The Virginian Reporter

More needless spending

2005-10-20T08:33:00.000-04:00

Here's the latest: Federal welfare money for buying new digital TV boxes. Apparently there are some folks who'll be left in the dark next year when TV begins to go digital, so the Feds (along with broadcasters and other corporate sponsors) want to subsidize the purchase of these boxes for lower income folks. Just what we need, Medicaid for impoverished TV viewers! I wonder what the income test for these folks will be; and if minors, seniors and pregnant women would be expent from them?

I'm not sure about this, but if you can't afford to buy the new TV or decoder box, then you probably shouldn't be sitting at home watching TV or expecting the government to pay for one so you can watch Oprah in HDTV. I've got another solution: go get a job or two. This solves both issues: you can pay for your own TV box and its a sure fired money-making scheme! and who knows, you might be able to afford other things in life, like food and shelter w/o public assistance. What a shocking thought!

Finally, some common sense advice

2005-10-19T16:12:00.000-04:00

Finally, there's a common sense medical opinion regarding the bird flu hysteria that's sweeping the world. At least one memner of the medical and scientific community has the sense to say what many think and the MSM ignores: that there's little threat to humans from the bird flu!

The only pandemic that the flu is responsible for is the media frenzy in covering it and the mass uneeded slaughter of fowl around the world. Here's the best way to control it: wash your hands, bathe regularly, use high-quality feed and don't live in a chicken coop 24 hours a day.

Here come the unfunded mandates.

2005-10-18T07:53:00.000-04:00

Once again, we find ourselves heading down the road paved with good intentions, and only now are seeing the flames that surround it. Yes, I'm talking about feel-good, politically charged entitlement programs which do nothing but break the bank and get foisted upon the states as an unfunded mandate when its discovered that there's no money to pay for them. Yes, I'm talking about the Medicare prescription drug fiasco and how the states are reacting to it.

Thanks to this year's hurricane season, the folks on the Hill are spending money faster than drunken sailors on a 48-hour liberty (my apologies to the drunken sailors). However, unlike the sailors, they don't stop when the money runs out; instead thet keep spending until they're satisfied and the budget is broken. Well, at some point all these expenitures are going to collide in a fiscal train wreck. Combine these three programs: Medicare Prescription, FY 2006 Highway Funding and hurricane relief, and what do you get? A mess of extreme magnitude that we can't afford.

And, of course, suddenly the Beltway folks are having a fiscally conservative revelation that they're spending too much so they're going to try and carve off some fat, and this leads to statements that our government is operating more efficiently than in the poast and that there's no more to cut. Huh??? Obviously these folks never took or passed any basic economics course in their educational careers since they can't even do basic math!

Instead, what they've (both the administration and the Congress) done is to unleash a tidal wave of socialist style programs that will make FDR & LBJ look like small potatoes when its all done. And to pay for all this, they're going to change many of them into unfunded mandates to the states so that the states have to pay for everything out of their own pockets. This will push the states even futher into the abyss, since most states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets annually. Because of this, many states are protesting the Medicare program since its the most visible and will have the biggest impact on thier budgets starting next year. Unfortunately, this is all falling on deaf ears in Congress and the White House since they're more concerned about making 30-second sound-bites and looking like heroes than actually adhereing to the fiscally conservative values that they were elected on.

And to top this all off, they haven't passed the FY 2006 Federal budget yet, so they're operating on a continuing resolution until they figure out how to fund all this! They can't even fund the operating budgets of such things as the military and Congress because they're trying to figure out how to fund all these new socialist entitlement & welfare programs.

My view on these matters is this: states should be allowed to keep thier road money for thier own use; run and fund their own medical subsidy programs if they wish; and private industry should determine how to rebuild the hurricane disaster areas with minimal state and no federal intervention. Unfortunately, the DC folks are too busy spending our money to grab the spotlight and look like the good guys.

Harriet who?

2005-10-04T14:20:00.000-04:00

I've been away for the past month, busy with a job search and just overwhelmed about the disasters in the South and in DC, where FDR seems to have been resurrected, the House GOP leader indicted on ethics issues and money laundering charges, and croneyism rules the day. I haven't posted since, in my opinion, there wasn't anything new for me to post regarding these events other than to say that I'm highly critical of FEMA, DHS, Congress, POTUS, and the entire Louisiana governmental establishment and that the only thing they know how to do is play the blame game to try and save their own sorry rears.

But now that we're into October, fall is in the air and the winds of change are sweeping through our nation. Except for inside the Beltway, where business as usual continues. POTUS, after the successful installation of Cheif Justice Roberts to the bench, has in his hand the power to shape the SCOTUS for the next generation by appointing a true strict-constructionist and conservative justice, not as a swing vote, but as a way to rebalance the court and start leading our country back into the realm of balanced power and proper interpretation of the law from the bench. Unfortunately, POTUS has decided that his historical legacy should be one of mediocrity, political spinelessness and inappropriate political awards, so he's nominated his chief council, Harriet Miers.

I don't mean any dispariagement toward Ms. Miers; she's obviously more intelligent than I am at the legal and political game since she's in a position to be nominated. But a better choice shoe could not be further from. She has no judical track record to speak of and little is known about her ideological leanings. Granted, the media is trying to dig up some dirt such as old contributions to the Gore 1988 campaign, but there's very little on her to begin with, so that might be a moot point. Rather, this is a reward for Ms. Miers' enduring loyalty to President Bush and that seems to be the primary reason for the nomination.

I think that I can speak for many when I say that croneyism is not a sound qualifier for an appointment or nomination, especially for an associate justice slot. We've seen how poitical appointees based on repaying favors and loyalty have helped muck up the works in the halls of power over the past six weeks, so why use it as a basis for an appointment that will last at least 20-30 years and have immense influence over the legal evolution of our country? And, to add insult to injury, the Republican controlled Congress seems poised to let her in without even a minimal fight lest they anger President Bush and his team in the White House. Be afraid, be very afraid of what Ms. Miers might morph into over the span of her term.

We had a chance to set the tone of the SCOTUS for the next generation, and we've blown it. Once again, the GOP has managed to wrest defeat from the hands of victory, and the battle was all ours to lose. I don't know what happened to the party of Lincoln and Reagan, but it certainly sounds and smells more like the party of Johnson and Carter.

NO, FEMA and Katrina: a malestrom of ineptitude

2005-09-03T22:27:00.000-04:00

With all that's happened over the past week along the Golf Coast, one wonders why the situation is as bad as it is. Here's an article that I fell puts it all in perspective, and exposes the truth regarding the poor handling of this disaster by the New Orleans & Louisiana authorities.

This article doesn't touch on the handling of this disaster by FEMA, which has been nothing short of horrendous. Having worked for six weeks for DHS/FEMA on a contract with them (I left the contract on 8/30), I was exposed firsthand to a level of incompetency and bureaucratic infighting that rivals none other on in the country, maybe the world. Each subordinate agency of DHS is so worried about protecting their own little fiefdoms and their governing elite that they have lost all focus on their primary missions. FEMA is especially notable since they're the most visible due to the current situation, with the TSA running a close second. I can't go into more detail due to the nature of my position there, but it was not the most pleasant of working experiences.

This disaster and the recovery effort will be a massive one, and it could give FEMA a chance to shine as a leader in the effort. Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen since they're just now, with the prodding of POTUS and most of Congress, getting their act together and starting to work the situation.

I stand corrected...

2005-08-25T11:30:00.000-04:00

...about the speech I posed yesterday. Apparently it wasn't made by thge current CNO, but rather by a retired Chief who posted to my site yesterday. I've posted the reply below so that the proper disclaimer and credit can be conveyed:

I'm glad you liked "The Wrong Army," but it is not a speech by the Chief of Naval Operations. It's actually an opinion column I wrote for Military.Com.
A reader copied the column off the Military.Com website and began emailing it to friends. So far, so good. But somewhere in the strange netherworld of internet email, it picked up the headline "Navy Chief Fires a Broadside." I have no problem with that. I am a retired Navy Chief, and I was definitely firing a broadside.
After a few hundred more bounces, that became "Navy Chief of Operations Fires a Broadside," which eventually morphed into "Speech by the Chief of Naval Operations."
The CNO’s Public Affairs staff has been jumping through hoops, trying to make sure that the big boss doesn’t end up taking the heat for something I said.
For the record, I am not the Chief of Naval Operations. I may have delusions of grandeur, but they don't stretch the boundaries of reality quite that far. Also for the record, the CNO did not write "The Wrong Army." I did. If you like it, the credit goes to me. If you hate it, I get the blame. It's not part of a CNO speech, nor any part of his professional writings. "The Wrong Army" is my baby, warts and all.
Please set your readers straight on this. Admiral Mullen has quite enough on his hands, without catching flack for something he didn't say.
Respectfully,
-- Jeff Edwards
STGC(SW) USN
(Ret.)

Great speech from the CNO

2005-08-23T15:29:00.000-04:00

Here’s a speech that was sent to me today by the new CNO, ADM. Mike Mullin. As a fellow shipmate, I think his speech says it all.

Subject: New CNO's Speech

On the 22nd of July, Admiral Mike Mullin
became the Chief of Naval Operations. Below is his speech.

Subject:
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS SPEECH

America's military can win wars. We've done it in the past, and I have absolute confidence that we'll continue to do it in the future. We've won fights in which we possessed overwhelming technological superiority (Desert Storm), as well as conflicts in which we were the technical underdogs (the American Revolution). We've crossed swords with numerically superior foes, and with militaries a fraction of the size of our own. We've battled on our own soil, and on the soil of foreign lands -- on the sea, under the sea, and in the skies. We've even engaged in a bit of cyber-combat, way out there on the electronic frontier. At one time or another, we've done battle under just about every circumstance imaginable, armed with everything from muskets to cruise missiles.

And, somehow, we've managed to do it all with the wrong Army.

That's right, America has the wrong Army. I don't know how it happened, but it did. We have the wrong Army. It's too small; it's not deployed properly; it's inadequately trained, and it doesn't have the right sort of logistical support. It's a shambles. I have no idea how those guys even manage to fight.

Now, before my brothers and sisters of the OD green persuasion get their fur up, I have another revelation for you.
We also have the wrong Navy. And if you want to get down to brass tacks, we've got the wrong Air Force, the wrong Marine Corps, and the wrong Coast Guard.
Don't believe me? Pick up a newspaper or turn on your television.
In the past week, I've watched or read at least a dozen commentaries on the strength, size, and deployment of our military forces. All of our uniform services get called on the carpet for different reasons, but our critics unanimously agree that we're doing pretty much everything wrong.

I think it's sort of a game. The critics won't tell you what the game is called, so I've taken the liberty of naming it myself. I call it the 'No Right Answer' game. It's easy to play, and it must be a lot of fun because politicos and journalists can't stop playing it.

I'll teach you the rules. Here's Rule #1: No matter how the U.S. military is organized, it's the wrong force. Actually, that's the only rule in this game. We don't really need any other rules, because that one applies in all possible situations. Allow me to demonstrate...

If the Air Force's fighter jets are showing their age, critics will tell us that Air Force leaders are mismanaging their assets, and endangering the safety of their personnel. If the Air Force attempts to procure new fighter jets, they are shopping for toys and that money could be spent better elsewhere.

Are you getting the hang of the game yet? It's easy; keeping old planes is the wrong answer, but getting new planes is also the wrong answer. There is no right answer, not ever. Isn't that fun?It works everywhere. When the Army is small, it's TOO small. Then we start to hear phrases like 'over-extended' or 'spread too thin,' and the integrity of our national defense is called into question. When the Army is large, it's TOO large, and it's an unnecessary drain on our economy. Terms like 'dead weight,' and 'dead wood' get thrown around.

I know what you're thinking. We could build a medium-sized Army, and everyone would be happy. Think again. A medium-sized Army is too small to deal with large scale conflicts, and too large to keep military spending properly muzzled. The naysayers will attack any middle of the road solution anyway, on the grounds that it lacks a coherent strategy.

So small is wrong, large is wrong, and medium-sized is also wrong. Now you're starting to understand the game. Is this fun, or what?

No branch of the military is exempt. When the Navy builds aircraft carriers, we are told that we really need small, fast multipurpose ships. When the Navy builds small, fast multi-mission ships (aka the Arleigh Burke class), we're told that blue water ships are poorly suited for littoral combat, and we really need brown water combat ships. The Navy's answer, the Littoral Combat, isn't even off the drawing boards yet, and the critics are already calling it pork barrel politics and questioning the need for such technology.

Now I've gone nose-to-nose with hostiles in the littoral waters of the Persian Gulf, and I can't recall that pork or politics ever entered into the conversation. In fact, I'd have to say that the people trying to kill me and my shipmates were positively disinterested in the internal wranglings of our military procurement process. But, had they been aware of our organizational folly, they could have hurled a few well-timed criticisms our way, to go along with the mines we were trying to dodge.

The fun never stops when we play the 'No Right Answer' game. If we centralize our military infrastructure, the experts tell us that we are vulnerable to attack. We're inviting another Pearl Harbor. If we decentralize our infrastructure, we're sloppy and overbuilt, and the BRAC experts break out the calculators and start dismantling what they call our excess physical capacity.' If we leave our infrastructure unchanged, we are accused of becoming stagnant in a dynamic world environment.Even the lessons of history are not sacrosanct. When we learn from the mistakes we made in past wars, we are accused of failing to adapt to emerging realities. When we shift our eyes toward the future, the critics quickly tell us that we've forgotten our history and we are therefore doomed to repeat it.

If we somehow manage to assimilate both past lessons and emerging threats, we're informed that we lack focus.Where does it come from: This default assumption that we are doing the wrong thing, no matter what we happen to be doing? How did our military wind up in a zero-sum game? We can prevail on the field of battle, but we can't win a war of words where the overriding assumption is that we are always in the wrong.

I can't think of a single point in history where our forces were of the correct size, the correct composition, correctly deployed, and appropriately trained all at the same time. Pick a war, any war. (For that matter, pick any period of peace.) Then dig up as many official and unofficial historical documents, reports, reconstructions, and commentaries as you can. For every unbiased account you uncover, you'll find three commentaries by revisionist historians
who cannot wait to tell you how badly the U.S. military bungled things.

To hear the naysayers tell it, we could take lessons in organization and leadership from the Keystone Cops.

We really only have one defense against this sort of mudslinging: Success. When we fight, we win, and that's got to count for something. When asked to comment on Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. Army's Lieutenant General Tom Kelly reportedly said, "Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world, to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours." In my opinion, it's hard to argue with that kind of success, but critics weren't fazed by it. Because no matter how well we fought, we did it with the wrong Army.

I'd like to close with an invitation to those journalists, analysts, experts and politicians who sit up at night dreaming up new ways to criticize our armed forces. The next time you see a man or woman in uniform, stop for ten seconds and reflect upon how much you owe that person, and his or her fellow Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen. Then say, "Thank you." I'm betting you won't even have to explain the reason. Our Service members are not blind or stupid. They know what they're risking. They know what they're sacrificing. They've weighed their wants, their needs, and their personal safety against the needs of their nation, and made the decision to serve. They know that they deserve our gratitude, even if they rarely receive it.

Two words -- that's all I ask. "Thank you." If that's too hard, if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the dedication, sincerity and sacrifice of your defenders, then I have a backup plan for you. Put on a uniform and show us how to do it right.

Back from vacation

2005-08-10T12:13:00.000-04:00

Folks, I’ve been taking the summer off from blogging since I’ve had a lot of things happening this year, plus I needed a break from the rigors of the past campaign cycle and the stress of the world. This summer reminds me a lot of the John Cusack/ Demi Moore film “One Crazy Summer”, but without Rich Little as the ever present DJ. But now I’m back, refreshed and ready to post my own brand of logic and wit again, and I couldn’t have picked a better time to return. So to my loyal readers, I apologize for my unannounced absence. And to my new readers, welcome to my blog, fresh for the new year. Now, on to the posting…

1. The Judge Roberts nomination “battle”

President Bush couldn’t have picked a better nominee, someone who is low-profile, anonymous, and not a political hack with his hand out for payback. This has created more than a small dilemma for the Dems, since there is little to no dirt on Mr. Roberts that can be dug up and plastered across the news media for all to distort. And digging into his children’s adoption records, that’s low even for the most biased of the leftist muck-rakers. I feel that Judge Roberts will come through the nomination process with flying colors and will be a superb associate justice for the SCOTUS. A home run pick by POTUS.

2. Robert Bolton and the UN

Here’s another great pick, one who’s in the right position at the right time. With the UN on the verge of implosion due to the various scandals and other corruption that has surfaced, we need an ambassador who will represent our interests correctly and not be swayed by the elitist intelligentsia that dominates the UN. In short, he’ll tell the UN to straighten up or ship out as that body has become less and less relevant to the world order since the end of the Cold War, and then be able to pick up the pieces and possibly create a new body that’s more in tune with the needs of the US and the western world. That or be there to sign the lease over to Donald Trump for a new revitalization project. One can only hope.

3. NASA and the Shuttle: RIP…

While I’m a big space exploration fan (yes, I’m a child of Star Trek), I do think that its time to say goodbye to the Shuttle program and RIP to NASA in general. Richard Branson has already proven that the private sector can launch a man into and return him safely from space for a small percentage of the cost of a NASA launch, and with a much faster turn-around time. In short, the private sector can do it “better, faster and cheaper” than NASA, which carries the same motto. This would also lead to an unencumberence of billions of dollars that are currently being fed into the NASA bureaucracy. I can only imagine how this would help the federal budget process or where the money would be redirected to, but at least it wouldn’t be going into a black hole with little accountability and few tangible or justifiable results.

4. Multiculturalism and terrorism: another “axis of evil”

I read an interesting commentary by Michael Barone in this morning’s paper titled “Blowback from multiculturalism”. Multiculturalism as we all know, is the idea that all cultures are equal to all others and should be equally embraced and studied, most notably by the liberal elite, intelligentsia, college professors and the news media, as well as many others. This thought process helped give rise to the idea of political correctness which as swept our nation and attacked many pillars of our society, but that’s another discussion.

What his column dealt with today is how the West’s obsession with multiculturalism has lead to the current round of terrorist bombings in England and the destabilization of European society as a whole. This is because most western European governments adopted an attitude of “move here and you’ll be tolerated, no matter where you’re from or what you believe”. Unfortunately, this tolerance of differences over assimilation into a nation’s cultural fabric has led to a breeding of intolerance among these various “exile” communities, with the results manifesting themselves over the past month. Well, the Brits and Dutch have tired of this, with PM Tony Blair announcing that his government’s tolerance of intolerance is at an end, and that if you don’t get with the program, stop spewing hatred and assimilate into English society, then you’re going to face a plethora of restrictions, including deportation to your county of origin.

I think that this is a proper stand for PM Blair to take and it has been long overdue. I also feel that this is a stand that we need to take in this country as well. I understand that we are a nation of immigrants, but our immigrant population assimilated their cultural identity into ours and helped create a unique “American” culture, somewhat akin to the Borg (Trekkies will understand this reference). However, if we tried to do something like that here in today’s society, every group from the ACLU to RainbowPUSH would be screaming that our government is being unfair and not taking cultural differences into account, a common cry from all these groups already.

Unfortunately for these groups, they don’t represent the majority of America or the general feeling of insecurity and the need to do something that’s sweeping the country. People are tried of watching old ladies and children strip searched by the TSA or NY Transit Police while others pass on by in the name of non-profiling, and they want something to change, even if it means offending some by singling out those people in the suspect group for more stringent searches and security measures. And if these people don’t like it, then our borders are equally porous on the exit side and they’re free to leave at any time. Either way, they must either learn to live in our society and assimilate or go back whence they came. Our national safety depends on it.

Live 8 it

2005-07-05T13:10:00.000-04:00

For those who watched the Live 8 concerts yesterday, I hope you had a good time. For those who didn't (I'm guessing the vast majority falls into this category), I don't think you missed too much. Either way, I think you'll find this column by Wesley Pruden both humourous and truthful: "Slaking Thirst with a Fire Hose".

Views on eminent domain

2005-06-26T21:29:00.000-04:00

Once again, the Supreme Court has shown just how out of touch they are with not only mainstream America but the document they are charged with upholding and interpreting, the Constitution. The landmark decision regarding eminent domain last week was, well, unconstitutional at best and a victory for large government intrusion at worst. I'm not sure how much else I can write on the subject, so I'll quote an article from Neal Bortz who shares my same thoughts on the issue. I'll also include some related links at the end of the text.

THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country.
Background. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it. The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use.
The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use. Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use. This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed.
This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation.
Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed. You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians.
Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision. In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics: There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend.
First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda. Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home. That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage. Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe. Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property. Belinda says no. She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased. So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol
to talk to some politicians. He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him. Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to pay Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.
Another example. This time we'll use me. About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains. It's a lot in a mountain resort community.
Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so. At present it is not my intention to build a home. I bought the lot as an investment. Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low. Along comes a developer. He wants to build a home on my lot. I tell him the lot is not for sale. He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain. He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land. If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land. The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the
land and turn it over. Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed.
Now take the situation in New London. This is the case the court was considering. The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents. The homes are old, but very well kept. One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home. Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center. This is America. This shouldn't
happen in America. That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a
new development would pay more in property taxes.
There are also small businesses located on this tract of land. They're history. The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property.
No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property. The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court. That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers.
I'm not through ranting. Read on.
Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point? If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hopes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell, the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price. I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not? Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and
start the eminent domain process. This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value. The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate.
Another element of the New London case. These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront. Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property. This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company. Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures. This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to
seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project.
There's another element I want to add to this rant. I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the war against individualism. Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is. How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality"
without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about?
The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals. Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around. When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights. Among those rights would be the right to property. Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights. They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights." Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights. People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged.
Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling? Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely
restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of
eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights.
The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights. Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.
What can you do? Visit Institute For Justice & the Castle Coalition. There is also a blog that focuses on eminent domain issues.
Ruling text:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

5th Amendment:http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Link to article above:http://boortz.com/nuze/200506/06242005.html

Another French military victory

2005-06-03T17:58:00.000-04:00

As reported in this evening's Wall Street Journal update, another in the long list of French military victories:

French Land in New Jersey; Charge Fails
Low on fuel and struggling in bad weather, nine French fighter jets and a radar plane couldn't return to their aircraft carrier during maneuvers with the Canadian military and landed at the Atlantic City International Airport in New Jersey instead. The Federal Aviation Administration helped the jets land, and French marines and translators were sent to the airport to help the pilots, Philadelphia TV station WPVI reported. The U.S. State Department also got involved when one of the French pilots had his credit card rejected when he tried to buy fuel, the TV station reported. The
FAA couldn't confirm the failed credit-card transaction.

We nuked ourselves

2005-05-24T10:06:00.000-04:00

We just got back from a week in beautiful SW Montana and Yellowstone, and what a great time we had out there. A whole week of peace, quiet and enjoying the beauty our nation has to offer.

However, I seems that I can't go away for a week without things falling apart for the GOP and its principles. Once again the GOP leadership has managed to "snatch defeat from the handa of victory" with their latest compromise. Needless to say, I'm very upset with the GOP leadership and their current deviation from our parties principles of less government, lower spending and fulfillment of the mission the American people elected them to complete.

There's not much more I can say, so I'll post today's letter from Chuck Muth since he says it all so eloquently. Read below and see if you agree with him; I know that I do.

SPIN CITY & THE FILI-BLUSTER

Thanks to Republican "moderates," a "deal" has now been struck where the Democrats will be allowed to continue obstructing judicial nominees when they see fit and Republicans get...well, pretty much squat. They had the carpet pulled out from under them and woke up this morning with a big ol' egg covering their face, thanks to what the mainstream media considers to be the Magnificent Seven. Here's the roster:

Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island
Mike DeWine of Ohio
Susan Collins of Maine
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
John McCain of Arizona
John W. Warner of Virginia
Olympia J. Snowe of Maine

Did I mention Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island? More on him later.

As is to be expected, Republican leaders are in full "spin" mode, trying to tell conservatives that this huge loss on a matter of principle is actually a win; that this sow's ear is actually a silk purse. I can't remember the last time I had this much Suzy Sunshine blown up my skirt.

In the defenders estimation, Bill Frist has been a mensch. He stayed the course. He's a rock. Blah, blah, blah. He just couldn't get his whole team to row in the same direction. I'm not buying it.

I wonder what Steinbrenner would do with such a manager?

Here's the bottom line: For their part, the Democrats "agreed" to allow three previously-blocked nominees, but not all ten, to come to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Hello? Those three were already coming to the floor for a vote once the "nuclear option" had been deployed anyway. Some "concession" on the D's part, huh? For our part, we agreed to allow the Democrats to continue filibustering judges in the future. Lovely.

After hearing how the Democrats distorted the judicial and personal records of Owen and Brown over the last five days, you just know it will be a walk in the park for them to come up with "extraordinary circumstances" to block a future nominee. And by retaining the right to filibuster judges, you can pretty much kiss any hope that the president will risk nominating Justice Scalia to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he retires.

The Democrats bought time...and time is on their side. The longer this thing drags out, the less likely Republicans are to enforce the principle of every nominee getting an up-or-down vote. And the less likely that President Bush will appoint any more "Scalias." Get ready for a rash "Souters" coming down the pike.

I'm not excusing what the McCainiacs did here; but Bill Frist is the leader and he's been misplaying this issue from Day One. He should have used the power of his office to stop these filibusters two years ago. If he didn't have the 51 Republican votes, he should have told us who the weak-kneed Republicans were BACK THEN so we could have had a chance to deal with them directly from the grassroots level and at the ballot box. But Frist covered for these upstarts. And now they've cut his legs off from under him.

Frist was also in a position to stop Arlen Specter from gaining the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee last year and put someone there who actually AGREED with his plan to use the nuclear option to bust the filibusters. Instead, he "cut a deal" with Specter and handed him the gavel. In return, Specter helped hand Republicans a major and embarrassing defeat by encouraging and enabling this "compromise."

Bill Frist wants to be president. Bill Frist can kiss that dream goodbye. If he can't even handle running the Senate, what business does he have running the COUNTRY? "Trying" isn't good enough. There is no substitute for victory. Second place is like not even being there. Bill Frist needs to step down from his "leadership" position and turn running the Senate over to someone else, someone not afraid to crack the whip on his own troops from time to time.

This was a big one folks. This was important. And we were embarrassed by this "deal"...big time. Someone needs to answer for that.

One last question: Do those of you who say having RINO (Republican In Name Only) Lincoln Chafee on our team is better than having a Democrat in his seat still believe that? If so, you're hopeless. Boy, do I wish the Libertarians would put somebody half-credible up against him next year. That's one Republican race I'd LOVE to see "spoiled." Hey, hey, ho, ho...Lincoln Chafee's gotta go.

Real ID is really bad

2005-05-12T10:19:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of blogging, but with my early mornings and commute I've been pretty tapped out recently. However, that doesn't mean that I don't want to share my thoughts with you, my loyal readers, so today I'm going to do just that on new legislation that will effect us all and tramples on states rights in the name of "national security".

The legislation I'm referring to the the Real ID Act of 2005 legislation passed last week by the House and pending this week by the Senate. When I say "passed", I'm not referring to the standard practice of introducing a bill and debating its merits before voting on it; rather, it was slipped in as an amendment to the $82 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. To me, this is an indicator of the amount of support it had in Congress as separate legislation and how much certain members of Congress wanted to hide it from the general public as well as other congressmen to shield it from hearings and debate.

I'm not going to discuss how it will effect illegal immigration, other than to point out that a small group of senators is working to get the amendment removed prior to its passage. Anyone who knows me knows that any effort to crack down on illegal immigration will find no enemy in me. And if those efforts help prevent terrorist attacks and facilitate the arrest and detainment of said terrorist suspects, then that's an added bonus. And I won't even start on the subjects of the new potential for identity theft (by criminals, terrorists or govt. employees); imposition of a national id card; travel restrictions; violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments (last two already happening); or other potential abuses of the new power the federal government would wield over the masses and states.

What I am more concerned about is the blunt and deliberate reach of the federal government into an area that the definite realm of the states and the breaching of states rights in the name of "national security". There is nothing more firmly rooted in the "states' rights" garden patch than the issuance & regulation of driving rights, licenses and ID cards for thier residents. By passing this new law, the federal government has effectively abrogated this right of the states to issue legal identification to their residents and taken on this burden themselves.

Well, you might say, the legislation does allow states to "opt out" of the legislation. While that option is there, any state chosing to exercise this option will have their id's essentially "invalidated" for use in boarding planes, trains, entering federal buildings, etc.; those states will then be forced to issue a second "certified" id card that meets Real ID Act standards for use in these instances. Essentially, any state that refuses to participate will risk having their citizens relegated to "second-class" status and be barred from most forms of interstate/international travel and from physical interaction from virtually all sectors of the federal government. So once again we have forced compliance with unfunded mandates forced upon the states "for our own good & safety."

Wait, what country are we living in? Didn't the Soviet Union collapse 15 years ago under the weight of a burdensome government bureaucracy that tried to do everything "in the name of safety & peace"? Our constitution was written specifically to enumerate certain duties upon the Federal government and all the others upon the states; I don't see the regulation and issuance of identification cards mentioned anywhere in it. Once again, this to me is another example of federal goverment blackmailing the states into submission, a la seat belt laws, DUI limits, road funds, etc.; the list is endless.

While it is a good idea to propose a set of standards for driver licenses so that there is some uniformity of information nationwide, these standards should be crafted with generous input from the states. These standards should then be implemented by the states voluntarially and strengthed if desired (Virgina has some of the toughest licensing laws in the country, and I've had the experience of getting a license here in the last year). However, if a state chooses not to implement these standards or doesn't implement the "cookie cutter/ one-size-fits-all" solution that the Beltway loves to impose, then their residents shouldn't be penalized or excluded from some of our most basic freedoms: travel & government interaction.

I see this as sailing into a rough sea without out storm warnings, charts & life boats. Unfortunately, I don't think that many will see the problems with it until its too late (read: the TSA and airport security), and then it will be impossible to reverse our course and avoid the storm.

More government stupidity in action

2005-05-04T11:46:00.000-04:00

Haven't had time to post much due to work and other concerns, but I found this on Drudge and thought I'd pass it along: City removes "Welcome Back Soldier sign."

Just another sign of how obtuse government bureaucracy has become in regards to the citizenry. They'll remove signs like this but leave others up on light poles advertising wieght-loss & get-rich-quick schemes. Sounds to me like the city workers have their priorities in the wrong order.

More out of control cops & ineffective teachers

2005-04-27T11:46:00.000-04:00

How's this for overkill? In Tampa, sheriff's deputies apparently handcuffed a 5-year-old girl and arrested her for being disruptive in class on March 14th. And of course, the whole event was captured on video. Her family's attorney is, of course, "planning leagal action" the school board & sheriff's office.

What a shock, a 5-year-old being unruly & disruptive in a kindergarten class? Wow, I've never heard that one before. I never acted up, got spanked or sent to the principal's office for acting up in kindergarten...NOT! That's the way most 5-year-olds act from time to time, and usually the teacher is strong enough to either settle the child down or discipline them so that they won't act up again. But calling the cops? I think I've found the real issue here: lazy union teachers that think they don't have to work for a living and that all children should be drugged to make them docile. What a wake-up call for the teachers & thier unions. I think that the family is within thier rights to file a legal action againt the school board for what looks like a gross over-reaction to a child's temper tantrum. I wonder if we'll hear about the settlement or if this will be buried by the school board & the media? Time will tell on this one.

Even West Virginia gets it right sometimes

2005-04-12T18:25:00.000-04:00

Here's a good one from tonight's Wall Street Journal evening wrap-up. They're moving in the right direction in WV against multi-culturalism, maybe we should try this nationwide:

West Virginia: Now Available in English
The fact that most U.S. state legislatures write their proposed laws in English doesn't make them any easier to read, apparently. West Virginia lawmakers, for example, recently voted to make English the state's official language, but didn't realize they'd done so until two days after taking a recess. To a not-so-hotly-contested bill concerning boards of parks and recreation, Senate Majority Whip Billy Wayne Bailey added an amendment that set rules about record-keeping -- and oh, by the way, said, "English shall be the official language of the State of West Virginia." Lawmakers passed the bill and its amendments on the last day of their latest session. House Majority Leader Rick Staton pushed for the bill's passage, but didn't realize it contained the English-only amendment until he was asked about it by the Associated Press. West Virginia is the eighth state in the past 10 years to adopt English-only laws, which proponents say will encourage immigrants to learn the language. They've pushed for such a change in West Virginia for the past several years, but opponents, who believe the law would unfairly punish immigrants, have blocked it until now.

A view from the sidelines

2005-03-31T20:48:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in a while, as I've been watching the events of the past few weeks from the sidelines. I have my opinions about these events but I think this article sums them up nicely.
I'll post my own in the next day or two.

Terri Schiavo and Political Principle: Republican Errors and Their Consequences
By Ross G. Kaminsky 3/28/05 web: http://blog.rossputin.com e-mail:
rossputin@rossputin.com

Yes, Virginia, there are principles in politics. It’s just that the politicians are ignoring them.
When considering a government action, Americans look at more than just its direct effect. We care about the principles involved such as federalism and constitutionality, as well as the potential impact of the precedent created. This is true of the average
citizen at least as much as of the political elites and usually of conservatives at least as much as of liberals.
In the sad case of Terri Schiavo, the Republicans in Congress have forgotten this to the detriment of our political system and, I expect, their own political fortunes. I say this as someone who has been a registered Republican for most of my adult life.
Republicans have traditionally been champions of federalism, often called States ights, the principle that unless a power is specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution it is reserved to the States or the People. Congress may not simply regulate anything it wants to. This concept is part of the political
bedrock of our Republic, recognizing our differences and serving to prevent a
"tyranny of the majority" as cautioned by James Madison in Federalist Papers
#10.

In this case, Republicans in Washington have mounted a hypocritical and
dangerous assault on federalism, involving Congress and the President in an area
where they have no Constitutional authority. Some acted believing that their
religious views trump the 10th Amendment and others hoping (including putting in
writing) that the issue can be used for political advantage. The Republicans are wrong on both counts. Our Constitution forbids Federal intervention where
not specifically permitted and our government is intentionally designed to
prevent the imposition of one group’s moral convictions upon society even if
that group is the majority. Any other structure is the short road to tyranny.
They are wrong on the political effect as well: Polls show that the vast
majority of Americans including Republicans oppose Federal involvement in the
issue and find Congress’ actions to be transparently political.
As far as "mobilizing the base" goes, even the religious right wonders where the line will be moved once drawn in D.C. What aspect of one’s personal or spiritual life will
Uncle Sam try to dictate next? It was foolish of Tom DeLay and friends to think
that Christian conservative citizens would abandon their political principles as
easily as their representatives did.
Another bedrock principle of our Republic is separation of powers, an often ignored aspect of which is that branches of government are progressively more shielded from the changing whims of the public. The degree to which a politician or judge’s view on an issue is likely to be swayed by public opinion is proportionate to how soon he or she must next stand for election. Thus, members of the House (elected every two
years) shift with the political winds, while judges -- especially Federal Appellate Judges and Supreme Court Justices who serve for life-- should be nearly immune to such pressures. Judges serve as a critical barrier between the short-term passions of the people and the long-term rule of law.
Conservatives have properly been champions of strict constructionism (i.e. a
reading of the Constitution which does not change substantially over time or
based on current public opinion) and opponents of judicial activism. In other
words, judges should interpret the law, not make it. Yet in the Schiavo case
Republicans in Congress decry the proper function of the judiciary because they
do not agree with this particular outcome. Did they not notice that the key
trial judge (George Greer) and a key appellate judge (William Pryor Jr.) were
Republicans? Indeed, Pryor was appointed while the Senate was in recess to avoid
Democratic filibuster. If any judges would have sided with a plausibly
permissible Federal intervention they would have but the rule of law did not
allow it.

Basing a decision on likely result without consulting principle had been primarily the province of the Democrats. It was quite a gift for them when the Republicans decided to maroon themselves on that same principle-free island. The Republicans forgot that bad policy is bad politics. This attack on an independent judiciary is both more hypocritical and more dangerous than the attack on federalism. It is wrong for the same reasons that the attack on federalism is wrong, but it is especially stupid politically going into a well-publicized Senate battle over Bush’s judicial nominees.

Republicans have left themselves vulnerable to an easily justified charge that they oppose judicial activism except where it yields a result they approve of. Republicans
have given up the moral high ground by arguing that the end justifies the means,
something inimical to the rule of law. This is not to say that the Democrats now
have the high ground on the issue; all parties are now in the swamp. The Democrats are wrong on the issue, but at least they’re not hypocrites. Congress passed a law addressing Terri Schiavo specifically. Some conservatives argue that the judiciary then failed in its duty by ignoring the clear intent of the legislature. But this argument simply highlights contempt for the Constitution. If Congress can write a law for any special case at any time and demand a judge support the law simply because Congress wishes it so, the independence of the judiciary is eliminated. It becomes a rubber stamp for the legislature and, as the Founders warned, one of the greatest dangers to the foundation of our civil society.
Clearly it’s not just the principle Congress was wrong about. It is astounding that a organization as shrewd as the Republican Party also made such a major political miscalculation. They became hypocrites only to find themselves staring at polls showing over 80% of the population (including over 70% of Republicans) opposing Federal involvement and similar numbers believing that involvement came from calculating political advantage rather than caring about Terri Schiavo. In important recent elections, including Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. Kerry, and Thune vs. Daschle the Republicans have won in large measure because they are perceived to be the party of principle. Even those who do not agree with a party’s every position are likely to vote for a candidate who operates with principle-based predictability. Republican principles based on strict constructionism include strong support for federalism, an independent Constitution-respecting judiciary, and the consistent rule of law. Just not this month.
Congressional Republicans’ recent actions might end up as political non-events. More likely they will hurt the party in upcoming judicial nominee battles and other important debates, with possible but limited carryover into the mid-term elections. Although I will consider it a sad day when the Democrats again control the House or Senate, it would not break my heart for the Republicans to learn the importance of respecting the Constitution even if it means their losing a seat or two.
Most of the country sees the hypocrisy in the Congress’ actions regarding Terri Schiavo. We recognize the serious threat those actions imply to our system of government. Why is it that the Republicans in Washington are the last to understand?

Ross Kaminsky is a Fellow of The Heartland Institute and has a degree in Political Science from Columbia University.

I agree 100%

2005-03-17T19:57:00.000-05:00

Here's something I got from today's Chuck Muth's News & Views and I agree 100% with the author's statement:

BURY SOCIAL SECURITY

"Put me clearly on the record: I don't want to 'reform' Social
Security or 'rescue' it or 'adjust it to the new realities of the 21st century.'
No, I want to hit it in the head with a shovel and bury it in a New Jersey
landfill. It is time to kill the rotten, lousy, 'rip off your kids to keep
granny in bingo cards' Ponzi scheme that we call Social Security, but would be
more accurately described as 'the government taking money from poor,
hard-working young families and giving just enough of it to retirees to keep
them broke, too.' I, along with nearly every American younger than 40,
understand what no politician will admit: From an economic standpoint, Social
Security sucks."
- Columnist Michael Graham

Now all we need to do is convince Congress that this is the right thing to do now before it becomes a problem. Now, how can we shut down the AARP without much of a fight?

Where do you stand?

2005-03-13T10:55:00.000-05:00

I just got this from my daily newletter from Chuck Muth and I thought I'd pass it along. I like his message. Read the "exceptions" and see where you stand on them, it might be interesting.

"FORGET THE NEO-CONS, BEWARE THE EX-CONS"

So I'm listening to talk radio recently during the hellish commute to our nation's capital, and I hear caller after caller start out by saying, "I'm a conservative, except..." The issue was over a proposed new government-mandated smoking ban in bars and restaurants. And the callers - so-called "conservatives" - were all for it.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying smoking is good. And I'm not saying smoking isn't offensive to a lot of people, especially while dining. What I AM saying is that the proper, consistent conservative position is that the decision whether or not to allow smoking in a privately-owned bar or restaurant should be up to the OWNER of the bar or restaurant - not the government.

If the bar or restaurant allows smoking - and you don't like smoking - don't go there! There is no "right" for you to eat in someone else's kitchen. I'm not saying conservatives need to defend smoking. I'm saying true conservatives need to defend individual liberty; to defend the private property owner's rights over government power and coercion. If government can tell a business owner how to run his business, how long before that same government begins mandating healthy meals in your own home - for the good of the children, of course?

I've found over recent years that more and more so-called conservatives find "exceptions" to their limited-government principles on a host of issues. I've started calling them "ex-cons" - exception conservatives - and they are far more dangerous to the limited-government movement than the so-called "neo-cons." See if you haven't run across an "ex-con" in your political travels recently...

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to tobacco. Government shouldn't raise taxes, except on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. That's OK."

* "I'm a conservative...except for delivering the mail. The government should continue to ban private companies from competing with the post office."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to advertising by drug companies. The government should force them to cut back on their advertising so that their products would be cheaper."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to McDonalds and Burger King. The government should stop them from advertising during kids' shows."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to snack machines in high schools. Those machines should be banned to protect the children."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to Howard Stern. The government should ban him from the airwaves...even on satellite radio."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to Budweiser and Coors commercials during college football and basketball games. The government should ban those ads."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to Microsoft. The government was right to prosecute them for being so much better at selling their products than their competitors. Bill Gates was being fair."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to terminally ill patients using marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. The government should prohibit pot smoking in the privacy of your own home no matter what the circumstances."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to home-schoolers. Those people should have to report to the government."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to driving safety. The government is absolutely right to require people to wear motorcycle helmets and seat belts."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to wages. The government should determine the minimum wage a private employer has to pay to his or her employees."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to air travel. The government has every right to randomly search people and their luggage without probably cause. It's for our own good."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to health care. Health care is a "right" and the government should make sure everyone gets it. For free."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to retirement. The government should provide everyone with a comfortable retirement."

* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to gun rights. It's OK for the government to require that people get gun licenses and ban the sale of guns at gun shows. Otherwise, a 'bad' guy might get one."

And on and on and on. One "except" after another. THIS is the biggest problem with the conservative movement today. If so-called conservative voters are willing to constantly make exceptions to their own philosophical beliefs, is it any wonder that pandering politicians are so schizophrenic in their voting? If we, as true conservative voters and activists can't or won't be consistent in our positions, how can we expect our elected representatives to be any better?

We have met the enemy, and it's us. Conservatives, heal thyselves.

Byrd needs to fly away

2005-03-03T13:10:00.000-05:00

It looks like Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has developed a serious appetite for shoe leather again due to his latest round of pontification on the Senate floor: GOP Jewish Group Critizes Byrd's Remarks. Once again, he's spoken completely out of turn and misused historical facts to make baseless and offensive comparisons for the sole purpose of attacking the GOP. And now that he's being called to task over his latest kerfuffle, his handlers are trying to downplay his remarks, saying they were taken completely out of context and misinterpreted by the press and the GOP.

Misinterpreted? The only thing I think was misinterpreted was the unmitigated hatred that this man seems to harbor in his heart toward President Bush and the current GOP control of Congress. This was a comparison made by a former member of the KKK, definitly not the epitome of tolerance and compromise that's needed on the Senate floor. Lesser statements led to the fall of Sen. Trent Lott from grace two years ago, but yet Sen. Byrd has yet to be censured for this, let alone stripped of his committees and sent packing. Why do we continue to tolerate this kind of behavior in the Senate, and why do the people of West Virginia continue to elect him? It must be the money because it sure isn't for the intelligence factor.

Sen. Byrd is up for relection next year for what will be his NINTH term; if he were to serve it out, he'll have been in the Senate for 54 years. He's already been there 40, and that's way too long. There needs to be a serious campaign in West Virginia next year to replace Sen. Byrd with someone who's more in touch with today's electorate and less obstructionist in his actions. We already did it to Daschle in South Dakota last year, so we can do it again next year.

Here comes the S.S. Peanut Butter

2005-02-18T18:49:00.001-05:00

The Navy is going to christen the newest Seawolf class submarine, U.S.S. Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), this Saturday, according to this Navy Newsstand article.

According to sources, the sub will run on peanut oil and can only fill up on odd or even days, in accordance with the former president's energy policy. Also, sailors will be encouraged to turn down thermostats and wear sweaters while on board. If engaged by the enemy, the sub will wallow and drift erratically, deferring to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan to clean up the situation. An accompanying ship, the U.S.S. Walter Mondale, will drift behind the Carter, later challenging the Reagan before drifting away into obscurity and irrelevance.

HT to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for the inspiration for this post.

Private accounts risky? Not for some.

2005-02-16T11:10:00.000-05:00

Here's a great article from today's Opinion Journal about who's opposed to Social Security reform: Socialism's Last Redoubt. What's funny is that they have their investments in the exact same accounts that we'd be able to place our 4% in and have it grow. So apparently these accounts are too risky for most but not for the power players in D.C. and their employees.

I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander in their opinion, the gander being the taxpayers that continue to elect these fine folks into office and pay taxes to fund their pork projects. The 2006 cycle is only 1-1/2 years away, and some of these same people might find themselves unemployed if they don't start being more responsive to the needs and desires of their constituencies.

When gas taxes aren't enough...

2005-02-15T22:02:00.000-05:00

Well, just when you thought that the government couldn't be fickle enough, here comes the latest way to gouge the public for a basic service. In a CBS News story from yesterday, apparently the influx of hybrid and clean-fuel vehicles is having an unforeseen effect: gas tax collections are down since these vehicles use less or no gasoline. Since the states' coffers are beginning to feel the effect of this, several states are now toying with the idea of making motorists pay by the mile to use the roads & highways. And not just the hybrids & clean-fuel cars, but ALL vehicles would be subject to this new tolling/taxation system. Talk about a double edged sword, this is it.

We all pay taxes at the pump when we fill our tanks, and these taxes are supposed to go directly into road budgets for maintenance and construction. When states build a toll road, it is understood that drivers have the option to pay the toll or find another route that is free of charge; thus the toll is a voluntary fee paid for a convenience, much like an ATM fee. However, under this new scheme to drain our wallets, you won't have a choice; you'll be forced to pay a toll on any road that you travel in what amounts to one of the largest double-taxation schemes ever devised. And of course, you and I won't have a say in the matter since our elected representatives seem to lose sight of the pesky fact that they are supposed to represent our interests, and one of those is LOWER TAXES.

Folks, if the states are truly having problems building roads & maintaining them, we need to tell our legislators to stop useless spending, trim pork projects and put the tax money back into the transportation budgets. Also, they need to stand up to the D.C. bunch and stop sending their tax money to Washington so that Congress can dole it out as they see fit and force the states to "tow the line" on various demands that D.C. makes, many of which are ridiculous at best and borderline unconstitutional at worse. Either way, this sounds like another attempt to force us out of our cars and into mass transit, but that's another column for another day.

Week in review Feb. 13 2005

2005-02-13T12:42:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s been a busy week out there, so it’s time for a “week in review” type of post since I’ve been derelict in my blogging duties. I apologize in advance for the post length, and here we go. Read on!

First on the list, CU professor Ward “Maybe I’m an Indian, maybe not” Churchill and his antics from the past several weeks. In my opinion, this man is an abomination and a disgrace to not only the academic community, but to the American Indian cause and humanity in general. Because of his writings on the 9/11 attacks (comparing WTC workers to Nazi collaborators, saying the US caused the attacks, etc.), he has exposed himself as nothing more than an America-hating liberal socialist who would like nothing more than to see our government and society destroyed and replaced by a socialist utopia subservient to the likes of the United Nations.

What’s truly scary about him is that he’s a college professor, in the position to educate our youth and mold them into the leaders of tomorrow. Instead of using his position to expand his student’s knowledge of the world, he instead uses his position to indoctrinate them with his perverse worldview and anti-American propaganda. What’s worse, the school where he teaches (CU Boulder, long known as a liberal hippie refuge) won’t remove him from his position based on a First Amendment argument, even after repeated calls from Gov. Owens, state and national officials and the citizens of Colorado. Prof. Churchill, in a statement last week, said that he doesn’t work for the taxpayers (or the government) but instead for the Board of Regents and the university and because of this he can basically teach and say anything he wants. Funny, I remember that the Board of Regents is a PUBLICLY elected body, elected by those very same taxpayers whose taxes help support CU Boulder and who can vote them all out of office and replace them with regents who are more responsive to the voter’s wishes. Sadly, Prof. Churchill and the CU Boulder administration seem to have forgotten this. They would be best served to remember this pesky little fact, get their act together and remove this “man” from his position before Gov. Owens and the state legislature take more punitive and permanent action, such as freezing or yanking funding from the university.

Sadly, as a member of the U.S. military, I’ve taken an oath to defend the Constitution, which includes the right of this “man” to spew whatever bilge he sees fit to bless the world with. This actually provides me with a nice segue into my next topic, Eason Jordan and the Magic Mythical News Story.

Eason Jordan was, until Friday afternoon, was CNN’s Chief News Executive. In that position he was directly responsible for the quality and factual integrity of the stories that are reported on CNN and its networks. However, as is the case with most of the MSM, he confused factual integrity and truth with personal opinion and bias, and this led to his demise. As has been reported all across the blogosphere and finally picked up (and given little exposure) by the MSM, Mr. Jordan stated that several journalists in Iraq had been intentionally targeted and killed by coalition forces as a matter of fact. However, the blogosphere grabbed on to this statement and, much like what happened with the CBS “Rathergate” memo, quickly exposed the statement for what it was, a statement of personal bias and an glaring example of just how far the MSM has strayed from “just the facts” reporting. According to a My Way News article on Friday evening, Mr. Jordan resigned after a website demanded a transcript of his remarks and his termination based on this transcript. Even though no transcript was found or provided, Mr. Jordan resigned in order to “…prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished…” by his remarks.

Mr. Jordan, CNN’s (and the MSM as a whole) reputation has been tarnished not by this one action, but by their actions over the past 30 years, culminating with the CBS antics during the 2004 election. The MSM has evolved into a medium more concerned with pushing a liberal agenda on the American public than with factual reporting and analysis of the events of the day. They don’t even accept the blogosphere as an influential part of the news/information gathering and reporting system, even with current evidence to the contrary. Even as I write this, I’m watching the McLaughlin Group and listening to Eleanor Clift, the Newsweek managing editor, state as fact that Iran has a democratically elected government that’s in charge of running that nation. I’m not sure which Iran she’s thinking of, but I don’t think it’s the one we’re dealing with right now, especially since the Iranian mullah run Iran and the legislature is a rubber-stamp body at best. This just further illustrates how out of touch the MSM is with the world today and how they are quickly descending into a position of irrelevance in the information industry. Mr. Jordan’s resignation just shows how scared the MSM is of the blogosphere, even if they won’t admit or accept it existence. MSM, we’re here to stay and you’d better get used to us sharing the spotlight.

Thirdly, let’s touch on the Social Security issue. My take on it: scrap the current system for people 40 and under, allow the private accounts for people 50 and over, and maintain the current system for current retirees. Folks, I WANT MY MONEY BACK so I can invest it for my own future instead of sending it to the “stewards” in Washington, D.C. (long known for their prowess in money handling) and allowing them to squander it on pet projects and dolling it back to me in increments that equal pennies on the dollars I’ve dumped into the system. If we could do this, everyone 40 and younger would get a 12.4% pay raise and would be able to invest how we choose. Imagine the power you could have over your future in this scenario; also, imagine the burden that would be lifted from your employer and small business by being allowed to pay you the money instead of siphoning it off and giving it to the government.

However, that option isn’t on the table. But President Bush’s plan is a good step in the right direction. Even FDR, creator of the Social Security system, said that by 1965 we’d have to create personal accounts in order to maintain and fund the system. We’re only 40 years late on that objective, so let’s get started. On Dave Ramsey’s website is a calculator that computes the amount you’d have if you were able to invest the 4% on the table into the market; depending upon your age, the results are amazing, and these don’t take into account future pay raises and independent retirement plans you might make, plus the fact that the Social Security net will still be there, albeit reduced by the amount you invested in the “personal account”. Plus you can opt completely out of the system; and if you’re over 55, you’re ineligible and will receive your benefits under the current guidelines. Folks, its time to take our retirement and future into our own hands and away from the bureaucrats in D.C., so run the numbers and see if that changes your opinion on the subject.

Finally, a couple of lighter items from the week:

First, I saw a something in Chuck Muth’s daily newsletter discussing an idea to repeal the 17th Amendment. For those who don’t know, the 17th Amendment changed the way U.S. senators are elected from state government appointment to popular election. I was intrigued by the idea because the framers intended the House to be the representatives of the people and the Senate to be the states’ representatives in D.C. This issue divides my opinion because while I’m a big advocate of states rights and devolution of power form D.C. back to the state level, I know that we couldn’t have achieved the GOP revolution without the 17th amendment. This is something that I’ll have to research and ponder in the days and weeks to come.
Second, it looks like the Delegates in Virginia are finally going to do what the voters asked and follow through with the promise to eliminate the car tax, especially in the face of a $1.4 billion budget surplus and after a $1.6 billion tax hike last year that was approved with the help of Senate Republicans. Yet even talk of doing this has panicked both Gov. Warren (D) and the Republican (RINO) dominated Senate, saying that this is financially irresponsible and will derail the state’s economy. That’s like saying that you can’t live without credit cards. Since moving to VA from CO, I’ve learned that this state loves to
tax people to death for everything and without the approval of the citizens. Research the “flush tax” on Google and you’ll see what I mean. Once again I’ll make my call for a TABOR-style amendment to the state constitution to place the purse strings back in the hands of the taxpayers in order to get a handle on the rampant mismanagement of money that we experience here in the “Commonwealth”.
Finally, more state nannyism in the form of useless legislative ideas. Sponsored legislation in Richmond that would have fined people $50 for having exposed underwear or low-riding pants was defeated this week, and rightly so. Unfortunately, so was legislation that would have repealed the motorcycle helmet law. Both of these are examples of the state having too much say and control over our individual lives and attempting to legislate away stupidity. While I personally don’t like the “droopy drawers” fashion statement, I don’t agree with the state getting involved in an area which should be governed by personal common sense and societal awareness. The same holds true for helmet and seat belt laws; while they do save lives, the state shouldn’t mandate their use to help minimize costs for
the insurance and medical industries. People should be taught to rely more on common sense, personal responsibility and learning from their actions instead of being coddled by the state.

Well, that’s my wrap up for the week, complete with my views on the issues. Feel free to comment on anything written here.

SOTUS: The Agenda

2005-02-02T22:03:00.000-05:00

Well, SOTUS is history, but the President's agenda is clear: reform Social Security, promote moral values and continue the GWOT. Here are the highlights and my thoughts on them:

Social Security Reform: This is the big one, as was evidenced by the partisan reaction from both sides of the aisle. He listed a number of points, the main ones being:

Age 55 and older: no changes to the current system.
Under ange 55: allow for private accounts, stating at 2% of each person's FICA tax and slowly rising to 4%. This money would be insured, placed in "safe" conservative accounts and couldn't be touched by the government. This would be similar to systems susch as the Thrift Savings Plan and COPERA.

This is a great compromise, and one that will gather support and momentum on both sides of the aisle. He'll run into stiff resistance from groups such as the AARP and other eldery groups, as well as hardline Democrats who don't want any change and beleive that the system still works. Folks, welfare doesn't work to promote self-reliance. Social Security was designed as an insurance program, not a permanent benefot system for all. I'd either like to see the system scrapped or the benefits age raised to 79; one would give me back my money and the other would at least place the original risk back into the system. Either would be better than what we have now, and would help elminate the elderly welfare system we have now.

Values: This was an interesting section, and one which I'll divide & conquer:

Marriage amendment: I don't agree with this at all. I don't like tinkering with the Constitution at all, least of all for something that should be handled at the state level. If the states want to pass these amendments, then so be it. But the federal government shouldn't be involved in this area at all.
The "Culture of Life": talk about a sound bite phrase, this is it. He's catering to the ultra conservative right, allowing politics to dictate scientific research. While I don't agree with raising embryos for stem cells and body parts, I don't think that the government should be obstructing the progress of scientific & medica research. Also, I'm not a big fan of federally financed "faith based initiative programs". His plan to create a national anti-gang program targeting inner-city youth, while noble, is something best left to the cities & states that are experiencing problems and can create solutions tailored to their own situations.

GWOT: another sound bite moment, "Freedom from fear". The President outlined broad goals for continuing the war on terror, including naming specific states to be targeted in the next round: Syria/Lebanon and Iran, both for terrorism and Iran for nuclear development. By listing these nations, he has placed them and the whole world on notice that if you don't ferret out terrorism and allow the seeds of democracy to be sown, we'll be there to ensure that you tow the line. Well, that's the type of aggressive foreign policy that we need at this time in history. By taking the fight to the terrorists and thier lands, he's ensuring that the fight will remain where it belongs and we won't be fighting the GWOT in the streets of our cities. And by seeding democratic change in Iraq, we now have a base of operations in the Middle East to encourage reform in that area.

All in all, it was a great speech with targeted agenda items that he means to accomplish during the next four years. And judging by the applause tonight, he'll have the support of the House and the majority of the Senate. This wil be an intersting and amazing four years for us all.

While I've been writing this, the Democrats have given their response, and it was nothing short of a yawn. They rehashed the same tired points that they've been hyping for the past four years, and its beginning to sound like a broken record. While they've accused the president of not having a clear agenda (he has), they came across again with the same claims of the grand plan of maintaing the status quo and keeping their heads in the sand to the issues we're facing. Fox News even interviewed freshman senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) and he already has the "duck and evade" dance down pat when faced with direct questions about Social Security and the speech tonight. He's a quick learner; hopefully he'll learn the facts and make some sound and correct decisions.

VA Dems have it wrong again

2005-02-02T20:49:00.000-05:00

Once again, the Dems in Richmond, including our "wonderful" governor, have it all wrong again regarding taxes and the wishes of the people. Now that the state is running a $1 billion surplus after ramrodding a $1.4 billion tax increase through the General Assembly last year, Republican legislators are now calling for the final phases of the car tax abolition to happen. However the Dems, who never met a tax they didn't love, are screaming that this is election year posturing and that it will lead the state to fiscal ruin. Instead, we need to keep the money to spend on Medicaid, road projects, and cleaning up the Chesapeake.

Foul, foul I call. In my opinion, its the Dems who are out of touch and are leading the state to financial ruin. The voters spoke eith years ago when they elected Gov. Gilmore (R) on the platform that he would get the loathed car tax repealed. He succeeded on doing this, and current Gov. Warner (D) campaigned on continuing this promise. However, he reneged on this when the state hit fiancial dificulty (read: spending more than it takes in, a common problem of government) and froze it at 70%. Since he can't stand for re-election, he doesn't care what the voters think of his plan. Because of this, a tax that is despised by all in Virginia is still in place three years after it was to be phased out completely and has now become an election year issue.

Instead of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers and their cars (an extremely regressive way of raising funds), let's try doing things like cutting programs and re-examing priorities. Road construction is an necessity; cleaning the Chesapeake is not, especially since the bay is the cleanest its been in 50 years. Cutting taxes and ensuring the citizenry has more money in thier pockets is a priority; extending Medicaid to all who want it is not and is actually unsound fiscal policy.

Coming from Colorado, we had a safeguard against tax-loving politicians called TABOR. It works well; so well, in fact, that the current legislature is looking for ways to alter or repeal it so that they can keep more money from the citizens there and grow the government to obscene proportions, much against the will of the population. We need an amendment like that here in VA so that we the people can once again have a say in the taxation process in our state and reign in our tax-and-spend legislators in both parties.

So my advice to the folks inRichmond: repeal the car tax, re-examine your budget priorities and balance the budget through well-planned cuts and program elimination. That or find out what the people really think when you're all up for election this November.

Tonight's SOTUS night!

2005-02-02T20:42:00.000-05:00

Well, the State of the Union (SOTUS) address is tonight, and while the main talking points have been releasd to the media and the Dems have tried their best to debunk and rebuke the speech, it is still an event to watch. This should be a great speech, outlining the President's agenda for the next four years and how he and Congress will accomplish it. OF course, it will be a somewhat partisan event, and the Dems I'm sure will try to make it even more so. After all, Pres. Bush and Congress are attacking the sacred cow of the Dems, Social Security reform, and the Dems are scared that he'll be successful in changing it. Being a "hands off my money" guy and knowing how astute the government is in handling my money, I'd love to hear him say that he be scrapping the program entirely for people 40 and under, but I know that won't happen tonight. I'll hold further opinions until after the speech and I have time to digest what Pres. Bush says and the Democrat response.

Let's get ready to rumble!

PC police are at it again

2005-02-02T13:38:00.000-05:00

This just in from today's "Chuck Muth's News & Views":

CRAZY BEARS

“The sensitivity police in Vermont have nothing better to do this winter than examine teddy bears for possible offenses against the emotionally thin-skinned. And so the Vermont Human Rights Commission has officially urged the Vermont Teddy Bear company to stop selling its ‘Crazy for You’ bear. The reason? The bear, which comes wrapped in a straight jacket with a little heart on it, might offend the mentally ill. . . .
“This letter was sent the day after the New Hampshire House voted against putting ‘Live free or die’ on the state flag because the state motto is allegedly ‘political’ and might offend some people. Next thing you know, Killington, Vt. and Greenland, N.H. will have to change their names. Pacifists and the colorblind might take offense.” - The Manchester Union-Leader, 2/2/05

What's next, going after the Bic Mac fearing that it might offend large men nicknamed "Mac"? Get real.

Barking up the wrong tree

2005-01-30T15:10:00.000-05:00

Someone anonymously posted this on Jan. 26th in the "comments" section of my blog:

It just continuously amazes (and disturbs) me how you silly liberals cannot seem to fathom what is at stake in our country, what we need to learn from history, and your contempt for the truth. Are you all asleep?

It occured to me that one of two things happened here:

I'm being taunted by my friends for not posting as often as I should. If this is true, then I apologize and will be posting about some national and Virginia related issues later today.
I'm being taunted by someone who hasn't read my blog or understand anything about me, my opinions and perspectives, or is even man enough to reveal any identity. For him, here's a brief primer about me:

I am a conservative and member of the Republican Party. While I don't agree with every ideological detail championed by the GOP, I identify with enough of the platform and have allied myself with the GOP
I am a fiscal conservative. What this means, for the simple minded, is that I believe that when I go to work, I have the right to the money I've earned. I don't want someone else's money that I haven't earned just because I'm not earning enough myself. I'f I'm not earning enough to support me and Mrs. Reporter, then I need to leave the cave, kill something else and drag it home for us. I believe that taxes are too high and that most politicians have never met a tax that they didn't like. I believe that this country exists for the benefit of the people and that each person has the means to succeed in their own right; they don't need to government to help them. I don't belive in Social Security, Medicaid, welfare and other programs designed to "help" but actually encourage dependence on the government for all things financial. My lack of fiscal planning for my future or medical needs doesn't constitute an emergency for the rest of society, and I don't expect others to be forced to care for me by the government.
I am a social moderate. This means that I believe in the rights of our citizens as endowed by our creator and by the Constitution of the U.S. and the constitutions of the 50 states. I walk a very fine line in the GOP as I'm viewed by some as being liberal on social issues and by otheres as a representative of the majority of America.
I believe in smaller government. Note I didn't say "zero government"; I'm not an anarchist. Our founding fathers created an system unique in all the world, a system of government based on laws, religious influences, not on divine right, belief in the goodness of humanity and the orderly transistion of power. And for over 200 years, it has worked as designed. What the FF's didn't design was a strong central govenment that had the ability to ride roughshod over the states and the governed; unfortunately, this is what has happened over the past 70 years, starting with FDR's New Deal and culminating in the current "No Child Left Behind Act" and Medicaid reform, all three of which are tantamount to socialism in my opinion. These and other programs have allowed the federal government to grow larger than needed and exert an undue amount of influence over the lives of the governed.
I believe in states rights. This is a continuation of the previous idea, and one that bears great attention. The FF's specifically declared what powers were to be granted to the Federal government: trade, national protection, diplomacy, war/defense, currency. All other powers not listed or implied were to be left to the states. I think that this says everything we need to know about how our system is supposed to function: The Feds deal with external matters and the states manage themselves with different constitutions and different laws, even though many are similar in nature. However, the Feds have eaten away at these rights and become a bully to the states, forcing them to tow the D.C. line on everything from abortion to highway construction funds. I believe that we need to act to reverse that trend and return power to the states as envisioned and planned by the FF's.
I believe in self-reliance. The FF's worked hard and sacrificed much in order to create our country, often at the risk of their lives and, later on, the future of the country as well. They didn't create a welfare state; unfortunately, that's what our nation as become for a significant portion of our citizenry. I don't belive in welfare; instead, I think that if you need money, you should leave the cave, kill something and drag it home to feed your famliy. I'm not against charity or helping others when needed. I'm against living off the government dole and others hard work for so long that you believe that its an entitlement and a right.
I believe in our sovereignty and our right to protect ourselves. I frankly don't care what the U.N., France, the E.U., China, Sudan or any other nation has to say about our foreign policy. We have a right to protect ourselves when attacked and to take that fight to the home of the attackers rather than to fight the fight in our own homeland. If other nations don't like that, well tough then, I guess you don't want our help, foreign aid or protection when you're attacked.

Well, I could go on, but I think that everyone gets the idea about where I stand on various general issues. Additionally, this is a partisan blog and I don't have any qualms about saying that. My opinion rules here and while I welcome contirubutions and worthy debate, I won't debate frivolous issues other than in this one post.

The war continues

2005-01-14T15:17:00.000-05:00

Here's a great commentary/analysis piece from February issue of Commentary authored by Norman Poderetz (HT to Hugh): "The War Against World War IV". It's a great reminder that we are in a war that is a long way from being over, even as the general public is beginning to shift their view away from Iraq and back to domestic issues.

Spend lots of money on Jan. 20th!

2005-01-13T15:06:00.000-05:00

My wife sent me this today, another fine example of a useless way to try and make a point. Fortunately for us, 53% of the country won't do this and the economic wheels won't stop turning in the near future! Me, I'm going to leave my truck running all day so I can buy some extra gas and help warm the planet a little! Enjoy.

Jan 20, 2005 - Inauguration Day
>Help Make a Difference...
>Please mark your calendars now...
>>Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One>Damn Dime Day" in America.
>>On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.
>>During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damndime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulsepurchases. Not one damn dime for nothing for 24 hours.
>>On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Walmart, Kmart, Target...
>>Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Pleasedon't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).
>>For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.
>>The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraqis immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.
>>"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the internationalcorporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporationsand funnel cash into American politics.
>>"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way.
>>Now over 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan - a way to come home.
>>There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No petitions to sign. No leftor right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action byd doing nothng.
>>You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.
>>For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Corrections...oops!

2005-01-11T21:07:00.000-05:00

Fellow readers, I need to make some corrections to my most recent posting. First, I named Rep. Nancy Pelosi as spearheading the vote in the Congress last Tuesday; in fact, it was Sen. Barbara Boxer who contested the Ohio electoral votes. Second, I stated that the Washington state governors race had been settled by both parties. In fact, that race is still being disputed, with the Republican candidate filing suit and petition to call for a new election due to allegations of voter fraud in Democratic-controlled King County. I apologize to my readers for these inaccuracies.

It's not close, and they're still trying to cheat

2005-01-06T20:57:00.000-05:00

First, apologies to Hugh for paraphrasing his book title, but I couldn't think of anything that could better describe today's actions by the Democrats. Today was the day that the electoral votes were certified by a joint session of Congress, officially re-electing President Bush and V.P. Cheney to their second term in office. However, a group of Democrats, lead by none other than Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), filed a federal lawsuit in Ohio to force a re-count of the votes there, claiming that the Republicans conspired to disenfranchise thousands of voters to swing Ohio into the GOP column. Thankfully, the case was presented to a judge who believes that the Constitution is more than just a scrap of paper and decided to "delay" the suit until after the inauguration, effectively killing the suit and telling the Democrats, "Bush won, Kerry lost, move on, get a life."

This has to be one of the biggest cases of denial on history. Think about it: Kerry conceded the day after the election, the MSM and networks all called the election for Bush, the Electors have voted, and the votes were certified tonight. And the result: Bush/Cheney won, Kerry/Edwards lost. Very simple, right? Wrong, at least to the Dems who are still sore about losing the 2000 election and have vowed to "never let that happen again". Even the Washington governors race has been technically settled, even though there is a movement to hold another election that's receiving widespread support. But this small but vocal group of ultra-left, Michael Moore worshiping Democrats just won't let go of their fantasy and accept the truth: President Bush and V.P. Cheney won the popular and electoral votes through a fair and legitimate election and will be inaugurated again on Jan. 20th.

Just imagine what kind of antics would be occurring if the Kerry/Edwards ticket had won and were being inaugurated? Most likely none at all since Pres. Bush would have conceded the race graciously, allowed for a smooth transition and been a good loser of the campaign. Not so for the Dems, who see the election as having been stolen from them a second time. They don't care that 53% of the voting electorate voted for Bush/Cheney; to them, the majority of the country is a bunch of backwards hicks and are thus below the self-imposed superiority of the New England/SoCal liberal elites. And its because of these delusions of grandeur and self-appointed elite status that these Dems are seen as out of the mainstream and thus unrelatable to the majority of Americans. The numbers don't lie, the facts are there, but yet these Dems don't want to believe the truth. All I can say is that I'm glad that President Bush won and that we have another four years of stable leadership in the White House.

P.S.: Hugh has a new book out on the phenomenon of the blogosphere and the media revolution its sparking. Check it out here. Also, check out Generalissimo Duane's site since he's running a contest for the funniest picture of where and with who Blog appears.

Happy New Year!

2005-01-02T13:31:00.000-05:00

Well, 2004 is history and 2005 has arrived. I hope everyone had a safe and happy time Friday night and Saturday, and for football fans, I hope your team brought you a final Christmas gift (I'm 50/50 for the bowls).

I also hope that everyone has taken time to spend a moment in prayer & remembrance for the victims of the tsunami in SW Asia and have donated to an aid-giving charity; if not, please take five minutes today to do both and start the new year off on a giving note.

Here are the last two articles from the Washington Times series that I have been posting: Second place not an option in U.S. sports and U.S. pop culture seen as plague

D.C. and Northern Virginia we're a wonderful place to be for the Christmas season. Now that we're settled, I can start focusing on local and statewide issues. The big item this year is our gubernatorial election, in which we'll be extremely dedicated to electing Attorney General Kilgore as our next governor and finally finishing the work of our previous governor, the highlight of which is the final and permanent repeal of the despised car tax that was interrupted by our current Democratic governor. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but I'm confident that we'll be successful in our endeavors.

Finally, I feel that this year will be another defining year for our nation and its leaders, and one for the better since the good guys won another four years in office. I'm basing this feeling on this morning's news shows during which the MSM has already started trying to attack the president for his domestic policy agenda and continues to bang their drum about Iraq and the upcoming elections there. They just won't accept the fact that the majority of the participatory electorate wanted President Bush to remain in office and didn't have the same feelings for Sen. Kerry. Once again, it shows that they are still the epitome of sore losers.

Today's Washington Times article

2004-12-29T09:16:00.000-05:00

Here's today's installment of the Times' five-part series on American cultureal influence throughout the world: World speaks our language and attends our colleges

This has been an interesting series so far, giving a balanced look at the good and bad points of American cutltural domination.

America's on top of the world

2004-12-28T09:43:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting article from yesterday's Washington Times: America enjoys view from the top. Its a nice synopsis of the U.S.'s position in the world and the influence we have over our modern global culture. It's also Part 1 of 5 in a series this week.

Here's Part 2: America becomes global marketplace

I'll post the remaining parts as they're published.

Christmas greetings

2004-12-24T13:27:00.000-05:00

Here's something I received from my dad and thought that I'd share it with all my readers. I apologize for not posting more frequently, but this has been a busy time of year with work, travel, moving and the the holidays. I will get back up to speed after the holidays are over and both the new Congress and President Bush's second term have begun. Until then, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Here's some of the reasons Bush got reelected and won mort popular votes than any other president ever has.

(Dave Kulow) We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane ---(yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates", and LBJ was a typical Texas :good ole' boy" womanizer.
N ixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.
The information below is accurate. Bush 41 and the current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of aircrews who fly them around. (When the president flies, there are several planes that also go - one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft) and both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so these Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.

(WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, AND WHAT IS)

WHAT WAS

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometime Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness, ignore her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her mom but did not like her.
Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all "loathed" her and wanted to be on a different detail. She was hard work because she was so nasty and mean toward her detail. Hillary Clinton was uniformly despised by the Secret Service as a whole.
Former President
Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife, Hillary. After the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attack antics that Hillary would use against her husband, the then President. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometime in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.
Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most people wondered why he tolerated it instead of divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and was true long before the Monica Lewinski scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience".
Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinski scandal which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have "Charisma", and occasionally would smile or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. They did respect him, unlike his wife, but they did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him. He was polite, but not kind.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her of associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing and very hateful, not just politically opposed, to Republicans than Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist". He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This bitter hatred was something that he and Hillary had very much in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them given liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities where Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had none in the view of the security details.
Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely inappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them in disgust as they finally observed and learned on one occasion when Al Gore got angry at his offspring and loudly, in their presence, pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?".

Word of this insulting and demeaning verbiage by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as despised and disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed that Al Gore would not be elected President and they really did have private small celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, be to celebrate Al Gore's defeat. He was much disliked. Al Gore was not a good and kind person. That he could have been our President may suggest that God was "answering prayers" and looking out for the country with Al Gore's defeat.

WHAT IS

Everybody in the Secret Service wants to be on
First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they uniformly concede that she is perhaps the most nice kind, and genially good person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary plenty refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers.

She doesn't just shake their hand and say "Thank you". Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Laura Bush is this kind of a person and her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air". They really love her as a human being.

They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North".

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas, detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serving them their meals. He eats with them, sits with them, and talks with them. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers, and he of course, knows each of them by their first names, and calls than by their first name as a show of affection.

They believe he actually loves his security detail and that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like love, or respect anyone more than President Bush, and most of them did not know they would feel this way until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. He has never changed in the time that he has been President. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Neal Bortz on Christmas

2004-12-07T20:28:00.000-05:00

I don't get to listen to Neal Boortz very often, but here's a sentiment that I agree 100% with:

“Frankly, I'm getting a little weary of this ‘Happy Holidays’ nonsense. Could be I need to calm down. Lately I've been just a wee bit terse with people who hit me with the ‘Happy Holidays’ line. It's Christmas, dammit! About 85% of the people in this country celebrate this time of the year as Christmas, and that's enough for me. If 43% of the voters could decide that Bill Clinton would be president for four years, I'm willing to accept the mandate from 85% of the people that this particular season of the year is Christmas.”

Merry Christmas to all my readers.

Thanksgiving weekend musings

2004-11-28T22:57:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it’s been a while since I’ve had a chance to write, and many things have happened aver the past several weeks which I’m just now getting around to writing about. Please bear with me while I recap the major highlights of the past several weeks.

First, the Arlen Specter debate. I’m glad that this is settled and he’s getting the position as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not that I agree with how he came across to the party and the general public with his “I got mine, but you might not get yours” attitude and comment. After all, it was President Bush and the junior senator from PA that helped get Sen. Specter reelected in a blue state and allow him to ascend to the chairmanship. The comments he made and the subsequent negotiations are the things that are best done behind closed doors so that when everyone comes out into the light of public view, all are walking the same walk and talking the same talk. HE does have a good track record of approving Republican nominees, so he is an appropriate choice for the position.

Second, the Target/Salvation Army debate. This has been making the rounds of the blogosphere with hardly a mention in the MSM. Apparently Target has finally begun to enforce its own corporate policy of not allowing solicitors on store property, regardless of charitable or profit status. However, since this involves a very public charity whose main money raising time is the Christmas season, many are up in arms about the issue and have made it clear that they’ll take their business elsewhere. To all those who feel that Target has committed a mortal sin: get over it. Target made a business decision to stop making an exception for the SA since they were getting deluged with other groups who wanted in on the deal with the “well, if you allow the SA there, then we should be allowed too!” argument. Let me call the waahh-mbulance for you so they can take you away and I can get inside the store to conduct my business. Contrary to popular belief, Target stores (and all other private retail establishments) are PRIVATE PROPERTY, which means that they can run their stores however they like, that the First Amendment doesn’t apply on their property, and that you have the right to shop elsewhere if you choose. If you have a real problem not dropping money into the kettle, then shop somewhere else or send in a check as your donation. But stop complaining to Target to bring them back; business decisions are made for a reason, and in this era of extremely eager trial lawyers, maybe limiting one avenue of liability is a good thing.

Third, the defeat of intelligence reform legislation. This has got to be the biggest boondoggle to emerge from Congress in recent history. Intelligence reform in the light of 9/11 and the GWOT has become one of the biggest political issues of the year, almost rivaling Social Security for the title of “third rail” issues. The bills that emerged from both houses were very similar; the big debate has come over the power that the intelligence chief has over the budget, personnel, and intel gathering/sharing issues. Neither side has the strength to come to the table with meaningful intelligence reform: a cabinet level position that actually could dictate policy and enforce it, with full hiring/firing authority and discretionary authority over the intelligence budget. The biggest opposition has come from the Pentagon of all places. It seems that the generals there don’t want to share their intel info with the other civilian agencies. The result: lots of overlapping efforts, wasted time and money, and bad intelligence information all the way around. The Pentagon, CIA and FBI are all still stuck in a “cold war” mode where the enemy is clearly defined and Mutually Assured Destruction could actually save the world. Because of this, the agencies are still very territorial and not willing to work harmoniously to defeat an enemy that has no country or solid target to destroy. This, my friends, has got to change and this needs to be done yesterday since the Cold War ended 12 years ago. President Bush and his cabinet understand this, hence the nomination and confirmation of Porter Goss to head the CIA. This has many in the Company scared, mainly the higher-ups who don’t have a clue about the new enemy, what intelligence is needed to fight them and how to defeat an enemy that is more specter than solid. My advice to Congress is: pass the legislation, get it on the books and send it to Pres. Bush. This way he’ll sign it and then it can be modified by the next session of Congress.

Finally, let me touch on Thanksgiving and what it means to me. This uniquely American holiday is like none other in the world. Most people have taken it to mean a four-day weekend when they visit family, eat profane amounts of food and then go into a food coma while watching football, then lumbering out of the house at an unholy hour to go stand in a cold line with many others waiting to storm a store like a band of Huns for Christmas “bargains” that really aren’t and will be marked down the next week anyhow. Not me. While I did consume my share of food at a friend’s house on Thanksgiving, I didn’t go shop myself silly on Friday or gain 30 pounds. Instead, I spent the time with some great friends and felt thankful for being a citizen of the greatest country on earth, not forgetting to give thanks and remembrance for our sailors & soldiers deployed around the world to defend democracy and defeat an enemy that abhors all we stand for. To me, that is what makes Thanksgiving special: the ability to have a day of bountiful food and to remember and be thankful for all that makes this country great and unique in all the world. TO quote Andy Rooney, “…we have more to be thankful for in this country than in any other.” Truer words were never spoken.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Sunday afternoon humor

2004-11-07T18:32:00.000-05:00

Found this out on the 'Net today, an update of an old favorite:

One sunny day in 2005, an old man approached the White House from
across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in
and meet with President Kerry."

The Marine replied, "Sir, Mr. Kerry is not President and doesn't
reside here."

The old man said, "Okay," And walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House, and said
to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Kerry."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Kerry is
not President and doesn't reside here."

The man thanked him and again walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to
the very same Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with
President Kerry."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking
to speak to Mr. Kerry. I've told you already that Mr. Kerry is not the
President and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"

The old man answered, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."

Sour Grapes from MIchael Moore

2004-11-05T21:02:00.000-05:00

Here's a little ditty that shows how Michael Moore really feels about the election:

Dear Friends,

Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election.

Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists:

1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again.

2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them.

4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don’t approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.)

5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.

6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water, all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in lava. And no more show tunes!

7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan.

8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.

9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now.

10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't.

11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up!

12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.

13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.

14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out -- and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.

15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.

16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!!!

17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.

Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country -- it doesn't even need a president!'"

But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write you again tomorrow.

Yours,

Michael Moore

Glory days are here, but are bittersweet for some

2004-11-03T19:12:00.000-05:00

Here we are on the day after the election, and what a beautiful day it is. We've achieved something that hasn't happened since the 1920's: over a decade of GOP control of the Congress and the Executive Branches. And the largest popular vote majority since 1988. What wonderful times we live in, and what a message it sends to Hollywood, the Northeast and the world in general:

that the U.S. is still a fairly conservative nation;
that we're not in favor of the agenda that you're trying to force down our throats;
that we're tired of the Hollywood elites and Michael Moore's claiming that they represent the mainstream views of the American people;
that we don't care what the U.N. and the global community think when it comes to the GWOT an the security of the U.S. and our interests;
that we'll go to any and all lengths to secure and protect those same interests;
that the Hollywood elites, northeastern and collegiate intellectuals and MSM have become ineffective at best and irrelevant at worst;
that we're going to stand up for our country and take it back by whatever means necessary and keep it heading down the right path.

The votes and states fell along the lines I thought they would, so there are few surprises there. This big surprises were in:

South Dakota, where Daschle was dumped for Thune. When those South Dakotans feel they've been wronged and ignored, they'll throw the baby out with the bathwater and elect new leadership that has their interests at heart.
Colorado, where the Dems swept to victory in both houses of the Lesgislature; CD 3 with John Salazar replacing the retiring Rep. Scott McGinnis; and Attorney General Ken Salazar beating Pete Coors for Sen. Campbell's seat. This means that Colorado will no longer be represented with unity in the Senate and a clear majority in the House. These changes can be attributed directly to poor management and electorate intelligence by the GOP leadership in Colorado. This signals to me that change is needed in order to get Colorado back on track in time for the 2006 election. These changes have also relegated Gov. Bill Owens to the role of a vetoer, as he'll be the only check against the bad legislation that will be coming out of the Legislature for the next two years. I can only hope that the Colorado leadership can get back on track quickly and work the right these terrible wrongs.

So now the election is over, the celebrations are ending, and now the real work begins for the next four years. Pres. Bush has the next 8 weeks to build relationships with the opposition for the upcoming Congressional session, and I think that he'll be able to do so quite handily given the overwhelming popular support show for him last night. We also have at least two years until the next election cycle, so we must ensure that the work we do is purposeful and productive at all levels in order to capitalize on the chance that the American people have given us. If not, we could be in for a rough ride in 2006.

As for me, I plan to keep this page going and continue with my own brand of analysis, insight and humor relating to the events of the political scene. My focus will now shift toward the state level, as Virginia elects a new governor next year. I'll also keep involved with the Colorado scene since they are a key state for the future and just a great place to follow politics. And of course, I'll be keeping an eye on the next Presidential cycle when the candidates start fleshing themselves out in mid- to late-2006.

For now, I'm going to relax and enjoy a wonderful holiday season with The Fetching Mrs. Morrison. I'll post sporadically throughout the holiday season and will return in full force in January.

Finally today, some post election humor from George Carlin, the "Bad American". Enjoy the message cloaked in laughter:

YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
by George Carlin

I Am Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD American. I am George Carlin.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid-level
governmental functionary, be it Democratic or Republican!

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not
entitle you to anything.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, try to do it in English.

I think fireworks should be legal on the 4th of July.

I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster. In fact, if your parents are footing the bill to put your pansy ass
through 4 years plus of college, you haven't begun to be enlightened.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time arguing about it.

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I didn't wander forty years in the
desert after getting chased out of Egypt. I haven't burned any witches or been
persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut the hell up already.

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson practices, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you're running from them.

I also think they have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you
deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.

If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.

We need our country back!

Actually, George, we just did get our country back! Glory days are here again!

Today's the day!!!

2004-11-02T10:14:00.000-05:00

Well, today's the big day for America, and it looks like people are taking this one seriously. Reports of long lines at the polls and voter fraud are already starting to pour in, and the polls have only just opened. This is going to be a long day, and we'll all be tuned in to hear the results later this evening. I'll be here and at a victory party later today to watch the results as they come in and post my thoughts once all is finished tonight.

Remember, get out and vote today, our future is counting on it.

Dems cheating again

2004-11-01T19:29:00.000-05:00

The DNC is at it again: Gen. Schwarzkopf demands Kerry stop fraudulent endorsement phone calls.

Actions like these call into question the integrity level of the campaign, its volunteers and the Democratic Party in general. This just shows that the Dems will stop at nothing to cheat their way to victory.

Tasteless Halloween Costumes

2004-11-01T14:21:00.000-05:00

Well, its the Monday before Election Day, and what a better way to start the week than with some tri-partisan political humor: Tasteless Halloween Costumes.

I hope you all enjoy this while I get my other posts ready today.

Kerry following marching orders from North Vietnam

2004-10-31T13:35:00.000-05:00

Articles haev surfaced over the past 48h hours that Sen. Kerry is following the playbook that instructed sympathizers here to run for office or help get other "progressive" candidates into office to influence U.S. policy. Links to the articles are here:

Kerry's October Surprise

Hanoi Urged U.S. Activists to Run for Office

John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets?

I've read the articles, and they are very convincing. They show why Sen. Kerry has refused to sign form 180 for the release of his military records and why he's been so reluctant to talk about his Senate career. I now also understand why the MSM hasn't picked up and run with these stories: They paint that favorite son in a bad light and would definitely help to sway pubic opinion into Pres. Bush's camp.

We need to spread the word about these articles and get the truth out there. Please link to my site or directly to them and spread the news. And then get out on Nov. 2 and vote since the future of our country depends on it.

Rapper says his piece, and its not pleasant

2004-10-31T13:26:00.000-05:00

It looks like rapper Eminem has weighed in on the political scene with this animated video.

After watching it, I have two thoughts:

1. I wish I could have those five minutes of my life back.

2. It's just another piece of socialist anti-Bush propoganda produced by one of the least respected and reputable "musicians" on the scene today.

Watch it for yourself and post any comments you like in the Comments section.

Who would you choose?

2004-10-28T10:02:00.000-04:00

Well, since Boston won last night, Kerry's trying to show his roots. Just look at the candidates in this side by side photo:

Who looks more real and natural for the position of President? In this one case, I'll pick the man on the left!!! Kerry looks as natural in that hat as Hillary does in a Yankess cap. Another Mike Dukakis in the tank/Kerry in the NASA clean suit moment.

The Death of Liberalism

2004-10-27T23:22:00.000-04:00

I Just received this from a friend of mine. Take the time to read it, the author spells out exactly why this election is so important for our future.

THE DEATH OF LIBERALISM by Raymond S. Kraft

"The threat is great, the battle is hard, therefore we should do nothing. We might lose!

The gangs are running wild in L.A. Somebody might get hurt. Get rid of the police!

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us.

It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussells into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could.

Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's ass by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the seiges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million. Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements.

We have to do it somewhere.

We cannot do it no where. And we cannot do it everywhere at once.

We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is indisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
The Euros could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . a 27 year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $120 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 1,000 American lives, which is roughly 1/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.]

But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 30 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist, as many Democrats and Liberals, peace-activists and anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 specious claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight the 1% of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the 99% of the population that is not a threat. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not ampute the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument too, for it supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq. It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history. The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany. World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 1,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 KIA on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia.

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. Too much TV I guess.
The Liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, liberty, freedom, and all that. But not for Iraqis, I guess. In America, but nowhere else. 300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq, not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you want another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe and ineffective to do so, in America. Why don't we see Liberal Peace Activists demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The Liberals are supposed to be in favor of human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalsim, diversity, etc. American Liberals who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.

And American Liberals just don't get it.

Raymond S. Kraft

More examples of bi-partisan genius

2004-10-27T22:53:00.000-04:00

Well, stupidity knows no bounds, and apparently Florida received more that its fair share along with all the hurricane aid: Katherine Harris's Car Trouble.

I think this picture of the suspect says it all:

I'm glad he won't be driving to the polls on Nov. 2. I'm sure Katherine Harris is, too.

But to keep it balanced, here's one from the GOP side of the village: Lake Worth man accused of "political attack" on girlfriend. Apparently he's going to join the Marines once he gets his GED. News flash for him: the only uniform in his future is an orange jumpsuit with "Palm Beach County Jail" stenciled on it. The Marines don't like people who threaten to kill others who aren't the enemy.

There are definitely some villages in Florida who are missing their idiots tonight.

Weapons relocated with Russia's help

2004-10-27T22:42:00.000-04:00

This just broke on Drudge Report and Fox News: Russia tied to missing Iraq arms. Apparently the Russian Special Forces, working with Saddam's intelligence bureau, moved the "missing" weapons into Syria before our forces entered Iraq last year. And we were wondering why the Russians were so adamantly opposed to the US going into Iraq. Some "friends" they are, right down there with the French.

Hey Sen. Kerry, put this story in your pipe and smoke it! I wonder what comeback he and his campaign will try and create out of this? It will be amusing to say the least. I truly believe that his campaign is finally going to finish circling the drain with this news. It will be interesting to watch him, his campaign and the old-world media self-destruct over the remaining 5 days of this election cycle.

The lawyers are coming, the lawyers are coming!!!

2004-10-27T18:17:00.000-04:00

Well, it looks like the Dems' lawyer attack has begun in, where else, Florida! Here's the story from today's Washington Times: Democrats file 9 suits in Florida. The latest are accusing the state election board of attempting to disenfranchise minority voters. Sounds like this is the first play out of this year's Democratic handbook: if no there's no evidence of wrong-doing, make some up (poor paraphrase). One more example of the strategy of desperation I wrote about recently.

CBS's "60 Minutes" was trying for its own October bombshell: CBS eyed '60 Minutes' Bush bombshell. Need I say more on this one?

One word Kerry analysis/summary

2004-10-26T20:48:00.000-04:00

Well, I've been sifting through the numerous stories and analysis pieces of the Kerry happenings of the past several days, and I can summarize them all with one word: desperate.

Why do I say this in one word when everyone else is spending days in discussion and analysis in every medium known to man? Because when all is said and done, desperate is the best word that comes to mind for these actions and their timing, 7 days before the election. Just look at what's happened:

Kerry says he met with the entire U.N. Security Council in 2002 before the invasion. The story is debunked by Security Council members so he starts back-pedaling, saying he only met with several members on 2002. Memory lapse? Seeing double the meeting table? Was he even at the UN? I know I'd remember who I spoke to at the UN, but then I'm not running for president.
CBS News is offered a missing weapons story from April, 2003, through its "60 Minutes" news program on the Oct. 31 broadcast. Since they can't air it fast enough, the source goes to the New York Times which runs with it, publishing a scathing report highly critical of President Bush and the Iraq war. John Kerry even picks up on it and starts using it in his stump speeches. But NBC News lends some clarity, stating that while the weapons were missing, they were missing before the Marines arrived to secure the compound. Apparently, NBC had several reporters with the troops that arrived at the weapons facility. Those pesky embedded reporters at NBC, always ruining a good fabrication before it can be released, and exposing the shoddy editorial team at the "Old Grey Lady" for what they are: bad creative writers willing to write anything (truthful or not) to sell a story.
John Kerry siding today with U.N. officials over the 101st Airborne Division about the missing weapons. He places more faith in the "one-world" model and the U.N. bureaucrats than he does in the military that he has not only trashed in the past, but now hopes to command in a week. This really doesn't sound like a good mix or a morale booster for our troops. No wonder the majority of our military supports President Bush and his re-election.

When you add all these together, you get failing campaign and discredited media outlet (or two) trying anything possible to get the horse they've backed into the winner's circle. And the means that they're using reek of desperation and grasping at anything to use as a life-ring as their ship sinks into the choppy sea of this election cycle. Unfortunately, the horse they've backed is completely exhausted and no amount of whipping will get force it to cross the finish line. And the life-ring was pulled back out of the water by the people at NBC, CNN, and other media outlets once the truth was exposed; the sink or swim game has become "sink” only.

Because of all this, I think that "desperate" is a great summarization of the state of the Kerry campaign.

Better & safer in four years?

2004-10-26T20:38:00.000-04:00

Here are a couple of great commentary pieces from today's Wall Street Journal:

The Patriot Act: Wise Beyond Its Years, a great piece by John Ashcroft about the benefits of the Patriot Act and why, even with its faults, it was a much needed piece of law enforcement reform legislation.
Stick to the Basics: Written by Michael J. Boskin, this is a great primer about economic theory with some good historical reference points included to make it relevant to the current economic state of the nation. Its primary thrust is the analysis and debunking of John Kerry's economic plan and why, if he is elected, these policies will be detrimental to the continued growth of our economy.

Both articles give some great insight to a couple of the key issues of the current campaign and are a must read in the last few days before the election. If these articles don't convince you of who the right choice is on Nov. 2, just ask yourself, "Under John Kerry, will I be in better shape & safer four years from now than I am now?"

Dems registering terrorists in Ohio

2004-10-25T23:22:00.000-04:00

Well, the Dems continue to amaze me. Just when you think they can't get any lower, they drop the floor a little more: Dems Register al-Qiada Terrorists in Ohio Voter Drive.

It looks like ACORN just keeps playing their same old game. First in Colorado by paying for voter registrations, prompting hundreds of fraudulent registrations and an investigation by Secretary of State Donnetta Davidson's office. Now they've exported their sordid proactices to Ohio, where they're now registering terrorists/illegal aliens and convicted felons to vote. This is just another example of how low the Democrats will stoop in order to try and cheat their way to victory.

Victory for election law

2004-10-24T02:05:00.000-04:00

Here's a big victory for the rule of law in elections: Ohio Provisional Ballot Ruling Reversed. It looks like the courts have finally begun to see the light and let election law stand and work as intended. This will definitely help to reduce the chance of voter fraud this year.

Besides, if you're so stupid as to go to the wrong place to vote when its printed right on your voter registration card, I don't think that your ballot should count. I'm not a big fan of provissional ballots in the first place; it just opens the process up to fraud and obfuscation. Its not that hard to register correctly to vote in the first place. And if you need to vote somewhere other than at a polling place, then reqest an absentee ballot, vote and mail it back. This is not a hard or complicated process and it has worked for over 225 years, so why all the confusion about it now? If someone from another country can figure out our voting process, I think that everyone who lives here should be able to understand it. Just more food for thought.

Voter intimidation starting in Florida already

2004-10-24T00:24:00.000-04:00

Well folks, the bullying, intimidation and cheating is starting in Florida, according to this story in the Sun-Sentinel: Early Voting Brings Cries of Bullying. It looks like the Dems and their supporters are living up to their reputation of cheating and doing anything else possible to bully their way back into office.

Where's Jimmy Carter and his gaggle of election monitors when we need him? Oh wait, he's on his way back from Venezuela where he was certifying their elections as valid and fair. Funny, that country is now descending into communist chaos and anarchy after his stamp of approval. Just imagine what would happen here with his seal of "approval". Not a pretty picture in my mind.

Disturbing financial news about student debt

2004-10-23T13:21:00.000-04:00

I saw this story in today's Lincoln [NE] Journal-Star about collegiate student debt: College grads packing on more debt.

The reason I find this disturbing is because these students are leaving college already in bondage to banks, finance companies and credit cards before they've even started their working careers. This is not a good position to be in, and I know from personal experience with credit cards that it is not a fun place to be. Unfortunately, students are no longer taught financial management and responsibility in school any more, and most of the programs that are out there are sponsored by banks and credit card companies. Add to this that college students are bombarded from day one by on-campus solicitations by these companies, and you have a recipie for financial disaster.

My thought on this is that we don't need to be enlsaving out children to massive amounts of debt in their youth. Instead, we need to educate ourselves and our children to break the cycle of indebtedness and being "normal" and get on the path to financial freedom. This is a lesson that we can pass on to our children for their own future success and happiness.

Check out this site: The Dave Ramsey Show. He's a great speaker and talk-show host who deals with these issues and educating people on getting out of debt and building wealth. Once you hear his show, you'll be hooked and on the way to changing your attitude about money and debt. He's led me and several friends to financial freedom, so check him out.

Kerry flip-flops again; and a clear postiton this year

2004-10-23T13:09:00.000-04:00

Just in from Yahoo News, a new shipment of flip-flops from the indecisive senator:

Kerry Backs Anti-Terror Act, Shifting Stance

Just goes to show that he and his handlers are grabbing at any straw to try and eke out a win on Nov. 2.

In other news, here's someone who definitely has a clear position on the candidates:

Early Voting

Thanks to Yahoo Photos for this one. I guess his vote has been cast. Good doggie!

Good articles from Hugh today

2004-10-22T19:15:00.000-04:00

Here are a couple of good articles from Hugh Hewitt today:

Mama T on Moms

Bush is looking good!

Once again, Hugh is right on with his analysis and commentary on the issues.

Ann Coulter gets "sweet" reception.

2004-10-22T18:28:00.000-04:00

Here are a couple of stories abotu Ann Coulter getting pie-ed at the Univeristy of Arizona yesterday (linked from Drudge Report):

Two Arrested for Hurling Pies At Ann Coulter...'From that far away they can't even hit me?'THE ASSAILANTS... Looks like more disgruntled liberals more interested in mischief than in getting an education. And they look like such great candidates for the "Future Leaders of America" club!

Go Terry Go!

2004-10-21T22:13:00.000-04:00

Well, THK’s done it again. She’s gone and put her foot in her and her husband’s mouth again with her blatant insult to Mrs. Bush and the mothers of America by saying that Mrs. Bush has never held a real job since she became an adult. To add insult to injury, the attempts at an apology and the subsequent back-pedaling have only made matters worse for her and Johnny, trying to say that she “forgot” about Mrs. Bush’s teaching & library career and her raising of the Bush twins by saying that Mrs. Bush hasn’t held a “real job” since she married the future President.

She hasn’t held a “real job”? To see a prime example of that statement, all THK needs to do is look in the mirror. She hasn’t held a real job in her life. THK was educated in Switzerland and France, worked as an interpreter at the UN in the early 1960’s, married ketchup magnate and Senator Heinz, became a Republican, and the rest is history, never needing to work again in her life. After Sen. Heinz’s death in 1991, she went on to marry Sen. Kerry in 1995 and, feeling guilty about being wealthy, became a liberal Democrat and started attacking the very system that allowed her to become wealthy. Making your way through life and becoming successful through key marriages is not what I or the majority would call hard work.

Take the majority of women who she’s insulted though, and you’ll find a different view of a “real job”. Most women in recent history have gone to college and beyond and have built successful careers before stepping off the treadmill into the role of mother, arguably the most misunderstood, thankless and least recognized of all jobs in the world. Sure many of these women can close deals with the best, but that doesn’t compare to raising children and being a homemaker. My own mother did this, giving up a teaching career when I was born so that she could stay home and raise her child. Try telling her that she didn’t have a real job and she’ll tear into you for an hour, making you wish you’d call Arnold a girlie man instead! And this is a goal that my wife and I share when we start having children: bringing her home so that she can raise our children at home instead of in a day-care or socialized school environment.

Statements like these just prove how far out of touch THK and her husband are with mainstream America and our values. We’re not all aspiring to be East Coast intellectual elitists sneering down our noses at those who perform the majority of work in this country, thus the majority of Americans find it extremely hard to relate to the Kerry’s. More people can relate to President & Mrs. Bush because of their down-to-earth values, honesty, and having more in common with the middle class than their opponents.

However, I have just one thing to say to THK (and John, too): Keep flapping your lips, making those insults against spouses and children, and continuing to try and portray yourselves as “common” people. Why? Because each time you do brings us one gaffe closer to George & Laura renewing their lease on the White House for another four-year term.

Go Terry Go!!!!

Another great link about Iraq

2004-10-21T19:06:00.000-04:00

Great videos that will never be aired by the mainstream media: Voices of Iraq.

Another site that broadcasts the truth from the mouths and hearts of the Iraqi people.

Be vewy, vewy quiet, I'm hunting votes...

2004-10-21T18:59:00.000-04:00

Well, Kerry's done it again, pandering to gun owners in Ohio. What's really funny is that while his two companions are coming out with a goose each, Kerry's coming out gooseless, giving confusing commands to the dog in tow. To quote Generalissiomo, "He looks like a French Elmer Fudd!"

It was just reported that he also went hunting for votes later in the day. I hope he was equally successful with that hunting trip as he was with the morning's, and he didn't even need a gun or to get dirty. Just imagine what THK must be saying when he gets home, I'm sure that it would boggle the mind.

Rebellious West Virginia strikes again

2004-10-21T18:40:00.000-04:00

Hot off the wire from West Virginia, their rebellious nature lives on: West Virginia Elector Might Leave Bush.

Hopefully this won't effect the election, but every vote does count in the Electoral College.

Sorry about the lack of blogging, but I'm back on travel again, blogging this week from the Star City, Linclon, NE, home of the Cornhuskers. I'm going to get caught up this week and thought I get back in the groove with the small story above. Just wait until I take on THK and her slander of Mrs. Bush and all mothers, it should be a fun ride.

Debate Three: The Return of Bush

2004-10-13T22:33:00.000-04:00

Well, the last debate of the season has just ended, and Bush came out the clear winner of this one. He was prepared and went on the attack from the beginning, forcing Kerry to backpedal on some issues and go on the defensive for most of the debate. I'm watching the commentary and Bush is already coming out on top across the board. This will definitely help boost his numbers in the polls and be a great launch point for the final 2-1/2 weeks of this campaign.

I'm not going to do a play-by-play analysis of the debate; instead, I'm going to ask that you visit Hugh Hewitt's site as he did a live breakdown of the questions. He also has a great final commentary on tonight's debate and echos my sentiments on the outcome.

Bush has a great head start for the final 2-1/2 half weeks coming out of this debate. He was invigorating and well-prepared for this debate and was able to trounce Kerry because of this. There isn't much that Kerry can do to come after the President except for using the same old tired arguments and recycled stump speeches. The electorate will read him like a cheap novel and will choose accordingly on Nov. 2. The force is with Bush now.

Kerry blames Bush for vaccine shortage

2004-10-11T13:08:00.000-04:00

In this morning's Washington Times was the following story: Kerry faults Bush for shortage of flu vaccine. Looks like the Kerry campaign is trying to blame Bush for anything it can to try and gain an edge and cheat his way to victory. What's next, blame for typhoid and rabies? Get real John, these cheap tricks just won't work with a savvy and educated electorate such as ours; the can read you just like a cheap novel.

Terrorists a nuisance?

2004-10-11T13:01:00.000-04:00

According to multiple sources this morning, Sen. Kerry's goal in the GWOT is to reduce the threat of terrorists the level of "nuisance". He must be going to rework the threat level indicator with "nuisance" as a new level, maybe with the color grey to indicate a vague and shifting position!

Folks, this is absolutely absurd. Terrorists are not a nuisance, but a definite threat to our nation and way of life, and they have made no bones about working toward the goal of destroying both. President Bush recognizes this and and is working toward the goal of eliminating the terrorist threat. Kerry is still living in the past and pulling an ostrich move, burying his head in the sand and saying that he doesn't see the threat around him. Once again proof that he is not the person to lead America in this new war and new era of global instability and growing threats.

Musings on the debates and other stuff

2004-10-10T21:05:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm finally able to get a post in here and bring the blog up to date. I've been inundated with items that have had to take priority, such as houseguests, work commitments and packing to move to our new house. Yes, my friends, The Fetching Mrs. Morrison and I have bought a house in beautiful Front Royal, VA, about an hour west of Metro D.C. and definitely a world away. I went out there yesterday to the annual Festival of Leaves parade and street fair, and met up with the local representatives of the GOP for some small time fun and entertainment. I was not disappointed by the festival or the GOP people I met; I know that we made a good choice for living in the D.C. area and for our relaxation on the weekends.

Now onto the big events of the past two weeks: the debates. I know that the media and the blogosphere have been dissecting the debates from every angle, so I'm not going to try and analyze each one in excrutiating detail. Instead, I'm going to give my own personal insight about the winners/losers of the debates and why I think so.

Debate One: Bush v. Kerry. The winner: a draw. Neither candidate edged out the other or won a competitive advantage. President Bush kept hammering his message home through repetition, which is the key for any good politician to win an election. However, his lack of presence and poor facial expressions cost him any advantage that his message might have given him. Senator Kerry presented us with the same old flip-flop positions on the issues and tried to make us all believe that we are still fighting the Vietnam War, so he gave us nothing new. However, he is more comfortable in with speaking from a podium, and was able to use this to his advantage, projecting himself and an air of confidence to the audience. Even so, he was not able to gain an advantage over President Bush due to his lack of a clear message. Thus, the debate was a zero-sum game, even if the media polls of 600 people do show Kerry gaining on President Bush after this debate.
Debate Two: Cheney v. Edwards. The winner: Cheney by a landslide. The Vice Presidential debate is usually viewed with less seriousness due to the nature of the position: it is largely ceremonial with two official duties, President of the Senate and filling the Office of the President when the President is incapacitated. However, it does give the public a chance to meet the nominees and see what their views on the issues are. And V.P. Cheney gave us exactly what we wanted: a man whose steadfast convictions do not waver in the face of adversity or for the sake of poll results. He responded to Gwen Ifil's questions with a certainty and specifics that not one person could doubt or dispute. Contrast that with Sen. Edwards and his responses to the questions: evasive and indirect at best, showing that the skills he honed as a trial lawyer are his best and only asset. When asked for specifics, he dodged and danced while providing vague generalities; mostly, he said that they "have a plan" but failed to disclose what those plans are. But he does have a dazzling smile, and that's all a future V.P. really needs, isn't it? When you're one step removed from the Presidency, substance is definitely more desirable than superficial looks.
Debate Three: Bush v. Kerry. The winner: Bush by a hair. I didn't get a chance to see this on t.v.; instead, I listened to it on the radio while stuck in Beltway traffic. I must say that this was the most spirited debate so far. Both candidates were able to get some good jabs in at each other and became feisty at times, especially Pres. Bush when Kerry made some scathing and inaccurate comments. Bush definitely had the advantage in this debate: he's more comfortable when he can walk around and interact directly with the audience. He was also able to project himself better without having a podium for him to use as a crutch, a definite advantage in this debate. He was also well prepared for the questions from the audience, answering them with specifics and staying on course with his message. Kerry, on the other hand, was supposed to be at a disadvantage in this debate style, but he was surprisingly well-prepared and seemed comfortable with the setting; his handlers definitely spent a lot of time prepping him for this debate and it showed in his presence and audience interaction. This is where it ended for Kerry, though. As the questions were asked, his responses were more of the same vague generalities and talk of "plans" for dealing with Iraq, the economy, job growth, tax cuts, the GWOT, etc. As the debate wore on and Kerry couldn't hold his own against Pres. Bush, he launched into a series of attacks against Bush which were part design, part desperation. Either way, it was a desperate act by a desperate man who sees his chance at the Presidency slipping away daily, despite what the polls are reporting. And because of this, Bush wins the debate.

Well friends, you have my thoughts on the debates to date. However, let me put them in context: I don't believe that the debates hold any real merit for the campaigns anymore, especially in the Internet age. They are more a requirement of the old media, a way for the networks to try and maintain a level of relevance in the electoral process. Given the CBS fiasco, the fact that there isn't a single conservative moderator in any debate and that the sponsoring agency is a liberal think-tank, I don't feel that there is much that is objective about the whole debate process. Even so, Pres. Bush and his team are handling the process with great skill and solid preparation, and I think that this will help him defeat the odds and come out ahead in the final debate on Wed. and in the election in 23 days.

Website debunks obesity myths & trial lawyer claims

2004-09-29T10:06:00.000-04:00

There's a new website out there that's working to defuse the obesity hysteria and the trial lawyers' arguments about obesity in America: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

There's a lot of great information there and will help arm us to combat the impending lawsuits against the food industry. Send this site link to everyone that you know to spead the word. Also look for the new ad campaign on Fox News and other channels.

My God, he's gone orange!!!

2004-09-28T20:44:00.000-04:00

The title is a poor paraphrase of "Spaceballs", but it convey's the message.

Hat tip to Cadet Happy for this one:

Maybe John can have a new career if they ever remake Willy Wonka!

Bill O'Reilly & President Bush: A+; debate update

2004-09-28T20:18:00.000-04:00

I just finished watching Day Two of Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush, and I have to say that I'm impressed by both men on the camera. Bill impresses me for his "no fluff, all business" questions, and the President impresses me for his honest, direct answers and unwavering stances on the issues and other facets of the current campaign and his opponent.

Being the junkie that I am, I'm Tivoing all three nights and will review them Thursday, so check back for my analysis of the interview. I'll also be watching (and Tivoing) the first Presidential debate from the Univeristy of Miami, moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS's "The News Hour", so check back Friday for analysis of the debate. The focus will be foreign policy, so this won't be a debate to miss to see how the candidates stack up against each other. Some good links for debate information:

The Presidential Debate at the University of Miami

Commission on Presidential Debates

More good news from Iraq

2004-09-27T14:59:00.000-04:00

Here's a great article in today's Opinion Journal: Post-Totalitarian Stress Disorder. It is a great round up of the past two week's events in Iraq. Read it for some great news from the front lines.

Great Mark Steyn article on Kerry

2004-09-27T07:35:00.000-04:00

Listeners of the Hugh Hewitt show know Mark Steyn from his regular guest appearances on Hugh's show and that his insight on politics is first rate. Here's a recent article of his from the Chicago Sun-Times about the current state of the Kerry campaign: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn26.html

This is an interesting and informative analysis of the Kerry campaign and how he views the current issues which are affecting the American people. He also dives in with analysis of the mainstream media's attitude toward Pres. Bush and how they deal with issues such as the war on terror and our successes in Iraq. A great short read, but packed full with great information.

Another extreme makeover film is coming

2004-09-27T07:13:00.000-04:00

Well, they're at it again. Coming soon to a theater near you, another great revisionist mis-information piece about John Kerry: http://www.goingupriver.com/

Once again, this shows that the Dems will stop at nothing to get their candidate in office, even resorting to revisionist history and pure propaganda films. Folks, this is the latest desperate act of a dying campaign.

Isn't it interesting that while the Kerry campaign and their supporters continue to try and reinvent their candidate through films, books and speeches, President Bush doesn't need to be reinvented or undergo an image makeover? It must be because he comes across as a straight shooter, honest and sticks to a postiton once he's taken a stand on an issue.

If this is what Sen. Kerry needs to do now to try and win the election, how will he act once in office? It makes one wonder.

Heading down the slippery slope again

2004-09-25T11:43:00.000-04:00

I was watching C-CPAN's moring call-in news show this morning, and one of the guests was George Washington law professor John Banzhaf. He was speaking about and taking calls on the subject of obesity and the forthcoming onslaught of lawsuits against every facet of the food industry, government, medical community and our lifestyle in general. What he said on the subject and how he responded to callers exposed exactly what his position is on the subject and also what he is teaching his students about the legal profession.

Prof. Banzhaf stated without remorse that his goal, and others in this field, is basically to to litigate reform and change in society and people's choices as they did with the tobacco industry in the 1990's. He feels that this is in the public interest and is the right thing to do. His tactic is to sue all facets of society for the obesity problem: food manufacturers for their products and advertising tactics; the medical profession for not advising their patients about obesity; the education industry for allowing junk food and soda companies to sell their products in return for a share of the profits; etc, the list goes on. In short, he and his associates plan to sue everyone involved in the crisis except for the actual obese people themselves, who are responsible for their own health. He doesn't believe in self-responsibility or choice; he feels that people are the unwitting subjects of large corporations and deceptive advertising and thus need to be protected from this "evil" of society. He also stated that this will help the insurance industry by lowering health care costs thus lowering the risk for insurers.

I'm a firm believer in personal choice and living with the consequences of your actions. I don't believe in seat belt laws, helmet laws, or the Feds forcing states to change their DUI laws by holding road money hostage. And I'm not a big believer in trying to protect the risk assumption of insurance companies; that's what their in business for: to assume risk and pay out when a covered incident happens. If an insurance company is worried about mitigating its losses and reducing its payouts, it shouldn't turn to lawsuits to achieve this goal. Instead, they should force their policy holders to change their habits voluntarily or face a reduction in payout for a covered loss. For example, if you're involved in an accident and you're not wearing your seatbelt, your payout should be reduced accordingly because you failed mitigate your risk of injury by not wearing a seatbelt. Medical issues could be handled in much the same way, but that is not likely due to the "nanny state" mentality we've adopted in this country regarding healthcare.

Regarding the school system and the profit-sharing system many have with the soda and snack food distributors, I feel that those agreements should be dissolved and the products removed from school altogether. That is an unhealthy alliance that, coupled with the lack of required physical exercise classes at all levels, is contributing largely to childhood obesity and the rise in diabetes cases among children and teenagers. Still, this is not something that should come out of a lawsuit, but out of the governing bodies of the school systems across the nation. I had to go to P.E. class when I was in school; I hated it, but I know now that it was good for me and provided some much needed activity during the school day. I know I'm heavier now than I should be, but that's my personal choice and I don't need a lawyer or insurance company to tell me otherwise.

So far I'm failing to see how these suits will help anyone but the lawyers and insurance companies involved. But since Prof. Banzhaf and his colleagues feel that they are acting in the public good, be prepared for these lawsuits to appear at a courthouse near you soon. They will do nothing but bog down the court system, force companies to pay large settlements for no reason, place the fear of malpractice suits in the hearts of medical practitioners, and line the pockets of the trial lawyers and insurance companies. There's something to be said for self-choice, and many people are saying it, but not loudly enough for all to hear and thing about.

I've commented on this subject before, and I've said this before as well, so to all the dis-believers again, "I told you so.".

Catching up from a busy weekend

2004-09-20T21:27:00.000-04:00

Well, it’s Monday, and that means that its time to catch up on the events of the weekend and today. This past weekend was a bit busy, focusing mainly on the CBS "docu-drama" and politics. However, today's events and news seem to indicate that this will be a busy week for us all. Let's take a look at some of the highlights to date:

First, the CBS DocuDrama, also known as RatherGate. Lots happened with this over the weekend, culminating with Don "The Don" Rather eating crow and apologizing for the use of the fraudulent documents that were provided to them by Democratic activist and career Bush detractor Bill Burkett. But then, in a bizarre twist, CBS came out and said that they approached Burkett, not the other way around, and that they we're deliberately misled by Burkett. CBS and Rather are trying to dance around this issue as best they can since it has destroyed Rather's career and CBS's reputation as a reliable news source, but they are having little luck since this issue is still only at the early stages of discovery. There is much conjuring in the blogosphere that Democratic strategists such as Carville or McAuliffe are behind this whole affair; it will be interesting to follow this as it unfolds and see just where the trail leads.

Talking about trying to dance the last dance, CBS is still out on the floor hours after the band has gone home and the cleaning crew is in the dance hall. Rather needs to announce his resignation this week, Heyward also needs to go and a general house cleaning needs to occur if CBS is serious about rebuilding its image as a news leader and its trust with the American people as a reliable news source.

Next, let's take a look at the current poll results from this weekend. Most polls are giving President Bush anywhere from a one to thirteen point lead heading into the final 42 days of the election cycle. While these numbers are great news for the President, there is a lot of confusion about the wide disparity in poll numbers. In Wide gap among poll results mystifies campaigns, pundits, the Washington Times is also at a loss for the wide variations in poll numbers and so are many pundits and political analysts, myself included. Usually by this time in an election cycle, the polls are relatively stable and returning similar results across the board, with only a minority amount of undecided voters still holding out. Many factors are being debated, including the fact that fewer people are willing to participate in polling, despite more people being directly involved with this election cycle.

In my opinion, most voters have already made their decisions about who they're going to vote for. What's not being taken in to account in these reports are the numbers being siphoned off by the Nader camp, which usually tends to hurt the Democratic side of the ticket. Because of this, the poll numbers tend to look skewed, but when added back in, these missing numbers add clarity and complete the story. Either way, these numbers are indicating that the Kerry campaign is loosing popular support quickly and that the Bush campaign could be looking at a resounding victory this November.

Continuing in the political vein, the Daschle-Thune race is heating up into a pitched battle, with John Thune coming out swinging in their first debate yesterday on "Meet the Press". Mr. Thune called Sen. Daschle a "flip-flopper" and the "chief obstructionist" on the Hill, opposing the President at every chance but then "running out of the arms of Michael Moore into the arms of the president in South Dakota." Sen. Daschle responded in turn, calling Mr. Thune 'a "follower" who would "rubber-stamp" the president's policies. ‘Both agreed on some points, such as 9/11, but those were few and far between.

What I don't understand is why the people of South Dakota, which is solidly in the Republican camp, keep sending Sen. Daschle back to Washington. Having spent some time in Rapid City this summer, I was able to catch snippets of the race and am still confused about Mr. Daschle's tenure. Having discussed the race in passing, it seems that some folks prefer to send Daschle back since he's one of the most powerful senators on the Hill and they don't want to lose the clout that he wields up there, even if his views are in direct conflict with the majority of the state's population. For a state like South Dakota, that is a big issue since that only have new representative to the House. Even so, this might be changing since Mr. Thune has come from behind and is running neck and neck with Daschle, even besting him in some polls. This will be a close race and one that I'll continue to watch from the East Coast as this could help to upset the balance of power in the Senate on the minority side.

And finally, just when you thought it was safe to go back to McDonald's, here come the trial lawyers looking to line their pockets from the profits of the food and related industries. In Lawyers see obese U.S. ripe for fat lawsuits, the Washington Times reports on a meeting of lawyers, public health advocates and nutritionists and the happenings there. Apparently they trial lawyers want to target and pursue the food industry and related businesses due to the "obesity epidemic" that is sweeping the nation. This is based on the 2001 Surgeon General's report which classified obesity as an "epidemic", thus opening the door for all sorts of frivolous lawsuits reminiscent of the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990's.

Folks, I'm going to jump on the "I told you so" bus along with all the others who saw this coming, especially after the tobacco companies caved in and reached a settlement that promised much but did little other than line the attorneys' pockets. These proposed lawsuits threaten to touch every facet of our lives since food consumption is a daily requirement and a multi-billion dollar industry. The attorneys will cloak these suits in moralistic shrouds claiming that they are acting for the benefit of the general public's health and welfare. In fact, they are pursuing the same types of policy change that they achieved with the tobacco suits: the attempted destruction of an industry by deeming it the cause of a societal health problem.

Unfortunately, I don't feel that these suits will be as successful as the tobacco suits. Tobacco was already falling out of favor and general mainstream use when the tobacco suits kicked off. In contrast, the food industry is constantly trying to reinvent itself and is currently on a campaign to become healthier in preparation for these impending lawsuits. Even so, there will always be a market for food that might not be the best for you but is within you right to consume, and no amount of lawsuits will stop that. I think that the trial lawyers might finally meet their match since the food industry has the time and money to fight a protracted battle in court.

As educated adults, we know how our food choices will affect us, and we don't need the food police or health nannies to tell us how to eat. And as for the obesity "epidemic", we have no one to blame but ourselves; McDonalds's doesn't force us to supersize our food orders any more than R.J. Reynolds forces you to smoke a cigarette. Here's an idea: go outside and take a walk or run to burn off that Big Mac and fries. So instead of suing for baseless claims that they made you fat, choose to exercise and cut back on the fattening food and see what happens. You'll be amazed at the results and find that you didn't need a lawyer to make you feel better.

Well, there's my recap of the weekend's news, with some obscure issues thrown in for good measure. Enjoy, and check back doing the week for more insightful analysis of the week's news events.

LOTR- The Fall of "The Dan"

2004-09-19T20:48:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt and his sources for this one:

I think this image says it all: the fall and collapse of the evil old media empire! Check out his emtire post here: LOTR- Rathergate post.

Kerry supporters sink to new low

2004-09-17T14:48:00.000-04:00

I just got this story in my Inbox from Chuck Muth's mailing list today. Read the letter and take a look at the linked article and you'll see just how low Kerry supporters will stoop to silence opposing voices. Talk about taking candy from babies, this takes the cake:

KERRY GOON MAKES 3-YEAR-OLD CRY
Yet another “sign” that Kerry will go down in flames on November 2nd: Check out this photo of the cute little 3-year-old girl crying on her dad’s shoulders after having her “Bush-Cheney”
sign ripped out of her hands and torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters in West
Virginia yesterday.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040916/480/wvrs10309162250
Not exactly the way to win friends and influence people, huh? The bonehead with the baseball cap on the wrong way, a smirk on his face and pieces of the sign in his hand is laughing at little Sophia. Takes a real tough guy to make a 3-year-old girl cry, doesn't it?Now here’s the rest of the story, as if that’s not enough to make your blood boil.
I spoke with the girl’s father, Phil Parlock, this morning. Mr. Parlock is a real estate agent and father of 10 children...two of whom are presently in the National Guard. (I hope Dan Rather doesn’t get hold of their service records!). Apparently the Kerry goons who were ripping up everyone’s Bush-Cheney signs at the rally, including little Sophia’s, were members of...the Painters Union.
Go figure. Who would have thought such goonish behavior could come from union workers? I mean, what are the odds?
Anyway, Mr. Parlock also let me speak to Sophia briefly. She told me proudly - in that kind of little-girl voice which’ll melt your heart - how she got to meet the President and how the President hugged her and told her “Thank you.” She was obviously on Cloud Nine. What a damn shame that thug had to ruin such a wonderful experience for a little 3-year-old kid.
But it gets worse...Apparently, Mr. Parlock’s 82-year-old mother-in-law was living with the family back in 1999 when she passed away after a short illness. Her obituary appeared in the Charleston Gazette on February 19, 1999.
What’s this have to do with anything?
Well, once Sophia Parlock’s photo appeared in the Associated Press story, one of the whacked-out Democratic Underground jerks, “displacedtexan,” posted the link to the obituary on the DU website Discussion Board under the title “Did the Parlocks OFF Granny,” along with these comments:
“Short Illness?????????????????? The Parlocks let Granny die while in their care???????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm… 10 kids on a real estate agent's salary????????????? I wonder what Granny's house was worth!”
These are some sick puppies.
Anyway, I asked Mr. Parlock if it might help for Sophia to get some emails from folks who saw her picture and wanted to send their greetings and some words of encouragement after her unfortunate experience. He asked that anyone wanting to reach out and contact Sophia do so by sending an email to: pparlock@ezwv.com
Chuck Muth, Citizens Outreach www.citizensoutreach.com

Dan Rather's typewriter for sale on Ebay!

2004-09-16T22:06:00.000-04:00

For the novice document forger, an eBay special:

FORGE YOUR OWN 70s DOCUMENTS - IBM SELECTRIC TYPEWRITER

or:

RARE 1961 IBM 72 SELECTRIC TYPEWRITER GREAT FOR FORGING

Also for reporters whose career is over. Second entry has some great humorous feedback.

Good letter to John Kerry from Ollie North

2004-09-16T20:04:00.000-04:00

Got this in my email today, thought I'd pass it along to all my readers:

Subject: Ollie North's letter to Kerry

The following was written by Oliver North for publication
on August 27th, 2004.

I think it expresses the feeling of many veterans, not
only of Vietnam, but of all wars.

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with
President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous
about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who
served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the
president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about
your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze
Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I
could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree
with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more
medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as
they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that
war, either, John. There have always been guys inevery war who want to go home.
There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did
a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young
Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war
because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't
finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on
Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost goingon vacation. If you got
lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really
weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president
when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could
have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want
to have you r finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble
you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting
lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came
home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against
the War and wrote "The New Soldier," whichdenounced those of us who served --
and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all,
John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of
committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally
raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires f rom portable telephones to
human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly
shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot
catt le and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I
committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty
than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture
of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."
Your "antiwar" statements and activities
were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on
with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful.
But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of
American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi.

Here's what some of them endured because of you,
John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in
Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors.
Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to
bepunished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.Maj.

Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese
custody for 2,284 days, says his captors"repeated incessantly" your one-liner
about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March
4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as
demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a primereason the war dragged
on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12,
1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert
asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities,"
instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were
a bit over the top." Does that m ean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you
are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're
not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in
chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would
like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain
I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help
end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and
careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to
apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you,
John?

The end of the news as we know it...

2004-09-16T19:21:00.000-04:00

Well, this has certainly been a full news week, with both Hurricane Ivan and the meltdown of both CBS and Dan "The Don" Rather over the now debunked memos. All across the media spectrum, there is a great upheaval occurring because of this scandal (yes, it's a scandal) and not just because Dan Rather used fraudulent documents to further an agenda and influence the upcoming presidential election. The upheaval is occurring because this scandal has shaken one of the pillars of old T.V. news media to the core and threatens to affect the other two broadcast networks as well as the mainstream print media by exposing the liberal-agenda forwarding policies of these organizations to the public. Now that their "secret" is out to the masses, the majority of the old-media sources are running for cover, abandoning their support for CBS and Dan Rather faster than John Kerry can change positions on a single issue.

For decades, the media and public have had a tenuous relationship: the public knows the media slants to the left but has accepted this since they were the only sources for news and other information, and accepted this with a margin of error and latitude of opinion. And the media has been able to further its left-leaning agenda by keeping this slant contained mainly in political stories and the Op/Ed pages, covering their tracks with some right-leaning columnists, letters to the editor, and enough other stories to dilute the slant of the papers. All in all, a love-hate relationship that has been tolerated by both sides but never fully addressed by either.

However, with the rise of the Internet, blogs, and 24-hour news channels, old media is now threatened by new factors: the rise of non-professional journalists, immediate information availability and the ability of the masses to post their opinions for all to see without going through the channels that the old media provided and controlled. With public opinion able to be unleashed on a story almost the very instant a story breaks (and sometimes before), opinions, attitudes and rumors can be created, swayed and dispelled with lightning speed, and by using raw information before the media outlets have had a chance to sanitize and disseminate it with their own spin. Talk about the power of free speech, this is the goal that our Founding Fathers had in mind when then specified the freedoms of speech and press in the First Amendment.

Yet, while all this has been evolving and growing around them, the old media outlets pooh-poohed them as amateurs and insignificant at best, and not as a real threat; thus, they continued to do business the same old way, believing themselves to be both infallible and invincible. With the unraveling of Rathergate, this attitude has come back to bite them squarely where it hurts and has exposed them to the scrutiny and wrath of the public.

All this can be attributed to the rise of the blogosphere and its ability to grab a story, run with it and follow it to its end without barriers or restraint. This is due to the efforts of the thousands of independent people who write the blogs, mine data for the blogs and share it, and form alliances to spread their findings and opinions. When this latest story broke, the bloggers seized it and began to tear it apart, exposing its weaknesses and inconsistencies, eventually leading to its discreditation and the subsequent scandal that is the story of the week. But it did more than that, for it exposed the house of cards that the old media lives in and how shaky it is. And that brings me back to my original point: that this has and will forever change public opinion about mainstream media and the fact that it will do anything to influence public opinion, even at the expense of the truth or the office of the President.

Now that the masses have a choice and ability to get their facts and opinions for non-mainstream sources, how long will it be before they become the mainstream and the old media disappear like buggy whips: relics of a by-gone era that serve no purpose anymore?

The boomerang effect in Russia

2004-09-13T21:37:00.000-04:00

Here's an article from today's WSJ Online Afternoon Report regarding the current situation in Russia:

Putin, Citing Terror, seeks to Tighten Kremlin Control
By JOSEPH SCHUMAN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
Equating a stronger government with stronger counterterrorism, President Vladimir Putin today proposed one of the biggest overhauls of Russian governance since the fall of the Soviet Union -- changes that would tighten Kremlin control over parliament and the country's far-flung regions.

The details were sketchy, but Mr. Putin told cabinet members and security officials convened in special session that he would propose legislation abolishing the election of Russia's 89 regional governors by popular vote. Instead, they would be nominated by the president and confirmed by local legislatures, which have shown little inclination to clash with the strengthening presidency of Mr. Putin. Such a change would undo the remaining vestiges of local autonomy already chipped away by Mr. Putin during his first term in office. He said he would also recommend the elimination of individual parliamentary races that currently fill half of the seats in the Duma. Instead, the membership of the entire lower house would be filled by parties based on the proportion of the vote they receive. Parties loyal to the Kremlin currently control the parliament by a wide margin.

Mr. Putin, who has in part blamed local corruption for fostering the terrorism of Chechen separatists, said the changes were needed to streamline and fortify the executive branch. And he said the alteration of the legislative election process would help foster dialogue by expanding the clout of political parties. Both changes are bound to spark a fierce reaction from what remains of the Russian political opposition. But it isn't clear how the Russian people will react. Until the recent escalation in Chechen terror -- culminating with the cataclysmic seizure of a school that left hundreds of children dead -- Mr. Putin's broad support was based on the firm hand he seemed to take with security. But his reputation isn't what it was two months ago. In the wake of the school attack, the Russian people have been calling on their government to take whatever measures are necessary to keep them safe. What remains to be seen is whether they, too, will view this as a step toward greater security, or a political power play.

What I find interesting about the events reported on in this article is that this is not a new direction for Russia or its government; to the contrary, it is a return to a historically familiar and normal position for the country's leaders. This is the subject that I majored in in college, and these events do not surprise me in the least. Russia, since its founding as a state in 983 A.D., has been ruled by a powerful central figure: the czar/tsar, or emperor; CPSU chairman (the President was a titular figurehead at best); currently the President of the Russian Federation. Only the names have been changed to go along with the changing times and different governing styles.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been a country in political turmoil, searching for its political identity and a position in the current world scene. President Putin, a pragmatic former KGB man and CPSU member, is capitalizing on current events in order to roll back the hands of time and transform his country from a weak nation searching for a lost glory into a nation that can take its place and influence events on the world stage again. I do not see this a bad thing since this type of central power and control has been a cornerstone of Russian government and politics for over 1000 years. While Communism has been denounced as a failed experiment in Russia, the attempt at a Western-style democracy has also been an equal failure, and some changes are needed for the stability and future of Russia as a whole.

I'm sure that my opinions will spark debate in some circles, I don't feel that these changes being implemented by President Putin are a bad thing. While I don't advocate a return to the Soviet era or the establishment of a dictatorship, I recognize that these changes are as much cultural and historical as well as political and are desperately needed in order for the Russian people to regain faith in their governing bodies. These changes will also lead to a stabilization of some of the more autonomous regions as well as the surrounding geo-political regions (i.e. the Middle East and Muslim Central Asia). I think we owe it to Russia not only to support Pres. Putin's attempts to stabilize his domestic situtation, but to work with him closely as an ally in working to fight terrorism and stabilize the regions I mentioned above.

Bush bounces, Kerry drops Virginia

2004-09-13T11:35:00.000-04:00

Well, the weekend has generated some good news for the Bush camp: President Bush's numbers in some swing states are rising quickly, enough so to help push some states out of the "swing" category and closer to the 20 electoral votes needed to win a second term, as story in the Washington Times Insider reports today. Poll numbers today show President Bush leading across the South, Western & Middle Plains and some Midwest states. And Florida, Ohio and West Virginia have moved outside the margin of error, according to the report. Six states are still showing as swing states where both candidates are expected to spend the majority of time and money campaigning during the remainder of the campaign season.

As a corollary to this, the Kerry campaign has announced that they will suspend t.v. ads in Virginia for the remainder of the campaign season. While the Kerry camp denies that they have ceded VA to the GOP, this sends a clear signal that the Kerry campaign is on shaky ground at best in VA, a state that hasn't gone Democrat since JFK was elected. This will also free the Bush campaign to focus on more pivotal states this cycle.

What this says to me is that the Kerry camp has effectively written off VA as a loss and is saving its money and time for states that it feels they can still win. It also says that the campaign is not going well at all for Sen. Kerry nationally and they are attempting to fall back and re-group for one final push during Sept. and October, as is evidenced by staffing shake-ups and multiple reorganizations over the past three weeks. The Kerry camp is no longer enjoying the leads it enjoyed before the RNC last month and the distinct messages that Pres. Bush and the GOP sent to the nation. This means that the Dems will attempt to continually reinvent both Sens. Kerry and Edwards in order to give them a fighting chance. However, I think that the electorate is smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors that the Kerry campaign is using and see the candidates for who they really are: the Nos. 1 & 4 most liberal Senators in the country, not matter what disguises they are wearing. And because of this, the electorate can be trusted to make the proper choice on Nov. 2. by granting Pres. Bush the opportunity to serve a second term in the White House.

Took a couple of days off, trying to catch up

2004-09-13T10:58:00.000-04:00

Sorry that I haven't been keeping up with the latest news events from the past week, but I took a couple of days off last week to work on our house purchase, things at home and to spend some time with my wife over the weekend. So to that end, I'll attempt to catch up with the recent happenings and also provide some new news and insight if possible.

The biggest story of mention from the past week and weekend has been the "memogate" controversy that has been brewing since the Dan Rather piece on "60 Minutes 2" last Wednesday. While I didn't see the interview and don't have personal access to the letters in question, they have been in the media enough that I can make some personal observations about the whole issue.

To me, that whole issue looks like a a poorly disguised attempt to paint President Bush's military service as a disqualifier for a second term, as well as a deliberate attempt by a major player in old media circles to manipulate public opinion through deception and forgery. I'm not going to wade in to the fracas over Pres. Bush's and Sen. Kerry's military service; they both went and did their duty for their country during and extremely controversial period in U.S. history and both deserve respect for that service, even if you disagree with their personal motives or type of service or even what they did after their commitment to the country was completed. They both served, give them credit for that and move on to some real, modern-day issues.

Its the deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion through purposeful distortion of the facts and the alleged forgery of substantiating documents written by his deceased commanding officer. This is, in my opinion, no better than ballot-box stuffing or bussing people to the polls to vote multiple times in order to throw an election to a preferred candidate. This event has shown just how far to the left the old media outlets have swung and just how far they will go to help their side win this year.

In the spotlight is CBS and Dan "The Don" Rather, the de facto head of the liberal news media and who has taken point on this drive to discredit Pres. Bush so that Sen. Kerry will be elected in November. For years, Rather has been at the head of the CBS News organization and has it wrapped around his finger; they are at his beck and call and management is powerless to do anything about him. And now, with the CBS management signing off on his so-called "discoveries", they have finally shown themselves to be puppets of his and lacking the backbone to do something about him and his ultra-liberal beliefs.

However, that might be about to change. His interview and memos have generated a lot of heat in the press about their authenticity and have cast Rather and CBS in a very negative light. And now that several document historians have stated that the documents are forgeries that were typed using Microsoft Word, ( the famous superscript "the" issue), Rather and CBS are being exposed for who they really are: the T.V. voice of the modern liberal movement, much as the New York and L.A. Times have become. And to that end, they have shown that they will go to all ends, truthful or not, in order to assure that their candidate win in November; in short, they will try to cheat their way back into power. This has been the Democratic strategy for years but has always been done the the shadows and back rooms of politics; now is has been exposed to the light and public scrutiny for all that it is, and even the party faithful are starting to scurry away, fearing a major backlash in public opinion and even in the party rank and file.

CBS News and Dan Rather have sunk to a new low with this incident, but it just verifies that their version of a fair fight is one in which they win by any means necessary, honest or not.

As for other issues of the week, Hurricane Ivan has been the other dominant news story. It looks like it will be heading for the Florida Panhandle and will hit mid-week; please keep the people of Florida in your thoughts and prayers. And if you have the means, please make a donation to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund or other relief organization of your choice; this will be tapping their resources to the point of exhaustion and they'll need all the help they can get.

Cheney states the truth, Kerry lashes out

2004-09-08T15:33:00.000-04:00

V.P. Cheney said at a campaign stop Monday that if you choose poorly on Nov. 2, the security of the nation is at stake, and that we could expect more domestic attacks as a result. Of course, the Kerry camp immediately responded by saying that he is lying and trying to scare the public into voting for the Bush/Cheney ticket on Nov. 2.

I have just one word for the Kerry camp: balderdash! V.P. Cheney hit the nail on the head with his comment, and he has the Kerry campaign running scared (again) since the truth is now out there. Sens. Kerry and Edwards have been some of the most liberal members of the Senate, and have constantly voted against appropriation bills that would help support our globally deployed troops even after they've voted for the action where the troops are deployed. Kerry/Edwards also have not released a definitive plan for dealing with the war on terror as Pres. Bush has, instead responding with vague generalities of how they will "launch a swift response to any attack on our nation."

But how will they do that? And don't they understand that the war is better fought from an offensive posture, ferreting out the terrorists before they've attacked and killed numerous people here at home? You can't even get a straight answer out of the campaign representatives; Ann Coulter tried to do so on Hannity & Colmes last night and she got nothing but evasive rhetoric from the Kerry strategist she was sparring with.

If this is how the Kerry camp is answering questions about the pressing issues of today, imagine how they'd respond if elected in November. That's not an image I want to think about now or have to deal with for four years, and I don't think that you do either.

Kerry's last ditch weapon

2004-09-08T15:26:00.000-04:00

Here's an article from FrontPageMag.com: Kerry's Last Smear. It details the Kerry camp's last ditch effort to try and smear Pres. Bush's National Guard record by using a Dan Rather interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes.

Folks, this is definitely the last act of a desperate man and a doomed campaign. Anyone who's willing to stoop to these levels is suffering from an extreme lack of credability and is definitely not the leader you want in the White House for the next four years. Read it and this will finalize your decision for Nov. 2.

He's still the media darling (but not the President anymore!)

2004-09-07T07:34:00.000-04:00

First, this disclaimer: while I do not agree with his politics, I do not wish former President Clinton any personal ill will during his illness and hope that he has a speedy and full recovery from his surgery. Good health is something everyone should work toward having and Mr. Clinton is no exception. Get well soon so we can do battle again in the professional political arena.

However, I will take the mainstream media to task about their coverage of Mr. Clinton's current illness and his life in general. They treat him as though he were some sort of infallible figure and as if he were still the President. Granted, he does do everything possible to stay in the spotlight and is married to the very visible junior senator from New York. But this is no excuse for the media to still call him "the President" and our current leader "Mr. Bush"; instead, this shows a complete lack of respect for President Bush and borderline idol worship for Mr. Clinton. I feel that if the media could have their way, not only would they try to roll back time, they'd actively petition to have the 22nd Amendment repealed so that Mr. Clinton could be re-elected a la the FDR four-term presidency. Talk about a president for life, they'd ensure he'd be the one.

That, my friends, is the stuff that nightmares are made of.

Kerry campaign admits its offtrack

2004-09-06T21:43:00.000-04:00

This from today's Washington Times Insider: Kerry campaign forced to regroup. This is just further proof that the Kerry campaign is suffering irreparable damage from the "swarming" tactics employed by the anti-Kerry 527's and the President's post-RNC bounce.

You know that things are bad when James Carville himself is admitting this on Meet The Press yesterday at the same time Kerry strategist Tad Devine is saying the same thing on Fox News Sunday.

These are heady days for the Bush/Cheney campaign, but they also know that there is much more hard work in store during these last 75 days. With the Kerry campaign in nothing short of a tailspin, hard and purposeful campaigning by the Bush team will help lead us to victory on Nov. 2.

Here's a stomach churning No. 1

2004-09-06T21:40:00.000-04:00

Just saw this in the Washington Times Insider: Beheading video tops charts in Baghdad. This is very disheartening and goes to show just how desparate the terrorists are to mantain anarchy and chaos in the Iraq and the Middle East.

It's been a while, but I'm back

2004-09-06T20:27:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the extreme delay in posting about the last night of the RNC, the bounce and associated events, but between Hurricane Frances, Labor day and buying a house, I've been swamped this weekend. However, while I have a few spare moments, here are my thoughts on the above listed items.

First, the last night of the RNC, when the big speaker was non other than our President. All I can say is one word: WOW! President Bush's speech on Thursday promised to deliver, and it did. He presented his list of goals for his second term in a precise manner and with clarity. He was also on top of his game, projecting the power of his office and reputation from the convention floor to the nation, helping to reassure the masses that he is the right man in the right place for the job. And the images of his family, the Cheney's and other related people on stage following the speech helped to solidify the image of a team that is in charge and knows what needs to be done in the next four years. Compare this to the speech and images from the DNC where Sens. Kerry and Edwards projected themselves as the "Hope is on the way" candidates using vague generalities and imprecise points. Rather than showing a clear and comprehensive plan for the nation their first term, they showed that they lacked a clear vision and are instead relying on a general dislike of Pres. Bush and a cloudy Kerry war record that does little to help prop up the campaign. They both looked like a couple of insolent schoolboys rather than the leaders that they purport to be.

Second, the post-RNC bounce. Folks, this has to be one for the record books: Newsweek reports an 11 point bounce over the weekend, and the final serious campaigning hasn't even started yet. The President is riding a wave that will be hard for the Kerry campaign to stop or even avoid. The Kerry campaign is scrambling to counter this post convention boost with little hope of containment in this final campaign stretch; instead, they are running scared and this was evident on the Sunday morning news-talk shows, with the campaign leader and even the DNC chairman trying to perform emergency damage control. Couple this with the damage that the Swift Boat Veterans and other groups are doing to the Kerry campaign and you have the combination needed for a resounding Bush/Cheney victory on Nov. 2.

Finally, Hurricane Frances: My thoughts and prayers are with the residents of Florida who've endured the 1-2 punch dealt by Hurricanes Charley and Frances within the past two weeks. Both mine and my wife's parent's live in Florida, and both have been effected by Frances, as have many of our friends down there. We're now told that there is a third storm, Hurricane Ivan, is out in the Atlantic packing 140+ m.p.h. winds and is moving on a general path toward Florida. We'll all be keeping a watch on this storm as well as its predicted to be in the Florida region by next weekend. For those wishing to help from afar, please send monetary donations only to the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army. Both groups need money more than physical supplies so that they can assess what supplies to purchase that will be the most needed in the storm damaged regions of Florida.

Well, I hope that everyone enjoyed a wonderful Labor Day weekend and were able to spend it doing whatever you wanted as an enjoyable diversion. Now the hard work begins in the final push toward Nov. 2 and the successful re-election of Pres. Bush. Please go out and do your part: donate your time, money, sweat and effort until it hurts and then give a little more. Go to GeorgeWBush.com and make a donation, volunteer to help campaign or host an event, and sign up on the mailing list. Also, go to Amazon.com and buy Hugh Hewitt's new book If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat to understand the Democratic election strategy and why this election is so critical for the safety and future of our nation. I have read it and it is well worth the afternoon it will take for all the knowledge you will gain.

This election is now ours to win or lose, and with our hard work we will send Bush/Cheney back to the White House with a resounding victory! Let's roll!

Speech round-up, night three

2004-09-02T18:58:00.000-04:00

Okay, I know that I'm late, and that every talking head from coast to coast has already given every opinion imaginable about last night's speeches, but here I am at last, so here are my thoughts on the key speakers from last night:

Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA): By far the most powerful and energetic speaker of the RNC to date. Sen. Miller addressed the crowd with a style that can be described as nothing less than "charismatic evangelism". And it worked. He not only got the whole arena fired up he hit on multiple points about what is wrong with the modern Democratic party. This is a man who was born , bred and will die a Democrat, but his party is doing everything it can to distance itself from him and to get him to switch, but he won't budge, and that's a good thing. He is a thorn in the side of the modern Democratic party and he hurts them; well, I say "no pain, no gain" to that, quit crying and licking your wounds. The Dems are scrambling since they know he has dealt them a death blow in this campaign; what a difference from the half-hearted appearance by Ron Reagan Jr. and the DNC in July. A C-SPAN caller last night called him a "Dixiecrat" as an insult; since he's one of the last of the Kennedy/Truman/FDR Dems, I think that he's actually consider that a compliment. All in all, one of the most powerful speeches I've heard in a while.
V.P. Dick Cheney: While not the charismatic performer that Sen. Miller was, the V.P. delivered a speech in line with his own character: very matter of fact and direct with out a lot of fluff. Yes, he did throw in some jokes and did relate well to the crowd but he performed in the role he is best at: the brains of the operation. His speech outlined multiple policy points and expanded briefly on each, thus giving the crowd a glimpse of the next four years and of the President's speech tonight. And yes, he did accept the nomination for re-election!

All said, last night was a night of rousing speeches and policy definition. Tonight will be the defining night of the campaign where the President's policies will be outlined, defined and explained. After tonight the gloves come off and the final push to Nov. 2 begins. We'll see just how well run the Bush campaign is and how fast and destructive the Kerry campaign will be as it implodes.

Well, off to get dinner before the speeches begin. What a powerful night we have tonight. And speaking of power, have you seen the "theatre in the round" stage for tonight? That is the defining symbol of the power and success of President Bush! I have a feeling that if successful, this will become a main feature with party conventions focused on re-electing the incumbent, no matter which side of the aisle they're on. Talk about a cementing image for the election, this will be it.

Numbers from last night

2004-09-01T19:04:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to member BT17R of YotaTech for these viewer share numbers from last night:

FOXNEWS BEATS BROADCAST NETWORKS FOR TUESDAY NIGHT COVERAGE OF CONVENTION -- HISTORIC UNPRECEDENTED NUMBERS FOR CABLE 10-11PM

FOXNEWS -- 5.2 MILLION
NBC -- 5.1 MILLION
CBS -- 4.4 MILLION
ABC -- 4.3 MILLION
MSNBC -- 1.6 MILLION
CNN -- 1.5 MILLION

FOXNEWS peak came during Laura Bush's speech with 5,216,000 viewers... [5,124,000 during Schwarzenegger]

These numbers just go to show the collapse of the mainstream media as reliable sources of information, mainly due to their own doings with liberal bias and and refusal to let go of Vietnam. The rise of the internet, conservative talk radio and the blogosphere have also helped to boost these numbers. Still, its all trending in a good direction.

Off to watch V.P. Cheney tonight on the podium. I can't wait.

RNC speech round-up Nights 1 and 2

2004-08-31T22:31:00.000-04:00

Well, I finally got caught up with the two speeches from last night and have been watching tonight's so now I can do a brief round-up of the speeches to date:

John McCain: good speech, especially when it comes to Michael "Disingenuous Filmmaker" Moore. Sen. McCain put him squarely in his place not once, not twice, but three times. Sadly, Mr. Moore is to oblivious to realize what McCain was saying and actually took the ribbing as a compliment, complete with a hat tip! I guess ignorance truly is bliss! A great segue and a slam dunk lead in for Rudy.
Rudy Giuliani: definitely the highlight of the evening. As Hugh Hewitt quoted, he hit a grant slam with his speech last night and it was right on. He energized the room with his presence and captivated it with his recounting of his 9/11 experiences and the President's visit in the days following the attack. He also helped to widen the "big tent" of the party by being a key moderate who's reaching out to the broad base of the party. Look for both he and McCain to become more prominent in the second Bush term White House.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: definitely the big ticket draw of the night (GW's intro of Laura excepted), and what a speech it was. If anyone out there is the epitome of success and fulfillment of the American dream, its him. His message was sound and singular: even though we all have differences and might not agree with every tenet of the GOP platform, we are all Republicans and fighting for a just cause who need to unite behind Pres. Bush. He made a genuine gesture to the centrist-right members of the party (of which he is one) to include themselves in the debate to help further the GOP agenda and defeat the JohnJohn ticket this year. His comparison of them to socialists to the 1968 Nixon/Humphrey campaign was dead-on accurate and should not be forgotten quickly. He is definitely an energizing and appealing force within today's GOP and will definitely be a prominent figure in the next Bush White House.
F.L. Laura Bush (& G.W. intro): A great way to end the evening on a positive note. Gave great homage to our deployed soldiers and their families (got some noise from the CO delegation on that). A good message of support with some folksy family anecdotes woven in for good measure. A great speech from an awesome First Lady.

G.W.'s live video intro was a big plus to the crowd tonight, helping to top a night of rousing speeches with some great messages. On a down note, I don't think that the Bush daughters are quite ready for prime time yet; the discourse about their grandmother and father would have been more appropriate for a family gathering at home, not on national prime time television, and the audience let them know it wasn't as humorous as the twins thought it was. I think their strategy of staying out of the limelight is a good one and they should continue to practice it, especially since they are "adults" now. Look for some soundbites from them coming from the Kerry camp tomorrow.

That's it for tonight, looking forward to V.P. Cheney's speech tomorrow. BTW, be sure to read Hugh's post that I linked to earlier, it has an interesting theory about the V.P.'s possible actions in the second term. Click here to read it again.

Quick morning news stories digest

2004-08-31T08:49:00.000-04:00

For those who want a quick digest of the news, I suggest these two morning emails: The Washington Times Insider and Today's Headlines from The New York Times. Both require free registration and you can customize the service to send you the headlines you're interested in. They both provide a quick digest of the important headlines in each paper, and each from opposing sides of the spectrum. I find them to be invaluable, especially while traveling and trying to keep up with the campaign and blogging. And best of all, they're FREE!

Now, on to some interesting finds:

Bush's loose lips give Democrats more firepower (WTI): The Kerry campaign is using Pres. Bush's comments from last weeks Today show interview against him, trying to say that Bush can't win the war but JohnJohn can. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a man in office who's demonstrated unwavering and purposeful leadership than one who'd bow to the U.N. and start acting like a French leader.
9/11 showed Bush's leadership (WTI): review and analysis of McCain's and Giuliani's speeches. I'll provide my own commentary after reviewing the speeches later today.
Arnold represents GOP's centrists (WTI): Yes, yes he does. And while the Dem's criticize his, McCain's and other moderates appearing at the RNC, they do represent the moderate majority of the party and will be a big help in drawing centrist/moderates to help re-elect Pres. Bush in November.
Delegates already looking toward 2008 (WTI): Gives a good rundown of the GOP's potentials for 2008. Good strategy, especially since this election cycle is pretty much already decided, and was back in July. Any good campaign strategist recognizes that you have to think in terms of the next cycle even while the current one is underway or you become short-sighted and ineffective at winning campaigns. And party conventions give delegates to opportunity to view the rising stars and see who potential candidates are for the next cycle. This is probably the last real benefit that the conventions have, but it is the most important one.
Jenna, Barbara give dad a boost (WTI): This will help "de-alienate" the GOP from the youth (18-25) vote and maybe bring some back into the fold. This has been a long time coming, but the GOP still has a lot of work to do to shed its current image in favor of the "big tent party" image the leadership keeps espousing.
Schrock quits Virginia race, leaves GOP scrambling (WTI): I'm unsure as to why this happened, as it throws a wrench in the VA GOP's election plans. It also has potential to upset the balance of power in the House, but I feel that effect will be negated by other contests around the country. And since his district is overwhelmingly GOP, a replacement shouldn't have too much of an issue retaining the seat.
Procession of Speakers Invoke Bush's Leadership After 9/11 (NYT): Good review of last night's speeches, and not too much liberal slant. Great read to get the bullet points of the night.
Social Conservatives Wield Influence on Platform (NYT): Review of the GOP platform, and a good opportunity for some liberal slamming of the GOP agenda. Read this with a grain of salt (try a full salt shaker), but remember that not everyone (myself included) agrees with every tenet of the platform and feel that some lead to alienation from more moderate factions of the electorate. Some even embrace political zealots and that can actually help derail the efforts and goals that the GOP is trying to achieve.
Republican National Convention (NYT): Their coverage of the week, complete with photos and analysis. Once again, have the salt ready for the analysis but enjoy the photos.
Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror (NYT): Pro-Kerry slam piece disguised (poorly) as news in the "Old Grey Lady". Compare with the WTI piece noted above. Have the can of salt ready.

That's it for my news roundup this morning. There's some interesting reading out there, so enjoy.

Live from New York, its the RNC!!!

2004-08-31T08:06:00.000-04:00

Well all, with that reference to the welcome video shown last night at the convention, I'm starting my "coverage" of the RNC. Mind you, I'm not one of the privileged attendees or even a member of the credentialed blogger group at the RNC. No, I'm sitting at home in VA watching the events unfold live (via Tivo) and commenting on them from here.

First, what the convention is: a glorified pep rally for the party faithful, much like the DNC was for their folks. Yes, there is a lot of pomp, circumstance, excitement, excellent speakers and balloons (hopefully those will work this time), but not much more. Still, it does make for some good viewing (I do the C-SPAN thing) and you can see some rising (and falling) stars as well as some unexpected attendees (Don King and John Elway). All in all, a good time to be had.

Second, what the convention isn't: a nominating convention where the platform is decided and voted on, and the candidates are nominated in a true "battle" of delegates. The nominees have been decided months before, and the party platform has been drafted, approved and sanitized by the party leadership and the White House in the days leading up to the RNC. This leaves little room for any meaningful debate about the issues or any decisions to be made in the infamous "smoke filled rooms" of yesteryear. Ahh, the forward march of progress!

Speaking of the smoke filled rooms, those would be in direct ban of Mayor Bloomberg's city -wide indoor smoking ban. Just imagine if this had been in effect 50 years ago; can you see the decision makers out on the "smoke filled loading dock"? The visual itself is funny!

Next, the speeches: opening night is always the home of the roll call and the prime keynote speakers; last night were John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. I listened to the roll call over a late dinner with The Fetching Mrs. Morrison and then caught the start of John's speech. Since I Tivo-ed the speeches, I'll watch them later and give my thoughts this afternoon. I know, I won't get the jump on the major papers or even a lot of the Blogosphere, but then they won't have the unique perspective that only I can offer!

Now the celebrity faces: one name: Arnold! He's going to be the big draw tonight at the RNC. Granted, there are others who've come to speak, such as actor Ron Silver last night, but Arnold is going to be the big draw. And given that he (along with Giuliani and McCain) represents the centrist right majority of the party, he's one who I'm going to watch to hear his message.

Finally, the reporting: I feel that it'll be the standard fare offered by the major networks, which is why I'm switching between Fox News for commentary and C-SPAN for raw footage. Fox has been interesting, dragging out people like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, once the darlings of the party but now fallen from grace due to their own actions. Some even asked if Pat Buchanan was going to show up; I highly doubt that the RNC would allow him in the door since he's become a pariah in the party and is seen as the one who derailed G.H.W.'s re-election bid in '92. But then, the RNC did allow Michael Moore in the arena to report for USA Today (note: refuse free copies at hotels), so you never know who'll show up. Even if the news isn't very interesting, at least the parade of "experts" and talking heads should be.

That's it for now, off to watch Rudy's speech and review some print media for other stories of interest.

Terrorist toys?

2004-08-27T21:05:00.000-04:00

Here's a not so funny story from CNN today: 9/11 toy found inside candy bags. Draw your own conclusions from this. Either way, its not a funny prank.

Been traveling, but now home for a while

2004-08-27T10:56:00.000-04:00

Sorry that I haven't been keeping up as often as I should, but I've been on travel for work and haven't had as much time as I'd like for research and posting. Now that I'm back at home for a while, I'm going to pick up the pace a bit and catch up on my posting. Keep watching for my thoughts on the RNC next week and the start of the final 60 days until Nov. 2, when Pres. Buch retains the White House for a second term.

New York Times does it again!

2004-08-22T22:55:00.000-04:00

Once again, the "Old Grey Lady" has done the unthinkable to help forward its liberal anti-Bush agenda, according to this story on NewsMax: Times Outs Al-Queda operative. Instead of trying to help the country win the war on terrorism, all it can think about is itself and its role as the main print media flagship of the Democratic party. After this, can there be anyone left in the country who thinks that the NYT is still a balanced source for news? I sure hope not.

Kerry dishes it out, can't take it...

2004-08-21T10:57:00.000-04:00

Looks like John Kerry can dish it out but he can’t take the same in return. In today’s Washington Times Insider (registration required), Kerry has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about the ad being run by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. However, his strategy seems to be backfiring, as the group has received over $250,000 from over 3500 donors over the 24 hour period preceding the story’s publication. And Kerry’s complaint isn’t slowing the group down at all; in fact, they’re readying a second ad “rebuking the Democratic presidential candidate for his denunciation of American soldiers after he returned from South Vietnam in 1969”.

Good strategy, John: attack publicly and file complaints against those who speak the truth while spewing your own attacks against Pres. Bush, a man who hasn’t lied about his war record and fulfilled his military commitment. He reminds me of the kid at school who always goes around taunting and teasing everyone around him but then goes running to the teacher when he gets the same treatment back. I know about this since I speak from personal experience, but usually you learn that lesson by the fourth grade; I guess it’s taken Kerry a little longer to grow up in this way.

This just shows that the Kerry campaign is playing by the standard Democratic playbook that states if things aren’t going your way, complain, litigate and cheat in order to get your way. This is the strategy outlined in Hugh Hewitt’s book If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat and it is hold true right now. Buy this book and you’ll see exactly what they’re tactics are and how to defeat them in the next two presidential elections.

Kerry thinks that his attacks will help him gain favor with other Vietnam vets and others who oppose Pres. Bush; instead, he’s alienating the majority of Vietnam vets and current members of the military. He also comes across weak and ineffective, looking to a higher power (read: U.N.) to solve ours and the world’s problems. Is this the kind of guy that we want in the White House during these troubled times? I think not. We need a strong person who’s willing to do what is necessary to protect the U.S. and eliminate threats globally and who has the respect of the military to boot.

As for the Kerry vets, the only ones who seem to be getting really vocal are some vets who are on vacation in Hanoi, of all places, and part of a group called “Americans Overseas for Kerry”. These people, in my opinion, are an affront to our country and shouldn’t be protesting Pres. Bush on foreign soil. If you’re going to protest, at least do it here at home instead of in a country whose government has been hostile to the U.S. for 30+ years. However, I feel that even these folks will not be enough to deny Pres. Bush a second term in the White House.