Monday, October 31, 2011

Do Not Ignore Illegal Immigration

Two things come to mind as to why I am writing about an issue that has been a thorn in the side of the United States as long as I can remember.
The dreaded subject is illegal immigration.
This story in the Riverside Press-Enterprise over this past weekend highlighted the plight of farm workers in one of the wealthiest areas of the United States.
Now, before you think your humble blogger has gone all bleeding-heart on you, read on.
In reading the article, I wondered if these people would be better off as seasonal workers that come to the United States, do the farm work, and return to Mexico. While they are here under a guest-worker program, they would be subject to the laws of the United States. Many of those laws would protect these people from the clear abuse they suffer in these so-called trailer parks. And one thing the article did not address is how many of the people were in fact illegal aliens.
I suppose to some people, it is not relevant.
But I strongly disagree.
Does anyone really think that if these people had a form of legal immigration status, this clear abuse would happen? I doubt that at the scale we see in this article.
Yet we have people such as conservative radio talker Michael Medved insisting that illegal immigration is not a big deal. That it is a side show, if you will. And the examples he cites in the way the Republicans have addressed the issue recently actually supports his case.
But instead of running away and ignoring the issue, hoping against hope that it will go away, I think that the newspaper article is a great starting point in how GOPers need to address the problem of illegal immigration.
For me, I will say this. There is a middle ground.
I have layed out a three-pronged plan that recognizes this reality.
One, there are a lot of bad people involved in illegal immigration. Including many illegals themselves. Clearly not a majority and not a large minority. But enough to cause problems in the United States.
Thus anyone here in the United States illegally five years or less, goodbye. Go back home. Never come back. Never think you will ever have a chance to become a citizen or anything of that nature.
That alone would deport a sizable number of illegal immigrants.
People that are here illegally six to ten years have to go back to the country of origin and begin an expedited process to become a guest worker, a green-card carrier or start the process under one of the two ways to become an American citizen. But they must go home.
Now there are illegal immigrants that have been here 10 plus years. These are the people that, more than likely, want to become citizens. While they should not be anywhere near the front of the line, they should be in the line. They should be given at the very least green cards and begin the process to become citizens.
Now, all of the above does several things.
One, there will be a lot of people here in the United States illegally deported. Pure and simple.
Two, those that are here will get some legal protection. What they do not have now. People like those living in the squalor of the "trailer parks" in these communities in Riverside county would have some real and legal recourse. And is that not a way to solve a problem with a sense of humanity yet provide a need for less expensive employment in the farm fields?
And really, does anyone really think that the majority of those that have been here illegally a decade or more are totally loyal to their country of origin? I do not. Overwhelmingly, the majority want to be Americans. And many are not just doing the jobs that Americans "won't" do.
But how do serious people running for president of the United States speak on this issue without deteriorating into bufoonishness?
That is the 64,000 peso question.
Well for one, do not make those of us who are seriously concerned about a very serious problem out to be whack jobs. We are worried about a nation that will allow laws to be flaunted and allowing people to not just be here illegally but suffering in many cases.
Two, do not promote anything that even appears to be something that gives illegals any appearance of a deal. The so-called DREAM act at the state and federal level is one such situation. States nor the federal government need to give an unfair advantage of students from illegal parents. They can go a college or university, just have to pay the out of state tuition. Especially in these tough economic times, that is not a wise thing to do.
Third, remember that these are human beings. Most are decent and good and do not want to come to the United States but for the reason of the thought of a better life.
Sorry but this article by Susan Straight is right. If we Americans were in the same dire straits that most Mexican and or Central American illegal aliens are in, we would be doing the same thing.
In talking about the subject of illegal immigration especially from Mexico, we need to pressure the politicians to make the kind of political and economic reforms that will move the poor into the middle class. If there is a strong middle class in Mexico, that will dramatically curtail illegal immigration.
Until the politicians figure out how to discuss the problem of illegal immigration, we will continue to see the situations in Riverside county. And have people basically cover their eyes to one of the most vexing long-term problems in the United States.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Morning Prayer And The Rare Beauty Of The Episcopal Chuch

First, Happy Reformation Sunday!
OK, it is more for the Lutherans, but anyone that is a Protestant Christian can appreciate the meaning of the Reformation and the major contribution it is had on the Christian faith.
Today at my Episcopal Church parish is the fifth Sunday of the month. On those rare occasions, the fifth Sunday means that instead of the service of Holy Communion, we have Morning Prayer.
During Reformation times, when the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church, one of the reforming acts was the development of The Book Of Common Prayer. The BCP, as it is known in Episcopal/Anglican circles, brought the service in the vernacular. In this case, English. In fact, in the Articles of Religion, the 24th article addresses the proper way a church service should be conducted. Remember, this was from 1801:

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

And what one of the reforming acts was to not have the Holy Communion be the primary service. Thus, Morning Prayer and in many cases Evening Prayer were the main Sunday services in the Church.
But with the 1979 Book Of Common Prayer, the Holy Communion became the primary Sunday service. And in real sense, the unique service of Morning Prayer was being swept into the ash bin and the Episcopal Church began a slide that continues today.
But today, but for one service, we not only did Morning Prayer, but used the old Rite I as it is known in the 1979 BCP. It is in reality the way Morning Prayer was done in the 1928 BCP.
The emphasis is on prayer, the biblical readings, the psalms and the sermon. And when it all done together and right, it is a service of beauty.
While for many people, using old Elizabethan English and reading from the King James Bible is archaic and not relevant, I would strongly disagree.
Because of the uniqueness of the service, many young people, particularly college-age people, would be attracted to the old language, the chanting of the psalms, the Biblical readings and a good sermon.
But the church "leadership" seems to think differently.
It seems more interested on the Holy Communion and politically correct language in delivering it. Yet it totally ignores one of the great services of the denomination. And while I suppose it can PC that language too, not if it does not rediscover our Reformation roots.
Again, but for a fifth Sunday in which my parish takes a step back in time and in a sense makes all things new, it was wonderful to hear the old language and real worship of God.

Friday, October 28, 2011

In Praise Of One Of The Eeeeevvvvviiilllll Big Banks

OK, up front this is not meant to be a political post.
Surprisingly, this is a post to bring some praise to one of the eeeeevvvvviiilllll big banks and a situation that I was involved in recently.
Now I do not think like a criminal. Thus, I do not know how what I am about to share with you can be done.
I bank with Chase bank. Not particularly by choice but because my former bank, Washington Mutual, was essentially handed over to Chase in the big bank bailout of 2008. And Washington Mutual took over Home Savings, which took over Coast Federal Savings. That is how I ended up with Chase.
Enough of that.
The story begins last Wednesday as I did a cursory online search to see if some outstanding checks had cleared. I looked and noticed that a couple had not. When I got home from work and checked my home e-mail, I received one from Chase. It is called an "Account alert". Now I was kind of leery of opening it up. What if it was a fake? And opening it unleashed a computer virus? Or even something worse?
Well, I opened the e-mail.
And it was a summary of four recent transactions. Three of the four were legitimate transactions. But the fourth one was a real doozy.
Since I live in Pasadena, California and work in nearby Glendale, I was amazed to see that somehow, that very same day, I was in Miami, Florida and bought something for about $89 bucks.
OK, maybe I took an extra-long lunch. Nah, I don't think so.
Anyhow, I went to the part of the e-mail that said if there is any suspicious charges to click on a box. Literally as soon as I clicked on the box, my phone rang.
It was Chase bank. And it was the fraud division.
I told the very nice gal at the other end that there was no way that I could have been in Miami because I was at work and did not buy anything for $89.
So the gal explained the process. That they did have to let the initial transaction go through. But because I am disputing it, it would be back in my account within 48 business hours. And I was assured that if anything was outstanding, which there were two outstanding checks (yeah, I am old-school and still write checks)out there, any charges for overdraft would be reimbursed.
Needless to say, the next day one of the checks did come in. And because of the $89 "charge", my account was overdrawn. And I had to wait for a new debit card to make any other transactions. And of course, this drama went into the weekend. But I was assured by Monday, all would be well.
And sure enough, Monday the $89 and the $34 overdraft charge was no more. That money was back in the account. The check that "overdrew" my account was redeposited. The other check I had cleared. And there was still money left in the account.
Some important lessons learned.
One, make sure to sign up for your bank and or credit union's e-mail alerts. Had I not looked at that, I may have not even noticed the disputed charge for another couple of days.
Two, make sure to get online at least four days a week to check and make sure that there are not situations as I described above. The sooner a problem like that is resolved, the better for yourself.
Three, be very careful how you use your debit card. If you use it as a charge, it is probably a good thing. If you use it and then use your PIN, try to cover up as you enter your PIN number.
What I can not figure out is whether the crook or crooks that accessed my debit card got my information from. Were they Chase employees gone rogue? And what about the PIN number? How can they figure that out? Again, as I noted above, I just do not think like this kind of criminal. Thus I would not be very good at what these people did.
As much as big banks get righteously criticized, in a situation such as I was in, I am very glad and thankful that even they realized that I can't be in two places at once. The the Miami charge was, well bogus.
So here is kudos to Chase bank and their e-mail alert. Because of that I was able to stop a crook from cashing in on my bank account.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

What Is So Bad About The Republican Presidential Field?

I ask the question because a lot of the bloggers and the punditry are suggesting that somehow, this Republican presidential field is "weak", "ineffective" and will lose badly to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
First, I think it is fair to say that not all the candidates are top-tier. In fact, one can make the case that there is a three-division breakdown of the candidates.
What prompted me to give this any time is this post of John Tabin's in the American Spectator blog.
Mr. Tabin suggests that there should have been a conservative candidate to come in on the white horse to save the day.
I would have really liked former Alaska governor Sarah Palin to get in the race. But for good reason she chose not to.
But that aside, I will try to evaluate the field from top-tier to bottom-feeders. Yeah, there are a couple of those.
Here is the caveat.
Every one has a black mark so to speak on their record. They are not perfect. But I am not going to deal with those issues. I am going to cite best to the worst in no particular order.

Top-tier Republican candidates:

Mitt Romney:

Say what you want about the former Massachusetts governor but he remains the guy to beat. And he learned from the last presidential run. He has a better organization and looks to be taking every state seriously. One of the problems is trying to convince conservative primary voters that he is one of us. All I can suggest is to look at the overall record as governor of Massachusetts. Take RomneyCare out of the equation. It is a bad law no matter what he says to defend it. Of three previous Republican governors, Mr. Romney had the most conservative record. And considering the Democrat party controlled well over 75% of the seats of the state legislature, that has to be looked at as an accomplishment. But many are rightfully suspicious and feel he may not know how to govern with a Republican congress. But the important question is can he stand toe-to-toe with the Dear Leader, President Obama? One thing the endless debates are showing is yes. And he is beginning to show a passion that I really think he needs to win the whole thing.

Rick Perry:
OK, I am not overly convinced why Texas Gov. Perry is running for president. I mean, it seems in a way like he was pushed into the race. And until his tax proposal on Wednesday, I thought Gov. Perry was a goner and going lower in this category. But, his 20/20 flat-tax plan is a serious attempt to reform the federal income tax code. And that alone brings back his candidacy. Anyone that wants to make serious reform to this so-called "progressive" tax system needs all the support or she can get. But, Gov. Perry, you need to be more articulate about where you want to take the United States. Your passion is there, but a tightening-up on how you explain your policies is important. I think that his governance of Texas, which has created one of the few strong economies in the United States deserves a look. and that makes him in the top-tier of GOP candidates.

Herman Cain:
I would not have written this a month ago. But Mr. Cain has caught fire. To many of us, he is a real deal. Not a politician but someone that wants to help the United States recover from the economic doldrums and assert leadership sorely missing in the world. But, he too has a problem. He needs to make some serious foreign policy appointments and speeches. The now famous 9-9-9 tax reform plan, not my favorite, is again a stab at serious federal tax reform. I applaud this serious effort. The fact that Mr. Cain does not always know the answer and says so is refreshing. Again, if he can get good people around him as advisers, he should have serious staying power in the caucus/primary season.

Newt Gingrich:
Here is the guy that will surprise all, including myself. I think that he is underestimated at our own peril. Mr. Gingrich, the man who all but single-handidly won Republican control of the House of Representatives in 1994 is back. Not that he went anywhere. But in a strange turn of events, he is the senior-statesman of the field. In debates he is calming candidates down. He is the one making the most articulate points. And people watching those debates come away impressed. I am one of them. And he is constantly bringing up fresh, conservative ideas. Do not count him out.

OK, the next category is a category of one. Sorry to do this, but I am writing the truth as I see it.

Fading, And Fading Fast
Michele Bachmann:
Maybe we put way too much in her candidacy. The fact that she was running when Mrs. Palin was not. The family story. Whatever. But whatever is all I can say about a promising candidate. I believe that she has the problem Newt usually has. Discipline. And making some indefenisble comments. Won't get into that here, but suffice it to say, it puts some serious doubts for her in the long run. I hope that she gets back to running for her congressional seat and keeps being a conservative leader.

The next is a sad one because both are serious men but have no chance and should pull up the stakes now.

The Bottem-Feeders
Rick Santorum:
The former Pennsylvania Republican senator has been more or less swinging for the fences in the debates and is the social conservative favorite. But the fact of the matter is that he is reminded of a glaring and unfair fact. He lost his senate reelection bid by 20 points. And people do not like a loser. No matter how much he or she is a candidate that is more right than wrong, we want a winner. And Mr. Santorum does not look like a winner.

Jon Huntsman, Jr:
Why is he running? He is trying to run a general election campaign and ignore the conservative base. Shows a poor lack of judgement. Also, why if he wanted to run for president would he choose, as a Republican, to serve this Democrat president as ambassador to Red China? He needs to leave and leave now.

Ron Paul:
Crickets chirping. There is not much I can write except I like Sen. Rand Paul much more than the old man. Period.

Out of eight candidates, there are at least four that are very good and serious about what the United States needs to get back economically, govenrnance and it rightful standing as a leader in the international community.
I will argue that it is a strong field overall and there is not a magic candidate. Nor should there be.
That is why we are having caucus and primaries.
I will take almost any of these candidates, even the weak ones, over the current president, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And that is what we need to keep our eye on that ball!

Monday, October 24, 2011

So, What Is This November 9th Emergency Alert Test

I admit, I usually do not look for the conspiracy in life. I believe that most things do kind of sort of happen.
In other words, no there was not a conspiracy about 9/11. Were there clues before? Clearly. Same with Pearl Harbor. And yeah, sorry folks, President John F. Kennedy was killed by one commie dude named Lee Harvey Oswald.
But there is something happening on November 9, 2011 that does make me sort of wonder why.
On that day at 2pm Eastern Standard Time, all broadcast media, radio and television, cable and satellite, will go off the air for nearly four minutes. And according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this is the first nationwide test of the EAS ever.
When one reads the press release, it seem innocuous enough.
But is it?
Granted, I first read about this on Glenn Beck's news website, The Blaze. So I suppose one can easily dismiss this as a crazy Glenn Beck conspiracy theory. But even if you want to go there, one of my favorite new thoughts is this.
A broken clock is right at least twice a day.
And the thought to keep in mind is this.
That the President of the United States, whoever he or she maybe, is the one that can activate the nationwide EAS.
So, what will the emergency be that the President of the United States can, no importantly should activate the EAS?
Would have Hurricane Katrina been a good enough reason? Clearly the terrorist attacks of 09/11 would suffice, right?
What about a real nightmare scenario such as simultaneous nuclear attacks across the United States?
The short-lived television series Jericho dealt with such an event. But because of the totality of the fictional event, the nationwide EAS never really worked.
While there has always been a variation of the Emergency Broadcast System, the reality is that the test was always done in this manner:

"This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. The broadcasters of your area in voluntary cooperation with the FCC and other authorities (or, in later years, "federal, state and local authorities") have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an emergency."

The key word is voluntary.
What will happen on November 9 is not voluntary. It is going to be every radio and television station, cable and or satellite by edict of FEMA.
Which begs me to ask this question.
Since everything eeeeevvvvviiilllll happens under Republican governance, is anyone worried that we are in a Democrat administration and this test is being done? Would there be wall-to-wall coverage of this event if say some guy named George W. Bush was the president? Why is it hard to find any coverage on such a real event? I mean, we knew more about Harold Camping and his believing that the world was coming to an end earlier this year (yeah, it did not happen this past Friday either). There is little coverage of what I think is a very serious national event.
This FCC link is helpful to explain what the current EAS is and what this test is all about.
I think that in and of itself, this is not really a bad thing. It is just that what can happen if a nervous president over reacts to a situation and makes a nervous use of the EAS? Or if a president creates an intentional situation to create an atmosphere of emergency? Having this ability in the hands of any president makes me nervous. And should every American.
So, do you think the event on November 9, 2011 is a good r bad thing?

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Is Libya Heading To A Sharia Law State?

WOW! Who would have thought it? That the new Libya would stride nicely into becoming an Islamist state complete with Sharia law?
Well, some of us armchair analysts, you know not the Ivy-League types, kind of thought this might be the outcome of the Libyan revolution against the late dictator, Moammar Khadafy.
And it appears that we were correct.
If this report is to be believed, and why not since it is out of the mouth of the head honcho, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, that is exactly where Libya is headed.
In this post from March 23 of this year
, your humble blogger asked an obvious question:

Wait, we do not even know anything about these rebels. We maybe backing forces worse, if you can believe that, than the dictator Qaddafi.

OK, lets see, they capture a wounded Khadafy then drag his possibly still alive body on the hood of a pickup truck through his hometown of Sirte.
While I do relish the end and death of Khadafy, it is not the way things are done in civilized societies.
Now there is the serious possibility that Libya will become another Islamic state. One that maybe a Sunni Islam version of Iran.
Is that what we wanted in the ouster of Khadady? Is it our national interest to oust a bad dude for a group of bad dudes?
It appears that maybe the case here.
And it is looking very likely that Tunisia will end up becoming an Islamic state if the election held today favors Islamic parties. The election is for the constitutional assembly and who will be on it. And if the majority turn out to be Islamsts, what good will have been gained?
This is the direct result of not leading but letting others do the dirty work. That is what the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats have done in this case. And in the long run, the detriment maybe a slew of Islamist regimes from Tunisia to Egypt. And all will, no doubt, be much more anti-American than the previous ones.
No question, the United States made some serious mistakes.
Like not getting some of the leaders, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to transition. Same in Tunisia.
Part of the problem was that these were secular leaders. And they used the specter of their nations falling in the hands of Islamist fanatics. Yet their bid to hold onto power ended up doing just that.
Khadafy in Libya is a little different.
He was using some Islamic law with his own twisted socialist vision. Kind of like Saddam Hussein did to the end of his reign of terror. Thus he co opted Just enough of Islamic teaching to make him out to be a defender of the faith.
But when the opportunity arose, the true believers began a revolution. And the end result is probably going to be a hostile, anti-American Islamist state ruled by Sharia law.
Yeah, I don't have some Ivy-League advanced degree, but how could I see this coming and not the best and the alleged brightest in the highest places of American government?

Friday, October 21, 2011

Say, Is This Occupy Crowd Hurting The Dear Leader?

I do believe that the "Occupiers" are actually hurting the reelection chances of their God, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And Jim Geraghty over at National Review has an outstanding take on why the unwashed sloths are not helping the Dear Leader, President Obama.
How then will Team Dear Leader be able to continue the meme that the economy is improving? Sure, you're still unemployed, but that is going to change soon. Yada, yada, yada.
Mr. Geraghty points out that the overriding reason the Dear Leader, President Obama, was elected in the first place was because in 2008, the economy sucked. The TARP bailout, which then Sen. Messiah Barack voted for, the stock market tanking. Yeah, things were really bad.
Now three-plus years later and, surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
The economy still sucks. And in many ways it is worse now than in 2008.
Here is the important paragraph in Mr. Geraghty's quick-hit analysis:

But maybe we’ve been missing another ripple effect from the protests, and more broadly, the “We Are the 99 Percent” argument showcasing tales of economic woe: In this environment, it makes it all but impossible for Obama or any other Democrat to argue that the economy is in recovery and that better times are just over the horizon. Obama’s election was heavily driven by the sudden onset of economic hard times; now he cannot really argue that we have recovered (at least not in a way most Americans can feel) and he can’t argue that a real recovery is just around the corner.

And the more that his "allies" continue to rail about the terrors of modern life in the Dear Leader's America (while being careful to blame anyone else), the more people will actually realize something.
Hey, maybe this economic suckage is the Dear Leader, President Obama's fault.
Of course not the "Occupiers". No, they will cut him a little break.
But this will highlight why most Americans, not quite 99%, but definitely more than 50%, will say it is time for a change in 2012.
As Mr. Geraghty points out, how will the Dear Leader, President Obama, try to run on "It's morning in America" if say unemployment is at or around nine percent? If the national debt and federal deficit are beyond our reach to curtail and or end? You will not hear from anyone on Team Dear Leader as the infamous question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
Because there is no way that we will be able to say so.
If that is the end result of the "Occupiers", the defeat of their God, the Dear Leader, President Obama, then they should not be anywhere near the halls of power. Evah!

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Ding Dong! Khadafy's Dead! Ding Dong! Khadafy's Dead!

This news should have happened in 1986 when the United States bombed the compound of the now deceased dictator, Moammar Khadafy. But I will take the fact he met his fate and is probably burning in Hell as I write this.
The dictator who's claim to fame is the infamous "Green Book", met a horrific end as his corpse was dragged in the streets of his hometown of Sirte. Some would say that it was too good for him. I will leave that to the Good Lord to judge.
But a look at Khadafy and his reign of terror makes me more than sympathize with those that did him in.
As he consolidated power after his 1969 coup, he was certainly no democrat.
And as he retained power, it only corrupted him further.
Libya maybe a big desert, but it is rich in natural resources. Yet Khadafi kept it mostly for himself and his minions. Not unlike many other dictatorships, he tried to justify it by "spreading the wealth" and concocted the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It was the basis for his view of socialism and wrought disaster for his land and people.
And as time went on, Khadafy tried to curry favor with Islamists within the nation. The nation became a mix of the Jamahiriya and Islam. Much of Islamic law was incorporated in the nation.
Of course Khadafy will always be remembered for his and nation's role in the bombing of Pan Am airlines flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. That bombing while the plane was in flight killed 270 people in all. And the only terrorist convicted of the dastardly crime, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, ended up being released by Scottish authorities on "humanitarian" grounds and is still alive. And somewhere in Libya.
And Khadafy was always trying to push his twisted ideology all over the place.
But no more.
One can only hope that the Libyan National Transitional Council can consolidate and bring true reform to this battered land. And yes, some form of democracy.
Most important is that the leaders of this effort were the British and French governments. Yes, the United States has engaged and should have gotten congressional approval for this engagement. But it is done. And in reality, as has been noted, the United States did not lead this effort but came up the rear.
We should be glad that a man that created so much pain and terror in his life ended up seeing it end in much the same way. Eternal justice was meted out.
So, ding dong! Khadafy's gone!

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

I Am Really Hating Occupy Wall Street

Yessir, I really hate Occupy Wall Street and the cretins of society that are now lemming on to this "movement".
Where can I start with it?
How about the rank anti-Semitism dripping from the "Occupiers"?
Oh, we are told by supporters that it is but a teeny-weenie number of "Occupiers" that have gone to anti-Semite land.
Well, tell me this. What about now former substitute school teacher, Patricia McAllister? Oh yeah, she just is blaming the bad economy on those damned Jew bankers and the Federal Reserve. This is what Miss McAllister:

“Patricia McAllister, I’m here representing myself but I do work for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve — which is not run by the federal government — they need to be run out of this country.”

Keep in mind this gal was teaching our children. And she holds these views? Where was she teaching in the Los Angeles Unified School district? Maybe West Los Angeles? You know, where all the Jooos are.
There are multiple reports of this kind of blatant anti-Semitism reeking from the sloths of "Occupiers".
So let me take a moment to remind those who bashed the Tea Party as all that they are doing.
Having attended three Tea Party events, the only people that were doing anything awful had nothing to do with the rallies. They were followers of Democrat Lyndon LaRouche and his bizarre brand of politics. Ol' Lyndon LaRouche makes Congressman Ron Paul at his craziness seem sane. And they tried to infiltrate the actual rallies and were chased away. These are the people that Team Dear Leader tried to desperately paint as the face of the Tea Party.
Anyhow, where else shall we go with why I am tired of the "Occupiers"?
How about the fact that they claim to be representative of the "99%"?
As I wrote in this post, I am not any kind of percenter. These sloths hardly represent me. I would not use the door of a police car as a toilet. I would not try to have public sex on a sidewalk. I would not claim poverty when I have all the accouterments of modern life such as the latest technology.
But it is the lie that they claim.
That they are an authentic movement. That they are really representing the people.
Well, they do not represent me or the average American. And do not take it from me.
Try Democrat pollster and operative Doug Schoen. In polling he did of some of the "Occupiers", he found that-surprise!-they were of the very far left of American politics. And guess what? The majority of "Occupiers" were employed. A full 98% would support "civil disobedience" and 31% would support outright violence to meet their goals. And 52% have participated in a political movement before. Please read the whole piece. It should be read by the sycophant Democrats that are slobbering at the altar of the "Occupiers".
These people want to carry out the "fundamental transformation" of the United States. Make no mistake, most are serious people with a serious, dangerous agenda.
Hence I believe that these cretinous sloths must be continued to be exposed for what they are. And here are some places to show support.
The Blaze is doing the work that the Leftywhore media should be doing. But won't.
I Hate Occupy Wall Street on Facebook needs a lot of fans/likes.
This is where we as Americans need to stand up to this thuggery and say enough is enough.
And we must say that we hate Occupy Wall Street!

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Holiday Hatred Starting Early This Year

Well, not quite since it is not quite the Christmas holiday season just yet.
But the holiday season haters are getting a jump start this year. A real early start.
And where would you find such lunacy?
California? Hmm, not this time.
New York state? Close in geography.
Maybe, hmm, maybe. . .Massachusetts?
B I N G O!
Anne Foley is a principal at Kennedy School in Sommerville. And she has a real hate for the eeeeevvvvviiilllll Christopher Columbus.
But it does not end there.
Why she has delivered a sweeping ultimatum to her minion teachers.
That they are not to celebrate the eeeeevvvvviiilllll Columbus Day holiday. And while they are at it, not Halloween or Thanksgiving.
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
What is wrong with these Educrats?
Well here is some of the wisdom of Miss Foley:

"When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples," Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley wrote. "We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well."

In one fell swoop, Miss Foley smacks down three holidays and I am sure she will get really orgasmic around the Christmas holiday season.
OK, I get it. Christopher Columbus was a dastardly man that wanted to bring the plagues of Europe to the peaceful, indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. Never mind that many of these so-called peaceful people were at war with each other, and performing ritualistic human sacrifice. No, no, no. It was Chris Columbus that brought evil to these people.
Columbus Day is a celebration of the Italian community of the United States. By and large. It is a celebration of the event of discovery. Christoper Columbus is not singlehandedly responsible for what happened after he discovered the Americas.
And Halloween.
Well, that is kind of a gray area.
In reality, it is a pagan event usurped by the early Christian church. Now it has been way secularized and yeah, seems like the pagans took it back.
However, I think that there is nothing wrong with the kiddies, small and big, dressing up. Only the kids, with parents or guardians, should be trick-or-treating. And for the young adult dudes and dudettes, you know who you are, stop pretending you are just hanging around your young charges. Don't trick-or-treat with the kids.
And lets also stop with the "Fall festivals" and other language that seeks to stop the H-word from being used. It's Halloween, OK?
But what gets me is Thanksgiving.
Look, you may not like the fact that the origin is traced back to 1621 and the celebration of a good harvest. You may not like the fact that while the Pilgrims were settling the New World to escape persecution, they themselves did not persecute the natives.
And who is to say that none of this would have happened eventually?
But to me, Thanksgiving is a special day to thank my God and Maker and for what He has done for us. It is a combo of secular and religious. And it is uniquely American.
But to people like Miss Foley, she sees her mission not as the administrator of a school but as the chief brain washer.
Yeah, chief brain washer.
For the kids are the youngest in schools. It is at this point that people like her can indoctrinate rather than educate.
Sorry, but kids this young are actually entitled to a childhood. They do not need to be drawn into the bad of the world. Hell, many of these kids may live in really bad conditions unknown to us. So what if they want to dress up on Halloween? Or celebrate Thanksgiving? Or even celebrate Columbus Day?
N O T H I N G!
The problem with education is twofold.
It is what they are learning and who is teaching them.
Miss Foley should be made to resign for such an attitude of contempt for the land that she is a citizen of. At the very least, she should be demoted.
And this is why we need to be ever vigilant about our local school boards and the decisions they make.
As for Kennedy chool, the parents need to rise up and tell off this Foley woman. And if the school board will not do anything, they need to keep Miss Foley on a short leash.
My hope is that the kiddies at this school are allowed to dress up for Halloween and celebrate Thanksgiving.
They are things to be celebrated, not swept aside to appease fringe people.
In other words, lets not start the Holiday Hatred so soon, please?

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Occupiers Hit Pasadena And It Ain't Organic

Ahh, the "Occupiers" are hitting my fair burg of Pasadena, California.
And you know, all the talk about it being a happening. A sense of dejavu. A feeling of the 1960s.
All crap people. All crap.
In this article in the Pasadena Star-News, kind of sort of buried is the fact that the left-wing group and organized labor were behind yesterday's harassment of two major banks.
At the corner of Colorado Blvd. and Lake Avenue are a Chase bank and a Bank of America. Two of the eeeeevvvvviiilllll banks that are the wrath of the ire of the "occupiers".
In the article, it notes that, ta da! organized labor provided the signs for the "occupiers".
So, how organic is that? A left-wing activist group and organized labor.
There is a devilish duo.
So, here are some of the comments from this group of "occupiers".
Patrick Briggs of had this to say:

"We have seen what happened in the Middle East, we've seen the Tea Party and their corporate-backed attempt to change America, now it's our turn to do something to really change America."

Yeah, Pat. Can I call ya Pat? Too bad! I am going to call ya Pat. Anyhow, yeah, the United States is a military-backed dictatorship such as Egypt and Libya. And the jury is still out on if they are indeed going to be alright for their people in the long run.
And as far as "corporate backed" Tea Party people, I have been to events and believe me, they are not as organized as this mob was.
Here is another comment but from a regular person, I suppose:

"Now we know why people are losing their jobs," said Norm Anderson, 49, of Pasadena. "It's because the Republicans don't want to do anything."

Thats right Norm! We Republicans don't want to do anything. Whatever that means.
Republicans do not want to do the wrong things. Which this mob of freeloaders do not get.
But the crux of this is that the "Occupy" crowd is well organized and funded. And the Democrat party has decided to jump into bed with them.
The more that it gains traction, the less appeal the "occupiers" have. And that only helps the other side.
Hopefully, the Pasadena "Occupiers" will leave the rest of us alone.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

I Like Mitt, But Hey, Lets Have Some Actual Primaries, Please

I have to say, if we are not careful, we may have out first primaries maybe in November.
I can not think of anything worse.
But one thing is clear.
Many of the GOP bigwigs are desperate to get their candidate and hey, primaries be damned.
It appears that they are coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.
And I have no beef with Mitt. If he wins, he will make a great candidate and take our Dear Leader, President Obama, to school on the economy. And make no mistake, that is the issue of this campaign.
Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal asks the obvious question.
Why this coronation of Mitt Romney?
Because these people want to get it over with and get to the task of defeating the Dear Leader, President Obama.
I get it. So do I. But this is what gets a candidate or a party in trouble.
Remember President John F. Kerry?
Oops! My bad! Nevah happened.
The Democrat party in 2004 tried the coalescing strategy around Sen. John F. Kerry. After all, he was a Vietnam War vet. Had all these years as a county distinct attorney and many a moon as a senator.
He was a Democrat milquetoast.
And that is why there is a protracted and necessary battle for the hear and soul of the Republican party.
Because even if Mr. Romney does indeed prevail, he will only do so battle-tested. And will have won the GOP nod as a conservative. Pure, plain and simple.
That is correct end of article analysis of Mr. Henninger.
And mine as well.
Say what you want about Herman Cain and the 9-9-9 plan. I have my problems with it. But it is a plan. Easy to understand. Something that a candidate can run on.
Newt Gingrich has insight on Washington that is not necessarily conventional. He has been an insider, an outsider and everything in between. And he has been out of the Washington scene long enough that he is not the insider at this point.
The point is that like it or not people, this is the process. We need to vet these candidates. Believe me, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his minions sure as hell are.
Again, I like Mitt Romney and he will make a great GOP presidential nominee. But he has to run this race first. No coronation.

I Am Not Any Percenter-I Am An American!

OK, since the whacknut lefty "occupiers" claim that they represent me, you know the 99%. And then there are the eeeeevvvvviiilllll one percenters. Now there are the 53 percenters.
I am not a percenter.
I am that American that you often hear and or read about. One that is feeling that no one listens to him or her.
See, I blog because I believe in sharing my thoughts of the world as I see it. But I do not do this to pay the bills.
I have a regular 8 to 5 job. One that sometimes is great and sometimes that sucks. I often do not feel appreciated and then something happens that changes that for if but not a few moments of my day. I do not feel like I am paid enough most days. Yet I go to work because how else will I put food on the table? Clothes on my body? Have a roof over our head? Yeah, you get the picture.
When I am not working and or blogging, I am active in my church and my world takeover group, the Freemasons. I am trying to give back and help those see the true meaning of the Gospel in my church. And be a better man by example in my Masonic lodge.
And like everyone else, Mrs. RVFTLC and I enjoy a meal out. A quick trip.
In other words, by the grace of God we are living the American dream.
But lately, it has been a nightmare.
While we were fortunate to be able to become homeowners at a later stage of life, the reality of that came in the mail yesterday.
Our first property tax bill.
And it was eye opening.
Thanks to Proposition 13, we pay one percent of the assessed value of our home. Yet we pay about .06% in additional taxes. You know, the taxes either passed by our state legislature or through ballot innitivives.
And when I hear people say that people like me do not pay our "fair share", now I can tell them "Yes I do!"
I do not resent paying taxes. I resent paying above and beyond and told it is not enough.
I resent that our government lies to us about something like inflation.
Hey, have any of the politicians been to a supermarket recently? Well, they must not because it appears that food prices are going up. Pretty darn fast if you ask me. Yet we are told that inflation is low if not non-existent.
Sure, yeah right!
We are told that it is OK for the federal government to grant loan guarantees to companies like Solyndra. And they go bankrupt. And we, the taxpayers, are left holding the bag. We are also told that only the government can bring about the "Green revolution" that will create this industry and jobs.
No, it is the innovation of people and capital that will bring that about.
We are told by our government that if we just take some more money from the so-called one percent, give to them, they will produce jobs.
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot! Really? When has that ever worked? Like, nevah!
We, the majority, are tired of giving to those that openly do not want to be productive members of society.
So see, the "occupiers" do not and never will speak for me.
I am proud to be and always will be proud to be an American.
It is not about government and all of that. It is the idea that we can be anything we want to be. That we have had the freedom to do what we want, so long as it did not hurt anyone else. That we can work, make enough money to buy that home. Or not. Take care of ourselves and each other. Without a government or any other middleman.
That is what the Tea Party has been all about.
Now come these thugs saying they are "occupying" Wall Street and other cities across the United States. And they are the base of our society. People who think that they are owed something for nothing.
No, I do not think so. That is not the American way.
Sure, there are those that have fallen on hard times. Those are the people we want to and should help. But not able-bodied people that are in it for the bennies. You know, the government benefits.
So that is why I am not any kind of percenter. But I am an American. And continue to fight for the values that made this the Shinning City On The Hill.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Here We Go Again On Mormon Bashing And Mitt Romney

UGH! It appears that Texas governor Rick Huckabee, er Perry, has a supporter that is using his position to once again question the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney and his belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Meet the Rev. Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas.
Now on the surface, the Rev. Jeffress simply appears to be a leading Evangelical minister leading Megachurch in Dallas.
But scratch the surface and you get a pretty sure of himself religious bigot. And of course, the Rev. Jeffress trots out the Mormonism-is-a-cult card.
Look, I am not here to convince you that it is not. But read what the Rev. Jeffress said. It is not as bad as the former Arkansas governor, the Rev. Mike Huckabee, in his "question" to a New York Times reporter.
In that infamous interview, the Rev. Mike asked if Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.
Just another way to ask the "Say, aren't them there Mor-mons Christians or not?" canard.
Now, Gov. Perry has plummeted since entering the GOP race for president. Does any one really think this will help him with the overall Republican voters? And the fact that he has not totally dismissed the Rev. Jeffress support sure does not help.
Let me write that as a Christian, and yeah I consider myself Evangelical, I have voted for people that are not my vision of a Christian. As a Protestant, I have voted for Roman Catholics. Would do so again when the right one comes along. Will vote for a Jewish politician that I would agree with. Even, hold on to your hat, and Islamic if he or she were along the same way politically.
See, overall views are important to me. Sure, I would like to vote for a Christian first and foremost. But if say Eric Cantor, the House Majority leader was running for president against the Dear Leader, President Obama, would I not vote for him? Oh, did I mention that Congressman Cantor is Jewish? Should I not vote for the Jewish pol I agree with over the nominal Christian that I have absolutely nothing in agreement with?
Why does not the Obamawhore media ask the Rev. Jefress that question?
Or another question that always escapes the same Obamawhore media when engaging in Mormon bashing.
Does the Rev. Jeffress think that the Roman Catholic church is a cult? Many Evangelicals do. I think since the good pastor opened the door, we need to ask him some questions.
But, no one will. Because it is now open season on Mormons.
Again, for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints theologically. But I accept that they are Christians. A different kind of Christian, yes, but they are Christians as they see it.
Hence, I can vote for Mitt Romney with a clear conscience that if he should become president, he will not turn the White House into the newest Mormon Temple. Nor will he send cadres of white, button-downed shirt young men on bikes to knock on the doors of the rest of the non-believers of Mormon doctrine. And, I do not think Mr. Romney will turn his religion into the state religion since the constitution rejects it and he would not do that.
Two people I respect had the best comments on the issue.
Radio talker Bill Bennett called the Rev. Jeffress out as a religious bigot. Right on my Roman Catholic brother, Bill!
And Presbyterian presidenital candidate Herman Cain said this in an interview yesterday courtesy of CBS Face The Nation:

Schieffer: How about you, Mr. Cain. What's your thought on this?

Cain: I feel the same way. We're not running for theologian in chief. We're running for president of the United States of America. What I believe is that the American people want to know: what are your values? What are your principles? Because your values and your principles may impact how you make decisions. But not get into the specifics of your chosen religion.

Schieffer: Do you think Mormons are Christians?

Cain: I believe that they believe that they're Christians based on their definition but getting into whether or not they're more Christian than another group, I don't think that's relevant to this campaign.

That is why Gov. Perry must dismiss the support of the Rev. Jeffress. And he must denounce they kind of talk the Rev. Jeffress is engaging in. And we all must remember that this helps. . .the Dear Leader, President Obama.
After all, the race to the Republican nomination is to see who will face the Dear Leader, President Obama, in November 2012. This is not the race to see who is the true Christian or not.
Please good GOP voters, keep that in mind. And remember one more very important thing.
Thousands of our young men and women are fighting against Islamicfacist terrorists that would impose a state religion if they are not defeated. It is a form of Islam that is not even recognizable to most Islamics. These young men and women are fighting for the unique American position that all religions are free to practice in this Great Land.
Remember that in your vote fellow conservatives.

Occupy Wall Street Continues To Deteriorate

Yeah, I should take seriously the "Occupy Wall Street" fringe when it appears that it has deteriorated into a Woodstock Bacchanalia rather than something serious and taking their issues seriously.
Make no mistake.
The issues that the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd wants to see are real and, well a leftytopia not even the Dear Leader, President Obama, could imagine in his wildest leftist dreams.
Now the above link has a disclaimer that it is the wet dream of one lefty submitter. But let's face it. That is the agenda of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
Yet what has happened when it appears as The Daily Mail link shows public sex. A man dumping a load on a police car. Boxes of empty condom boxes. Yeah, this is the vanguard of a political movement that I assume wants to be taken seriously.
If the movement does not take off in a sense that is serious, one may look back and see these vermin as the reason why.
That is to many people.
Me, I think that the leaders are to be taken seriously. The leaders of this movement will do all that it can to take the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrat party much further to the left. While that may play well in, oh I do not know, maybe San Francisco and places like that, it is hard to see what Middle America will make of this.
And not just Middle America but as an American president once said, The Silent Majority. Which is not just Middle America.
Again, look at the list of demands. Sure, the leaders want to distance themselves from the bluntness of the agenda, but not the agenda itself.
It is not just pitting maybe 10% against the 90% of Americans that think they are crazy lefttopiasts. But it is the aggressiveness these people wished the Tea Party movement had.
And make no mistake. If they want to, it will get ugly. These vermin will riot because that is what they know how to do. Cause trouble and produce no solutions.
Yet the image that may truly emerge is that of oversexed, drug-out youts that are not victims of the "oppressive" state. But they are hijacking a movement that may end up helping lead to its eventual demise.
One can only hope so.

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Operation Fast And Furious A Dumb Idea And The Coverup Even Worse

One would think that the political class would get the old axiom. The cover-up is worse than the crime. But not these folks in Washington. They will go down with the sinking ship.
And the sinking ship in question is that known now as Operation Fast And Furious.
I do not know if anyone else has commented, but why name the operation after a movie and subsequent sequels that sucked? Just sayin'.
But seriously, think of the whole idea for just a moment.
The way this was supposed to work is as a sting operation.
The feds were selling weapons to supposed "straw purchasers" that were going to in turn build a bigger case into suspected Mexican drug cartels that would be the ultimate buyer.
Only one problem.
There was no way of tracking the weapons throughout the sting. And the feds were stung themselves big time when United States border control officer Brian Terry was killed last December.
As it turned out, a gun that seized when Officer Terry was killed was eventually traced back to. . .the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. And it blew open the disaster that is Operation Fast And Furious.
Worse is what has happened as direct result of this sting gone bad.
Some of the weapons were used or found at 179 violent crime scenes in Mexico alone. And at this point, only 600 of 2,000 guns "sold" in the sting have been recovered.
But like all other things gone wrong, it is the cover-up that has to keep some people up all night.
The fact is that members of the justice department, including the attorney general, Eric Holder, have claimed to have little of any knowledge of the sting operation. Only problem for Mr. Holder is that he has known about it. He had been informed back in July, 2010. That would put his knowledge in the very planning stages of the sting. Yet, Mr. Holder on hearings held on May 3, 2011 said the following:

"I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

Sorry, that is not an affirmative, Mr. Holder.
And to continue to dig himself into a hole, Mr. Holder sent this letter to congress claiming that all of his testimony is truthful. OK, maybe in his mind, it is. But what will happen if he is contradicted in new testimony?
Well, sit back and get that microwave popcorn ready because it appears that Mr. Holder will be subpoenaed to testify before congress.
Friends, this is why the cover-up is worse than the crime. Because Mr. Holder will be contradicted. He will have to lay out why this hair-brained scheme ever saw the light of day. He will have to explain why this was acceptable with the better than 50-50 chance that said weapons would be used in crimes. Even, especially, murder.
The best case would be for the administration to lay out why this was done, and why it failed. And yes, Mr. Holder and others should at the very least resign.
For the administration of the Dear Leader, President Obama, can not want this cloud hanging over its head going into the election next year. An election that will be a tough one to win on the economy alone.
Again, I just have to note that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Except this time, people may have been killed.

Thursday, October 06, 2011

So Dems Are Bigger Movie Goers Than GOPers-And Are You Surprised

This story is here just in time for the weekend and it pretty much exposes something that most of us already know.
That Democrats are more than likely to actually go to first run movies than Republicans. And Dems like certain movies more than GOPers. And-surprise-they tend to be rather anti-establishment, anti-American in nature.
But there is something surprising, too me, about this.
It appears that GOPers think about what they will see. According to the article, 35% of Republicans and 45% of Tea Party leaners will think about who is in a particular movie before forking out the $10+ bucks at the average movie house. Only 20% of Democrats give it a thought.
Part of that dynamic is simple.
Because the Democrats tend to know that most of the Hollyweird people are in their corner, they are less likely to think about a star or who is in a movie before putting down the ducats. Republicans/Tea Party leaners are very aware that many Hollyweidos are downright hostile to them and their point of view. Why fork out the cash to unappreciative stooges? Especially if they can wait until it is available for home viewing.
Which is another interesting insight of this article. That GOPers will wait to rent or watch a movie in the comfort of their own home. And not have to break a bank to take the family to the movie house. Or have a date night doing something more worthwhile than watching leftist stooges tear down the United States and or it's institutions. According to the article, in the last six months, Dems have seen 5.7 movies at the movie house while GOPers have seen less than four in the same time period. The theory is that Dems want to be cool and in the know. Not that GOPers do not want to be. It is just that once in a blue moon, we would like to see a cool movie about the United States and or its institutions.
And not every movie thrown out of Hollyweird is Dem-friendly.
There are some uplifting, positive movies that have shown some success. Some are the Chronicle of Narnia series. Soul Surfer about young surfer Bethany Hamilton and losing an arm while being attacked by a shark while surfing in Hawai'i. Another is the movie Secretariat about the horse that won horse racing's Triple Crown in 1973.
FTR, I saw all the Narnia movies and Secretariat and will wait to see Soul Surfer when it becomes available on Netflix.
But usually, these movies end up being panned by those who have a great deal of influence on movie watchers.
Movie critics.
The critics love the edgy movies that seem to attract a more liberal, Democrat audience. And as such, they will make them to be the greatest movies evah. Even if they actually suck.
Now one problem is what about those that are in the middle? People who don't care about a movie having an agenda? Yeah, there are actually a lot of people in that category. That would be Mrs. RVFTLC.
She just plain likes movies. All kind of movies. Foreign films, comedies, dramas. But she, and I, rarely go to a full-price movie in the evening. Usually the first showing of the day is the cheapest. Kaching! And she is the loyalist Netflixer out there.
Now, my movie watching is pretty selective.
I like a lot of mindless violence. I also like uplifting movies. And a lot of comedy as well.
But the fact is the movies have become one more aspect of modern life that is politically charged.
Thus it appears that there are not a lot of movies that both sides like.
Ahh, maybe I am wrong on that.
In a related link, it appears that both sides like such classic movies as Amadeus, Forrest Gump, The King's Speech, The Godfather II and The Deer Hunter.
But hey, it can't all be unifying, can it?
Dems liked The Departed, Crash, Kramer vs. Kramer and Slumdog Millionaire more than GOPers.
For the GOPers, we tend to like Chariots Of Fire, The Sting, The Sound Of Music, and Braveheart more than the Dems.
My take on all of this is that this solidifies what most on the conservative side believe about Hollyweird and what they produce. But there is hope and we on the conservative side must continue to engage and get the kind of movies out there that appeal more to us. And that Hollyweird needs to make some movies that are unifying in who it appeals to. Not divisive and money losing to score some political points.
Until that happens, look for less conservatives actually going to the movie house and liberals propping the Hollyweird industry. And it can only be so much that one side can do to prop a dying industry.

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Sarah Palin NOT Running For President And Steve Jobs Dies

An absolutely amazing afternoon of news.
On the political front, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin formally announced that she will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012. And she said that she will not run a third-party because that would assure the reelection of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
On the technology front, one of the most innovative men to live in the 20tb and 21st centuries, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, lost his long fight with cancer as he died today at the age of 56.Back to Mrs. Palin.
I am not going to lie. I am disappointed that Mrs. Palin is not running this time around. I believe that she would have a positive impact in the GOP primaries and win and lose a big impact in how the party will run against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And it kills my prediction of her candidacy!
But she has said many times that she does not have to have a "title" to have an impact. In fact, she said just that in her written announcement today. And she did indicate recently that a "title" would possibly "shackle" her.
And a reality is that while many of us had the fire in her belly, she did not have that fire in her belly.
That and the intense scrutiny of her family had to play a role in her decision.
In a sense, it is why I admire her even more. That she did not make a rash decision. That she put her family first. Regrettably, way to many pols put themselves and their careers over everything else.
And do not think that she will just sit back and let someone else do the heavy lifting.
Look for Mrs. Palin to back candidates as she did in 2010. And she will back in the primaries and general election campaign. She said in her announcement and subsequent interviews.
And yeah, i'll go out on the limb.
I believe that Mrs. Palin will endorse Herman Cain for the Republican nomination for president.
Mr. Cain is the candidate that is closest to Mrs. Palin's thinking. Firstly, he is the most outside of the GOP candidates. He is not a politician. He has not been elected to any office. He is a man of the private sector. He is a fighter. He is the American Dream writ large.
Now with the speculation of will she or won't she out of the way, look for a lot more from Mrs. Palin.
What can one say about Steve Jobs?
Again, a man who totally lived the American Dream and made our lives simpler and more interesting.
A man that dropped out of college and innovated the computer industry beyond many an imagination.
Mr. Jobs showed that with vision and people to believe in it, anything can be done.
We owe so much of our technological advancement to Mr. Jobs. And his Apple so-founders Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne also deserve a lot of credit.
But Mr. Jobs had the vision thing down. And that is why today we have such innovations as the Apple computer, the i-Phone, the i-Pad. Things that we seem not to be able to live without.
There are just not many people like Steve Jobs. And while he had an amazing life, no doubt it was cut short by the scourge of cancer.
And these events make today an amazing news day.

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Can Republican Voters Instead Of Insiders Choose Our Presidential Nominee?

I have a question for you?
Who are these supposed Republican bigwigs that keep promoting a "flavor of the week" as the hope of the party in the 2012 presidential Death March campaign?
I mean for one thing, they seem to not be able to stick with a candidate.
Once there is any sign that their flavor is in any trouble, they pick up and look for someone else.
As noted, the latest heart breaker is the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
He said, hopefully for the last time, he is not a candidate for the Republican presidential nod in 2012.
But Gov. Christie is soon to be yesterday's news. Much like another governor.
Texas governor Rick Perry was high on the insider radar. And there were some good reasons. As governor, he has been a solid conservative. Low tax, low regulation. Solid social conservative. But, he is in trouble for the issue of illegal immigration. It is not so much that he supported and signed into law the Texas Nightmare, er Dream Act. But he has not done a good job defending it. Instead he has made personal attacks on fellow conservative Republicans because they, we, do not understand why he supports a break for illegal aliens. No, it is not because we are heartless. No, it is not because there is no other way for these students to pay for their college education. It is that ham-handedness that has dropped him precipitously in polling. And now many of those that supported him as the Great GOP Hope are jumping that ship.
Before Gov. Perry was the former ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Mr. Bolton is totally right on American foreign policy. But, this election will not be a foreign policy election. And Mr. Bolton on his own realized it and said thanks, but no thanks.
Even some of these people are trying once again to dip into the well that was the former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Must be gluttons for punishment. Because he did a bang-up job in 2008.
So, what is wrong with the declared candidates in the 2012 race?
Not one thing.
OK, save for three.
Congressman Ron Paul, former governors Gary Johnson of New Mexico and John Huntsman of Utah. And even those two I would take in a heartbeat over Congressman Paul and especially the Dear Leader, President Obama.
So what about the rest?
Is the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, that terrible a guy that the bigwigs (never actually identified) can not rally around? Say what one will about Mr. Romney but he has been around the block an election cycle before. Only one mistake that he is making this time around is trying to defend the Massachusetts version of Obamacare. And he is getting better on that. But Mr. Romney is a good strong center-right guy. He may not be a fire-breathing red-meat kind, but he will stand up well to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And back to Gov. Perry.
If he sounded more certain in debates and clearly articulate his stand on illegal immigration, he may get back in the race. What does worry me is because of a couple of shaky debates, I do worry about how he will fare against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Then there is someone that may end up being this cycle's Sen. John "F--- You" McCain.
That is the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
As he keeps trudging along, he is getting stronger and audiences are receptive to the former House Speaker. And there is no doubt about the fact the dude is a fountain of ideas. And one other note. Mr. Gingrich is a proven winner. It was he that engineered the Republican election triumph of 1994 in which the House became Republican for the first time in over 50 years. And he staved off the Democrats in not one but two elections. The problem has always been discipline. But, I see that Mr. Gingrich is very much coming into his own. And, he may be a consensus choice for many.
And what about Herman Cain?
So he has not held political office. But he has been in the arena. And he took on then President Clinton in his attempt to socialize medicine in 1993-94. And he too has some ideas that are kind of radical. But he has ideas. And he is not a typical politician. After three years of the Dear Leader, President Obama show, maybe people are looking for real authenticity and not sloganeering.
I am sorry that Congressman Michele Bachmann seems to be fading, but she has not folded her tent and is staying in the race. She is a firebrand, the red-meat kind of candidate. And maybe that is why she is fading among some potential Republican voters.
And one last candidate that is on par with Mr. Gingrich is the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum. Yes, everyone seems to harp on his 2006 defeat at the hands of now Democrat Sen. Bob Casey. Hey, how about winning some tough congressional and senate campaigns in a blue/purple state? And while he is noted as a strong social conservative, he has proven very able in the economic and national security area as well.
And here is the real deal.
Folks, if you are looking for a Ronald Reagan, forget it. Mr. Reagan was a one of a kind person. He was in the right place at the right time. And, he was not always what we know him as today. He suffered political losses. He was on the losing end of some of the debates of the time. And among fellow conservatives.
What I want to see is someone that can articulate conservatism the way Mr. Reagan did. And there all the candidates can take some lessons from the Great Man.
The people that are trying to anoint someone behind the scenes are, to be blunt, fools.
This is a great field of candidates. One of them is going to gain traction going into the primary and caucus season.
The important thing is to let the process play out and see what happens in the early states.
Stop trying to end the process before it even gets going.
I want to choose the nominee for the Republican party in 2012. I do not need some "insiders" or professional types to force their flavor of the month on me. Nor anyone else who will participate in the process.
Let us, the voter, choose our Republican candidate and stop trying all these people from out of the woodwork.
And remember that the real one to beat is the Dear Leader, President Obama.

Am I The Only Conservative Glad Gov. Christie Is Sitting Out 2012?

Well, I believe that I am in good company as Mark Levin is not a big fan of the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie. I think he and I are two of the few conservatives glad Gov. Christie is sitting out the GOP 2012 presidential race.
Now I want to be clear.
I like a lot about Gov. Christie. He is a tough guy that is very focused and as conservative as one can be in New Jersey.
And there is the problem.
You see, New Jersey Republicans are not a real conservative group. After all, they were trying to push another Christie on the American people at one time. That Christie was the former governor, Christie Todd Whitman. Now, unlike Gov. Christie, she was much more to the left of the Republican center.
What is really bothersome about all the attempts to get Gov. Christie in the race in the first place. As he pointed out, that he wanted to finish what he started as governor.
The fact is that Gov. Christie would be not much more of an accomplished product than the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And why is there this attempt to get a front runner now? Who cares? Why are the money people so damn nervous nellies?
Those are for another post.
But while Gov. Christie's announcement disappoints many, I am troubled by his lukewarm attitude over what is driving the conservative movement today.
For instance, why is he not one of those leading the legal challenge to Obamacare?
Why would he nominate someone as Sohail Mohammed to a judgeship? And why would he be so defensive as to utter profanities when asked if it was an appropriate appointment? Why is Gov. Christie not more in front on opposing the policies of the Dear Leader, President Obama?
These are legitimate questions that we need to ask and expect to have answers. And that may be why Gov. Christie, wisely, chose not to run this time around.
I think that he has time to evolve into a solid conservative. On a lot of state policies, he has proven himself solid. But he does need to be more aggressive in social, national and international policy.
And he may have a chance in 2016 or even 2020.
Who knows?
But Gov. Christie said it best:

"Now is not my time."

That says a lot about him to me more than if he got in at this late date.
This conservative is glad Gov. Christie is waiting for the right time.

Monday, October 03, 2011

"Occupy Wall Street" Is A Glimpse Of What The Late 1960s Must Have Been Like

Ahh, the leftist protest movement. Always looking for a cause. For the left, there is always a cause.
And when there is a cause, there will the left be, causing problems, and exposing themselves to the idiocy of their "agenda".
The latest is the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
But my take is a little different.
I was born in 1964. A dreadful year in a way because it was the year that ol' Lyndon Johnson won a landslide election, the Democrats gained a stranglehold on congress and the "Great Society" welfare state took root in earnest.
But there was something pesky for the American left.
Because while then President Johnson was carrying the leftist domestic agenda, he increased the United States military involvement is Southeast Asia. Especially in Vietnam.
Again, the left kind of dug some old fellow names Ho Chi Minh. He was the founder of the communist North Vietnam state. These people did not like the fact that the United States was supporting South Vietnam. A corrupt yet pro-American government.
And the spoiled White children of the elite caught the fever. The fever of avoiding getting drafted and being sent to the jungles of Southeast Asia to fight for a corrupt regime in Saigon vs. the pure People's regime of the North.
Yeah, dudes like the Dear Leader, President Obama's "acquaintance", William Ayres, daughters of privilege like Bernadine Dohrn. Oh yeah. These two were like many of their era. Children of privilege that were guilty of their status. And scared to death of going to fight the Vietnam war.
So, I missed the halcyon days of the anti-war movement due to my being born at the right time.
I am thankful that I was not born earlier and might have been sucked up in that self-hatred.
Fast forward to today.
Now we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and it is a collection of old lefties, labor union allies, washed up Hollyweird people and a collection of malcontents that do not feel they have freeloaded society enough.
So, what do these people want?
Well, according to their website, Occupy Wall Street, it looks like the garden variety list of lefty demands.
There are a total of 13 demands. Notice BTW, that they do not want to legislate any of this. It is demands, dammit!
Well, here are a few of my favorites:

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
Now I get some of this. But outlawing all credit reporting agencies. I do not get that. Does that mean the people will not be able to access credit at all? Or will there not be credit in the New Utopia?
My particular favorite is open borders. At least these lefties are honest as to what they want. No borders, no nation.
Oh, sorry to disappoint the lefties, but we tried the Equal Rights amendment to the constitution. And it failed to pass under the constitutional framework.
And what do you know. They want a free college education for all. See, I am right about the freeloader aspect of this crowd.
What about the guaranteed "living wage"? What constitutes a "living wage"? It means different things to different people.
This is all absurd not because they can not happen. But it is absurd because once again the American left really believes that the people want to live in a socialist land. That is why they deny that the United States is anything different from any other nation in the world. If we are not different, then we are but as bad as any of the European nations that the American left wants us to become.
The irony is that the left has their dude in the White House. The Dear Leader, President Obama. Much as they had their dude in the 1960s in former President Johnson.
But it is not enough. The left wants to fundamentally discard the United States of America and turn it into some Leftytopia.
And what I am getting out of all this is an acid flashback without the acid. It is the 1960s redux. And it will end up much the same way. And that will not please the American left.