Said this before...."gotta love the Marines"

I absolutely support what this Marine vet said at this townhall meeting. We need more and more members of the formerly-silent majority to speakup and speak their mind! Marines....gotta love 'um!



h/t Ally via Hot Air

"I think we can all agree....."

I've been watching the news coverage of the "Great Health Care Debate" with great interest. I'm extremely pleased that citizens of our great Country are taking the time to become educated, to read the proposed bills, and to speak out about their thoughts. To me, this is what Democracy is all about; citizens participating in their governance. I just hope that our politicians listen, but somehow I doubt it....and I'll tell you why.

It seems like just about everyone who supports the bill (in one form or another) starts their conversation about health care with the statement, "I think we can all agree...." Interesting. Most DON'T agree; that the health care system in irretrievably broken, that costs are totally out of control, or that it's the government that has to do something about health care. By starting their argument with the statement "I think we can all agree...." proponents of health care reform (whether their politicians or press), are using a classic debate tactic. They're trying to set the stage for the argument by getting their opponents in the discussion to agree to a premise that may (or may not) be faulty. Lawyers use this tactic all the time to get a witness (generally on cross-examination) to agree to a crucial fact or premise the lawyer wants to establish. I just hope that opponents of the proposed government takeover of health care who do not agree that the current system is irretrievably broken take the time to correct the premise. After all, if the system is broken, politicians will not be able to help themselves....they'll believe they have to get involved to "fix it."

Senate Social Networking....

I'm not surprised by Senator Specter "defecting" to the Democratic party. He's been a Democrat in sheep's clothing for a long time. Although I'm not surprised at his switch, I'm saddened for those Republican constituents who voted for him, believing that they were voting for a Republican. I know that voters should evaluate a candidate based on the candidate's personal integrity and policies and not a political affiliation, but the party a candidate belongs to does say something about their political "approach" and may have had an impact on some voter's choice. For that voter, Senator Specter's defection must seem like a classic "bait and switch" gambit.

Slate has an interesting, and unique, way to look at the senate and it's interaction. They've developed a "Facebook-style visualization" of the Senate's "social networking" by grouping together those Senators who have voted together more than 65% of the votes in 2009. It's "way cool" and a "must see." Go check it out!

h/t Cassandra

Have a Wonderful Tea Party!

Today is Tax Day....and it's also the day when patriotic Americans (or if you're a liberal, you'd call them tax-protesters) are holding anti-tax Tea Parties in all 50 states. Personally, I support the patriotic Americans who have taken the time to attend the Tea Parties. Big Government, with higher taxes to support Big Government spending, is not an effective way to govern. Big Government does nothing but perpetuate reliance on Big Government.

Don't get me wrong, I support a central government that is responsible for defense of the Nation and foreign affairs. I even think that maintenance of interstate infrastructure is the responsibility of a central government. But I don't think that a big, central government should be making decisions about the leadership of corporations or requiring banks to make risky mortgage loans and then bailing them out when the bank holds "toxic paper." Nor do I think the government should be managing health care or creating "one-size-fits-all" social programs, which in reality fits no one.

So, to those of you attending a Tea Party today.....thank you for going. For those of us who don't have a Tea Party nearby....you can still work within your local community to make your opinions known. The "Silent Majority" can't be silent anymore.

Is This When the Zombies Attack?

Andrew Osborn has an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today. The article discusses a prediction made by Igor Panarin, the Dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for foreign diplomats (and a former-KGB analyst), that the United States will suffer an economic and moral collapse in 2010 that will result in the breakup of the Union. Apparently Mr Panarin has been predicting the dissolution of the United States for over a decade, but now that the economy is "messed up," people are taking him a bit more seriously. Should we?

According to the article, Mr Panarin used classified data to formulate his prediction that

"economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.



Okay...so who is the guy? Well, he's not a member of the fringe-crazy-conspiracy underground. He has a doctorate in political science, has studied U.S. economics, and worked for the Russian equivalent of the National Security Agency. He developed his theory that the US will disintegrate while he was writing strategy forecasts in the 1990's. Mr. Panarin says that the disintegration of the US will not be a good thing for Russia, but still says there is a 55-45% chance that it will happen.

Okay...so is his theory nuts? It seems to me that Mr. Panarin's disintegration theory is more than a bit "extreme;" but like many extreme theories, may have an underlying basis of reality embedded somewhere inside. The US does face challenging times in 2010. Our economy seems to be in a decline, that even President-elect Obama warns may take a long time to fix. Economic stimulus packages, mortgage and Wall Street bailouts, and even the Christmas shopping season have not generated an economic recovery. People continue to be pessimistic about the economy, and have very definite ideas on what will, or will not, work. There is fear of another "Great Depression." We also have a very definite schism between political parties, and we seem to be losing all pretense of civility. We have "red states" and "blue states" with differing interests, outlooks, and political philosophies. Our "red states" feel that the "blue states" have a disproportional influence on national priorities; even though the "red states" are more numerous. As a public, we don't trust our politicians and we want a change in how our politicians (at both the local and national levels) do business...but we still want "our" representatives to "bring home the bacon." We also don't trust bankers, CEOs, and newspaper reporters (and probably shouldn't based on their recent records). For some reason, though, we do trust celebrities. Most of the public also trusts the military, but that portion of the country who wears pink, has attended an Ivy-League school, or lives in the Northeast still lives in the Vietnam-era fear that the military will stage a coup...or something. We are suffering from a "quiet invasion" of illegal immigrants; and cannot figure out how to respond. We have created, and perpetrated, a culture of victimization. Many of our citizens, rightly or wrongly, still feel like they are treated as second-class citizens because of their skin color or their gender or their religion. We avoid risks instead of taking them as challenges.

Okay...so should we worry? Like I said, things are challenging; but I don't think we should necessarily start selling our US Savings Bonds, yet. I don't know if Mr. Panarin understands the basic psyche of the American public. We may have economic and political challenges, but we will still support the "idea" of a national union against all comers. Remember how, despite differences, we pulled together after the 9/11 attacks? Underneath all, most Americans are patriots. We love our successful experiment in representative democracy and want it to not only survive but grow stronger. Like any big family facing challenges, we will argue and fight amongst ourselves; but when an outsider wants to intervene, we will pull together and display a united front. So, while Mr. Panarin's theory is interesting (and good for a bit of a laugh); I don't think we need to fear the Zombies, quite yet.

Where are the New Leaders?

Colonel Oliver North has a great editorial on FoxNEWS. In it he makes the point that the Republican party, specifically, and America, generally, needs to look for new, strong, leaders to take us forward and meet the challenges of the future. I agree. The "same-old, same-old" pork-barrel politicians currently in power just won't do. Most of them have become invested in their own arrogance of power. Sad, but true.

So where does Colonel North suggest we look for these new leaders? In the military. He explains,

"Today, there are only 129 members of Congress who have served in our Armed Forces. Since the end of World War II, the ratio of veterans in Congress has been closer to fifty-fifty. The GOP can fix that by reaching out now to the best and bravest of this generation — the remarkable young Americans serving in our Armed Forces. They are all volunteers, part of the brightest, best-educated and most combat-experienced military any nation has ever had and they don't have false illusions about the way things are in the rest of the world.

From personal experience they know that America is one of a handful of places on earth where you can drink water out of the tap or flick a light switch and the lights will come on. They are aware that in the U.S. you can go to a store and buy almost anything you want; that when you call the police you do not expect brutality to show up at your door.

The young men and women who have served our country in uniform know that America is one of the rare places on the globe where you can get in a car and drive anywhere in the country with nothing more than a driver's license and a credit card. They appreciate that every citizen has rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Military service has taught them that competence, courage, integrity, perseverance, and compassion are rewarded. Those qualities make them natural leaders."

In my opinion, Colonel North has hit the jackpot with this suggestion. We don't need toadies or narcissists who want the power and arrogance that comes the power. We need leaders who know how to serve. We need leaders with experience in evaluating a situation and making a decision. We need leaders with good judgment. The military serves as a crucible for developing the leadership qualities we need in our public servants, at all levels. We need to encourage our citizens who have served in the military to consider extending their service by running for political office; whether it be the local school board, the state legislature, or the US Congress. We need leadership!

Transition & National Security Law

Yesterday there was a post on National Review Online’s Tank that referred to an essay published in the American Bar Association's National Security Law Report. The author of the essay, Judge James E. Baker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, offers some advice on how the Obama presidential transition team could get a “running start in the areas of national security law and Presidential process.” Judge Baker’s suggestions are excellent and his analysis is superb. I just hope that someone on the Obama transition team reads his article and takes his advice.

Judge Baker makes a point that the passing of the torch of government from the President to a President-elect is part of the rhythm of government. It is something that we, as Americans, take for granted; but hope goes seamlessly. According to Judge Baker, however, the transition period creates both a tactical and a procedural vulnerability. Our Country is tactically vulnerable during the transition of one administration to another because the old administration is hesitant to act or make policy commitments while the new administration won’t have developed its template for handling problems and their campaign rhetoric may not have adjusted to hard reality. We are also procedurally vulnerable. When one administration leaves their offices, they leave little to guide the new administration. There may be no phone lists or points of contact established between action officers. There may be no personnel in place to make decisions (particularly if the decision-maker needs to be approved by Congress). There may even be no offices or infrastructure in place.

So how does a new administration mitigate the tactical and procedural vulnerabilities inherent in a transition? According to Judge Baker, the transition team for the new administration must recognize them and address them. The new team must avoid flushing all the policies and procedures of the old team. Instead, they must evaluate what worked and what did not. The transition team should also do their best to limit the decisions that must be made during the first days of the new administration by getting ready for those decisions in advance. The new administration should learn relevant national security law in advance, as well as the process for setting a strategic legal framework. They should make critical decisions about process before the inauguration and write Presidential Directives to announce those decisions that will be issued the first day of the new administration. Finally, according to Judge Baker, they should set a six-month policy agenda and determine who is in charge. Sounds like good advice to me!

I agree wholeheartedly with Judge Baker’s conclusion, “In some cases, ‘better is the enemy of good enough.’ Not so in transition. We must do better; we cannot risk less at a time when U.S. armed forces are committed to combat, WMD terrorism is a realistic prospect, and pandemic disease incubates.” As I said before, I just hope someone from President-elect Obama’s transition team reads Judge Baker’s essay and has the judgment to use it as a template.

"Country First"

"Country First." I think that Senator McCain chose a wonderful slogan for his campaign. When it comes to politics, we MUST put our Country first. Our Country is one of the greatest in the history of the world. (Personally, I'd say THE greatest, but then I'm biased.) Our Country is great because the collective "we," the electorate, chooses who will work for them, who will lead them, who will govern them. Our Country is great because we can peacefully pass the reins of government from one elected official to another. Our Country is great because we can have "change" and "hope" and still put "Country First."

The electorate of our great Country has spoken, and elected Senator Obama to be the next President. So be it. As all of you know, I have my doubts about his judgment, his policies, and his ability to lead; but he is now the President-elect of MY great Country. Because I respect the office he will hold, I will act respectfully to the man who hold it. Don't misunderstand me, I will still speak out when I believe a policy, judgment, or action is wrong; that is my right, obligation, and privilege as a citizen. I will do so thoughtfully and respectfully. (Of course, I do reserve my right to be sarcastic when sarcasm is warranted, and I hope I never lose my sense of humor.) But, I will not be like the "loony-left" has been for the past 8 years and develop a kind of knee-jerk "everything-he-does-is-evil" mentality, nor will I develop some kind of Obama-derangement-syndrome. I will still use my brain and any other God-given talents I possess to listen, evaluate, and consider before I act or speak. If I dissent, I will do so respectfully; because I put my Country First.

Scared Yet?

Peter Ferrara, writing on The American Spectator website, has a very interesting look at a possible Obama presidency. His Special Report is titled “The Hugo Chavez Democrats.” I’ll hit the high points, but it’s a good read and I recommend following the link and seeing what Mr. Ferrara has to say.

According to Mr. Ferrara, an Obama presidency would bring the end of prosperity, a decline in our ability to defend the Nation, forced unionism, restraints on free speech, “Brown Shirt” thugs threatening anyone who doesn’t agree with the administration, and a massive swing to radical socialism. Perhaps Mr. Ferrara is a bit of a pessimist, but then again, perhaps he isn’t.

Mr. Ferrara thinks that during an Obama presidency, one supported by a highly-liberal Democrat Congress, there would be a rise in every major Federal tax, which would increase government spending and regulatory costs in order to pay for social programs. Mr. Ferrara points out,

”Obama has the entire country mesmerized by the promise of a measly $500 income tax credit for ’95% of Americans. . . . Yet another government check like that is not going to do anything to change the fundamental incentives, and so will do nothing to advance the economy. Indeed, it will harm the economy as the credit is swiftly phased out at higher income levels, effectively increasing marginal tax rates further by imposing another penalty as income rises.”

Interesting, isn’t it. I know that I’m mostly preaching to the choir, but Senator Obama’s rhetoric about cutting taxes for the average American and making the rich and corporate fat cats pay “their fair share” is really starting to sound like an old, broken record. As he told Joe the Plumber, the real purpose behind his tax and spend policy is to redistribute wealth. I tend to agree with Mr. Ferrara that Senator Obama’s proposed tax cuts are really “tax credits that would send new government checks to those paying little or nothing in federal income taxes” rather than true tax cuts; for anyone.

Mr. Ferrara also questions whether we can “really trust these ultraliberals with our nation’s defenses?” Good question. Liberal Democrat, Congressman Barney Frank, wants to cut national defense spending by 25%, even though Iran is trying to gain nuclear weapons, Russia is threatening its neighbors and trying to reassert itself on the world stage, and China is playing games. How does it make sense to cut defense spending when we have not yet quelled Islamic terrorism or when Iran is trying to build a nuclear capability? Senator Obama has said that he’ll sit down, without preconditions, and talk to Iranian leaders. But Iran has issued its own set of preconditions. They will not talk to us unless we withdraw all our forces from the Middle East (including Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey) and cut our ties with Israel. Remember that Iran is totally committed to the destruction of Israel. Why in the world would anyone think that cutting defense spending and talking to potential enemies would help defend our way of life? Amazing!

Mr. Ferrara also describes how the ultraliberals in an Obama presidency want to eliminate the secret ballot for union elections. The unions, big supporters of the Democrat ticket, think secret ballots are unfair; probably because they lose more elections than they win. A change to federal law would require employers to recognize a union simply when the union presents “union authorization cards” signed by a majority of the company’s employees. If there is no secret ballot, the union will be able to intimidate, threaten, and coerce employees into signing the cards. Anyone who doesn’t want to join the union would still be required to do so; and be forced to pay high union dues and let the union bargain on their behalf. As Mr. Ferrara says, under this scenario “the employer has lost control over his company” the minute union activists show up at their door with cards signed by a bare majority of workers.

Under an Obama presidency, state and local governments would be forced to recognize mandatory unions for public workers, including police and firefighters. Why should we require our “finest” and our “bravest” belong to a union before they can be our first responders. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a national right to work law that gives individual employees the right to decide whether, or not, to join a union? Isn’t that what freedom really means; the right to make our own decisions?

Then there’s the question of whether free speech can be fair. According to Mr. Ferrara, an Obama presidency would impose drastic regulation of the “public airwaves” that would require a “mandatory balance between competing viewpoints on public policy issues.” Obviously, this “fairness doctrine” is aimed at conservative talk radio, particularly since network news (now called the mainstream media) is exempt. You see, they are totally objective . . . right, sure they are! Under an Obama presidency, free speech is limited by government bureaucrats who will decide what is “balanced” based on totally subjective standards. What a recipe for abuse of power!

But then the Obama presidency is well primed for abusing power. The Obama campaign has already demonstrated it’s readiness to use legal processes, intimidation, and threats to shut down opposing views. Mr. Ferrara refers to these “minions” as “The Brown Shirts.” Consider this. The Obama campaign has sent letters demanding criminal prosecution of an advocacy organization and its primary donor because they sponsored TV advertisements critical of Senator Obama’s association with homegrown terrorist, Bill Ayers. The campaign has sent letters threatening FCC investigations of their broadcast licenses to TV stations that have run NRA-sponsored ads critical of the Senator’s anti-gun record. They have sent “WARNING letters” to potential GOP donors, threatening investigations into “their business and personal affairs” by the IRS, media, or watch-dog groups. The campaign in Missouri has even organized a “Truth Squad” made up of local prosecutors and law enforcement-types who will target anyone who “lies” about Senator Obama. Take a look at what happened to “Joe the Plumber.” Because he spoke out against Senator Obama, local government officials invaded his privacy; releasing information about his taxes, his support payments, and his driving history. Why? Finally, in Chicago, Senator Obama called for his minions to sabotage a WGN talk radio show because the host invited a writer critical of the Senator to appear on his show. The Senator said the writer did not deserve “time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves.” Senator Obama, just who “owns” those public airwaves? I’m really not sure it’s Senator Obama or his minions. Mr. Ferrara warns,

”If this is how Obama and his people are behaving now, what will they be like when they take over the Justice Department, and the FCC, and the entire federal government.?”

Good question. Are you frightened yet? I am. But if you’re not convinced that an Obama presidency would let the “Hugo Chavez Democrats” run wild, Mr. Ferrara ends his Special Report with this:

”I have left out Obama’s support for driver’s licenses and Social Security for illegal aliens, his massive proposed spending increases, including a new global war on poverty financed by U.S. taxpayers, recently totaled in the Wall Street Journal as amounting to $4.3 trillion over 10 years, his proposed government takeover of health care, his specified central economic planning for our energy industry, his support for the most liberal-left Supreme Court appointees in history, modeled after former ACLU General Counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his support for federal legislation to repeal every state restriction on abortion, including parental notification, his ardent support for partial birth abortion, his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and his opposition to making English the official language of America (he said Americans need to teach their children Spanish).

Scared now?

Arrogance of Power

Have you ever known someone that thinks they’re indispensible? These are the folks that think they’re the only one who can finish a project the “right” way, or only one who really “understands” the issues, or that their proposed “solution” is the only one that will really work. You see a lot of these folks in leadership positions. They’re generally well-intentioned, highly-motivated, and extremely competent folks. But for some reason, they develop a kind of myopic arrogance that leads them to believe their way is the only way, or their view is the only view. I don’t know if it’s the exercise of authority or power that leads to the growth of this arrogant belief in their own power, or if it is something in the person’s makeup. But, I do know that someone who is a great leader never thinks they’re indispensible. Great leaders are confident in them selves, and may even be a bit arrogant, but they are not arrogant in their power. They listen to other’s ideas and make a decision on the best course of action without believing that they’re always right.

It seems that politicians often develop this arrogance of power. They start out leading others with good, well-intentioned ideas and motives; and end up so confident in their own abilities and point of view that they lose track of what’s really important. They lose track of the idea that a politician is a public servant, and become invested in the idea that the public is there to serve them. They become so arrogant in their power that they will do anything to get elected or re-elected. It’s a great argument for term limits, isn’t it?

Col. Oliver North has an interesting post on FOXNews, titled When Leaders Get Messiah Complexes that touches on the impact of what I call arrogance of power. Col. North agrees with me that leadership matters, and that (unfortunately) many leaders develop this arrogance in their own power. Col. North describes it as a “messiah complex;” that these leaders come to believe they are the only ones who can provide what is necessary at the time it’s needed. Col. North cites several examples of leaders who developed a “messiah complex; including Napoleon (who had himself declared Emperor of France because he thought he was essential to France’s future), Hitler (who claimed he needed to preserve the Aryan race), Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jung Il.

According to Col. North, American’s have resisted following leaders who possess this arrogance of power or a type of messianic complex. Most of our leaders have been humble men, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Harry Truman. For the most part, Americans tend to like limited government and want public servants to be just that; someone who serves the public good.

Col. North, however, witnessed an event that he found disturbing and shook his belief that the American public understands the dangers of believing a leader, particularly a political leader, is somehow a savior. Col. North describes,

”During Wednesday afternoon’s rush hour, I was making my way home on the “Dulles Greenway” when a phalanx of police motorcycles and cruisers stopped all traffic and ordered us to pull or vehicles off the highway onto the shoulders. Over a loudspeaker we were told to stay put until the Obama campaign convoy passed, on the way to a rally in Leesburg, Virginia.

Instantly, hundreds of people were out of their cars. Directly in front of me a group of supporters—evident by their bumper stickers—jumped out with cameras, cell phones and banners. They began chanting: “The Messiah! He’s coming! Obama is coming!” The shouting only intensified as the candidate and his entourage—motorcycles, police cars, black Secret Service Suburbans and busses—roared past us.”

Col. North found the event profoundly upsetting, because he saw so many who apparently believe that Senator Obama, if he is elected the next President, could save us from ourselves. That somehow only Senator Obama has the key to a brilliant future. I agree with Col. North that this almost messianic belief that many of our countrymen (and women) have developed is a recipe for disaster. Senator Obama, and many of his advisors, are sufficiently invested in their beliefs that they’ve developed that arrogance of power, that messianic complex, and believe that their way is the only way. Col. North reminds Senator Obama that “humility is a virtue that has distinguished our greatest leaders.” Personally, I think that reminder has come too late. If you look at Senator Obama’s entire presidential campaign, from his ads, to the Greek-columned acceptance speech, to the attempt to suppress opposite views, to the manipulation of facts; it’s clear to me that the arrogance of power is firmly established in his belief that only he can be the agent of hope and change. Scary, isn’t it?

Joe the Plumber & Britney's Headache

I'm afraid Joe the Plumber is finding out just how dangerous it is to publicly question the policies of Senator Obama and the liberal establishment. He found his "15-minutes of fame" with his cogent, intelligent, and relevant question to Senator Obama about the Senator's tax plans, and his astute analysis of the impact to small business and to "the little guy." Unfortunately, like the child who pointed out the Emperor wore no clothes, Joe's question prompted an answer from Senator Obama that revealed the naked truth of Senator Obama's tax plan; he wants to redistribute dollars from those who earn to those who do not.

As a result, the liberal establishment, bloggers and the mainstream media alike, are now trying to discredit Joe the Plumber. It seems that everything is fair game. So he's not really a licensed plumber. He works for one. So he really doesn't make $250K a year. He never said he did. He only said he might have the opportunity in the future to buy a small business that could make $250K. So he had a lien for unpaid medical bills. The bills have been paid and the lien lifted. So he might owe back state taxes. So his name might be spelled wrong on voter registration lists. SO WHAT??? In a great quote, Joe said that "I'm kind of like Brittney Spears having a headache. Everyone wants to know about it."

What gives the press and the liberal establishment the right to go after and make public every little bit of dirt they can possibly uncover about Joe the Plumber? He's an intelligent and responsible voter, who just wanted to ask a candidate about the candidate's policies. That the candidate's answer honestly showed what the candidate really thought, instead of what the candidate wants the public to think, does not mean that Joe needs to be painted as something other than a concerned voter trying to figure out who to vote for.

The liberal reaction to Joe the Plumber and his 15-minutes of fame is telling; and very scary. It shows that they react to dissent by vilifying the dissenter. It shows that they will go to any lengths to stifle dissent by anyone who doesn't agree with them. When you couple what's happened to Joe the Plumber (an everyday citizen) with the Obama campaign's attempt to use law enforcement to stop dissent in St Louis, or the lawsuits brought against conservative commentators, and the cry of "racist" or "racism" raised every time someone disagrees with Senator Obama or his policies; you get a very scary picture. Add the liberal attempt to re-institute the wrongly named "fairness doctrine" and you have a very clear picture of the liberal mindset: we know what's good for you, whether you agree or not, so you better not rock the boat or we'll make it difficult for you. Scary when you think of it that way, isn't it.

What's next? Re-eduction camps? Oh wait, those are called charter schools these days....

UPDATE: Check out this great article at American Thinker that says what I wanted to say, but does it so much better!

Joe the Plumber

"Joe the Plumber" gave a wonderful interview to Dianne Sawyer on Good Morning America. Watch it below. Remember Joe? He's the plumber who asked Senator Obama why he thought it was a good idea to raise taxes, and prompted Senator Obama's unscripted answer that really proved Senator Obama was "all about" redistribution of wealth. Joe really comes across as a "regular guy." He's concerned with working hard, providing a living for himself and his son, and doesn't want to be penalized for his hard work with higher taxes just so someone who doesn't work as hard (or doesn't want to work) can have the benefit of his sweat. He's articulate and likeable; but best of all, his analysis is right on the money (tax money, that is).

More ACORNs

My cousin (and friend) G.Smiley, sent this to me...I thought it so funny, I just had to share.

Identity Politics 2.0

I've posted here before about identity politics and how I think that it's a travesty that people would vote for any candidate, but especially a Presidential candidate, based only on something like race, gender, or religion. I tend to think that identity politics is one of the worst kinds of bigotry around. Responsible citizens vote for a candidate because they've researched the candidate's policies, believe the candidate has good judgment, or for some reason other than the candidate's identity.

I'm not a fan of Howard Stern, but he did a bit on his radio show where he sent one of his "guys" to a NY neighborhood and asked Senator Obama supporters if they supported Senator Obama for president based on particular policy positions, but used Senator McCain's positions on abortion and the Iraq War instead of Senator Obama's. The "guys" also asked Senator Obama supporters if they thought that Senator Obama's choice of Sarah Palin was a good choice for Vice President. It's too funny, except that it's too tragic. Have a listen:



h/t HotAir

Fakery or Strategery

Voter Fraud? From a Chigago politician? It would never happen....or would it? There are a lot of reports of voter fraud coming out of various states; Ohio, Nevada, and Missouri to name a few. All these allegations of voter fraud have one thing in common, the allegations of fraud involve the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN. Remember Senator Obama represented ACORN in litigation, and ACORN heavily supports the Democrat ticket. The ACORN organization is, naturally, denying culpability. Instead, they blame their paid voter registration worker-bees who would apparently register people 10, 15, or 25 times. Apparently, in Nevada, they registered past and present Dallas Cowboy football players. They also like registering dead people. ACORN was also the organization that sued banks to generate more sub-prime mortagages and is heavily behind the financial shennagians that led to the current economic melt-down. As a reward, the Democrats wanted to give ACORN some of the $700Billion bailout fallout. Maybe the reward was for registering so many voters, real or imagined.

UPDATE

Add Indiana to the list of states where ACORN has apparently filed false registration forms. According to reports, election officials in Lake County, Indiana, stopped processing 5000 registration forms ACORN delivered just before the registration deadline expired. It appears the first 2100 forms turned out to be fraudulent. They were apparently all filled out and signed by the same person, and had named voters who were dead. One voter name was actually the name of a resturant.

Also, a Federal Judge has ordered Ohio election officials to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching the names to other government records. This verification step is something that is required by the Help America Vote Act, although (according to GOP sources) the Ohio Secretary of State (you know the woman who didn't want to accept Republican voter registrations that didn't have a non-crucial box checked) has resisted completing the verification.

Romantic Bad Boy?

A blogger named "Bookworm" has an interesting theory on why so many otherwise intelligent and responsible Americans seem to be infatuated with Senator Obama. Check out Bookworm's article on American Thinker.

According to Bookworm, Americans are climbing on Senator Obama's bandwagon because he's the "romantic bad-boy." Okay, as a theory, it makes a kind of sick sense. Bookworm points out that, for women, the typical romantic bad boy is the guy that has

"been running around on her, and he can get pretty verbally abusive. Still he always tells her he loves her and he promises her that things will get better. With those promises echoing in her head, she's absolutely certain that, if she can just get him to the altar, he'll improve. The act of marriage will magically transform him from an abusive boyfriend who makes pretty speeches into the man of her dreams -- one who is precisely as good as he promises to be. The fact that her friends keep pointing out his myriad failings and that they remind her that the leopard can't change his spots is irrelevant. He says he loves her and if, she can just force that marriage, he'll suddenly realize that he has to change.

Bookworm then compares the typical romantic bad boy to Senator Obama who, despite a record devoid of accomplishments, has made impressive promises "such as a crystalline, pre-industrial environment, without any economic downsides; peace and harmony with the baddest of bad guys; universal health care; and wealth for all. . ." According to Bookworm, like women who believe all the promises that their romantic bad-boys tell them, many Americans "believe those promises, despite the fact that Obama's ineffective resume shouldn't give them reason to believe that he can follow through on any of his promises." So, Bookworm believes that the reason so many normally intelligent Americans intend to vote for Senator Obama is because they

"are thrilling to the feeling of dating the political bad boy, the cool guy who talks a good line, but who has a trail of personal and professional failures in his wake (and some pretty unsavory friends too). Everybody wants to date the bad boy once and a while. But the thing is, you don't marry the bad boy. Just as marriage to the bad boy won't magically make him better, a presidential inauguration won't transform the anti-American, unaccomplished Barack Obama into an effective statesman imbued with a true love for his country.

Perhaps. Perhaps it's just because no one, but the alternative media has looked closely at Senator Obama; who he really is and what he really stands for. Perhaps it's because there are those so infatuated with the "historic" nature of his campaign for presidency (code words for the first black presidential candidate). Perhaps it's just because this Country has become so polarized that neither party is willing to really evaluate a candidate; but will just cast a "knee jerk" vote. Who knows. I do know, however, that American voters should heed Bookworm's final bit of advice:

"So, if you voters think there is more to this Barack Obama than just pretty words, I suggest that you do with him exactly what I'd suggest if you were a young woman infatuated with the bad boy: Wait a while (four years? eight years? twelve years?) and see whether, with time, he either grows up and grows out of it, or if he follows that downward trajectory, validating your decision to reject him in the first place."

Senator Obama is "Loving You"

Andy McCarthy has a post on The Corner at NRO.com that's really scary! The post summarizes another article by Ken Timmerman on Newsmax discussing Senator Obama's money raising campaign. It seems that Senator Obama has received a lot of money from foreign sources, in violation of Federal law, and there is also indication that he's received a lot of money from contributors who are structuring their contributions deliberately to avoid the requirement that the campaign disclose anyone with contributions totaling over $200, as well as the $4,600 limit for individual campaign contributions. Unlike Senator McCain, who discloses all of his campaign contributors, Senator Obama has refused to dislose the names of most of his donors even though election law requires that the campaign track them.

Senator Obama has raised almost a half of a billion dollars ($429.6 million), so far. According to Newsmax, the Federal Election Commission (the FEC) has asked for a redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

The FEC has also identified more than 11,500 contributors making $33.87 million in questionable overseas contributions. Until recently, Senator Obama's website allowed people to make contributions from any country listed in the UN without giving proof of citizenship. The records show that Senator Obama has raised $201,680 from diplomats or military members living overseas. They've listed their address with an "APO" identifier. Clearly, folks who reside overseas can legally contribute; as long as they are a citizen, and there's nothing wrong with those contributions. On the other hand, the FEC has identified more than 520 of Senator Obama's campaign donors who listed their state as IR, which is an abbreviation for Iran. There were 63 other donors who listed thier address as the UK, an abbreviation for the United Kingdom. In November 2007, two Palestinian brothers contributed more than $31,300 to Senator Obama's campaign, and the FEC has asked the campaign to reassign the money. The campaign has refunded most of it, but still owes $891.11, despite FEC warnings that the money must be refunded and the campaign's claim it did so in December.

Aside from the questionable overseas donations, the FEC has also questioned donations from small contributors; those the campaign does not have to disclose. It seems that there is some evidence that contributors or fundraisers are breaking a large contribution into small parts and using fake names to avoid campaign disclosure laws and the monetary limit for individual contributors. Senator Obama has raised $222.7 million from people contributing $200 or less. According to the Newsmax article thats the largest pool of unidentified money that's ever "flooded" the US election system since before or after the McCain-Fingold election reform laws went into effect in 2002.

For example, the FEC has questioned a series of $25 donations from a Mr. "Good Will" who apparently lives in Austin, Texas, and who listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You." Mr. Will is just too cute for his own good. Newsmax reviewed the campaign records and discovered that Mr. Good Will has made over 1,000 contributions (most for $25 paid by credit card) for a total contribution of $17,375. The Obama campaign has refunded the credit card for 330 contributions, but Mr. Will's total contribution still reaches $8,950, well over the $4,600 limit an individual can contribute to a campaign under our election laws.

In another example, Mr. "Doodad Pro" from "Nando, NY" contributed a total of $19,500 in 786 donations, again most of them by credit card for $25. Like Mr. Good Will, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You" on some donations and just seemed to pick random letters on other donations. The Obama campaign has also refunded some of the donations, but not all. The campaign still possesses $11,165 of Mr. Pro's contributions, again well over the individual limit.

I know I'm skeptical about conspiracies, but does anyone else see a pattern here? If Mr. Will and Mr. Pro weren't so cavalier (or so stupid and juvenile) they wouldn't have used such obviously fake names or fake information so many times. Without their stupidity, the system these two used for avoiding disclosure or individual limits would have been much more difficult to identify. The information is scary, though and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have to ask myself a couple of questions: Is this a concerted effort to avoid federal election laws? Is this one of those dreaded conspiracies, or just stupid contributors? Just how many of Senator Obama's contributions violate the laws of this country? Will the FEC act, or just let the Obama campaign draw out their responses and actions until after election day? Finally, the most important question of all. . .when will the mainstream media report on these "irregularities?"

Partisan Politics Stikes Again

Remember high school? You know, that period in your life that, on one hand, you'd like to remember fondly for the friends, fun times, and frolic. But on the other hand, that period in your life you'd like to forget because of the immaturity, infighting, and imbecility of it all. Yesterday, the House of Representatives acted like everything we'd like to forget about the high school experience. Those we've elected to represent our interests on a national level acted like high school kids involved in a battle over who would get to sit at the best table in the lunchroom or date the homecoming queen (king).

The insertion of partisan politics into what should have been a bi-partisan effort to address a looming financial crisis (whether the crisis is real or not doesn't matter when people and investors believe it's real) was just as immature and imbecilic as anything we should be ashamed of in high school. Both political parties are responsible for this failure. No wonder Congress' approval ratings are so low, when those who should be our leaders can't put aside partisan politics to work together for the good of the nation and those they purport to lead.

The Democrats and Speaker Pelosi are responsible for their continued partisan attacks and "get Bush" finger pointing (most of which is inaccurate and incorrect) since this crisis arose. (Read one liberal blogger's opinion why Speaker Pelosi has to go.) As I've said before, the "Why" is important only in order to figure out how to prevent it from happening again. It seems like everything the Democrats do, every action they take or speech they make, is designed to, somehow, point blame at Bush, McCain, Palin or the Republicans. Even in the bi-partisan meeting at the White House last week to discuss the pending crisis and propose a possible solution, the reports are that the Democrats, through their spokesperson Senator Obama, injected partisan politics and angered those they were supposed to work with in order to decide what action needed to be taken. Did they not want a bi-partisan effort to succeed? But the capstone of this partisan political finger pointing was Speaker Pelosi's ill-conceived and ill-timed partisan tirade on the floor of the House Chamber just before the bail-out bill vote. What in the world was she thinking? Wasn't this supposed to be a bi-partisan effort, with our leaders working in concert to avert a continued economic meltdown? Was she deliberately trying to sabotage the passage of this bill? Did she want to alienate the House Republicans? She's no political neophyte and had to know what she was doing when she launched that shot across the Republican bow. Is it because she didn't have sufficient Democrat votes to pass the bill, even though the Democrats control the House, and so decided to take the nuclear option of a political tirade to try to shift blame?

The House Republicans' actions are just as bad. If, indeed, they changed their vote because of Speaker Pelosi's tirade, they fell right into her potential trap and looked like immature high schoolers who decided to let their hurt feelings override their common sense. It gave her, and the Democrats a chance to blame the bill's failure on the House Republicans rather than accept where that the real failure lies with them. I don't know if the Republican leadership had sufficient votes to pass the legislation, or not, but they if they didn't they should have said so and not blamed Pelosi's speech, no matter how incendiary it was. Most conservatives will have had legitimate concerns about the bailout bill; it grows government and spends taxpayer money in a way that is antithetical to conservative principles. It is the next best thing to nationalizing some banking interests, and is more akin to socialism than conservatism. I can understand why House Republicans who want to stick to their political principles would vote against the bill. I also happen to respect legislators who listen to the needs of their constituents, and it seems like most of the House Republicans had constituents who were vehemently opposed to the bailout bill. Those are legitimate reasons to vote against the bill; not because their feelings were hurt by the Democrat Speaker's partisan political tirade.

So what's next? Almost everyone agrees that the Government needs to do something. What shape that "something" will take remains to be seen; but what is very clear (at least to me) is that our representatives need to stop the partisan political bickering. As Senator McCain says, there needs to be a stop to the blame-game. There's a time and a place for political wrangling; and there is no place for it when there is a real (or perceived-real) crisis facing the nation. Our legislators and national leaders need to get it together and work toward a solution, and not play high school one-up-manship. Grow up, will ya!

Check out what Time says about the political credibility crisis.

Conspiracy Theories, Anyone?

I'm not normally willing to take the first answer given, instead, I want to know what's "underneath." You know . . . what's the reason for the answer, or what's behind the action taken. Maybe it's my profession that makes me want to see the cause and effect, to look for the motive, to understand the "why." I am a lawyer, after all, and have done my share of courtroom work. I also tend to look for connections; because nothing stands alone. Perhaps that's why I enjoy conspiracy theories; even though I'm usually very skeptical about them. (Maybe I enjoy a good conspiracy-theory because I grew up on the post-Kennedy assignation fascination with just who was really on the grassy knoll.) Anyway, in recent days I've wondered just what, or who, was behind the "economic crisis" and speculated whether the "crisis" was real, or manufactured and manipulated to implode just before the Presidential election.

So it was with real interest that I read an article by Jim Simpson posted on American Thinker, titled Barrack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. I strongly suggest you go read the entire article. It's lengthy, but it will make you think. I'm not certain I agree with Mr. Simpson's entire premise, I am a skeptic, after all; but he's done a lot of work and has documented his sources.

According to Mr. Simpson's theory, the "financial crisis" is just another manufactured crisis designed to lead this Nation into a form of Marxist-Socialism. Mr. Simpson posits that the current crisis is just another successful effort made by the far-left liberal fringe, guided by the Cloward-Privin Strategy first proposed by two radical socialist professors at Colombia in 1966. This strategy "seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." (From Discover the Networks.org, a right-wing site.) According to Mr. Simpson, the strategy has three main features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

In order to overload government bureaucracies, the strategy relies on a cadre of community organizers who, in the guise of working for the poor and afflicted, try to use our laws, policies, and practices against us. These community organizers have been successful in expanding the welfare rolls, and according to Rudy Giuliani, were behind the dramatic increase in New York City's welfare caseloads. In 1960, NYC had 150,000 welfare cases. In 1970, welfare cases had risen to 1.5 million. According to Mr. Giuliani, the strategy was also behind the shift from viewing welfare as a temporary solution to help those with no where else to go, to a life-time entitlement.

According to Mr. Simpson, community organizers (such as ACORN, the organization Senator Obama worked for) are also an integral part of the radical-left's implementation of the Cloward-Privin strategy. ACORN is active in voting registration drives that seek to sign up voters who will support leftist policies, are active in voting fraud, and advocate giving felons and illegal immigrants the right to vote. ACORN is also extremely active in pushing banks and lending companies to provide sub-prime mortgages to those who would otherwise not be able to qualify for a mortgage. It was these sub-prime mortgages which created the housing bubble that, when it burst, was the prime cause behind the current financial crisis.

According to Mr. Simpson, the Democrat Party in general and Senator Obama in particular, are heavily involved with ACORN. For example, he says that according to Senator Lindsay Graham, the Democrats want 20% of the bailout money appropriate by Congress to "solve" this "financial crisis" to go to ACORN. In Mr. Simpson's view,

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Mr. Simpson goes on to detail Senator Obama's associations with the radical-left, and his record of working on extreme liberal causes. He concludes that

Barrack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

Although I wonder at a lot of conspiracy theories (more tend to be fiction rather than fact) Mr. Simpson's theory of a conspiracy to threaten our way of life is more interesting than most. I hope it's not true. I hope that our politicians are not that manipulative. I hope that there's honor still existing in those who go into public service. Nevertheless, it does make you think. . .

UPDATE
It looks like the ACORN provisions have been removed from the final draft bailout plan. That's a good thing. Now I hope we get some details about the rest of the plan.

Who's Playing the Race Card?

I don’t know that I’ve heard, or seen, anything coming out of Senator McCain’s campaign that has commented on or otherwise raised Senator Obama’s race. Anytime I hear, or see, something about race, it’s coming from Senator Obama, his campaign, or one of his supporters. Why is that? Is Senator Obama trying to capitalize on his race and the historical nature of “the first black man to run for President” to get him elected? Is he playing to those who will vote based solely on identity politics? Or does he think that he’ll be able to get those undecided voters out there to vote his ticket in an effort to be fair and not allow race to color their decision? I don’t know, but it’s a bit ridiculous how those who purportedly advocate racial equality are the same folks who keep inserting race into the equation. And how they’re doing it is equally ridiculous!

First, we have Senator Obama telling folks that some don’t think he should be President because he doesn’t look like all the other men on “those dollar bills.” OK. Who cares what a President looks like? Consider President Lincoln, for example. What are important are whether he can lead, and how strong his character is, and his vision for the Nation.

Then there’s all the people who find “code words” that conservatives and Senator McCain supporters supposedly use to (subliminally?) remind voters that Senator Obama is black. Things like Senator Biden calling him “clean and articulate,” which everyone should know means “he’s black.” Or delegates and speakers at the RNC talking about “community organizer,” which is repub-speak for “he’s black.” Or anyone saying Senator Obama is an “elitist” or “arrogant” which are, of course, synonyms for “uppity,” which means “he’s black.” We can’t call him “skinny” or “angry” or “risky.” All of those are questionable comments mean “he’s black.” And according to the President of the AFL-CIO, when anyone says Senator Obama is “too young” or “too inexperienced,” “What they’re really saying is, ‘He’s black.’”

Well who cares if Senator Obama is black, or of mixed-race, or of any race at all? Race has nothing to do with a person’s character or a person’s policies or, ultimately, a person’s qualifications for political office. Just as it would be a shame to vote against Senator Obama based on race, it would be a shame to vote for him because he’s black. We should judge Senator Obama’s qualifications to be President based on his actions, judgment, policy, and character; not the color of his skin. In my opinion, he doesn’t have what it takes in any of those categories. Which could be why he and his operatives have been trying to play the “race card:” to get votes from those middle-of-the-roaders who want to be ubber-fair. What do you think?