I'm Sorry

Had what almost turned into a heated exchange today. An individual (who shall remain nameless) stated they were amazed Obama apologized stating he was the first (and I am paraphrasing here) senior political type, let alone a President, in a long time, to ever have apologized after making a mistake.

I replied this wasn't the first time he has had to do this. However, this time seemed to be different to the extent he "did" claim responsibility for the acts. Being the picky bastard I am, instead of all the hemming and hawing, why didn't the man just say "I made a mistake. I'm sorry, this kind of thing will not happen again on my watch." And be done with it.

More importantly, what was he really apologizing for? That the individual (in this case Tom Daschle) was an apparent "tax cheat", that he couldn't in good conscience have him in his cabinet? If that is the case, then what we really have here is a good stab at misdirection. Yes, Daschle is a problem as far as his tax concerns go. And by all means be sorry for not being "on top of that", Mr President. But there is a bigger issue here. One he has yet to have his feet held to the fire for, and yes, graced us with yet another "apology".

You have Daschle, Timothy Geithner (the new Tresury Secretary), Nancy Killefer (picked for performance chief - she stepped aside), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (pick for Commerce Secretary - he stepped aside). And these are people Obama picked to be part of his administration. Still to come is Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, considered to be the top contender for commerce secretary (after the Richardson "oops"). The problem here is the possible conflict of interest due to Gregg's stock holdings. Want to bet how long this one lasts before we have yet another apology?

Then there are those pesky (former) pals/cronies/family members who either said something far too embarrassing: Grandma being afraid of blacks, Rev Wright Damning America, Ayers trying to blow up America. But of course they don't matter because Obama either apologized for them and or threw them under the bus.

And here is the point. If this man is so smart. If he is so politically astute. If he is such a leader of men and in tune with what needs to (supposedly) be changed in D.C. and America, how come he can't even select members of his who are able to pass muster for the positions he want them to fill. In other words, Obama is looking to be ( or most likely; always has been) grossly incompetent in his ability to judge a persons character.

As an everyday citizen, this might not be all that big of a deal. It would perhaps effect said individual and his or her immediate family, friends, or co-workers. But on the world stage, the President of the United States, now more then ever, needs to be a sound judge of whom he will be dealing with. Be it face to face, or after dissemination of information, he must be able to make judgments based on instinct (leadership is a trait and part of that entails the correct "reading" of others). With out this, we end up with a person who will "apologize" ... to the American people for making poor choices in his picks of potential cabinet members ... to the Arab world for our "not being perfect".

You have to wonder what kind of apology is he going to give us after the next international terror attack (assuming it was due to lack of American military interaction), or worse yet the next domestic terror attack. I, for one, hope that day never comes. But if it does, there will be no apology coming from him which will ever be good enough.

Our President ...

... until such time as he shall be proved otherwise. Every person who has held the office has had the chance of rising to the times and demands of the office, or has willfully managed to fall far short of that goal. Barack Hussein Obama will be no different.

So we have the man ... this unproven entity as the new leader of the free world. Don't get me wrong, I dislike all that he stands for, based on what little of his real beliefs have come to light. And his lack of experience is downright shocking (Granted, others have had minimal executive experience ... but how did their tenure turn out?). Still, are we no better then the scum on the left who were banging their sippy cups through out the Bush Presidency?

In short, I will give him a chance. If he is as bad as many make him out to be (myself included) it will show up in his actions (or lack there of) soon enough. In any case, it is a moot point, he has assumed the office. Only time can tell.

But I will add this. The second he shows himself to be what many of us suspect he truly is ... the second he allows this country to become less then what he has the capability to stop or avoid ... the second he appeases those who would bring down not only this nation, but our very way of life ... then, and only then, will he no longer be "our president".

My gut tells me we will not have too long to wait, but we shall see.

History and Hysterics

Bithead, over at BitsBlog, fears he will be targeted as a hate mongering racist right wing knuckle dragger. Ok, perhaps that overstates his "fears" just a tad, but never discount the left, or Obama syncopates in their zeal or their blindness.

Anyhow, "Bits" has the clarity of vision to recognize today for what it truly is in the historical scheme of things. And notes the electing of Obama is actually far short of King's version of racial equality, that it is much closer to the traditional Democratic mold of "business as usual" vis-a-vis race relations in this country.

This will be unpopular, I’m sure, but I think it fair to say that with the election of a Democrat, of whatever skin color, given the both historical and current actions on the part of the members of the Democrat party on race, and particularly the actions Mr. Obama has already stated he’s going to take in the near future, means we have actually moved further away from Dr. King’s dream, not closer. And I regard that as a loss for our country, as should all who dare claim Dr. King’s dream, and legacy.

Go and read it all. Note history will remember that which is worth remembering ... hysterics of the left aside, and with any luck at all this day will be at best a "historical" foot note. A foot note to the entry of when this country, as designed by it's original architects, ceased to exist ... or rose up from the progressive ashes of socialism to reclaim it's birthright. We shall see.

Tomorrow: The beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning?

Tomorrow the 44th President of the United States is sworn in. And although the media, various other pundits, PACs, celebrities, academia, and of course fellow travelers on the progressive highway (that's politicians to the left of center, for those taking notes), will be doing everything but laying palm fronds down on at HIS feet while singing Hosannas ... it should be noted he is after all is said and done, nothing more (or less) then "just a man".

No one really knows what is in his heart of hearts. No one knows where he will lead (In fact, if he will be capable of "leading" at all.) the great nation over the course of the next four years. To be sure, there has been speculation from all sides of the political spectrum. Your (not so) humble spirit has made more then a few noises along these lines himself. The truth is, we just don't know.

He has, from the onset of his political career, failed to make a major impression period. This is as true at the State level (as a junior Illinois State Senator), as it was at the US Senate. During his rise to the nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate, up to his formal swearing-in tomorrow, his stance on any given issue has been as clear as fog. You can make a case for almost any side of any major issue by "cutting and pasting" from his speeches/interviews.

There has been (as noted here and any number of other outlets on the net) no major investigation into the man's past. Or in depth coverage of his friendships/associations/business dealings. Or if there has been, they have not been made public in their entirety.

This country, for what ever reason(s), has seen fit to elect to the highest office of the most powerful nation on God's green earth, an unknown! We suspect, by the individuals he has brought to the fore as part of his cabinet, he will be , at best, just to the left of center (much like the Clintons). This shade of publishing past, fears he will be far, far more to the left of that.

His agenda will bring about the end of this "Representative Republic", ushering in not "An American Empire" as some suggest, the deconstruction of the "American Dream". In other words, the end of the sovereign nation, and the attempted beginning of Globalization (most likely via the UN and or the World Court).

Realizing the world is inhabited by many who care not a wit, for Western Civilization, or the rule of law as proscribed by said civilization, I strongly suspect we are on the brink of a conflict such as the world has never witnessed. And may never witness again.

Come tomorrow, even while the barbarians are at the gate, we will have given the keys to the kingdom not to one who seeks to meet the challenges before him (and us) pitting the best of human nature, the combined knowledge of the greatest civilization to have graced this earth, and his own honor and dedication to uphold the oath his is about to swear ... as did Washington ... as did Lincoln ... as did Regan. Noble and honorable men all.

No we have before us ... a fool. Who would do well to remember, as he seems intent on becoming Caesar ... the words of one who is not a pretender to the throne ... "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

I remain, ever spinning,

The Col.

Cross posted here

beating the semi-comatose horse, otherwise known as Anarchy

Chris Byrne over at The Anarchangel , posted an interesting and informative video. In fact the two teenagers in residence will be viewing it shortly.
But Chris waves the red flag of political common sense, and of course, one of the "Bulls(hitters) of Anarchy" charge to the fore, in his comments.

First let me state, I am all for someone being "idealistic". I imagine we all are to some degree or another, depending on the cause. HOWEVER, don't most people, upon applying reason, logic, the reality of "the way things are",
and human nature (both pluses and minuses of same), tempering their idealism, come to the conclusion(s) this would be great, in a perfect world ... but it ain't agonna work here?

Yes, I am beating the semi-comatose horse, otherwise known as Anarchy. And the following is from Chris's comments. I brought it over here. Read it and weep:

Mr. Byrne, why would I ignore this video? I'm more than willing to point out its inconsistencies.

First things first, however. You yourself said that every man has an absolute right to his labor and the fruits of his labor. How do you reconcile that belief with your belief that taxation (the taking of property through force or threat thereof) is just?

Now, concerning the video. There are a few straw men having the stuffing beaten out of them. The narrator says that in an anarchy, everyone is an island. He intimates that no one can band together to provide mutual protection, or even hire a third party to provide protection of one's home or property. Bull. Anarchists are not black-clad, sulky goth teenagers chucking molotov cocktails at WTO meetings. Those are socialist delinquents. Anarchists hold the bizzare claim that no one may initiate violence or fraud against any other man. Now, it doesn't take a state apparatus with a God-bestowed policeman complete with a shiny badge and "authoritah" to protect another man's home or goods for pay. I remember the times when people were squalling because ambulance services were being de-monopolized: taken out of the control of the local states. In a competitive market, services became cheaper, more efficient, and of a better quality. I remember those good old days when people mocked the idea, "Oh, anarchy, where private companies run the roads. Haw!" Well, yes, actually. Bankrupt state after bankrupt state are selling off their garbage-quality roads to private companies, who, in fact, will be funding them with a pay-as-you-go toll system. The state of California sold off some of the roads there to a private company, and they've been running more efficiently, with less traffic, and on better roads ever since.

You don't believe in anarchy. That it could ever work. Yet as others have said before me, it is precisely what already exists among the several States all over the world. There is no State of States ruling over all. No final arbiter of disputes. Sometimes, States go to war. That happens. But for the most part, the people who live under various States interact peacefully, in a mutually beneficial manner.

Statists are unable to separate "society" and "State" in their minds. Society can and does exist without the State. Society is a mutually beneficial system of voluntary interactions among men. Throw a monopoly on violence into a society, and you have slavery, to one degree or another. Under this particular system of States, we work for our masters about 40% of every day.

I'm not sorry that I am unable to rationalize the act of taking a gun and forcing non-violent people to pay money, and to imprison or kill them if they resist. Even if the money is going to an orphanage for mentally retarded crippled children. The end does not justify the means. Though moral consequentialists might say the end does justify the means, I could prove to them in about 30 seconds that they don't really believe such nonsense.

Now, here is a video for Statists. It is very simple. There aren't even any voices speaking. But it lays out the tenets of liberty very well. Mr. Byrne, I think you will find many things you agree with. And if you were able to follow true axioms to their ultimate and logical conclusions, you too would become an anarchist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
Kolbe

Ok, took a look a kboe's youtube link. On the plus side, the music IS soothing. On the negative side ...

Damn it people! Yeah, in a perfect world, with perfect, or near-perfect, humans, something very much like an Ancarchist Utopia, might just work. We ain't perfect, or even close to being perfect. It won't work. It can never work.
Until some body of human kind are able to arrive at a form of social/cultural/political harmony that is better then (the original form of ) our Representative Republic. That is about as good as we are going to find.

Great flick Chris!! And you are correct sir, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Guy S

Guy S, "Not being perfect" does not justify the action of initiating violence, just as, "I was angry, I'm not perfect" does not justify hauling off and hitting someone.

There is no doubt that a Constitutional Republic is less evil than some States in the world. That does not mean it is good.
Kolbe

" ... as I have said before, the difference between a "government" and a "state" is that one is run by a group of people who believe they have the right to initiate violence against non-violent people.

There is a difference between initiating force and using force to defend oneself or another. Do you see the difference? It is just for a group of people banding together or voluntarily paying another to protect what is theirs. It is wrong, on the other hand, for a group of people to think that because for the sole reason that they are more numerous, that they have the right to impose their wills on other people at gunpoint.
Kolbe

And you sir, miss (intentionally or otherwise) my point entirely. Isn't it ironic that the very self same human nature which allows men to dream of a Utopian (in this case Anarchistic) society, is the same thing which prevents if from ever being a viable societal state. Our own failings prevent this from being a realist option. *sigh*
Guy S

Guy, I never said an anarchic society would be utopian. I simply said that it is the only moral type of society. I said that the imperfections in men, the fact that people do initiate violence against others, does not justify initiating violence against others as a means of stopping others from initiating violence.

The taxation-based coercive state requires violence against innocent people. That is immoral and unjust. You cannot give moral support to any institution founded upon initiating violence against non-aggressors.
But then, I've heard lots of people say, "Ha... the Golden Rule. How quaint. Too bad people don't live by it." Saying that most people do not live by the Golden Rule is not a justification for refusing to live by the Golden Rule, is it?
Kolbe

the imperfections in men, the fact that people do initiate violence against others, does not justify initiating violence against others as a means of stopping others from initiating violence.

Aside from getting a headache reading (and rereading just to be sure) the above, just one question comes to mind. How in the bloody hell, are you supposed to stop others (be they alone, in small groups, mobs, or nation-states) from initiating violence?

Appeasement never works, history has shown us that (repeatedly). And "half-stepping" in "limited combat" or "free-fire only zones", only prolongs the pain, and suffering one ultimately seeks to resolve/prevent. The only proper answer when the wolf(s) comes to your door...is kill the wolf(s) without hesitation.

Guy S

Guy S. You don't stop others from initiating violence. You stop their violent acts. But you do not have the right to do that through taxation. Because taxation is, in itself, an initiation of violence.

Violence is only just if used in self-defense directly against an aggressor. Is that not true?
Kolbe

Folks, just taking Kolbe's last statement ... "You don't stop others from initiating violence. You stop their violent acts.". Huh??!! If an individual, group, or state, is "initiating violence" (and someone correct me if I am wrong) they are in the process of being violent are they not?? Which makes them "an aggressor". Which would make "violence" (as you put it) justified. And this is just the last sentence in a montage of ( I will give him points for good intentions ... anything to help him pave the way toward the ultimate ending place where those with good intentions end up.) well intentioned pseudo-philosophical glop, destined to give the reader intellectual heart burn.

Still, perhaps I missed something. This is your opportunity to come rally at my side, or join forces with the intellectually stunted. The floor is open.

UPDATE:
It has been (quite correctly) brought to my attention, in my passion to showcase a drinker of the Anarchist kool-ade, that I stepped over the boundaries of civility on the net. The party involved was kind and gracious enough to allow me the use of his comments for this post, after we exchanged a message or two.

The fact remains (best of intentions or not) I was wrong. And so I publicly apologize here. Chris, please excuse my cloddish behavior. It will not happen again. In any case, I have also modified what was used, leaving only the comments from myself and the party this post is about.

And yes, the floor is still open.

Little Blaggo in Fantasyland

The Chicago Tribune covered besieged Governor Blagojevich's afternoon press conference today. And it begged, begged to be frisked, so who am I to refuse.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich said today he "has done nothing wrong" and will not resign in the face of federal corruption charges.

"I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath," he said. "And I'm not going to quit a job that people hired me to do because of false accusations and a political lynch mob."

However, his last sentence says nothing about the federal prosecutor's charges. As far as any fighting goes ... I have the feeling ol' Roddy boy was the one stuffed into his locker back in his school days, for not turning his lunch money over quick enough to the local bully.

Blagojevich, however, did not get into the specifics of the political corruption charges he faces, saying he's "not going to talk about this case in 30-second sound bites ... on the TV news."

"I am dying to answer these charges. I am dying to show you how innocent I am," he said.

Be careful what you wish for. Illinois politics, especially those with strong ties (and not very friendly ones at that) to "The Chicago Machine ™ " are quite capable of granting that particular wish. If youse knows what I mean.

"I intend to answer every allegation that comes my way. However, I intend to answer them in the appropriate forum -- in a court of law. And when I do, I am absolutely certain that I will be vindicated," Blagojevich said.

And right there he contradicts himself. Oh, wait, he didn't say he was going to give the whole story, or even the truth. Just that he was going to answer every allegation. I am quite sure his lawyer(s) will provide him with all the "answers" he needs. Though when I read the above the first time I mistakenly thought he WAS going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but ... then a re-read the last sentence. I had misread vindicated. Could have sworn it was VENTILATED.

The governor went on to quote from the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling: "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you. If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you and make allowance for their doubting too. If you can wait and not be tired by waiting or being lied about, don't deal in lies. Or being hated. Don't give way to hating."

Hmmmm, this IS from the Chicago Tribune? That staunch bastion of heartland American conservatism ... ummmm didn't they support Obama, are in lockstep with the LA Times, and their patriarch, Colonel McCormick is dead ... never mind.

McCain Thinks the RNC are meanies!

RNC Blaggo commercial. McCain doesn't like it.

Personally, I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

Con-artist ... err scammer ... ahh, the Democratic "Frankenstein's Monster" (or is that Feinstein's??) , clapped together from parts of FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, with (more then) a dash of Clinton, says HE has not talked with Illinois next Governor to be incarcerated, Rod "I never saw a c-note I didn't like" Blagojevich. Of course Obama is telling the truth *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*. And to prove it watch as yet another sacrificial lamb is tossed under the bus. In this case, my money is on Rahm Emanuel.

That John "Why can't we just get along" McCain, has issues with the above video (and I would suspect all the other RINO's do as well), speaks as much to his loss in the last election as anything. We are tired of the tried and failed practice of reaching across the aisle in the spirit of harmony, only to end up being bitch slapped.

Just once it would be nice to see someone with an *R* (or an *I*) "reach across the aisle" ... with a closed fist, and send a few Democratic teeth toward the Congressional or Senate floor, like so many chiclets. Followed by a hearty "Bi-partisan *this* bitch!!" (Yeah, I have an active fantasy life ... your point is??)

Oh well, it could be worse. Imagine, if you will, what might have happened had Madam Hillary been the presidential lady in waiting. She tends to take "tossing someone under the bus" literally, rather then figuratively.

(h/t to Eric at "BitsBlog")

The Forth Estate

There are more blogs, "web magazines", journals, and electronic pamphleteers,
then ever before. Most are nothing more then fancy electronic versions of the mass mailed Christmas letter from "that" distant (and most times, not far enough) friend or relative, put out in monthly or weekly version. Still others are geared toward a specific hobby, cause, like (or dislike), geared toward said enthusiasts immediate interests. But these, along with those who keep a "public diary" of events exclusive to personal events in their lives, are not whom I am addressing.

Specifically:

I speak of those who comment on not only daily events ("the news"), but who on their own are beginning to "ferret" leads and or potential news. Those, who in one way or another, may be about to take the place of what is (or more correctly "was") once called "the fact checkers". The fact checkers being the print media.

The pundits. Opining on everything. Be it our culture, politicos of any and all
stripes, news of the day, items of interest, or the current state of mankind in
general. Though, their point of view varies for any number of reasons, one can with little trouble at all (Google, or any of the other search engines out there, are indeed your friends.) find a voice(s) which speak directly to your personal
heart of hearts.

Which leads to this. Concerning ourselves with news reviewers/reporters, pundits, and those of special interest (for example, Stop the ACLU), we have all the elements present one would find in any major daily paper, as they exist right now.

So I wonder, especially after what passed for informative coverage during the
past election. Are we on the brink of a "sea change"? Are we about to assume the mantle of "The Fourth Estate"? ( Be it as an inheritance, or
out and out usurping is fodder for another time.) At least as far as print media is concerned?

I don't claim to be a "big dog" on the net. Hell, I would be happy being the big fish in my little hamlet. (though I wouldn't turn down any offers) In reading a number of the voices out there, who are of equal or higher caliber/quality then what has passed for commentary/reporting/editorializing in the print media for at least the past 30-40 years, it is my semi-educated opinion, most of us are more then qualified to take on the job.

There are those who would raise raise a hue and cry about standards"/"qualifications", and "accountablity".

To which I reply:

1. Standards (ethical and otherwise). You must be joking! Especially after the last election cycle. Putting aside the Democratic candidate's political agenda, or the running of his campaign, the existing "Forth Estate" gave up their standards and ethics faster then a twenty dollar hooker drops her panties at the sight of a fifty dollar bill, by their lack of in-depth investigative reporting. Obama was the main stream media's thirty pieces of silver. And judging by the print media's fiscal bottom lines as of late, that wasn't nearly enough "coins".

2. Qualifications/College education/Certification(s). Yes, what was I
thinking. The legions of newspapermen, going back to when this country was
founded, read like a who's who from the hallowed halls of colleges and universities world wide.....NOT. Though some had degrees, and others through their efforts were given honorary degrees, it was never a requirement (up until the past 40 years or so) that one have a diploma. This is nothing more then a hoop which to jump through for no real reason at all. (Though it must make some HR department somewhere all warm and fuzzy.)

As far as qualifications went. You needed to understand and provide the following; "Who, What, Why, Where, and When". In other words "the
facts". If you continually strive for accuracy in your reporting, along with a bit of luck, and being in the right place at the right time, chances are you got
noticed which lead to the holy grail ... a "by line". This also assumed you paid
your dues. Perhaps starting as a copy boy, or doing time on the "Obits". College (see above) was not a requirement. Getting the story back to your editor as soon and as complete as possible (hopefully "scooping" the other locals) was the bottom line.

As modern day scribes of the worlds events, we are no better (or worse) in meeting the qualifications which constitute "being a journalist", or newspapermen ("men" being used in the generic here), then any of those who took up the shield and sword of the Fourth Estate in days gone by.

It is ours for the taking. My questions are: (Aside from PJM, and a handful of other major players out there.)
1. Are there any takers out there?
2. Where do we (collectively) go from here?

LOL Rod !!!

It seems Fran over at Eternity Road has caught the "LOL Bug" from Charles Hill.

Taking this tomfoolery a bit farther melding with todays news, I give you this:

h/t Eternity Road

Happy Days Are Here Again??

Well, it would seem the public has spoken. (Yes, I know there is the manipulated votes, the agenda driven media, and more which may have tilted the election. But let's put that aside. Realistically with no "power" to bring about any formal investigations that will produce positive results, all of that is best left for future historians to unearth. It won't happen on our watch.)

To the President-elect: Congratulations and good luck. You (or your handlers) correctly read the mood of a large enough chunk of the country. Your ability to win the hearts and minds of those you needed to get you to the office of the President, if nothing else, was masterfully done. Judging from your track record (at least that part of it we are able to see) this has been your goal since at least your Harvard Law School days.

Now don't get me wrong, I despise most everything Senator Obama stands for. Hell, generally anything exiting his mouth is suspect from the get go. But, unlike those on the other side of the political street, I refuse to stoop to the juvenile name calling and such, now he has made it to office. Don't like it done to President Bush, same standards should apply to Obama.

That being said, I would give most everything I own, if I had the control of a major metro newspaper chain. You see we have taken a 77 year leap back into the past. This is not 2009 it is 1933. President-elect Obama will be this generations FDR. (That he will, most likely, be this generations Jimmy Carter as well, will be conveniently ignored by the media.) This re-emergence of FDR calls for balance. We need, and I would humbly apply for the position of "Col. McCormick" Owner/Publisher of the once great conservative beacon, "The Chicago Tribune" (Yeah, I know ... it isn't even close to what the Col. published or envisioned ... and more's the pity.) We need a strong media presence to counter (hell, just to monitor) the flow of fecal change which will shortly be streaming out of Washington. Some how I don't see Fox news being able to handle that task.

We shall see. Dusting my crystal ball off for the next post. One thing for sure the next 2 to 4 years are going to be anything but dull.

The country is in shaky economic straights, it has elected an extremely leftist leaning incoming President, one who envisions making mass social-economic changes. Yep, 1933 ... "Happy Days Are Here Again" ... NOT!

Murtha IS a *FLB and ...

Normally don't talk about folks running for Congressional or Senate seats outside of the People's Republic of Illinois. But in this case I'll make an exception.

There is a battle for Western Pennsylvania's Congressional District. The incumbent, John Murtha, who has been in the news more then once, coming across with something far less then positive toward either his constituents or on other occasions, his comrades in arms, members of the United States Marines.

Well, it would appear the Marines are not taking his actions and or words lightly. Indeed, at least one former Marine has spoken publicly, calling Murtha a "*fat little bastard".

One final note on this piece of scum ...

Talking with a number of friends, some of whom are retired Marines, the following important distinction was made. All Marines, wither retired or finishing one or more enlistments and returning to civilian live, are "Former Marines". There are NO "Ex-Marines" ... with two exceptions ... Lee Harvey Oswald, and John Murtha.

I think that says it all.

The Whole Truth?

Well, this finally made it to Drudge.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

So far so good. Nice brief synopsis. Makes one want to know more or read on. which is a good thing.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Oh REALLY???? Do you have legitimate proof? As of yet, the Obama camp has only shown a "certificate of live birth" on their site which has at the very least been strongly questioned as to its authenticity, and at worst is an out right forgery! To date, they have not come forth with a certified (preferably original copy of the hospital records) birth certificate.

Then there is the issue of Constitutional guidelines as to what qualifies one to be "American born". Due to the age of Obama's mother at the time of his birth, and the law as written in effect at that time Being born in Hawaii (assuming that is true for the moment) would still disqualify him, due to his mother's age at the time of his birth.

We don't even have to entertain the suggestions (Though they should have been looked into by a true watch dog of the government, what used to be known as "the press". Sadly, they are only interested in Palin's cloths budget.) of Obama having been born in Kenya. Or, so it has been suggested, that his step father from Indonesia, formally adopted Obama, thus making him a citizen of Indonesia. If so, then where is his documents of (re) naturalization upon coming to the US? (or proof showing none were ever needed in the first place)

The above blockquote is the height of media hubris, by suggesting none of this need to be looked into at all.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Conspiracy theories???!!! Paaaalease, give me a break! The only reason I have jumped on this is because Obama (or his campaign) have been notoriously mute about any of this, as has been the majority of the media. Had this been a conservative or Republican the media drums would be beating long and loudly, until such documentation was produced. No, there is no major agency cover up here. Though I would by into the media being complicit in what is (or isn't) here, by their collective silence.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

What is too vague? What is too attenuated? Straight up, either the man IS or IS NOT qualified to run for the Presidency. It is as simple as that. And YES, that in and of itself would "confer standing on and and all voters".

Me thinks the judge was either bought off, or is scared of repercussions from the Obamaites, or wanted to wash his hands of this whole mess, punting it up to SCOTUS for the final word.

Obma Questions

Visiting "Curmudgeonly & Skeptical", "Rodger, the Real King of France"'s home on the web, is almost always a joy. Today was no exception. Indeed, he posts on the further exploits of "The Melanin Jimmy Carter", specifically his lack of being vetted by the media, and the attempts by Philip J. Berg to have the "Hope & Change fairy of the Senate" produce proof of his being qualified for the office of the President.

Rodger suggests we should write our local print media and perhaps (with odds much like those of winning the lottery ... but still worth a shot - ed) they will print ones letter(s) in their op-ed pages. I must have been on a sugar high or some such, for I took up his gauntlet and sent the following to our local daily, "The Rockford Register Star".

Feel free to look up your local paper here if you feel so inclined to do so, after reading this.

My letter is as follows:

When an average American, in asking Senator Obama a question about his proposed taxation policies, is vetted with a vengeance by the media shortly thereafter, one wonders why the same "due diligence wasn't afforded to the Democratic presidential nominee himself.

It is perhaps not too surprising, given the majority of major media outlets tend to lean to the left in their presentation/coverage of candidates, and political news in general. And to be sure, as in almost all national elections there are, on both sides, whispered words of alleged misdeeds, improprieties, and potential scandals hidden. Rumors flow with mad abandon.

When a highly ranked Democrat, and former deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, comes forward with questions, which he feels should have been (properly) addressed by the media in their guise of "governmental watchdogs", yet remain to be satisfactorily dealt with, we reach a level of legitimacy beyond mere rumor or innuendo, which can no longer be "conveniently" ignored.

Mr. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, (and said certificate has been suspected of being something less then legitimate) Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided. His suit was numerous other demands for original documentation. Documentation which has not been forthcoming from the Senator's campaign or the Senator himself.

The as of the latest information to date, Mr. Berg claims to have in his possession an audio file of the Senator's Kenyan Grandmother, stating her grandson was, in fact, born in Kenya. Berg states he will release this audio within the next few days.

Assuming this latest is true, other questions should be asked. If the Senator is in fact Kenyan by birth, and has never formally sworn allegiance to this country (by way of legal naturalization processes), then by state law he could not have legally held his Illinois State Senate seat. More over, he could not have been a US Senator. In short, is he an illegal alien?

Now, lets put the citizenship concern aside for a moment. What about his political record? Has any major news agency (print or media) listed Obama's voting record? His (total) sponsorship of bills (at either the state or federal level)? His college grades (they did so with President Bush, and Al Gore, and Senator Kerry)? Have they looked into where he got his monies for college? For his state and federal Senate campaigns?

As we reach the final days before electing the next occupant of the oval office, civic duty, regardless of party affiliation, requires each of us to demand (much as Mr. Berg has) that "we the people" are fully informed as to the candidates meeting Constitutional qualifications (at the very least). Even at this late date, is it to much to ask the "guardians of our rights", "a free press" to provide same?

The Last Gasp Of The American Experiment ... Or Not.

We stand to loose everything this election cycle. If (and it is NOT a very big *if*) Obama wins, this country, as envisioned/created by the founding fathers, is finished. What the radical islamic (I refuse to capitalize a pseudo-religion. One which was started by a pedophile ... who if he was visited by Gabriel and given the word of god ... surly corrupted it to meet his own needs and ends. And if not, well ... then he was quite the angry snake oil salesman wasn't he. But I digress.) terrorists and their sponsors couldn't accomplish with planes, bombs, and bullets, will be well on their way to achieving with the ballot box ... an end to "The Great Satan", the greatest representative republic to ever grace this planet. (And yes, though he may not be a Muslim, Obama is pro islam make no mistake about that.)

We will be facing a combination of socialism (read that as EU style government), liberal fascism, or quite possibly outright communism. You may also add Shara law to any of the above for the most bitter/ironic of uncivilized flavoring.

I didn't think such a thing would be possible in my lifetime. The progressives and other agitators followed their policy of advancing their agenda(s) by incramentalism. They (mis)used the courts and judicial system to circumvent the legislative and executive branches (of all levels) of government. Raping our "rule of law" to meet their agenda(s) at any and all cost. Those who would see this Representative Republic fall are on the brink of achieving exactly that.

We, as "the adults", those who would take the necessary steps to ensure the above will not come to pass, have very few choices left. And of the choices available, there is only one which gives us any sort of chance to correct the mistakes, "we", the adults have either made ourselves, or which the children (masquerading as adults) make in our stead. They are as follows:

Oils Well That Ends Well

With gas nearing the four dollar a gallon mark, here in the hinterlands of Illinois, a small cul-du-sac off the main drag in the bitter heartland of this great nation, kinda thought it time to get a few thoughts together regarding same, so here goes.

But first, a joke:

There was an old man sitting on his porch listening to his radio while watching the rain fall. Over the radio came a loud warning siren and the announcer said ... "Evacuate the area! A Flood is coming!" Right after the warning the water started coming over the porch and into the house.

The old man moved to the second floor looking out the window, when a rescue boat came and the people on board said,"You can't stay here the flood is here!" Please come with us."

The old man replied, "No, God will save me." So the boat left. A little while later the water was up to the second floor, so the man climbed up onto the roof. This time a helicopter flew over head and through a loud speaker said "You are going to drown if you stay here! Please come with us!"

The old man again replied,"God will save me." So they flew off to get others stranded.

An hour later the water was up over the roof and sweeps the man into the flooding water, where he drowns and goes to heaven. When he awakens, he is extremely mad and disappointed. When he sees God he asks him, "Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "You arrogant man! I sent you a warning, then a boat, then a helicopter!! Yet you willingly refused my help so obviously offered, then have the gall to say I ignored your pleas."

There are ever increasing demands placed on our countries need for all types of energy. The nations industries need for (natural) resources to produce products for other companies and the general public. And an ever increasing desire to become truly independent of foreign sources.

The increase in power to meet the needs of families as they find more ways to improve their lifestyle with bigger televisions/entertainment systems/computers. More labor saving devices, larger refrigerators, deep freezers for the bulk buying from Costco, Sam's Club, or even buying meat/poultry in bulk from the local butcher (thus getting it at a cheaper per pound rate). Lawn and garden equipment to keep the homestead looking sharp. Then there is the cost of keeping the family wheels on the road.

Keeping our industrial engine running (with power) and, as noted above, resources to produce the products we need and want. Cheap enough energy (read fuel) to transport produce, products, and people from points "A" to points "B".

There has been a mad and not very well thought out rush to turn to bio-fuels as, if not "the answer", an answer to at least part of this concern. Sadly, it is now being realized this is at the very least a short sighted foolish "solution". The physical demands, land requirements, resulting drastic changes in commodity prices, threaten to not only weaken an already shaky economy, but will end up causing more instability in parts of the world which can ill afford it, due to people already lacking for the minimal basics in foodstuffs seeing the trickle offered now to come to a complete stop.

Add to this, the dirty little secret that bio-fuel is in the end no more friendly to the environment, due to energy(s) used in the manufacture of same, as well as the waste produced, and in the loss of efficiency in mpg (meaning more will be needed to meet the same miles driven by good ol regular gas), as to make it a loss all the way 'round.

But what are we to do cry the people?

Returning to the "joke" at the beginning of this post. We have been given the answer (at least for the next 100-500 years). That we have through our arrogance refused to take advantage of it, means we only have ourselves to blame for where we are now.

Yes, the progressives/liberals/tree huggers actions, along with the media doing their thing to muddy the waters (and sell papers and air time at the best prices possible), are instrumental in why we are where we are. But we of the more conservative/adult/responsible side of the street are at fault as well.

Folks, we are enablers! When we should have told the kids to shut up and leave the management of our energy needs to the adults. Instead, we gave in to their cries of "nuclear power is evil" (cause it might go "melty" or "boom"). So we gave up on that by regulating it to the point of near extinction.

Then there was the move to remove the poisons exiting the exhausts of the hundreds of thousands of happy motorists in this country. First is was lead. Then, lead by the eco-wienies out in la la land ... err California, a new environment friendly fad came to the fore. Cafe blends. Yes, now we had to have different blends of petrol for not only different times of the year (winter and summer) but for different areas of the country as well. The fly in this ointment was at the same time as these demands were being placed in effect, there were fewer and fewer refineries to produce same. Thus, the cost for production went up as demand began to exceed production. (And of course the evil oil companies were prevented from economically building new refineries, that would not be environmentally friendly .... or should that be in a more politically incorrect (but far more honest light) manner, stated as "Yes, we sure do need more refineries, preferably built close to the raw material (oil), but not in my back yard!!"

Last but not least there was the push to prevent new drilling for oil. Wither it was on land, or off shore, it was deemed verboten. Every reason in the environmental bible was given, from harming plant and animal life, to raping Mother Gia. And we, gave in.

We, like the fictional pastor above, have asked for help. To be delivered from our energy dependent bonds.
And our prayers have been answered in more way then one.

People, the water is up to our necks. We have been tossed a life preserver. Let us take hold and use what has been given to the best of our abilities. Lest we face our own final judgment, as our civilization crumbles upon the dust heap of history. And when, in some future time and place the truth is unearthed, that we in fact had the means to continue on, but willfully chose to ignore what was given. Said "Thanks , but no thanks." Then we will be judged, much like the fictional old man as being arrogant willful fools, most deserving of our fate.

Heartland Hates Hollywood Humor

Having read "Variety", any number of times in my youth, I couldn't pass up the chance to title this post in something akin to what may appear on that rag in the not too distant future.

Hollywood in it's seemingly self destructive and or narcissistic mind set, continues to focus on the 9/11, post 9/11 mindset. None of their efforts in presenting the War on Terror or the struggle in Iraq have paid off at the box office. The public, for the most part, has stayed away in droves. So now the are trying a different tact. We can't win 'em over with "serious" "heart wrench(ed)ing" drama ... so let's attack their funny bone!!

Guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. Sadly, it appears to be sooner.

Yeppers, it worked so well with WWII. Who can forget (those who are still alive to remember) the crazy madcap antics of those "Concentration Camp Cutups ™ " , the Waffen SS. Or that oriental laff riot, Tojo. I seem to recall even with a better then 20 year gap between the end of WWII and the airing of "Hogan's Heroes", there was still quite a flap over it. Granted, that particular show placed the American (and allied) POW's in the positive/controlling characters virtually all the time. And did make the German Officers/Nazi party types and German solders in general, to be nothing more then buffoons, morons, and pompous blowhearts. Which I am sure made any number of vets wonder why then did it take us so long to WIN the damn thing?

And yes, there were a number of "funny" or "humorous" movies, based on the war. "The Wackiest Ship in the Army" (both the movie, staring Jack Lemmon, and the short lived TV show) was based on an actual ship/events. And there were many others, usually portraying the trials and tribulations of either becoming indoctrinated to military life (boot camp/basic training) or finding ways to work with-in/around the system, in order to "get the girl", beat the enemy, meet the challenge given by the chain of command or circumstances.

But that was Hollywood of 40 some years ago. At least they had enough presents of mind to make the good guys just that, the good guys. Not so, with the current crop of military mirth/Gitmo guffaws/global terroristic tomfoolery, and international political/big business gone wild. Oh, and did I forget to include zombie troops and strippers? (Nothing says "We support the guys and gals in the military" more then a film with "re-animated" ranks risking limb to continue the fight for freedom!)

Perhaps this is just Hollywood's way of redefining a term which is probably not considered PC these days. "T&A", no longer stands for that particular segment of films. Now it can be used as an umbrella for almost all the content coming out these days. Now "T&A" stands for "Trite & Asinine"

I'm off to go and watch an old classic, starring Lee Marvin, called "The Dirty Dozen". Thank god for dvds!

With the obligatory tip of the "Squid lid ™ " to Jeffrey Ressner at "Politico" for his enlightening article on same.

Truth in Advertizing ...

... is a good thing to have. And is in (very) short supply regardless of which political side of the fence you are on. But in an effort to help a terrorist loving, race baiting, piss-poor excuse for a human being ... err "fellow Illinoisan who wants to do good on a massive scale, by implementing change" ™ , I have developed a straight forward no holds barred campaign button.

Yes, that is a mushroom cloud. And yes, I am willing to bet if Obama-lama-dingdong gets the Presidential nod, there will be one or more of those in our future. Though not the change I think he has in mind, it will be major change indeed.

H/T to both the amazing SondraK and the always engaging commentary and photo work provided by "Rodger, the Real King of France" for their posting about and pointing me to this bit of logo fun.

Campain Button or Reset Button ... the choice won't be yours for long

A few years back, Robert H. Bork penned a bit of non-fiction, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". One of the most interesting thrusts of his book, as bought up in a review by Diane West at Public Interest, in it's entirety here, reads as follows:

In a concise, illuminating critique, Bork explains how the Founding Fathers, in their pretensions to near-infallibility, overlooked the fallibility of human nature. That is, while granting the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all men, the Founders took for granted their own inherited moral capital - i.e., the Judeo-Christian tradition and classical thought - and made no provision for its perpetuation.

Indeed, we some twelve years after the books release, continue to bear witness to this. Look at the hoops those who are avowed statists/progressives/marxists, go through in order to get (the collective) us to become more accommodating of diversity for diversity's sake, tolerant accepting of all "faiths", the dumbing down/indoctrination of our future generations in the schools/colleges, and finally, (because of the above marginalizing of religions) the bowing to the State as the one supreme entity.

However, it doesn't end here, with the hubris of so called leaders from either side of the political spectrum demanding "We The People" humbly bow down before them, excepting their view of what's best for us. No, both sides (though perhaps arriving at it from different directions) have a much larger vision of what needs to be done. They, quite simply, are planning and perusing nothing less then the "globalization of humankind".

It is not some conspiracy lurking in the dark shadows of some one two kings shy of a full deck. Nor the wishful thinking of an Illuminati fearing anti-mason nutjob. Noted author Jerome R Corsi's May 19, 2006 column for Human Events gives a brief but enlightening synopsis of what has already happened, and what, most likely is to come.

This is nothing really new, President Bush's lack of success with his (supposed) immigration reform and securing of the borders, give credence to Corsi's work. And now there is this. Yes, the GOP candidate for president, Senator McCain, looks to be wanting to change the paint job on the 'ol "Straight Talk Express" to "The North American Union Express."

McCain proposed a new organization, the League of Democracies, to "harness the vast influence of more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests."

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the presumptive Republican nominee told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. "We need to listen - we need to listen - to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."
Source: Foon Rhee - The Boston Globe March 27, 2008

Why stop at the new borders of the Unión Norteamericana ... err ... I mean, North American Union? When we can, according to John McCain, (Are we going for the "third time is a charm" thing here?) form yet another League of Nations... ahhh ... United Nations ... damn ... "League of Democracies" ... yeah, that's the ticket!! After all we are the little kids on the block age-wise. All those Euro-pee-ans are soooo much more sophisticated and cultured then we is and all. It might be best if we just get rid of that pesky constitution once and for all. Lets get on board this one world thing. We can still have our own "nation" (note those were finger quotes around nation). But on the oft chance we happen to elect a leader that gets a bit too uppity, why the "real leaders" will be able to slap em down.

And make no mistake, tho they may be fools, these are not idiots. It will be done using the tried and true tools the libs (and their masters, the communists) have used for years . Incramentalism. First comes the various "U's" (European. Asian. North American), eventually to be followed by one big (not so) happy Union, Federation, Republic ... whatever is decided on at the time.

You believe in the constitution as written? Forgettaboutit! It will have been gutted (if not out rightly removed in toto). You believe in God? Not a problem, just don't expect any of the moral framework we hold to be based on what has been observed of the human condition over the past couple thousand years to be of worth... and as long as YOU don't force your moral guidelines on us, then you can keep your religion ... but we will be watching.

Guns????? You MUST be kidding!!!

Education??? The best and brightest will get a shot ... the rest of you ... eat your alloted caloric intake, drink your happy juice, and be quick about it! Your shift starts in 15 minutes.

America? "I remember gramps talking about that ONCE ... just before he went to "the home".

As for the here and now. We don't have the options the founding fathers (and a generation or so afterward) had. There is no place else to head off to ... to start over. We have only two choices.

Drink the kool-ade, while mentally and physically masturbating our freedoms away, and of course enjoy the ride.

Or

Hit the reset button.

I am ready for the button. What say you??

An Obamanation

If I were to gamble and suggest who might, in 50 to 100 years from now, be recognized as our generations answer to Kipling (at least as far as verse goes), my choice would be the prolific Russ Vaughn. He never fails to satisfy ... need proof? Happy to provide same. Here is his latest, enjoy!

VP or Not VP, That is the question

I made mention of who would be a good vice presidential running mate for Senator McCain here. However, that man about town, McGehee, feels (and rightly so) we delegates of the GOMLP (that's Get Off My Lawn Party for all you late comers out there *grin*.) should post our preferences at our respective sites, in order to get the conversations going, juices flowing (Ok, in light of former NY Governor Spitzer's "flowing juices" concerns, perhaps that's not such a good thing.), and on the off chance someone is actually reading this bit o' fluff on the interweb, see if we can arrive at some respectable choices for VP.

Some have suggested Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin, would make a great choice and potential future presidential candidate as well. I would come back to the "continental 48", and offer either Duncan Hunter, or former Lt Governor of Maryland, Michael S. Steele, as fine high caliber running mates. Both would represent the more conservative (and increasingly muffled) voice of the Republican party. But more to the point, speak to the views and viewpoints of the majority of Americans (despite what the lame brain ... err main stream media would have you believe) in this country, particularly those in the heartland and the south.

So, what do y'all think?

The President Speaks

President McCain, now into his third month as “Leader of the free world”, gave the following speech as his first televised broadcast (on all major channels) to the nation last night:

... ”Given the current situation of the world today, and the treats posed by those, from both within and without, who seek to extinguish the light of democracy, I have placed the following demands, to be acted on in due haste, on my administration, both houses of Congress, and if need be - the Supreme Court.

1.Effective immediately, funds will be found to take whatever means necessary in securing our borders. This is to include the building of fortified walls and or fences and the use of surveillance equipments such as may be needed in areas where walls or fences would be impracticable. Major increases of manning levels within the border patrol shall be in effect immediately. Until such time as these numbers are reached, funds will be made available to state and local agencies (State Police/County Sheriff/National Guard) to augment their forces to meet our needs. This is to include the use of (deputized)local citizens as needed. A nation is only such if her borders are recognized and respected as the beginning and end of her peoples national identity. And all who seek to cross same, in an illegal manner, for what ever the reason or purpose, violate our customs and rule of law.

2.As the last holder of this office stated, “You are either with us or against us.” regarding our continuing fight with those who seek to end our way of life, our cherished history and customs, I say to any and all through out the world, be you a group or organization who directly acts or an agency of a state acting in the shadows ... you will be eradicated. And let all followers of “the religion of submission”,in other words Islam know,that from now on, any actions in the following of their philosophy which are contrary to the laws, security, and national interests of this country will be met with such force as is necessary to contain or eliminate this as a threat to our nation.

3.I am a man. As such, I have made mistakes in my past. I am also man enough to admit when I have done so. To this end, I am requesting congress set about repealing what has commonly been referred to as “The McCain–Feingold Act ”. It has proved to not be effective in curtailing or eliminating corruption in the political process. Indeed, upon reflection, it has lessened the intent and spirit of the First Amendment. I publicly apologize for having taken part in bringing about this legislation, and hope my active voice in bringing about its demise will serve as a proper penance.

4.To voice objections to a current majorities legislative agenda in the house, senate, or administration, or suggest alternative ways of reaching what is perceived as a common goal, has been a historical cornerstone in our Republic. However, there is a vast difference between the above, and what has been said and done by a handful of individuals in our body politic. To this end, I have begun criminal investigations into the actions of a number of our elected officials, along with some who have held public office in the past. To criticize your government and her policies is one thing, to actively promote the actions of her enemies or agencies is quite another, and if found wanting, these individuals will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

Finally tonight, I have been called a “Maverick”, RINO, crackpot ... the list goes ever on, and rest assured these are the only ones I can mention in a public venue. (waits for audience laughter to die down) I have been playing my cards close to my chest, simply because I felt the only sure way to this position was so to speak, to hide my light under a bushel .

Let it be known and fully understood, that I AM the President of the United States Of America, and much like the oath I took as an officer in the greatest Navy in the world, ”To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies foreign and domestic.” ... is and always will be my top priority, and the greatest honor and privilege any man could ask for.

God Bless you all, and God Bless America.”

I almost fell out of my chair. It was stunning to hear such passion. To see the fire in his eyes. Was he a Churchillian Phoenix rising from the ashes of the Republican party? Was he showing the country and the world the “real John McCain”,the man his son's believed in and admired so?

I went to grab the morning paper, to see what the spin of the (now clearly disenchanted) print media would be, and then turn on the radio to hear what Limbaugh, Levin, or even Hannity might be saying.

But I guess I'll never know ... cause right about then was when I woke up.

Will We Have A McCain Mutiny?

Well it seems we have a Republican finalist in place. Arizona Senator, John McCain, locked the nomination by virtue of his walking away with Texas, Ohio, RI, and VT, in yesterdays primaries. As I have written in the past, the man gives me much cause for concern. His willingness to bend our first amendment rights in order to meet his needs/wants/desires, is by itself, reason enough to wonder about his political character. That he would, and has, side with leaders of the progressive movement in this country (otherwise known as the Democratic Party) if for no other apparent reason then to snub his own parties goals or agendas, comes across not as one who is a "maverick", but rather a petulant child who needs to be the center of attention ... and when not getting their way ... proceeds to curl up in a ball and turn blue.

Then there are the two things he has in common with the current holder of the office of Commander-in-Chief. The first, both seek to have our borders open to all able to walk across same. "Illegal Immigrant" is in not in either one's lexicon. That is going to cost us, and not just in dollars and cents. But in real human blood, sweat, and tears.

The second one, is their stance on the War on Terror. (This is kinda amazing to me, in that you would think a secure, non-porous border would be one of the top items on ones list of things to do, in order to effectively fight this foe, at least regarding being able to monitor the coming and goings of those who are of a questionable nature.) Both President Bush, and ostensively, Senator McCain, at the very least are aware of the potential price we pay if we chose to ignore the threat posed by "radical Islam". That neither seem to want to (or are able to) acknowledge Islam in and of itself IS the threat, and the more vocal/radical elements are nothing more then folks moving at a faster pace then the rest of the Muslim crowd, is perhaps a subject for another day. Still, they seem to have at least a basic grasp of the concept. We can't bargain with those who seek to kill us, and are less then honorable in their (history of) bargaining.

This last point is (if there is any politically speaking) McCain's saving grace.

But his successful run to the Oval Office will not be won on this alone. Both Democratic contenders are by all accounts going to give him quite a race, regardless who wins their party's nomination. He will have to do at least a couple of things (barring any major turns in the war). First, he needs to legitimately mend the fences he all but ran through the wood chipper, with conservatives. One way to start the mending would be to bring on board a strong conservative running mate for VP. Duncan Hunter would be my choice. He is a young, strong conservative from a state whose last major political voice (Pelosi, The Governator, and Boxer don't count) was none other then Ronald Regan. It might also be enough to swing that state in his column come the general election. (But my prognostication has been so poor, even I wonder about that ... still...) Then there is former Lt Governor of Maryland, Michael S. Steele, yet another strong conservative voice.

McCain has a long way to go to not only unify the GOP, but in winning the general election. Time will tell if he is honest enough with the conservative Republicans (and conservatives in general), to get them to turn out in large enough numbers come November.

I wonder if he will be honest enough with himself to be the kind of man his son sees him as.

“I think he is less [of a] maverick and more principled. He’s not going to pander and he’s not going to give in because it’s politically intelligent or just because it’s popular to go that way. Granted he is an elected official, and he is the voice of the people, but when it comes down to what he believes is best for the country, he does what he feels is right,” Midshipman Jack McCain, February 13, 2008

I have to admire both his sons. Both are in the millitary, by choice. Based on what I have read, they sound like solid centered individuals, who love their dad and are proud of him. It came across in the linked interview, and it did change my opinion of McCain just a bit. If those closest to him are as positive about him with out being *gushingly so*, then perhaps there is more to the man then what we have seen. And maybe this is what McCain needs to share with the rest of the country. Perhaps it is time to drop the "Maverick" and become instead, the principled senior statesman ready and willing to lead this country. If that means you have to secure the borders to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, then so be it. If that means you have to repeal the BCRA (because our candidate is man enough to admit mistakes) because the Constitution, specifically the "Bill of Rights", is not to be trifled with. This would go a long way towards mending fences and establishing credibility with conservatives.

We shall see.

The Four Jokers of the Apocalypse

If it wasn't so serious a concern, the whole election process this time around could be viewed as nothing more then the political version of "Highlander"; "There Can Be Only One!" . Lord knows it is certainly shaping up to be a battle royal, if it ends up being between Ms Clinton and Mr. McCain. On the other hand if the (very) junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, gets his party's nod, then all bets are off. Other then a major slip up of truly monumental proportions, there is no way in hell McCain beats Obama.

I am not in any way shape or form, a supporter of said junior Senator, but he has more personality and ability to galvanize his political base in his little finger, then McCain has in his entire (quite sizable) ego. Obama, shows signs of being able to pull in at least some of the middle of the road folks out there, and some of the RINO's (Big slice of irony there, McCain backers.), both groups which McCain dearly needs to win the White House. Add to this the fact that traditionally the majority of Democrats will line up behind whomever is their standard bearer, once chosen, regardless how bloody the battle was to get the nomination. This is NOT the case with the GOP this time 'round.

The world is as dangerous as it ever was. Whither through design, mismanagement, or perhaps plain hubris, the current administration has no been able to address all the demands placed upon it by the War on Terror.

At the same time, the erosion of personal freedom(s) continues here at home. The Constitution has taken quite the beating while Mr. Bush was in office. The First, Fifth, and possibly Second Amendments being assaulted. Our national borders, one of the very things considered as one of the standards to which denotes some bit of land as "being a nation", are criss-crossed with near impunity by anyone who desires to enter. We have more "undocumented aliens" here, then in the entire "director's cut" of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". (At least the ones in the movie were just passing through.)

Of course there are also those on the other side of the aisle who seek to undo what little good the current administration has done. They also seek to send us closer to, if not directly down the same path which the EU is going down now. (along with Great Briton. may she rest in peace)

Senator McCain will NOT (The one possible exception being the War on Terror, and we only have his personal word on that ... and his past record shows how little he honors his word ... that he will continue the fight.) seek to change any of the above. Indeed, he will continue the big government spending and programs just like Bush and a large chunk of the GOP Senate and Congress. His track record shows, despite what he now says to the contrary, that he will fall in line with the liberal side of things more often then not. The man is only nominally a Republican, and only in his befuddled mind's eye does he wear the mantle of *Conservative". Need we say anything about his staunch support of the Constitution? (If you have to ask, go back to sleep, you really didn't want your First Amendment rights any more did you?)

At Least 12" of Global Warming Outside ...

... and more forecast for the rest of the day. And after spending better then 15 hours at the polls yesterday (election judging) ... Well, Misha talks about Super Tuesday Hangovers here, with voting and monitoring the ongoing results via television and radio. Try spending all that time at the polls ... people, it ain't pretty. The high point of the day was seeing a number of young people coming out and voting for the first time. They were excited and really wanted to be a part of things. I only wish there had been more of them.

We had about 40-50% turnout. And were busy for the majority of the day, despite the beginnings of a major storm starting to dump snow by around noon.

Off to go and start to shovel out the drive. Going to try and use the snowblower...but don't know if it will be up to the task, it's better then a foot deep now.

Wonder if we can get a pizza delivered for dinner tonight?

The Maverick from Arizona

Senator John McCain. First, let me get this out of the way, Senator McCain was a POW, and served Honorably in the United States Navy. His service to his country is not now nor has ever been in question by me. And I flat refuse to go there. . The man is as dangerous to this country as any Democrat, and as disingenuous towards the Constitution as Mike Huckabee would be...

Taken from "State of the Union and Primary Pleasantries"

I have posted about McCain and his less then stellar actions in the past. And on my opinion(s) of the man. Being he is in the running (and currently tied for the lead in the Florida Primary) for the Republican nod for President, perhaps a look at a couple or three posts from the past would be in order. This man is not to be trusted! His only saving grace, and it is questionable as to whither or not he will stay the course, is his supposed stand on the War on Terror.

With all the war of words about the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and their ad depicting Kerry in a less than favorable light (Truth hurts don't it Kerry). Aside from the whining and pseudo legal garbage put out by the DNC (and others for the Kerry Konvoy), one voice spoke out, which judging by his past actions isn't too surprising at first look. Yes, I am talking about Arizona's own Senator John McCain.

There has been talk over the years about his checkered political past (Keating Five ring a bell?), including the election ads cure-all (that didn't)which bitch-slaps ignores that pesky first amendment, the CFR. But, his statements concerning the ad placed by the Swifties, is not really about his being a "maverick", or even being an independent thinker.....it goes deeper.

As most folks know Senator McCain was a POW during Viet Nam. There have been other sites and other comments, over the years, suggesting he got the majority of his wounds by not following procedure upon ejecting from his aircraft over the middle of Hanoi. I would humbly suggest until you have done the same, you might want to pipe down about that....ejecting from an aircraft even in optimal conditions is not failsafe....and though I have concerns about the Senator, that isn't one of them.

He landed in the middle of " the Western Lake" and was removed from it by one Vietnamese. Thus started his 5 1/2 year stint as a prisoner of war.
And, on his fourth day of captivity and believing he was going to die, McCain chose instead to deal with his captors. I said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."**. Even this almost failed to work, until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of a senior Naval Officer. Now, only those who have been in that part of hell experienced by POW's of Viet Nam, would have any honest insight to what McCain was exposed to....the rest of us can imagine...based on what we have read or heard from other POW's. Is he a turncoat to his fellows based on his own admissions in so far as he claims to have freely violated the Code of Conduct all service members are bound to? I don't want to address that concern...indeed it is not as important as another question I do have.

Was Senator McCain broken so hard that he can never exorcise the demons his actions past and present would indicate he still faces? If he were just a small town mayor, or a little bureaucrat in a dimly lit office, that may not be much of a concern...certainly others have matters of self worth and conscience they must face constantly...But how many are US Senators....and past (and possible future) contenders for the highest office in the land?

Fact: McCain actively sought to dismiss and marginalize attempts of finding out whether there were American POWs/MIAs still alive in Viet Nam and possibly neighboring countries

Fact: After keeping his distance from Massachusetts Senator John Kerry for a number of years, obstinately due to Kerry's well documented anti-war stance, He has been alleged to have "Made his peace" with Kerry while on a trip to Kuwait.

Fact: The very enemy which caused him physical and mental damage, became the beneficiary of his actions in bringing about more open trade as one of a number of US Senators seeking to help open relations with Viet Nam.

Fact: When fellow vets attempt to present their side of the ongoing saga that is the Kerry attempt to rewrite (Kerry's) history of the Viet Nam war, he summarily dismisses them and calls upon the Bush administration to do the same.

The bottom line is there is more to Senator McCain then meets the eye. Based on what has appeared in print (US News and World Report, Congressional Record[s], McCain's own statements, "The Nightingale", etc) he is a man who seeks to put Viet Nam well behind him....even if the costs are far greater than just the personal well being and mental health of one Senator John McCain.

It is one thing to allow Kerry to dodge and weave as he puts on his "Visions of Viet Nam Heroics Pornshow ™" and attack those without credentials or affidavit's to back up their accusations. But the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are NOT in that group Senator McCain. They have the poof, they have been there, been wounded, and seen their comrades in arms die there.

You have talked about courage. You have talked about falling short of what you would consider to be honorable conduct. You have the chance here to do what would be considered to be the honorable thing, in really listening to what the Swift Boat vets have to say. And, in doing all of what is in your power to ensure the current Commander in Chief is returned to office for another four years. We are at war Senator, and though he is not perfect, President Bush has the clarity of vision to recognize the evil we are fighting for what it is. Perhaps, in finding the courage within yourself to drop the blinders and see the truth, you will be able to eliminate some of the demons who dine on your soul daily.

"John McCain, Haunted by Demons?" August 12th, 2004 - Snugg Harbor

This was followed by this(which referred to the blockquote above):

I received more than a few comments about this post when it appeared a number of months ago. The major piece of legislation co-authored by the good Senator has been in the news and making major waves throughout the blogsphere over the past few weeks. Perhaps it is as good a time as any to take a walk down memory lane...The main point of my post still stands. Senator McCain in all good conscience needs to step down from his senate seat and retire. I have the greatest respect for the senators Naval service, and for his time spent as a POW. But, I posit his time in hell, has at the very least affected his powers of reasoning. It's not his fault, and it may not be fair (as things in life often are) but his actions as a Senator, and the legislation he has backed or sponsored, as well as his actions as a member of the Senate fact finding committee on the issue of POWs/MIAs are questionable at best.

"Revisiting Senator McCain"- March 3rd, 2005 Snugg Harbor

And finally, there is this:

I have been following, with interest, not only the hub-bub about the BCRA and the FEC as it relates specifically to blogging and bloggers at large, but about the exploits of it's more notable author, Senator John McCain.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has been on this item and the Senator like a good hunting dog...ferreting out bits and pieces of the truth along with giving us larger swatches about one of the main players in this madness.

But I am noticing something else here.

Yes there was the Keating Five scandal, and though he came out of it with little more than a slap on the hand (and a hope that the voting public has short memories), McCain did admit he was wrong. This major incident was spun over the years as his main personal reason for the BCRA. That, there exists a possibility legislators could become corrupted by the large amounts of money out their in corporate coffers and PAC land. The average voter across the nation (assuming McCain's ambition for power and the presidency are as strong as they ever were) could, if spun right, believe McCain has learned his lesson.

But wait you say, what about information currently being brought to light about his ties with Cablevision and their contributions to the Reform Institute. In fact looking at the cronyism prevalent at the Reform Institute, and McCain's ties to same, if this is the actions of an active "reformer", one might wonder when wolves became just another subspecies of chicken.

Okay, lets not look at the above. After all it's been many years since Keating...and one can't fault a fella from back sliding. Oops, it seems Mark R. Levin, dug up a bit more about McCain getting monies from outside sources at different times from 1989 through 2002.

So, what is the big deal here? To me it is simple, and Mr. Levin brings it to light in this fashion:

"Of course, I don't believe the mere receipt of campaign contributions is corrupting. In fact, it's evidence of representative government at work. The public has every right to try to influence the direction of their government. But McCain believes this activity to be corrupt, yet he took the money anyway."

And that appears to be McCain in a nutshell....the man is a hypocrite.

This brings me back to McCain's recent statements about the FEC and the BCRA not effecting, or having any effect on, individual bloggers. Judging on how the man is able to apparently talk reform out of one side of his mouth while feathering his campaign coffers or providing "capital" shelter for his cronies. You have got to wonder not only about John McCain's ability to prevent the erosion of YOUR first amendment rights, but his willingness to do so as well.

March 10th, 2005 -Snugg Harbor

Is this the man you want to see as Commander-in-Chief ? He is nothing more then a liberal in GOP clothing on every issue other then (perhaps) the War on Terror. At least with Obama, you know what you are getting. Senator Obama is upfront about what he is and what he stands for. (Though I can't see myself voting for him either. Not even close to my political stance.) But with McCain ... only John and God know what is going on in that muddled mind of his. If he gets the nomination, be afraid, be very afraid.

** original link no longer exists...updated with a more current item from Newsmax.com archives-Harbor Master

The State of the Union and Primary Pleasantries

Tonight President Bush gives his last "State of the Union Address", as he heads towards his last eleven months in the Oval Office. It will be interesting to see what his framework for his twilight tour will be. One expects it will contain much verbiage regarding the current fiscal crisis, and what the "Feds" are ramping up to do about it. It would not be a surprise at all to find more information put forward on past success with the War On Terror, as well as what the President hopes to accomplish towards the (ongoing) reconstruction of Iraq, and its version of democracy. Then there is Iran, and it's treat of becoming the regional nuclear power. All in all I suspect it will be more of a farewell address than a major litany of potential administration accomplishments.

And though there has been much President Bush has done which has caused my fists to clench and vision to turn red, in the end, regarding the singular most important event of our time, he has for the most part stayed the course. For that, I thank you Mr. President. Now begins his final chapter.
-------------------------
Which brings us to the real point of this post. (What? Your posts have points??!!!) The season of silliness, otherwise known as "The Primaries" ™ , is well upon us. The Democrats have seen fit to narrow down their "offerings" to three (No, not Larry, Moe, and Curly, but close!) In no particular order we have Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton, who along with her husband, Bill, represent the Machiavelli branch of the party.

Then there is John Edwards, the "Hair today gone tomorrow candidate". Although early on many thought he would have a chance to grab the nomination away from Mz Clinton, or at worst be in second place, his lackluster showings, especially in what was considered to be "his turf", South Carolina, may have sealed his fate as a future vice president to who ever gets the Democratic nod. It could also be argued, his lack of tractions might be due to Hillary and Obama sucking up almost all the oxygen from the Democrat side of the process.

Last, but not least, is Barack Obama, junior Senator from Illinois. Young, charismatic, who more or less has been "officially" anointed as the second coming of JFK, by no less then Caroline Kennedy and Uncle Teddy. (One could be tempted to note, the Clinton camp might be more then willing to advance the Kennedy analogy with Sen Obama, to the same horrific conclusion as the original, but that would be crass and unfeeling. The Clintons are far, far above that kind of reproach...as spotless as Teddy Kennedy's ....err driving record.) It will be a very interesting season over on the Democratic side of things.

But they are not alone.

Get Offa My Lawn

Tired of your political party ignoring you fella?
You say it's like being told by the girl you're most fond of ... "I love you ... like you were my brother!"
What's that you're saying? That the candidates of either party could barely qualify for hall monitor? Let alone leader of the most powerful country in the free world???
That the other "also ran parties" offer either pie-in-the-sky platitudes, or are only thinly connected to reality?

WELL CHEER UP BUNKY!!!

Now there is an alternative!
Yes, the "Get Offa My Lawn" Party is just the "ticket". Get thee over to McGee's home on the web for more info...including how to become a deligate.

Are You Ready To Make A Choice?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Second Amendment-United States Constitution

We all have choices to make. Some are simple, daily, repetitive ... what to wear to work, what's for dinner tonight, is there anything worth watching on the boob tube.

At other times we face decisions of a bit more complex nature. Is this really the right car for me and my family. Who "is" the best person for the job. Should I stand (and maybe "die"), metaphorically, on this hill, or concede to the wishes of my wife.

Then there are the occasional really tough choices. Like; Should I risk losing the best friend I ever had by telling them what they really need to hear, or just agree with them and keep their friendship (assuming they are in some sort of self destructive state/situation).

Then there are the real life or death kinds of choices. And not just in a physical sense. The ones that can spiritually wound or even kill (or lead to the death of your soul)

We all make choices.

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The Oath of enlistment/re-enlistment of the Armed Forces

Some of us feel that this oath, once taken, is taken for life. That our sacred oath demands we are duty bound to the oath even after enlistments and office holdings have expired. That one is honor bound to it ... for life. That there are ideals and beliefs which once realized, are worth the total investment of self. Even to the point of "that last full measure of devotion".

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Oath of Office

Some of us don't. They take political gambles with your first amendment rights, and lose. They allow for the further encroachment of our property rights. Seek to obliterate our borders, sovrenty, and national security. And now, an out and out attack on the linchpin of the Constitution, the Second Amendment..

And Some of us plan on supporting the Constitution as it was originally intended, especially if elected to higher office.

In one respect, the cave dweller over in Afghanistan has it correct. We are comfortable here in the west, especially in America. We have been blessed with a prosperity and abundance of riches, and standard of living, no other nation on earth as realized. And (the collective) we have come to expect our government to take appropriate action when needed. That the government will take care of what ever needs to be taken care of. It can mass an army large enough to meet our defense. It can through sanctions, diplomatic meetings, behind the scenes arm twisting, bend the rest of the world to our ends (or come up with a mutually agreeable compromise). But what this has done, over the course of the past 60-70 years, is to accelerate, in a negative way, a shift in personal responsibility.

It's easier to let someone else do it. To defend you. To pay a larger burden of the expense of running the government which is providing you with welfare (tax the rich make em bleed...I don't have enough...they have too much). To let the police take care of all vestiges of crime. (We don't NEED guns....that's what the cops are for anyhow.)

No it isn't! With perhaps one exception. It is quite possible that in the process of defending you ...your son/daughter/husband/wife will pay for your comfort. This would be perhaps the only legitimate extension to the federal government. But as to the others. Living off the dole, due to the (successful) efforts of others? Granting the police more and more power to battle crime when the moral code(s) used to define just what constitutes *a crime* become more and more nebulous, to the point where even ones thoughts are suspect? All the while, you are asked (cajoled, scared, lied to) to give up (some, and only for a short time if possible) personal freedoms to achieve these ends.

I guess it is at least partially due to human nature things are as they are. But ask yourself this ... at what price freedom?

At what point do I ... must I ... make a choice to let things continue in the direction they are going. At which personal line in the sand, after many such lines have been drawn, and crossed, do I say "that's it, that's enough. You have gone too far into what is MINE by divine right (or natural law if you prefer). I don't know what the answer is for you. Never the less, the time is fast approaching when a choice (or choices) will have to be made.

Are you ready? Will you be ready? To Make A Choice? Or will you let others make it for you?

Update changed the link to "the Second Amendment" above and moved other link to end of post. -Harbor Master.
Update2Seems someone in Congress also gets it. Head on over and add your two cents... A choice in the right direction

Don't Smoke em' If You (Still) Got em'

"We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience."

-- Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782)

Hi, My name is Guy, and I am a smoker. I have been dancing with darling nicotine since 1971. Should I stop? Perhaps. For a fact it would allow my lungs to operate in a (much) more efficient fashion. It would allow for a sharp drop in my over all chances of succumbing to either lung cancer and or a heart attack in what ever alloted time is left me on this earth. My clothes (and I) would generally smell a whole lot better. The actions taken by my state (and 23 others ... if one believes the propaganda) would not directly effect me as I would no longer feel the need for a smoke while having an adult beverage at a bar or after a meal (or cup of coffee) dining out.

Everything stated in the above paragraph is true ... except for the last sentence.

The actions taken by the Peoples Republic of Illinois does effect you wheither or not you smoke or have never seen tobacco in its processed state in your life.

Some religions in their doctrine condemn/forbid/strongly admonish the use of intoxicants (of which, tobacco is one). That is their belief/choice. If I belong to any one of those, I have the choice to either follow said doctrine or not, and suffer the consequences for doing so.

For reasons of safety, smoking is prohibited in certain businesses/areas. If you deal with oxygen, for example, it is not a bright idea to be smoking in the general area. In the military you do not smoke while on watch (that lit butt makes a great target).

Courtesy/civility/rules of decorum dictate, if one has any social etiquette/manners at all, that you refrain from smoking during a number of social gatherings/occasions. As a rule, one does not smoke in church (at the very least during services/mass). At formal gatherings of civic/fraternal organizations you will not be allowed to puff. It is polite to ask (or it was, when you could still smoke in restaurants) the patrons next to you, if they mind if you smoke. It was not required, but was the civil thing to do.

In short, the almighty state has decided for you, what is not only in your best interest, and by implication, that it knows better then you do what is best/socially acceptable/morally-ethically correct. That you do not have a choice as an individual to manage your affairs be they physical/social/mental/moral/business related/leisure related.

No, smoking in and of itself, may not be the best thing one can do. But it IS a legal substance (for adults). The state is hypocritical enough to realize this and tax the substance accordingly ... to make a tidy profit off the sale of same.

I am more concerned about the precedence set here. (And a strong argument could be made this was already started with the helmet/seatbelt laws of years past.) We all are, as fully functioning adults allowed to make choices. Some may not be the best (no seatbelt for example) but the bottom line is we as citizens of a supposed free society are supposed to be able to make these choices... and then live with whatever consequences are the result of these actions. This is not, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the state to make these choices for us. Or why even establish a legal majority (the age of 18 or 21 depending on location) if the state seeks to be the final abater in all matters.

For the sake of this post we will stick to smoking. If I am an owner of a bar and I decide to restrict smoking on my premises, then I should be able to do so and financially live or die with that choice. My patrons will dictate as to wither or not it was a smart business move. Conversely, if I elect to allow smoking the same should apply. If enough people are going to frequent my establishment to drink and smoke, then I will make money. If not, then perhaps I need to back up and regroup... re-think my business plan ... and go from there. But (assuming it isn't illegal) it is not any of the states business to tell me how to run my business. And this goes for all laws which dictate (short of those dealing with safety issues ... fire codes/food prep/storage and the like) same.

The more we allow for the state to intrude into our personal affairs, in the long run, the less freedom we will have. The less freedom of choice. The less we will be able to be adults. We will become wards of the state. Bowing to their will.

The first of this year the bar was lowered, yet again, regarding personal freedom. Another of your choices as to how you desired to live (enjoy?) your life was taken from you. It may have been for all the best intentions. But the next time the state cares to intrude (and rest assured there WILL be a "next time") it has become that much easier for the state to do so.

Need an example:
"I am sorry Mrs. Smith, I would love to sell you the super size fries with your order, but your body fat card says you don't qualify for them." No, the state would never go after over weight people ... would they????

Thompson: At Long Last A Conservative Statesman!!

It seems Republican presidential hopeful, Fred Thompson, has begun to get his campaign into higher gear. Perhaps it was part of a plan to wait out the other guys, to see who would be putting their collective feet into their mouths first. Or to see how the (formerly) loyal opposition was going to shake out as we near the first hurdle of the primary season.

And I haven't posted much on the political season so far precisely because of that. It's still early. But like the Thompson campaign, I feel now is the time to toss my two cents out there. So here goes.

Giuliani: Strong on defense, charismatic (to a point), based on his handling of NYC during 9/11 there seems to be some leadership ability, certainly the ability to handle things in a crisis mode. But his domestic policy is going to be nothing short of RINO-isque. If you want to see more of what has been happening under the current administration, only more to the left, then he is your man ... But not mine. Though I see him as being Thompson's biggest obstacle in getting the GOP nod.

McCain: Also strong on defense. But his disregard of the Constitution (McCain-Feingold), past ethics concerns (alleged ties with the mob in Az/the Savings-in-Loan scandal), and his image (to some of us) as sometimes coming across as flaky, Is gonna knock him out.

Romney: His liberal style track record while Governor of Massachusetts is going to be the albatross around his neck. And though he is trying to sell himself as being a centrist ... Assuming he got the nod from the GOP, the Dems will have a field day with him (the same holds true for Rudy/Mike/John/Ron).

Huckabee: Yet another Liberal/Moderate in Republican clothing. If you want another George Bush ... only more strident in his religious convictions (as in using it as a club against any and all nay sayers regardless of the topic), and as easily a flip-flopper as ol' Billy Clinton, then go for Mike. And he STILL hasn't a clue about foreign policy. Weak at home and abroad is NOT what we need right now.

Ron Paul: It had to happen sooner or later. The GOP finally got a conservative version of Kucinich! And this fella gets all the granola votes too (that's fruits, flakes, and nuts). He might have had at least an honest listening had his folks IMMEDIATELY gotten rid of the anti-semitic and white supremacists. Sadly, they still flock to Paul like moths to a flame. This one will burn out not soon enough.

Saving the best for last.

Fred Thompson: Strong on defense. Strong on a return to the original Republican platform of smaller (Federal) government, lower taxes, etc. Pro Israel/Life/Military. Doesn't really want the job (not lusting for power) but will not shirk his civic duty when called upon to do so. Think Winston Churchill, with a Tennessee accent. (Yes, I think he could rise to THAT level of statesmanship.)

You need to hear what Fred has to say? Then you need go no further then to the video goodness here.

I will cover the Democratic side of the house in another post. After seeing the video from Thompson, my hopes are rising in that we may, as Constitutional loving Americans, finally get the leadership we need. Go Fred Go!!!!

The Scary GOP

December 15, 2007 7:43 PM

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson reports: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic hopeful John Edwards, lamented with Iowa caucus goers about her fear of the Republican Party. Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic hopeful John Edwards, lamented with Iowa caucus goers about her fear of the Republican Party. "Republicans should scare us in a lot of ways," Edwards said as she was introducing her husband at a town hall in Dubuque, Iowa.

Sheesh ... You, or your husband, (or any of the other wanna-be potential presidents) may annoy me. Ya'll may even make me want to toss the nearest blunt object at hand towards the tv. Sadly, if it were not for the fact that so many in this country actually buy into what ya'll are saying, a bright future as comedians would be awaiting you all. But scare me, not even on your best day. So how is it that a number of the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls, cause you to break out in a cold sweat? Did one of them hide her husbands curling iron? Or did another tell Elizabeth she doesn't look 10 pounds heavier on television ... she looks 25 pounds heavier???

Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, "He seems like a nice charming guy," before saying that Huckabee, "doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me."

One hopes her husband isn't as muddled in his thought process as she is. Looking for "Mike Huckabee kids with guns" on Google came up with a goose-egg. The best one can find on Huclabee's stance on guns and the second amendment is here. Regarding his feelings for (or against) evolution, he answers quite nicely here Decided not to even bother with the "ending violence in our inner-city" (Her inner-city?? She owns it?? And if so, why isn't she and her hubby taking care of the problem ... if it's their inner city and all.) As for the blockquote in toto: It may be a wild guess on my part but I bet if I found a complete audio file of the above, there might be a very good chance things about Huckabee where taken out of context.

She went on to warn about the larger party, saying, "Karl Rove may not be working in the White House anymore but you can pretty much be sure he’s going back in the presidential race... I believe he’s going to be back and he’s going be doing that same kind of Rovian politics that we’ve seen before — the kind of attacks that we saw against Sen. McCain in South Carolina we can expect to see against our nominee, 'swift boating,' all of that kind of stuff again."

Wow, the Dems sure have a fixation of ol' Karl Rove. She seems more afraid of him then Ebanezer Scrooge was of Jacob Marly and his chains. Perhaps if they came up with honest to god solutions to the problems and concerns this country (and to a greater or lesser extent, the world) is facing, the Mr. Rove wouldn't be a concern. Oh, but that's right, all the Dems perport to be interested in are "feelings" and not realistic, concrete solutions. Get over Rove...that is sooooo 2004. (And for that matter, get over Bush as well.)

John Edwards has been spending the last week campaigning in Iowa. Elizabeth joined him recently and has been making her presence felt by speaking at various moments throughout town hall meetings. Actor and supporter Kevin Bacon joined Edwards on Saturday, surprising audiences with a performance from the Bacon Brothers Band, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that this bus tour is being headlined by Elizabeth.

And yet another democrat contender is found to be not only using his wife as a major mouthpiece for his campaign ... in his (Edwards) case he is not hiding behind her skirt, he is hiding underneath it.

Pleading her husband’s case, she told caucus goers that Edwards could survive the Republican attack machine: "We have to have a candidate who stands up, can take the punches and give it back to them."

Boy am I confused. First Mrs. Edwards says her hubby can "survive the Republican attack machine", then in the next breath she states "We have to have a candidate who stands up, can take the punches and give it back to them.". So which is it Mrs. Edwards? You either support your husband with your fist sentence, or you are still looking for a candidate as evidenced by your second sentence.

Ah well, guess when you are constantly living in fear of the "Scary GOP" ™ , you can't be expected to separate fact from fiction. Especially when you have the friendly folks from the media being enablers of your phobia and all.

Now you want to hear something really scary? If I happened to hear of an accounting of Mr Edwards monthly hair care expenses ....now that would be scary!

Write of the Living Fred

It would appear the Thompson staff, or perhaps the man himself, are as quick with a pen as ever. I was less then happy with some of the early on campaign shuffling and what appeared as a less then active schedule of appearances by the good Senator. Happily, this seems to be changing. A strong showing at the last political gab fest (One hates to call them debates, regardless of what the media says, they are anything but.). And now even more spunkiness on his web site. Come on Fred, we need you now more then ever.

But what of the other rivals for the GOP *crown*? Well, Huckabee is a fool in conservative clothing. Ron Paul is the libertarian version of Ross Perot. Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts version of Bush (at best), while Giuliani is the same for NY. McCain should retire now while he can still save face.

The only other people who have any merit, Tancredo and Hunter, sadly have little or no traction. Perhaps either would or should look in to becoming Thompson's running mate? Both are young enough and would then make strong contenders for the oval office after Thompson vacates same. (Hey, ya gotta be optimistic.)

A floating turd ...

no matter how many times you flush, always tries to re-surface. You know this to be true. They refuse to exit the crapper... going quietly into the night.

So it would seem to be the case with that traitor err ... decorated Navy zero ... John "EFFEN" Karry(did you know he was in Viet Nam???). Just when you think this turd has finally left the commode, up to the surface he comes.

I have not a single word of kindness or support for this piece of human excrement. He violates what is good and decent about being a Naval Officer. No, I wasn't one, but had the honor and privilege to have served with and under quite a number of dedicated, professional, personally accountable men and woman. Officers who took their oath of duty quite literally to heart. Kerry, isn't worthy of licking their boots, and his actions past and present besmirch them all.

My blood pressure is heading north just typoing this. So to provide a brief refresher you could look at my post on Aug 5th 2004 regarding Kerry (I would link it, but the archives seem to be a bit hinky... though going back to Aug on the monthly Archives seems to work ... at Snugg Harbor ... not at CIA), or more importantly head over to The Patriot Post and read their take on the junior scumbag Senator from Teddy "the floater" Kennedy's personal playground. His recent antics, have caused him to float to the surface of the political cesspool. Can we finally get it right and flush him out to the backwaters of inequity once and for all?

Conservative Compassion

Compassionate Conservative. Two words some might consider to be an oxymoron. A catch phrase produced by a GOP pundit designed to shed a "kinder gentler light" on (at that time) an aspiring presidential hopeful. As most of us know, the media picked up on it, and it has been used time and again. But what does it really say ... about the media (and the liberal/progressives et all) ... and more importantly, about those of us who espouse a more conservative view of the world.

Mark Levin, the no holds barred conservative voice (and author extraordinaire), brought this up yesterday (or last night if you listen to him via WLS). And he makes a very interesting point. By creating a subset of conservatives as being exclusively Compassionate, isn't that implying Conservatives (and by default, conservatism at large) are either incapable of being compassionate, or those who embrace the conservative philosophy are rendered less compassionate (or devoid/stripped of this trait altogether) then all other mortals who wonder the planet?

He is right on the money. By marginalizing conservatives it perpetuates the myth we are all heartless. That we would, if given the chance, eat our young ... or our pets (for those out there without children). Or perhaps, we would bring back the rack, tar & feathers, public stocks, and or mass conformity to a Judaeo-Christian ethos with the blessing (literally) of the State. Maybe it is feared that woman, once married, would be shackled to the kitchen, the laundry, and the kids ... with no hope of developing a life outside (or along with) same. And all the other myths purposefully perpetrated at every chance by those on the left and their media lap dogs.

The real truth is ... conservatives do have a heart by the very nature of what they believe in, they have to! (And no, I am not necessarily talking about the Republican party here ... though there are conservatives who belong to it. With each passing election cycle it becomes less and less conservative in its make up and membership ... can anyone say RHINO ???) Conservatives believe in the individual and are in full support of their (God given) rights and freedoms as innumerated by the Constitution. They believe in small government, which means less intrusion in both your personal and professional (business) lives. They believe in taking responsibility for ones actions, being held accountable for same (for good or ill). If allowing for ones fellow man to be as unhindered in their opportunities to become what ever they want or to realize their dreams (whatever they may be) unfettered and unrestricted as much as possible isn't an applicable definition for compassion (toward their fellow man) then I don't know what is.

So perhaps we should send a word to the powers that be. We are not "Compassionate Conservatives". This beast doesn't exist. We of the conservative stripe, are first and foremost human beings. Who by our very nature are, when the need arises, compassionate, passionate, rational, logical, illogical, temperate, intemperate, forgiving, unforgiving, loving, boorish, honest, the full gamut of traits and emotions inherent in all human beings. To say we, as a group, are incapable of compassion is as disingenuous as saying there is no such thing as a liberal who believes in the Islamic threat to our way of life as being a clear and present danger. (They may be few in number, but they do exist. Sen Lieberman as a case in point.)

Cross posted at the CIA cause M. Jack, and the gang, need a break now and again.

Tired Of The Progressives? It's Our Fault! .

Was watching a video clip from yesterdays "Youtube Debate" over at the Rott. My first thought was Senator Biden is yet another of the kool-aid drinking, "the State knows what's best for you", I'm gonna make this MY err ... a perfect world even if I have to ram it down your throat and or (have someone ELSE) take out the whole lot of you, in order to do so, asshats. And that he is. And he is a danger (as are most all other liberal/statist/progressives ... but that is a story for the not to distant future) to most, if not all, of our Constitutional guarantees.

But upon a bit of reflection. Mr Biden (he ain't my Senator ... not that the ones I have are any better ... and trust me they are not!) is not the only one at fault here. Because a large part of the blame for what we have to put up with in Congress, the Senate, the White House (and by extension, the Supreme Court) is our fault!

When did this country or more correctly, the majority of it's population, forget or chose to ignore, our responsibilities?

We complain about the erosion of our rights and liberties. Yet we not only continue to elect people who spend an ever greater part of their time in elected office stripping them away. We bemoan the fact with each passing day it seems there is a new attack on our "rights", yet at the same time we collectively sit in the comfort of our homes, mentally (if nothing else) saying; "Ok, you just crossed the line, and this really torques me off!!" (Or language a tad more salty then that.) But within a day or two (Letters written to the non-listening elitist cadre otherwise known as the Senate/Congress, or phone calls to same being used if we REALLY get riled.) do nothing more then make yet another line in the sand a bit further out then the last. And I don't single myself out for any exemplary treatment, I am as guilty as the rest.

Why?

1. We are too comfortable. We have it pretty damn good (and the left knows it). My generation (the baby boomers) and the one immediately following, have had the highest standard of living of any group of peoples on this earth. This leads to the second point

2. We don't want to really rock the boat. We (despite the left and the media remarks to the contrary) are all social creatures and we want to co-exist with our fellows as much as possible. And life, despite the occasional spikes, is good. (Or so we are constantly reminded by the media ... look how bad the rest of the world is ... see how much America wastes compared to them?)

3. We are getting older. Yeah, I know that 50 is the "new 35-40", would someone tell that to my knees and other joints, they seem to be still on the old time table. Fact is, we might have the wisdom/maturity/experience level which can, to some degree, compensate for the seemingly endless energy and drive of youth. But knowing all that we amassed/built up/saved up for would most likely be gone if we elected to "push the reset button", is a very sobering thought. We need to remember the founders of this country gave their all to secure the liberties we see eroding before our eyes. Can we, as those who inherited these birthrights do no less?

4. We are Nice Guys - When we should be Adults (part 1)
When times are good in this country, we are more then willing to try and figure out if there is a way to share the wealth with those less fortunate. Especially if we have been in difficult straits ourselves. Again, human nature plays a part. We are a charitable people. And so, over the course of the 60's, 70's and some of the 80's we collectively allowed for vast sums of monies to be used in what was known as "the war on poverty" or "The Great Society". It was an honorable thing to strive for and based on good intentions (yeah, I know where that road goes). But we were nice guys ... when we realized the war on poverty turned into nothing more then the creation of a welfare state/class (Whom the progressives use as yet another group of victims needing to be "protected" ... for their own good of course.), we should have stepped in and put a stop to it then and there. We didn't. Not until the 90's was any substantive changes put in place to stop the monies going out.

5. We are Nice Guys - When we should be Adults (part 2)
The liberal mantra, often said before, is that we only do things because we are "meanspirited", "evil", or just our and out corrupt. When in reality our actions are based not on personal gain, or because our strings are being pulled by some mysterious cabal/military-industrial complex, or religious zealotry, or for you lefty bigots out there- "those evil Zionist joooooows". Rather we do them because they must be done. This is true on a personal level. In the raising of families. It is true on the local level, in the desire to live in a healthy vibrant community. And is also true at the National level. Wither it is fighting a war, cutting wasteful spending, lowering taxes, or trying to get government out of the home and business. (Sadly, that is what the Republican party used to stand for. It seems to have morphed into something altogether different over the past 8 years. But that is a story for a later date.) As reasoning, thinking, adults knowing this to be true, we do our best to act accordingly, in any given situation, no matter how hard it may be to do so.

Yet, as a political entity (the GOP), or as a philosophical point of view (conservatism/moralistic/some neo-libertarian), we often refuse to face our adversaries directly and call them on points of contention. We accept diversity for diversity's sake. Forsaking the ideal of accepting an individual as just that... an individual who should be held accountable for their actions (for good or ill) and not based on their gender/race/color/creed. We have allowed for the beginning (or at least the ground work) of the balkanization of America. With the liberals bringing about the constant formation of new classes/types of victims, and the acceptance of allowing every class/race/ethnicity their own hyphen before "American". "American" should be all you ever need to say when someone asks "Where you from?" period. And English should be the first language spoken (at least in the school or when conducting business with the public at large) when spoken to. Yes there are, and perhaps will always be, "Little Italy's, "Greektowns", Chinatowns, ect. And one should not be surprised to hear the native language of those who live there being spoken. Or their culture being proudly on display. This is all part of assimilation in to the melting pot which is America. But at the end of the day English first, Spanish, German, Chinese, Polish or which ever your flavor is, second. But we let this go to the wayside. Out of a misplaced sense of "fairness" perhaps, but that "being a nice guy" attitude seems to be the driving force behind it.

6. We are shrinking in numbers. Those who hold our countries original ideals and form of governance (the Constitution, rule of law, a country composed of Americans - not hyphenated sub groups of various origins), due to the tactics of progressives and their harlots in the main stream media, though still formidable, are shrinking in size. And yes, there will be those in the next generation who will carry the torch, but unless they can out procreate and then instill with in their progeny their same beliefs, they will be an even smaller percentage. As brought up at Personal Effects we may soon be nothing more then the remnants spoken about. "Jobs" don't come along all that often. Making the task of keeping the spark alive, until such time as humanity is ready to light the torch of liberty and freedom once again, all that much harder.

The Feeding Frenzy Begins on the Left??

Read this, from AP, and see whatcha think.

Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate

Associated Press - July 13, 2007 2:23 AM ET

DETROIT (AP) - Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.

They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."

Others taking part in the forum sponsored by the NAACP were Senators Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.

One Republican, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, also participated.

On the face of it is it really a big deal? After all politics traditionally has been largely as series of maneuvers in smoke filled rooms behind closed doors. Why should this little bit of conversation be any different. That two of the supposed Deomocrap front runners feel the need to actively try and exclude some of their playmates from the playground shouldn't come as a surprise. After all the whole progressive/statist experience is about control and knowing what is best for people, shouldn't that apply to their (internal) politics as well?

So if the Hildabeast and the Breckgirl feel they are the two (or at least, two of) top runners for their party's shot at the oval office (and a better pairing hardly comes to mind for that side). Why shouldn't they want to get rid of the political wanna-bes, those pesky bits of regional party lint which clings to the the hem of “Silky Pony's” skirt, and to the leg of “Her Thighness's” pantsuit. Matter o' fact, they do kinda sound like the perfect match up. “Hildabeast/Breck in 08” could be just the ticket. She has the macho posturing and has been co-president before. He has all the more subtle nuanced qualities, which will draw the female vote (and those who love a well quaffed ...err man(?))

Ah well, not even to the first primary and it would appear the sharks are circling, about ready to feast on the smaller fish. This is gonna be fun to watch ... in a bread and circus, feed em to the lions sorta way.

Oh, and need I say it ... Thompson in 08!!

Update:
The original link didn't want to play nice, so I have included the article in the above blockquote. "Ye Ol' Harbor Master"

Used to be A Nation of Legal Immigrants

We are a nation of immigrants. My grandparents on both sides of my family came from overseas or at the very least were conceived "over there". I am a second generation American. I remember cousins visiting from what was then communist held Czechoslovakia on tourist visas. They, more then a little reluctantly, returned to Czechoslovakia at the end of their vacation here.

ALL my relatives came over and entered this country legally. The ones who were able to stay became American citizens. All of them could read, write, and speak (if they chose to) English. All of them had a deep and abiding love for their "mother countries", but none would have even considered listing anything but American on any paperwork requiring same. There were no hyphenated "extras".

Are we or are we not the United States of America, a sovereign nation with borders? Or are we to become no better then the Palestinians- a pseudo nation state blessed by the UN, that has no recognised land of their own. (Though that may change as Israel is raped forced to give up THEIR land in the name of international good will or some such bs.)

I am not against anyone wanting to come to this country and do what it takes to become a citizen. That's how this land was started, and what has to be one of the greatest reasons for her continued success. But if we want to continue to be America and not "The Land of *****-Americans" ™ (fill in the asterisks with the country of your choice) with no national language, or identity to call our own. Then we better stop this illegal immigration train wreck before it snowballs into something much worse.

Oh and one final note, is it just me or does the fact we have as porous a border(s) as we do, along with a very low rate of complete inspection of incoming cargo at our ports, present a golden opportunity for folks out there who are less then friendly with us to come on over and execute an act of terror against us? Naaa that would never happen here! We have the security of this nation well in hand! (The fact we haven't taken a hit does warrant a big thank you to the hard working folks out there who take their jobs seriously when it comes to our security. But why in heaven's name don't we do something to increase our national security? All it takes is one "win" for the enemy to produce an event on par or greater then what took place on Sept 11 2001. Our folks have to be "right" all the time.)

Bread and Circuses

The war, supreme court nominations, immigration, government spending/deficit, you bring up any of these topics (and other hot button issues) and you will get the same replies from the political hacks/pundits/"elected officials/leaders" inside the DC beltway.

In the few months this bit of fluff on the net was *off the air* so to speak, it seems nothing has really changed. Indeed, if anything each side has become more entrenched in their respective talking points / positions, then ever before. While the folks who genuinely seek make positive changes in what the government is allowed to do as a national entity, or to the population at large, grow increasingly frustrated. They see the Democrats as leaning more and more towards unabashed statist/socialist/we damn well know what is best for you (and the world)....just drink the kool-aide damnit! And the Republicans as caring only for keeping their seats....giving lip service to their original platform of small government...protecting the constitutional guarantees of the people...and seeing the unfettered HONEST expansion of capitalism/business.

In other words the Dems are morally bankrupt. The GOP is fast becoming fiscally corrupt...in bed with the almighty dollar....vice the vapid bimbo occupying the Dems berthing. They appear to be all of the same character (or lack there of) much like the lady referenced in the old George Bernard Shaw line..."Madam, we have already established what you are...we are now just dickering on price."

So, realistically, who should we expect to see in the oval office come '08? And in this off election year, who can we do our best to support as various seats come up for grabs.

What can or should "We The People ™ " do to turn around the bread and circuses presented on a daily three ringed basis, from inside the beltway, via the pimps in their mass media outfits?

Frankly I am at a loss. The simple answer would be go to the third party...but there isn't one in this country viable enough to pose any real threat to the "big two". The Libertarian Party is based on castles in the air. There is no other political entity on either side of the political spectrum, which would pose a viable threat. Are we doomed to becoming a nation of small splinter groups who with arms twisted behind their backs, form collations in order to get their agenda's passed?

I am open to suggestions. But the current way of doing business has to change.

Hello Washington DC, May We Have Our Constitution Back?

Eric has been a busy guy. Not only with his home on the web, here, but with his yeoman work in getting things started on the Life Liberty & Property community. This last endeavor came about because of the untimely death of the Fifth Amendment, and is well worth checking out.

Eric voices his concerns about the many voices out there, and whether or not we can work together to take back this country of ours. In Hanging Together or Hanging Separately, he makes a number of good points while raising a few questions. So, in the spirit of his post, here are my feelings regarding what should be, could be, done in order to take back what is ours, while still remaining a viable national entity. And at least for our group (though I feel it goes much wider then just "us"), the big 800lb gorilla...how much government is too much, or not enough?

Where most folks get stuck in the muck, is arriving at a common consensus as to what, and then, how much government is needed in order to have the best functioning society possible. Too much government (and assuming the increased governmental control would follow), leads to loss of individual control, and loss of liberties, whether the overall population was willing to give it up or not. And getting the government (any government) to relinquish power, ill gotten or not, is next to impossible.

Too little government, though many would welcome this, realistically results in nothing more then city states (if that) at best. More likely, human nature being human nature, you'll wind up with somebody (or somebodies) banding together to bring about some sort of force in which to control the area or peoples with no (or little) government. If this doesn't come from internal sources, it will surely come from outside agents.

What would I like to see:

1. The smallest amount of government which effectively allows for the country to exist as a viable force in today's (and tomorrow's) world.

2. On the domestic side, minimal government interference in our daily affairs. With more (much more) responsibility and accountability returned to the individual.

3. A massive simplification of ALL existing laws. And removing as many from the books (at all levels of government) as possible. This is why I'm not for making another law or amendment to counter "Kelo". I would much rather return to the original intent and guidelines set up in the Constitution, and religiously follow that.

4. Get rid of any member of the government(all branches, all levels) who is/are unable or unwilling to follow the above. To my way of thinking, if you keep it simple, straight forward, and in plain concise language, then you won't need nearly as many lawyers trying to figure out "what *is* is". And you won't have judges at any level making law, they will be applying the law to any given case or charges in front of them.

In short, though still not perfect, the Constitution as originally set up, is about as close as we're going to get to a respectable, reasonable, balancing between individual rights, state's rights, and still have some sort of national government/entity in place. In this day and age, in order to survive and continue to experience the standard of living we have, we need to be some sort of "United States", anything less will have problems down the road (though this may happen anyhow if current political and social / cultural trends continue...but that is for another day).

Independence Dazed.

Has all the hype, planning for gathering of friends and family, the three day (or longer) weekend in the middle of summer, and other trappings of this day left you in a daze? It might be worth noting, the folks who allowed for today to be the significant day it is were somewhat preoccupied as well....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."

Two Hundred Twenty Nine Years ago, today, the document containing these words was signed.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

At least thirty of the fifty some odd signators of the Decloration of Independence lost their properties, fortunes, and in some cases family members as a direct result of actions they took in following their beliefs. The thoughts and words they held and expressed were not idle banter. The British certianly considered them to be at the very least reactionaries, and traitors to King and country, and at worst a direct threat to King and British rule. Yet, they persisted...and in the years following this decloration....engaged in armed conflict with the single most powerful nation of that time. We would emerge, a new nation, "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". A scant 36 years later would find us taking up arms against the British one final time. This conflict would resolve itself in our favor as well.

Only within the last 64 years would this nation find agents, acting in accordence with foreign powers, attempting to strike within the borders (or protectorates) of these United States. Something not seen since the War of 1812. A united resolve and a national will to bring the Axis powers to their knees and ultimate end, was our answer to this threat.

Today we are involved in the first stages of world wide conflict to remove the newest version of an old cancer. Will we stay the course, as we have so many times before? Will we unite, as the literal and figuretive vanguard of freedom and liberty, to crush the cancer of religious and ideological darkness which avows to rid the world of our Western culture and thought? Or will we turn our backs not only on those tens of thousands of American men and women who freely gave of their "lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor", but the countless tens of thousands of freedom loving humanity throughout the world, who gave of their own "blood, sweat, and toil"?

Today...before you head off to see the fireworks, sharing good times and good food with family, neighbors, and friends, We are in a daze....thinking of relaxing and recharging before returning to our respective "rat races". Perhaps if we take a moment to reflect on those who signed the Decloration of Independence. Remembering the words, the ideals, and the price paid by those who gave us this nation. Understanding it is an ongoing responsibility, we all must accept, in wanting to remain true to these ideals, to remember same. To step out of the daze, and pay almage to the original patriots of the day. Knowing what they passed on to us is always in need of defending whether it be by the power of pen and paper, in addressing attacks to your liberties and freedoms. Or, if need be, by the use of stronger methods as proscribed by the Constitution, if the need should arise. If we stay in a comfortable daze, forgetting what was written, or why, this nation's days will be numbered, and we as free, liberty loving men, shall surely parish from the face of this earth.

Ignore the News....

...and maybe it will go away. That seems to be the case, with the local daily's coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Fifth Amendment. The day after SCOTUS ruled on the Fifth Amendment and killed same, the Chicago Tribune carried a front page Headline, with story down almost to the fold. The local excuse for a major daily...NOTHING. Over the course of the past few days I continued looking at the front page (at the local grocers), still nothing. Went through this weeks archives for opinion columns (on their online site). Found one op-ed piece on the 28th. Which was not leftist (a surprise in itself), but failed to state in plain English whether they were (editorially) for or against the ruling.

Amazingly enough the senior voice at said paper, has at least one op-ed piece on the legislation activity regarding amending the Constitution for preventing burning the flag. And I will have to...as much as it pains me...agree with the Register Star. As a political statement (only) I think it should be allowed to happen. I would never do it myself, and indeed might become very indignant of someone who did. But, they should have the freedom to do so. Just as they should be aware of the passions which would be aroused by their act, and be willing to accept the consequences for their action.

So, let's see here we have a relatively minor bit of legislation (it would still have to go through the Senate and then be approved by *x* number of states before it could ever be added to the Constitution, let alone any action by the Supreme Court which may declare it unconstitutional on it's face .....though figure the odds of that happening.) And we have the out and out elimination of one of the Bill of Rights, a done deal, by the Supreme Court....regardless of political stance, one would think the paper had an obligation to present the major story even if it met the other would be kept on the back burner for the moment. Sadly (or judging by the papers political stance) predictably, this was not the case.

It wouldn't even be as big a deal if there were competing dailies in our area. But there is not...and the people of the Rock River Valley are the poorer for it.

News? What News?

Listening to the news at 11am (ABC's Midwestern "corporate" station. Top story, The wildfires out west. followed by Florida beaches are all open, after the shark incidents of a day or so ago. With a mention of the President speaking tonight. And that for the most part, was it.

Nothing on the rulings by SCOTUS from yesterday, or earlier last week. Guess the loss of one Amendment is not considered newsworthy. And maybe they are getting tired of the ten commandments cause there was no major discussion along those lines either. As for mentioning the President's speech.....I think it is more a case of the vultures circling over what they think is going to be fresh meat. In other words, the MSM is expecting President Bush to capitulate to moonbat pressure and announce a time frame for getting the troops out of Afghanistan/Iraq. Up to now, he has stated we will be there "for as long as it takes". I hate to be the one to break it to them, but I don't see him changing his mind anytime soon. Should be some interesting breast beating right after the speech is finished tonight.

Well, guess if the media mavens are to be believed, there is nothing to see here...just keep moving along all ye little sheep...as soon as we can get the current group of fascists errmmm...cowboys..aaaaa...all of the above, (heh, yeah that's the ticket) and get Hillary in office, we will let you know that all is right with the world, and peace is at hand.

And they wonder why their readership (in the case of the print media), and viewership are sinking lower with each passing day.

"We Are Marching??"

The Internet is ablaze with passionate prose, regarding the latest actions taken by SCOTUS. There has been some suggestions, as to what could be done next, everything from writing your elected local, State, and Federal officials, to preparing for hard times ahead. But Og at Neanderpundit comes up with what could be a great idea. One which would not only show the breath and depth of people who are passionate about this. But sets the stage for networking among those of us who may have only dealt with each other by *electronic means*. Og's idea would be having a "The Nation of Riflemen March".

This idea has merit. If enough people can be gathered, as it would be something which would work only with volume. Say at least a quarter million or higher are found to be on the mall below the Washington Monument, it would be rather hard to ignore by the "Powers That Be". ™

With bloggers, and others, who are the heart of "We The People", taking turns at the Mic speaking their peace. Perhaps other *splinter demonstrations* (peaceful of course) at various places in DC as well. If all this was sprinkled with a few *high profile* types, that would help get and perhaps hold media exposure/interest. But having the voice of the people doing the talking would seem to be the way to go.

So, how is something like this organized? And is anyone interested?

Durban and Company: A Confederacy of Dunces

Dick Durban, Senator from Illinois is saying and doing exactly what the constituents who elected him want him to do. Being surprised about this morally misshapen individual, and anything he or his fellow band of travelers say, who are doing nothing more then being mouthpieces for their followers and those of their ilk too timid, or who have agendas of their own in play, is crazy. And yet, those of us with a proper understanding of the events he used to illustrate his point, during his last bit of public speaking, act surprised. Yes, he was wrong. Yes, he quickly scaled to the top of those liberal/progressive twin towers of disrespect and disingenuousness, saying what he did about our service members actions. Yes, there should be action taken by his fellow Senators, with censure being the minimal option available. But to be surprised...no...not a bit ...not any more. Because when you have no morals, ethics, or what used to be known as standards of conduct as your guideline...you can, and will, do or say anything in order to reach your goal(s). Durban and others have followed this path for years...so again, why are we surprised.

Folks, they don't care what they say or do. Because those who placed them in office (if not publicly, at least privately) agree with them. It's just that simple, and just that sad. Add to this, as the Democratic Party appears to be crashing and burning, want to take odds on a certain NY junior Senator, coming forward in the next year or so....as a centrist voice of reason, in her announced run for the oval office? This is a great way to set that up. And a good way for a lot of middle of the road folks to suck it up with out appearing to be all that liberal. Don't think it can happen? who ever heard of the Governor of Arkansas before or so? And *he* was going to be the next President? Yeah, right! Love her (god forbid!!) or hate her, she is far more cutthroat and Machiavellian then her cigar smoking husband, ever dreamt of being.

Durban, Dean, Boxer, et all are nothing but fools and house shills. Understand what they say is supposed to inflame, as well as speak toward those who elected them. That we are at all surprised is beyond me. That nothing has been done (other then lip flapping) by those supposedly elected on the "non moonbat side of the house", should be the real concern. For it paints a picture of the house and senate being nothing more then a "good ol' boys network". And this will lead to voter disenchantment, disenfranchisement, and quite possibly a return to the time when Democrats and their fringe elements were making inroads into both.

Until those we placed in office, assume the mantle of leadership, a majority in both house and senate, and the executive branches of government entitles....DEMANDS of them, this will never stop. And until the voting public, at large, are willing to elect and support those who honestly want a return to the "Republic" as proscribed by the Constitution, this same unconscionable language and action, by those on the left, will continue.

Write your Senator, congress critter(s), the Speaker of the House, and Majority Leader of the Senate. Let them know (politely of course) your feelings on this. Tell em in no uncertain terms, the time for compromise is past. The folks on the other side of the aisle only seek to use that fig leaf to their advantage, or not at all. Let them know, you support a strong defense, a return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. And a judiciary which is not there to make the law but to insure it is followed, and or constitutionally valid.

Perhaps, if enough of the so called "silent majority" speak up, it can make a difference in their level of intestinal fortitude. Failing this, a strong reminder come the next elections, in the form of a vote for "new blood" to warm a Senate or Congressional seat, will provide the answer. The only option after that (or maybe even before) is "Tar + feathers...just add politician." Senator Durban sounds like a good first choice, for this last option. What do you think?

Oh, and as amazing as it seems, I did not unintentionally misspell the Senator's name. I know there is supposed to be an *i* vice an *a* before the last n. But why give him any hits if at all possible. Maybe I should just call him "Senator Dustbin", as in he belongs in the dustbin of history.

Time is Running Out...

I wrote this a couple of months back...right at the time Geek With A 45 started The McCain-Feingold Insurrection. The FEC public comments deadline is June 3rd. Time is running out to get your public comments in on rule making regarding Blogging with respect to McCain-Feingold. I shall be sending my two cents in tonight. For more info on how to submit your verbiage, and what format to use, Redstate.org has it here.

Anyhow, I thought a reminder, in the guise of the following March 5th 2005 post would do well to help get your juices flowing:

Does anyone remember this little item from past history classes or what was once called civics?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It seems that unconstitutional piece of crap called "The McCain-Feingold Act", is about to be used to muzzle our constitutional guarantee to free speech.

Despite assurances from members of the FEC, that our individual right to free speech will not be in jeopardy, if the additions proposed for McCain-Feingold are allowed to become law, I offer this old bit of prose.

"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me."

I can be no more clear or resolute in my thoughts and actions then as follows:

• If you pass and place into law the proposed amendments/enhancements to the legislation commonly referred to as "The McCain-Feingold Act" I shall do, and take, any and all actions, up to, and including willful civil disobedience in working toward the abolishment of said act.

• If any agents or persons acting as agents from the FEC, or any other branch of the government try in any manner, pursuant to the above legislation, to prevent me or my family from being able to exercise our Constitutional guarantees, you will be met with such force as necessary to either compel you to cease and desist, or be personally in need of a body bag, your choice.

• I have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. I do not take that charge or responsibility lightly, it has been my privilege and honor to have been able to do so these many years, I hope to be able to for many more.

Guy Stephen Sochor

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has an open letter to all members of the House and Senate. Read it and please take the time to follow his instructions afterwards.

There are kindred spirits you can find a large chunk of them here. There are others.

I will post on this again, as my temper, but not my passion cools.

Update
This has become one of the hottest, if not the hottest issue on the net. More people are coming on board or adding to the information or discussion all the time.

Here are some of the following with links to their take on this subject:

Riverdog
Kim Du Toit
Emperer Misha
Fran at Eternity Road
Chris at AnarchAngel
DeDoc
Geek With A 45
OKIE on the LAM
and of course, Captain's Quarters
Redstate
Professor Bainbridge
And even my better half has pontificated on this right here.

We will not be quiet. We will not go silently into the night. We shall yell it from the street, shout it from the mountain. To the despots from Arizona and Wisconsin, your willingness to pervert or out and out remove the citizens first amendment rights will cost you both a high price. History shall show nothing but scorn showered upon you and your memory.

The "Real ID Act"

I received a comment from fellow waterman, someone I feel has his head screwed on in quite the right fashion IRT the WoT and individual preparedness. Plus I like the guy (even if he was in the Air Force *grin*). But Riverdog takes exception to my concerns regarding the "Real ID Act". So I thought I would take another look at it.

First off, take a look at the whole thing.

On the face of it there are a number of things I can agree with:

1. A much tougher stance and review process on persons seeking asylum in this country. They will be required to produce physical evidence to back up their claim(s) of being a "refugee" if the reviewing "trier of fact" deems it necessary to validate said claims, beyond written or oral statements given by said refugee or their assembled witnesses present at said review. The bill also does away with having an established "minimum allotment" on the number of persons who enter this country under the auspices of asylum.

2. The physical closing of the borders (fences for example) will be allowed for without being impeded by any outside agency. In other words if building/finishing/repairing said fence or border obstruction endangers, for example, "The left large nutted tree frog"...well that is too bad, sorry folks this time the safety of human beings is going to take precedence over something further down on the food chain, and there is not a damn thing y'all can do about it.

3. The need to improve the "ground security surveillance" and "communication and information sharing with border security forces". This can't be anything but a good thing, unless you happen to be someone trying to enter the country in other than a legal manner.

So, yes, there are some good points to this bill. And I agree with Riverdog, that we need to address both the concerns about terrorists gaining access to our country and the immigration problem in general. But here is what is also in the bill, and what sends off little warning bells.

Does Ms Republic Got The Hots For Mr Empire?

Newsweek ran a story in which it is stated that our service members (or those acting as their agents) have desecrated copies of the Koran. The end result....15 dead due to Islamic violence (or groups alleging to be influenced by same). Newsweek has since retracted the story, however at this time they were unable to retract the deaths attributed to same.

The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, actively pursues and promotes actions which will continue the influx of illegal immigration in to this country. And makes noises when the smallest of steps are taken on this side of the border to stem the tide of same.

In a quiet move, the house, senate, voted and past a military appropriations bill. Nothing to unusual about this....except for the rider attached..that there is now legislation, passed and signed by the President, allowing for the establishment of a national ID system to be actively in place by May of 2008.

We do indeed live in "the crazy years". And what is really sad is the political party which controls the house, senate, and oval office support two out of three above items.

The president has long said he supports the concept of a national ID system. He has also be very active (or at least in tacit approval of) actions which would allow for the virtual free flow of immigrants from south of the border.

He has allowed the military to be systematically attacked by the press and fifth column members of the house and senate (and any other moonbat out there who has some sort of celebrity status). There has been no action taken against those who if not treasonous, were at the very least seditionistic in their words or actions toward the government in a time of war. Abu Ghraib being a prime example. The detention camp in Gitmo is the current pinata of the press...where the press hopes to find a torture treat to pump up their flagging circulation while at the same time...help to smear the President. Amazing, he allows for the feeding of the very group which seeks to suck on his bones.

Now, I would agree the actions at Ahbu Ghraib were less then professional. But said actions certainly did not warrant the level of concern or coverage garnered. I would agree we should not be boiling the prisoners at Gitmo in hot boiling pork fat, but the conditions to which they were subjected to...rise to the level of a lifestyle one would expect to see on Hogan's Hero's, and not a regulated camp where those who directly or indirectly were advancing the cause of fanatics and despots against the United States.