin. How long would it take for the Russians to start making some serious moves against their former satellites with a defeated America at home licking her wounds?

Regardless of the reasons we went into Iraq or the failures in planning, or whether American style democracy can take root in the Middle East we cannot afford to fail. American failure in Iraq would not only doom the Iraqis to hell on earth and invite more attacks against us; it would give our biggest rivals the green light to move ahead with their own plans of domination. And that, we cannot allow.

This war is bigger than just Iraq now, and we must recognize just how high the stakes really are. Make no mistake about it; for a host of reasons “Failure is NOT an option” in Iraq!

It has finally happened, something that I have wanted to see come from the Iraqi government finally happened this week. In response to a serious pounding that has been handed out constantly in the American press and coming from American politicians, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki finally did what he should have done a long time ago.

He basically told our politicians to shut up, and it warmed my heart to hear it.

Responding to complaints about everything from missed benchmarks to the time off the Iraqi legislators took, Mr. al-Maliki finally told our meddlesome politicians to stick a sock in it, and it was long overdue. I was starting to wonder if al-Maliki had the “testicular fortitude” to tell our politicians to back off and let his government handle its own business, free from the constant harangues coming out of Washington, D.C.; now I know that he does, and that is encouraging to me.

I see it as encouraging because it shows me that the Iraqis are serious about governing themselves, and because it shows an independent streak that is sorely needed by the Iraqi government. While it is a given that we want a government in Baghdad that is closely allied with ours, we do not want a puppet government there to do our bidding. By showing that it would not be intimidated by woofing coming from Washington about what it should be doing, how often it should be in session, or how it should work internally, the Iraqi government has shown that it is determined to be truly sovereign and not be dominated by anyone---including us.

What has bothered me about this entire process of trying to help the Iraqis establish a functioning government is the constant criticism coming from the United States; we seem to be intent on ignoring certain realities in Iraq while we demand that they do something that they have never done before. We demand that they have a fully functioning, efficient, unified government up and running in a war zone, while bullets are still flying, in a short amount of time. These people who have never governed themselves, have never had a chance to choose their own leaders, and who have lived in constant fear of a tyrant are being castigated for not having a constitutional government humming along just a few short years after the deposing of said tyrant. That type of demand cannot be met in the time that we seem to think it should be; heck, even we didn’t get things figured out until 1789---and sometimes it looks like we still are having problems getting it all figured out.

As frustrating as it may be to some, we have to have patience in this endeavor. If we do not want Iraq to fall under the sway of Iran and/or Syria, or to become a breeding ground for new terrorists, we have to be willing to keep pressing towards the final goal of a truly free Iraq. It may not come quickly, but it will come if we are willing to finish the fight. To paraphrase the old spiritual, we need to run on to see what the end’s going to be.

 

The  net roots as a political force are officially dead on the Democratic side of the aisle. While we may continue to hear about them in the media, and the Democratic Party candidates will continue to pander to them, and attend the Yearly Kos convention to shore up their support, they are basically dead men walking. Their heyday, such as it was, is over. They are now just another special interest group for the Democrat Party to pander to in order to get their votes.

The net roots effectively killed themselves with their defeat of Joe Lieberman in the 2006 midterm primaries; while getting the nomination for Ned Lamont was a victory, it was the classic example of a Pyrrhic victory. Winning that one victory cost them any chance of being a real player in Democratic politics because it came at a heavy cost to the net roots crowd; it showed their true weakness.

The net roots went after Joe Lieberman in the primary with both guns blazing, using all sorts of incendiary and anti-Semitic language to attack him for not backing off of his vote to authorize the war in Iraq. He was painted as being some sort of lackey to the Bush administration, and of being some sort of neo-con war hawk. And many a Democrat politician abandoned Lieberman when it became clear that he would not be winning the primary, and they went hard after him when he announced that he would run in the general election regardless of whether or not he won the Democrat nomination. As we all know, Ned Lamont won the primary but was smoked like a pack of Kool and Mild's in the general election.

And that is where the net roots lost any of the real influence they had gained in the Democratic Party. The Democrats may be many things, but politically stupid is not one of them! They saw that while the net roots were able to turn out enough votes to make a splash in the primaries, they did not have the type of support it takes to win a general election. Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, and Moveon.org may be able to muster a few thousand in Connecticut to sway the results in a primary---where a very low percentage of voters even bother to turn out---but they do not have the power to impact the general elections. It takes more than a few thousand voters nation wide to affect the outcome of a Presidential election; and even if the net roots could deliver a couple of million, that wouldn’t get it done either.

What’s more, the Kos kids and others are pretty much true believers in their liberal causes, and they aren’t about to find that in the Democratic Party. Big time politics demands compromise and flexibility, and the net roots just don’t have that in them. They cannot seem to abide any politician that is not in complete lockstep with their positions and beliefs, which effectively locks them out of any real power.

So the net roots crowd now finds itself in the same boat as gays, the poor, and blacks. The Democrats will come around ever so often, pander to them, make all sorts of promises they never intend to keep, and collect their votes. Think about it: Where else are the Kos kids going to go? They hate the GOP and they don’t want to identify themselves as the socialists they truly are, so they are pretty much stuck with the Democrats.

So the members of the net roots can continue to believe that they are a real power bloc, that they are very influential, or that they are Democrat king makers. But we all know better than that, don’t we? The Democrats have the net roots right where they want them.

So please join me in welcoming the net roots into the Democratic Party.

Welcome to the Democratic Plantation; make yourselves comfortable, because you’re going to be here a long, long time!

I heard once that character is not what you do when everyone is looking, but what you do when no one is around. It’s like if you find a wallet full of money; it does not take great character to return the wallet if you find it with a group of people around, but it says something if you find it by yourself and return it then. When your friends are around, you do the right thing so that they think well of you; when you’re alone you do the right thing because it is the right thing.

This brings me to my major point, which is the lack of real character we see in our political leadership today. And it is not just at the national level, we see it all levels of government. Take my beloved state of North Carolina for example; we have had a well known sheriff convicted of corruption charges and the former Speaker of the House for our General Assembly, Jim Black is soon to report to prison for taking bribes. At the national level we have had a President face impeachment for lying to a court, Mark Foley caught up in a sexual scandal, and William Jefferson caught with $90K stashed in his freezer. And that doesn’t even touch on the unsavory things we see from our “leaders” that may be legal, but are totally unsavory.

It seems that our system of having professional politicians in charge of the government has bred a sense that character is not really needed, just a good grasp of how the system works. Our “leaders” care little about showing good character, especially if it stands in the way of their gaining political power and influence.

Look no further than the way the current leadership of the Democratic Party is acting in regards to the war in Iraq. These same politicians that demanded multiple debates and votes to give the President authority to remove Saddam Hussein now pretend that they were somehow bamboozled into their votes. When the outcome of the conflict was looking like it was going to be a repeat of Desert Storm, the Democrats were there with us with bells on; they planned to have a part in the glory of victory, but as the fight has gone on hey have abandoned their former positions. John Kerry ran a presidential campaign on the premise that he was mislead into his authorization vote, and Hillary Clinton is going for a reprise of that. It didn’t work in 2004 and probably won’t in 2008 either, but it is a good look into the character of the Democratic Party. Character and the Democratic Party are almost at the stage of being oxymoronic---the two just don’t go together!

And the GOP is not much better. This party, in the blind pursuit of electoral victory has abandoned the very character that set it apart from the Donkey Party. Gone are the ideals of smaller government, curbing governmental influence, and cutting spending. In their place we have seen the GOP substitute a scaled down Democratic ethic; a willingness to grow spending, grow government influence on the individual, and to create new government entitlement programs. And we have our requisite Democrat-lite candidate, Rudy Giuliani, whom the press and the GOP establishment are pushing on us at every turn as “the frontrunner”. This man has stepped on nearly every policy prescription that the GOP has held dear: he is a gun-grabber, a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights liberal. And this is the man the GOP would have represent it at the national level?

For me, I am looking for a candidate with character to support. I want someone that I can trust to do the right things for this country even when that may not be what is best for him politically. I want someone that I can trust to do the right things, not because everyone is watching but because it is right…period.

I hope, for all our sakes, we can find that type of candidate.

 

                                        

The Supreme Court is out of control! It has been since the ill begotten Marbury v. Madison decision handed down in 1803, where Chief Justice John Marshall and his black-robed cronies created the power of judicial review. In blatant disregard to the powers granted it by the Constitution the Court, in a purely political decision, decided that the Justices were the final arbiter of what would be regarded as constitutional.

Since that initial usurpation of power by the Olympian Court, there has been a steady stream of decisions that allowed the Justices to gather more power unto themselves, at the expense of the elected branches of the government. The Court has struck down duly instituted laws, injected itself into the war making realm of the executive, and even insinuated itself into the electoral process. The Court truly has become the “most dangerous” branch that Thomas Jefferson feared that it would after the infamous ruling in Marbury.

But in reality, as bad as the Court is the two other branches are even worse. They are worse because they have allowed the Court to intrude on their sovereign territory and have made no real efforts to put the Court back in its rightful place; as a coequal branch and not the rulers of the land.

Both of our elected branches make noise about how out of control the Court is from time to time, but they rarely make any real efforts to rein it in. The major reason for this is that the Court and its decisions give the elected branches both cover and a convenient scapegoat. By allowing the Court to make policy and legislative decisions, the elected branches are able to avoid making tough choices or unpopular decisions; they let the Court decide and take the brunt of public criticism.

Here is a case in point, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” bill. The Congress, in a huge case of bipartisan foolishness, passed a law that completely ignored the plain words and accepted meaning of the First Amendment. This “campaign finance reform” bill put draconian restrictions on what could be said, and by whom, in the 60 day period immediately before an election. The Congress knew that this was obviously counter to the Constitution, but they did it anyway. The bill goes to President Bush’s desk, where he signs it into law despite his statements that the law was a basic affront to freedom of speech as we have known it in this country from our inception. The President, instead of vetoing the bill, punted to the Supreme Court so that they would have to strike down key portions of a law that seemed to have some popular support. If the Court struck down the bill’s key provisions then the President got what he wanted without having to incur the wrath of the NYT editorial page or the Congressional Democrats; they were the perfect cover for him on the issue. The only thing is that they fooled him and let an obviously unconstitutional bill stand until recently, when the newly constituted Court struck down some the more odious provisions in the law. But all of this could have been avoided if the President had simply done his job, instead of trying to hide behind the robes of the Court.

Congress is no better, in that they have the power to limit the purview of the Court and the types of cases that it hears. If the Congress, way back in 1973, had had the guts to do its job we would never have been saddled with the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, and we would not be facing the specter of some activist federal court attempting to foist same-sex marriage upon us. But the Congress lives in mortal fear of running afoul of their bosses at The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, and CNN; they would just about crumble if they thought that their bosses weren’t pleased with them. So they allow the federal courts, and SCOTUS, to do their legislating for them from the bench; it’s easier that way and they don’t have to answer to their constituents for bad law. By allowing the courts to make the laws they know they could never pass, the Congress gets to pass the buck to the unaccountable, unelected members of the judiciary branch who rarely have their powers checked by their fellows in the federal government.

With an Executive and Legislature that would like nothing better than to continue using the Court as cover and a de facto lawmaker, don’t look for the Court to be reined in any time soon. They are performing too large of a service to the other branches just by doing the jobs the Executive and Legislature won’t do!

I heard a funny Bush joke at my family reunion this weekend, and I’ll share it with you now. It goes like this: The Bush Cabinet is having a meeting when news comes in that 10 Brazilian troops were injured in a military mishap. President Bush immediately wants to let the Brazilian government know that the US is there to help in any way possible. He asks Sec. Rice what the Brazilians need us to do, since this is obviously a serious situation; Sec. Rice and VP Cheney try to assure the President that it’s alright. After all, there were only 10 Brazilian troops injured in the mishap! The President continues to insist that we offer all available help to Brazil in this time of great need; after repeated attempts to calm the President down he finally turns to VP Cheney and says, “This is just tragic---and how many million are in a Brazilian?”

I thought it was pretty funny, and the thing about it was these were not people that are rabid Bush haters telling and laughing at the joke. They were my brothers, and me, all of whom had voted for Bush in his electoral victories. I suppose that it is the same feeling that many conservatives have with Bush---a feeling of ambivalence.

George W. Bush is a real head scratcher for me. I supported him in two elections, and have found much to be happy with him about. But at he same time, he has done some things that have had me scream for his head on a plate.

I enthusiastically supported his efforts to get tax cuts passed, as they were long overdue. He realized that the way to stimulate the economy was to put money into the hands of the people, not pick their pockets for every dime that you can get your hands on. But then, he pushes for a Medicare prescription drug entitlement that even the AARP didn’t want. And you know that you are doing something wrong when the AARP isn’t supporting your plans to rob the young to give to the aged!

I supported then, and support now, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from the scene in Iraq. There was ample evidence that Hussein was trying to reconstitute his WMD programs, and that he was actively seeking nuclear material (uranium) from Africa. And if that was not reason enough, he had been firing on allied airmen the skies of Iraq almost from the moment the cease fire for Desert Storm went into effect. He had thumbed his nose at us, the UN, and the cease fire that he signed, giving us ample reason to get rid of him. But the same George W. Bush that launched that attack, and was so resolute in avenging 9/11 is utterly blind to the fact that 9/11 happened because of lax border security and immigration enforcement; so he actively champions the biggest amnesty for illegal aliens in the history of mankind.

I understood and supported his commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence on the trumped up process crime created by Patrick Fitzgerald. And I understood the reasoning behind not granting a pardon, on the grounds that the appeals process may still clear Libby of the charges. But this same President has seen fit to let two Border Patrol agents languish in jail for shooting a drug running illegal alien who refused to stop when they ordered him to. These agents put their lives on the line every day to defend the borders of this nation against incursions, yet they are allowed to be railroaded into prison for a non-cover up, on the word of a drug smuggler while the President studiously avoids intervention.

It is these types of dichotomies that have worn down support for President Bush among even his most loyal backers. It is hard to give support to someone that seems to be pursuing two agendas at once: on the one hand a stickler for national security, on the other an open borders advocate of the highest magnitude.

I suppose the only way to characterize the President is schizophrenic, and you can color me confused!

 

 

Hysteria is defined by Webster’s New Students Dictionary as “unmanageable fear or outburst of emotion” and right now it seems that the entire country is caught up in it. We are seeing a reaction to the alleged crimes of Mike Vick that we have rarely seen regarding any issue, save the hysterics that we witness from the global warming zealots on a daily basis. Like those that try to take a measured approach to global warming, the “Vick is guilty” zealots react angrily to anyone that dares defend Vick, who says that allegations are just those…allegations, and that even Mike Vick deserves a chance to defend himself against these charges. Just by saying those innocuous things and defending the rule of law those that advocate for Vick to be given the benefit of the doubt are called apologists, sycophants, or worse.

The problem that I have with all of this hysteria is how simply hypocritical most involved in the “Get Vick” crowd are being. As bad as the allegations against Vick are, there have been much worse crimes alleged against athletes that did not garner this type of reaction. And these crimes were against people, not dogs! Yet we are supposed to be in high dudgeon because Vick is accused of running a dog fighting ring. Do the names of Leonard Little, Ray Lewis, or Kobe Bryant ring any bells? No? Then let me refresh your memories.

Leonard Little is a defensive end playing for the Saint Louis Rams who is directly responsible for the deaths of two people. Back in 1995 Little, while intoxicated, got behind the wheel of his car and caused an accident which took the lives of two people. There was some outrage at the time, but nothing like this; in fact, there were a lot of people that tried to make Little some type of a victim because he allegedly had a drinking problem. And just a few years later, Little was arrested again on DUI charges, proving that he had not learned his lesson, in spite of all of the tearful statements he had made publicly. Yet, I saw no massive demonstrations in front of the Rams complex, and I heard no calls for his permanent banishment from the NFL. Where was the anger and outrage over the deaths of two people and the devastation of their families?

A few years ago Ray Lewis was arrested and incarcerated for being complicit in the deaths of two men during Super Bowl weekend in 1998. It was alleged that members of Lewis’s entourage got into a confrontation with two men during a Super Bowl bash that ended up with two men being stabbed and left for dead in the streets of Atlanta. Lewis was charged in the crime and was locked up because he would not cooperate with police trying to investigate what happened on that fateful night. It was believed then that Lewis knew who did the stabbing and that he was actively covering up the crime for his “homies”; Lewis eventually copped a plea to a lesser charge and returned to the NFL. There was some anger and angst about the Lewis situation, but even that did not create the righteous indignation that we see in the Vick case. The NFL gave Lewis a small fine, a short suspension, and that was about it; they did not lift his merchandise from NFLShop.com, and they didn’t summarily ban him from training camp. And just a few years later Ray Lewis was playing in the Super Bowl, winning MVP honors, and was named NFL Defensive POY---quite a turnaround for someone credibly accused of covering up two deaths, eh?

And who can forget the curious case of Kobe Bryant? Kobe Bryant was credibly accused of raping a young woman in a Colorado hotel room, yet he became the victim in the eyes of the public. The media went to work digging up the history of the accuser and painted her as a schemer, a trollop, and a gold-digger while Kobe became the victim of this nefarious female. And during all of this, Nike never severed its relationship to Kobe, the NBA studiously kept its nose out of the situation, and his team made arrangements for him to be flown between game sites and Colorado. And hardly a peep was heard about it from most fans and media---Kobe stood accused of rape, yet the world was vigilant in giving him a presumption of innocence. But Mike Vick deserves to lose his freedom, his career, and his business relationships because of allegations of dog fighting?

We have our priorities seriously out of whack on this one, folks. Don’t get me wrong, it is wrong to fight dogs to the death, and it is wrong to abuse animals; I fully recognize that when we do that we are not being the good stewards that God expects us to be of His creation. But we need to recognize that animals are just that, animals. The reaction to this story points out something that I feel points to the creeping influence of far left philosophy in our culture; to wit, nothing is sacred to us.

When we react this way, with this much emotion and rage to the mistreatment and deaths of some dogs, no matter how horrific we have gotten ourselves out of balance. We see the mistreatment, torture, or murder of fellow humans and we shrug our shoulders, say how bad that is, and move on to the next thing. But we hear that Mike Vick is accused of killing dogs in a dog fighting ring, and it sets off a maelstrom of anger and recrimination. I believe that it is because we no longer hold human life to be sacred; we have embraced the idea that all lives have the same value. We react this angrily to the killings and mistreatment of these dogs, while we sit passively as millions of fetuses are aborted on a yearly basis in this country. We scream to high heaven when we hear that some of these dogs were brutally killed after losing fights, yet we do little to protest the grotesque murder of innocents in the partial birth abortion procedure.

We have bought into the notion that the lives of dogs are as valuable as the lives of humans, not realizing that doing that does not elevate the lives of the animals. It simply devalues the lives of humans: When a dog’s life is as valuable as a human’s, then a human life has no more value than that of a dog, period. So we see members of Congress speaking out about punishing Mike Vick for allegedly killing dogs, while they simultaneously fight to the death, metaphorically speaking, to keep partial birth abortion “safe, legal, and rare”!

Finally, what has happened to the rule of law in this country? What has happened to the concept of making the state prove the guilt of the people it accuses, instead of forcing to accused to prove their innocence? What has happened to viewing media reports skeptically and forcing proof to be presented before we assume the guilt of our fellow men? Has the memory of Richard Jewell, Reade Seligman, David Evans, and Colin Finnerty faded so fast that we cannot resist the urge to rush to judgment? I don’t know if Mike Vick is guilty of the crimes he is accused of, and neither does the prosecution, the media, PETA, the Humane Society, or any of us. So maybe, just maybe, we should let the case play out before we decide that Vick is so guilty that he should never see the light of day again.

But most importantly, we need to reexamine our priorities. When we start to treat the maltreatment of humans with the same, or greater passion that we do with animals we will be getting back on track. Until then, we are out of whack and need to check ourselves. We may just have our priorities bass-ackwards!

As I was logging on this morning, I saw a story on my AOL home page that caught my attention. As I read it, i began to get angry and think that this was a case of unintended consequences. But as I went through, I realized that while my initial impressions were correct, this also the logical conclusion that the knee jerk passing of laws brings us to.

The case involves two young men, kids really, that are facing time in prison and having to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives for slapping some girls on the behind one Friday at school. The kids, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Corneilson were facing felony charges---which were later dropped---and still face multiple misdemeanor charges of sexual battery in an Oregon court for allegedly slapping girls on the behind in the hallway in what many students describe as a type of greeting they give one another. But as happens so often someone was offended, then turned into a victim, and now these two kids are facing a lifetime as registered sex offenders.

When I was a kid, we did the same type of things; maybe it was dumb, but it sure as heck wasn't criminal. If the girl didn't like it there were other options: she could humiliate you in public, tell her boyfriend, or at the worst have you dragged to the assistant principal's office for a stern talking to. If the behavior continued, you may find yourself in ISS or in extreme cases suspended for a day or two, but the cops were never involved; no one ever had to worry about going to jail over something so juvenile actually being criminalized. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

I understand that you can't let this type of behavior go unchecked, but I also realize that running to the cops isn't the way to handle it. We have choked ourselves with so many laws that nearly everything that we do runs afoul of some law. Most of these laws were passed with the best of intentions, but there are just so damned many that you can't avoid breaking some along the way. We need laws to protect society from sexual predators, but in the hands of skittish school officials and overzealous cops and prosecutors, we are creating criminals. By trying to be so hard on criminal behavior, we are making more and more behavior criminal. So you can have a couple of 13 year old boys in the dock as sex offenders for doing exactly what 13 year old boys do at that age. All in the name of "protecting the children".

To read the original story click this link.

God save us from ourselves, the laws we pass, and their unintended consequences!

I am not a Newt Gingrich fan. I can respect his intellect, his accomplishments as Speaker, and leader of the Republican resurgence in the Congressional elections of 1994. He served a valuable purpose at that time, and he is one of the most respected policy minds out there. For many, Newt Gingrich is the epitome of conservatism and they would dearly love to see him enter the current field of GOP presidential candidates.

I do not share their enthusiasm, for a few reasons.

Firstly, in my opinion Newt has some of the same problems that will dog Hillary Clinton in a general election. For all of his accomplishments, Newt Gingrich has some serious baggage to deal with; namely his previous history of marital infidelity and the fact that many find him totally unlikeable. No one is going to forget that while the GOP was trumpeting family and moral values as make or break issues; Newt was carrying on an adulterous affair of his own. That smacked of the rankest hypocrisy, especially at that time in our history---and neither the media or public is likely to forget it. And Newt is just not a likeable character; there is a sense of meanness in him--see his comments on Bob Novak--and an overwhelming sense that he is always talking down to others. He has to learn that just because you’re the smartest guy in the room doesn’t mean that others have nothing to add to the conversation.

Secondly, I don’t like people that take potshots at others while they sit on the sidelines. I heard Mr. Newt’s assessments of the GOP candidates as “pygmies”, and especially his shot about Fred Thompson leaving TV to get into TV. It is no secret that I am a supporter of Fred Thompson—if he chooses to run ;D—so it is my ox being gored, so to speak. But that’s not really the point, the thing for me is that if you want to take shots get your @ss in the race---then take your shots. By lobbing verbal grenades from the sidelines you make yourself a distraction to those that are actively campaigning, such as Mitt Romney and those that are passively campaigning as Thompson is right now. If you want to be heard, put your hat in the ring so that others can respond to you within the context of their campaigns instead of having to break stride to deal with you. Step up, or sit down---simple as that.

Thirdly, I have a problem with Mr. Newt fawning over powerful Democrats---especially powerful Democrats named Clinton---instead of taking them on. Don’t forget that it was Mr. Newt that was recently singing the praises of one Mrs. B.J. Clinton and her healthcare ideas, and it was Mr. Newt that was willing to forgive and forget Mr. B.J. Clinton’s transgressions after the latter laid the charm down on the former. If you can’t keep from getting stardust in your eyes every time you come into contact with the Clintons, how are you going to possibly defeat the little woman in a presidential race?

Also, I view Mr. Newt as bit of a fraud who is being allowed to live off his “Contract With America” days. But if you take an honest look at what Mr. Newt did then, it was one of the biggest sell-outs in American political history. Mr. Newt and the GOP swept into power by promising movement on a host of conservative issues in their first 100 Hours, which they dutifully acted on. But when the Democrat minority moved to block many of the initiatives, as everyone with a pulse knew would happen, Mr. Newt did not fight to get the initiatives a fair hearing or vote. He basically abandoned them in his pursuit of power and influence, and his answer to the people when they asked about the lack of progress was basically that he had done what he promised to do. He had addressed them in his first 100 Hours as Speaker and that was all he was obliged to do; he had made no promises to fight for the very issues he and the GOP had campaigned on addressing once in power. Is that the type of person you want leading your country and Party: a person that quickly abandons his promises for political expediency?

Finally, I don’t like Mr. Newt’s attitude that he is going to somehow ride in last minute and save the day for the GOP. Mr. Newt promises that if by September or October there’s not a “strong” candidate that HE thinks can beat Hillary Clinton in a general election, he will put on his white hat, pearl handled six-guns, saddle up the white stallion, and ride in to save the day, ala Hop-A-Long Cassidy! Give me a break! My guy, Fred Thompson has been catching it—deservedly—for not being willing to commit to the race, but Mr. Newt thinks that he should be able to saddle the people with a bunch of benchmarks for his entry to the race? What manner of arrogance be this? “I will save the Party, I will be the nominee, and I will be the One.” For my money, if you think that you are the best qualified, that you are the most electable, that you are the ONLY one that can take on Hillary and defeat her then get your clown @ss in the race. Don’t sit on the sidelines and talk the talk, get your behind on the field and walk the walk. As my dear Papa Sang used to say, “You can show me better than you can tell me.” So if Mr. Newt thinks he’s the One, he needs to get in the saddle and let us see what he’s made of.

I know that there are problems with the other GOP candidates: Rudy’s a gun-grabber, Romney flip-flops like a fish out of water, Mike “Who?” Huckabee…’nuff said…, and Fred is taking his sweet time to declare. But Mr. Newt has just as much baggage as any of them and his “Look how smart I am” act wore thin with me a long time ago. But if he wants the GOP nomination, he needs to get in the race and earn it…no one is waiting with baited breath for Mr. Newt to descend on the race from on high.

Like the old saying goes, “If you’re gonna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.” So if Mr. Newt wants to be a player, he needs to get his walking shoes on; either that or STFU if he’s not willing to jump into the water.

Time to sh*t or get off the pot!