Right View from the Left Coast

Why Does The Leftywhore Media Romanticize Criminals?

2012-01-29T19:25:00.000-08:00

One thing about the Sunday Left Angeles Times is that it almost writes a post in and of itself on unbelievable Leftywhore media bias.
Today's case in point is this front-page story on former Black Panther Pete O'Neal.
Now If one just looks at the photos, we see this dread locked old dude that surrounds himself with orphaned children. Children that he has taken care of.
Now that is the nice picture the writer, Christopher Goffard, wants to present.
But let's get to the heart of the real story.
Mr. O'Neal is a criminal that has evaded American justice for nearly 40 years.
Mr. O'Neal was convicted transporting a shotgun across state lines and was sentenced to four years in prison. And while out on bail, keep in mind he was already convicted, Mr. O'Neal and his wife, Charlotte, decided to get out of Dodge. And that was by way of Sweden and Algeria and eventually to his current home in Tanzania.
The head line of the story implies something different:

Former Black Panther patches together purpose in Africa exile

I highlight exile because the implication is that the United States exiled Mr. O'Neal to Tanzania. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. O'Neal jumped bail and is on the run of his own doing. He has chosen to live in a self-imposed exile. That should have been the headline.
Now keep this in mind.
The Black Panthers were some seriously bad dudes and gals. They wanted to begin "Black Liberation". In other words, they hated Whitey and all that they believed that Whitey stood for. They wanted not desegregation and all people to be treated equally, with respect. Not based on skin color but character. Nope, they wanted to kill Whitey and set up a Black, socialist utopia.
And Mr. O'Neal, himself a troubled youth, was the perfect kind of bad dude these people wanted.
The article implies that Mr. O'Neal has mellowed over the years. I suppose he has.
The article points out that he is embarrassed at the radical and the rhetoric he once employed. Yet he is not sorry for what he was trying to do.
In the meantime, the socialist, Maoist, whatever left-wing doctrine they were trying to figure out seems to have in a sense left Mr. O'Neal.
Mr. O'Neal owns four-acres in this rugged part of Tanzania. He even has modern conveniences such as television and a computer.
Yet the nagging thing is why Mr. O'Neal simply does not come back to the United States now? He probably would not serve a day in jail. A 40-year conviction on transporting a shotgun across state lines is hardly the thing one flees the United States and stays away for 40 years.
I believe it is in this statement he makes in the article:

For his radicalism itself, however, he won't apologize, even if — as he suspects — it is the one thing that might gain him safe entry back into the States.

"They will never convince me in my life," he says, "that what I was doing wasn't right."

Well, I won't try to convince you. But I will not celebrate you either.
One way that Mr. O'Neal earns a buck, or a Tanzanian Schilling, is hosting American high school students and regaling in the tales of his Black Panther days. I kid you not. Look at this photo of awe-struck students.

These young minds full of mush are allowed to go by parents, fork out $30 to spend the night and hear a boatload of propaganda. And they are lapping it up.
I do not get it.
Why would sane parents let their kids travel around the world to meet a guy that has such hatred for their nation? That at one time believed the White man was so evil that they had to be killed? And that almost all the students are. . .White?
But that is the whole problem with this article.
The result is that most people would feel sorry for this dude.
I do not.
I think that he should have come back long ago, either fought the charges or take the punishment. Or hope that there would be a compromise of sorts.
But, Pete O'Neal is a true-believer to the end. And that is nothing to celebrate but to mourn. For what he believes is in a fairy-tale. Socialism is a fairy-tale.

St. Louis Honors Iraq War Vets-New York Does Not

2012-01-28T20:25:00.000-08:00

The city of St. Louis had a parade honoring those brave men and women that served in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror today.
And they get a big, double thumbs up from Right View From The Left Coast.
However, New York City will not have a parade honoring those that served in the WAIT, Iraq theatre.
The St. Louis effort was basically a home-grown effort by one Craig Schneider who began laying the ground work for the effort this past December. Mr. Schneider was able to get donations from Anhauser-Busch and Mayflower movers to help defray the cost. And there were 100 entries expected.
But Mayor Buttinsky, er Bloomberg, said no such luck in the Big Apple.
No, the mayor that wants to tell you what to eat said that he spoke with big-shots in Washington, D. C. and was told that a parade is premature because there are still troops in harm's way.
News Flash!
There are always troops in harm's way.
But a part of the mission in the WAIT is done. Those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are now home. And yes, they damn well deserve an honor. And a parade.
This Mayor Buttinsky should shut his yap about such things.
What is needed in New York City is a similar effort by citizens. Citizens telling Mayor Buttinsky to back off and let the citizens decide if they want to show their small but heart left gratitude to the brave men and women on the front lines.
It is giving me a thought that we need such a parade here in Pasadena. I can think of no better day than Independence Day, 2012.
What say you? Ready to get the ball rolling on getting this town to honor our troops?
Let me know.

Remember How Newt Supported Doug Hoffman In The New York State 23rd Congressional Race In 2009?

2012-01-24T21:36:00.000-08:00

No, I bet you don't.
Neither do I.
OOPS! My bad!
I plum forgot that the former Republican Speaker of the House backed not the Tea Party choice for the infamous New York state 23rd congressional race in 2009.
No, Newt Gingrich, the stalwart conservative let the whims of a few Republican county party chairs sway who to support.

So, it is important to give a brief as possible history lesson on the race in question.
In 2009, the Dear Leader, President Obama, appointed John McHugh, a New York state Republican congressman to become Navy Secretary.
So, a special election was called by then-Gov. David Patterson.
In New York state, unlike California, the Republican party depends on the county chairs to essentially appoint a candidate. In California, a first-round of voting occurs and if no one gets 50% plus one, then the top two go to the second round, the general election.
The county chairs chose a little-known state assemblyman, Dede Scozzafava to be the choice the maintain the seat. Mrs. Scozzafava was and is a liberal Republican. Think of our former-thank God-governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In New York state, there are two small parties, the Conservative and the Liberal party.
Enter Doug Hoffman.
Mr. Hoffman supposedly "lost" to Mrs. Scozzafava among the 11 county chairs in the 23rd congressional district.
So, Mr. Hoffman ran an insurgent campaign on the Conservative party line.
This created huge problems for the Republican party everywhere. Especially in Washington, D. C.
You know who supported Mrs. Scozzafava?
Why none other than the current flavor-of-the-week conservative, Newton LeRoy Gingrich.
In fact, your humble blogger noticed that Mr. Gingrich had some undying loyalty to Mrs. Scozzafava. And he was one of the last Republicans to unendorse Mrs. Scozzafava.
And it was not just some conservative on the Left coast noticing this may have not been the wisest choice Mr. Gingrich made.
The Hill newspaper noticed that Mr. Gingrich stepped in it, big time here.
If you think that Mrs. Scozzafava was some moderate, consider that she supported the union-backed "card-check" legislation. Was more than just "pro-choice" on abortion. And she supported the so-called "stimulus" legislation in 2009.
Somehow, Mr. Gingrich thought that this was a principled conservative:

“Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”

Sure, Newt. Sure was.
Oh, for the record, Mrs. Scozzafava dropped out of the race. Endorsed the Democrat and current congressman, Bill Owens. And now has a cushy state job she was appointed to by the. . .wait for it. . .Democrat governor, Andres Cuomo.
But remember, all of you who are saying Newt Gingrich is a true conservative fighter. When he had the chance to get on the right side of the Tea Party, he went right back to his Rockefeller Republican roots.
It is ironic that today, on the Gingrich for President website, he has to admit that it was a mistake to support Mrs. Scozzafava. Here is from the website:

Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.

Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.

Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election. Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee.

I highlight the most important part because it was the process that was wrong. As a so-called reformer, he should have been demanding that the secretive process be opened to party rank-and-file voters, not corrupt county party chairs greasing the wheels for one of their own.
Newt was wrong then and while he admits that mistake, it cost the Republican party a congressional seat and dealt the Tea Party movement an unnecessary setback.
Leadership means sometimes throwing out the playbook. On this Mr. Gingrich did not and I think there are a whole lot of other issues that he has been on the wrong side of.
This is a glaring one.

The Cruise Industry Is Better Than One Lousy Italian Captain

2012-01-21T20:56:00.001-08:00

a>
When I first heard about the accident that caused the capsizing of the luxury liner Costa Concordia, my first thought was this is bad and going to be really bad for a lot of people.
The good news is that fortunately, less than 50 out of over 4,000 passengers and crew died or are missing. And believe me, I am not dismissing any death, injury or distress for all those people.
There is a lot of conflicting information still to this day. That the captain, Francesco Schettino, steered the ship close to an island off of an Italian island for a crew member. That Mr. Schettino went in a life boat to escape before ascertaining the whole situation. That Mr. Schettino claims to have tripped and fallen into the said life boat. And that some of the panic once the situation was ascertained was that the ship had not had the lifeboat drill before leaving port.
And of course this is leading many to want to investigate the cruise industry in general.
So, as one who has been on several cruises, let me say here and now that most are wonderful adventures and rather uneventful affairs.
The first cruise Mrs. RVFTLC and I went on was our honeymoon cruise nearly 12 years ago.
It was on this ship, The Carnival Elation

Now it is a 13-year old ship. But it was new at the time. Our itinerary was Mexico. The West Coast. Puerto Vallarta, Mazlatan, and Cabo San Lucas. And a couple of full days out at sea.
It was the first time either of us were on a cruise. It was a gift from my mother in law.
A funny aside.
As part of it, there was a video that featured Kathy Lee Gifford signing and talking about the ship. There was corny throughout. "Its an Elation vacation!" It made us laugh silly. But once we stopped laughing, it was rather informative.
Once we got on the ship, we were amazed.
Everyone was pleasant. The crew. The people. It was amazing to realize that we were on a ship of roughly 4,000 people.
Most cruises are great affairs to rememeber.
Subsequent cruises were an Alaksan cruise and two more to Mexico.
But the only time one hears of cruises in the Leftywhore or any media, it is when disaster strikes. Or about how the crew is paid. And how terrible their working conditions are.
In other words, the negative.
Yet this once reserved for the rich way to travel has come to the middle income people. The industry has exploded. And in fact, there is a cruise line dedicated to family travel in Disney Cruise Line.
But to bash a whole industry because one captain was an idiot and a coward is not fair.
Cruising is safer than auto travel. Probably safer than air travel as well.
But you would not know the positives when there is this ship half-sunk off of the Italian coast.
That is too bad.

Newt Wins South Carolina

2012-01-21T20:12:00.000-08:00

As seemingly expected, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, has won the Republican primary in South Carolina and rather handily tonight.
With 99% of precincts reporting, Mr. Gingrich had 40% of the vote to Mitt Romney's distant second at 28%. Rick Santorum came in a solid third with 17% and Ron Paul came in last of the four still running at 13%.
It is a solid win for Mr. Gingrich. No doubt about that.
But I wonder how much of it is a "sympathy" vote after the ABC interview with the former Mrs. Gingrich number two, Marianne? And the subsequent dressing down Mr. Gingrich gave to CNN's John King for even bringing it up?
I think that John Pitney, Jr. over at The Corner at National Review sums it up best in this posting. And the list that will now more than ever be spotlighted is given a brief overview:

Expect renewed attention to troublesome aspects of his public record: his past support for a value-added tax, his overdrafts at the House Bank and his other ethics problems, his denunciation of deficit hawks as “the perfectionist caucus,” his past skepticism about the Founders, and many others.

How will Mr. Gingrich handle legitimate questions on those and other issues. The phrase "I should not have said FILL IN THE BLANK." can only be used so much before people get a little annoyed. And those are the supporters. Imagine a whole nation of voters in a general election?
Its time for Mr. Gingrich to celebrate this win because they are going to get harder and much costlier to come by.
And now, on to Florida.

See South Carolina Election Results Here

2012-01-21T15:54:00.001-08:00

This is a link to the Charleston Post and Courier election results.
It will be something to see in real time.

Why Do Some Conservatives Ignore Gingrich Transgressions Yet Salivated At Clinton Ones?

2012-01-21T10:51:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing that this blogger seeks is truth. And sometimes it means that some people that I like and respect need to answer an obvious question.
The question in this case is simple.
Why are some conservatives ignoring or dismissive of numerous personal and policy transgressions on the part of Newt Gingrich? Yet when one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was president, same said conservatives were salivating at every one of Mr. Clinton's transgressions?
A point here is I sure was one that saw Mr. Clinton as a threat to the Republic. Politically, of course.
It was well known that the lug was a womanizer with the best of them. Many of the same people said that automatically disqualified him to become president in 1992.
While a lot happened in the Clinton era, the dreaded impeachment of the president in a strange sense was a turning point.
I still believe that it was correct to impeach the president because he lied in a deposition on a civil matter. While president of the United States. If he will easily lie about a matter that he should have settled, what would he really lie about?
Ahh, but the Leftywhore media and the Democrat party made it an issue about sex and the president's private life. Most conservatives would have none of that. Remember when we mocked Mr. Clinton every Sunday as we saw him either walking into or from church? With Holy Bible tucked under his arm?
Fast forward to 2012.
One of the leaders of the impeachment of Mr. Clinton was Newt Gingrich.
To show how reckless and dangerous Mr. Gingrich was, the media successfully made sex the issue. And yet Mr. Gingrich was cavorting with the current Mrs. Gingrich, Calista. While still married to Mrs. Gingrich number two, Marianne.
And let us not forget that Mrs. Gingrich number two became that in the same manner.
Now, one can ask each of these women why they would have thought Mr. Gingrich would be any different with them.
But that is for the head-shrinkers.
For me, to listen to conservatives today, you would have think we are in another world.
When a Democrat is full of transgressions, we rail against them.
When a Republican is full of transgressions, we suddenly sound like, well Democrats.
Ah, its his personal life. That happened years ago. He realizes that he was bad and has sought forgiveness.
Yet in 1998, that was not enough for most of us.
Keep in mind, once the Leftywhore media changed the narrative, it was harder and harder to keep the basis of impeachment front and center.
It was not about an affair but alleged sexual harassment. And the president lied about it. And lied when a pattern of reckless behavior became evident. Again, that was what it was all about.
Again, I get why many like the fighter Newt Gingrich.
But he can not be the Republican standard-bearer in 2012.
The affairs are just one reason.
The policy transgressions, the attacks on people for making money, the seemingly lack of discipline, that along with past faults make Mr. Gingrich be suspect in the long haul.
But we cannot have a double standard.
Bill Clinton was and is bad.
Newt Gingrich was bad, but he is our guy so he is cool.
I want to win this election, but I am with Rick Santorum.
Here is what he said in the CNN GOP debate this past Thursday:

I mean, Newt's -- Newt's a friend. I love him. But at times, you've just got, you know, sort of that, you know, worrisome moment that something's going to pop. And we can't afford that in a nominee.

We need someone -- I'm not the most flamboyant, and I don't get the biggest applause lines here. But I'm steady. I'm solid. I'm not going to go out and do things that you're going to worry about. I'm going to be out there. I'm going to make Barack Obama the issue in this campaign.
Think about that fellow conservatives.
Mr. Santorum is right.
Most important, we need to admit that we have set a double standard if Mr. Gingrich is the GOP nominee. And it may be no turning back on that one.

My Prediction For South Carolina

2012-01-20T23:34:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, well actually almost today as I write this, the good voters of South Carolina will go to the polls and decide who they like in the Republican primary for president.
So, of course I will offer my fearless prediction.
It is as follows:

Mitt Romney: 30%
Newt Gingrich: 29%
Rick Santorum: 23%
Ron Paul: 15%
Other: 3%

This does take into account the fact that Newt Gingrich is really surging in So Carolina. And I think that this is not a place for the Ron Paul breakthrough.
If Mr. Gingrich does not win this one, how can he seriously keep it up through the remaining contests? I do not get how a fourth place finish in Iowa, a fifth place finish in New Hampshire and a possible loss in So Carolina and yet Mr. Gingrich can say he will be the nominee.
At some point, Florida becomes the place where either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich becomes the so-called conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
It will be interesting to see who Gov. Rick Scott in Florida endorses. By all accounts, as a former businessman himself, he tacitly will endorse Mr. Romney. And at some point may formally do so.
Despite a lot of nervous nellies in the Republican party, So Carolina does not end the primary season. It is just warming up. And now it is to see if Mr. Romney will be facing a rejuvenated Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Santorum in future races.

Say, That Newt Gingrich Fellow Kind Of Reminds Me Of Someone Named Nixon

2012-01-20T16:44:00.000-08:00

It has been a long thought for me to write this overall assessment of one Newton LeRoy Gingrich. That in fact he is not necessarily the strong conservative that he makes himself out to be.
There was another American president that tried that shtick.
His name.
Richard Milhous Nixon.
Any regular reader of this blog knows that I believe that while he destroyed his own presidency, he almost single-handily destroyed the Republican party as well. Of course we all know that it took one Ronald Reagan to reform and renew the party.
But what Mr. Nixon did was talk a conservative game. Yet it was Mr. Nixon that believed in socialist medicine. Oh, he would argue that it was not, but in the end it would have created the bureaucracy that all of Europe sees.
Mr. Nixon never actually did anything to scale back the so-called Great Society of his predecessor, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, to fight inflation, Mr. Nixon not once but twice imposed wage and price controls.
In other words, Mr. Nixon essentially conceded domestic policy to the other team.
And Mr. Nixon was always a brooding figure. Seemingly not all that much of a happy man. Yet, he always had a fighter's view of politics.
And that is Mr. Gingrich.
A fighter. In last night's CNN Republican debate, Mr. Gingrich got conservatives excited because he slammed CNN's moderator, John King, for bringing up ABC's interview with the former Mrs. Gingrich number two, Marianne.
Well, sorry but this is relevant.
This is Mr. Gingrich's third marriage. And he left his previous two wives while cavorting with the future wife. Wife number three, Calista, was who he wanted to share with wife number two.
Get all of that?
And Mr. Gingrich was carrying on that affair while pushing to impeach then President Bill Clinton.
An aside.
The impeachment was not about sex.
It was about the president of the United States lying under oath in a civil case. And he was caught. The fact that the lie was about a short-term affair is not what is important. What he lied about on that was in regards to a sexual-harassment suit brought against him by Paula Jones.
But knowing that Mr. Gingrich was shtooping Calista at the same time, what did that do the proceedings?
And if that does not bother you, how about this devastating piece in The American Spectator by Quin Hillyer? And Rick Santorum pointed out the grandiosity of Mr. Gingrich that Mr. Hillyer does in the piece. But this is the critical line of the piece:

Gingrich was great at rabble rousing. He was awful at actually managing things

I would alter it this way:

Gingrich is great at rabble rousing. He is awful at actually managing things.

And he has the Nixonian view of any disagreement as being an enemy.
We lived that before and it was a traumatic era in the United States.
This is the most critical election in my life. And to blow it because we like when Mr. Gingrich goes gonzo on the Leftywhore media. Or when he slams Mitt Romney for. . .making money. For once being a strong believer in Globaloney Warming to weaseling worse than anyone on stage. For once backing the individual mandate in national health care and now weaseling on that.
And yet Mitt Romney is called a flip-flopper.
And while it is not something that is good, optics and attitude matter.
A thrice-married, kind of short, a little chubby, white-haired White guy next to the youngish, handsome mixed-race success story with a very nice family. The first mentioned guy pretty mercurial a lot of the time. The latter guy with a smile.
Like it or not, people vote for someone who exudes a positive quality. Look at Mr. Reagan, both Mr. Bush's, Mr. Clinton.
At the end of the day, a vote for Newt Gingrich is a vote for Richard Nixon from the grave. And that is not a good vote for the United States.

Just A Reminder, Rick Santorum WON The Iowa Caucus Outright

2012-01-19T23:06:00.000-08:00

From the In Case You Missed It file, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum did win the Iowa caucus by 34 votes.
According to the latest count, Mr. Santorum has 29,839 and Mitt Romney, the presumptive winner, has 29,805.
And if that is not maddening enough the Iowa Republican party is not going to formally certify the results.
Why?
Because eight precincts did not follow the rules and thus they do not count in the final tally.
So, Team Romney is going to call it a tie. Team Santorum, rightly, calls it a victory.
Oh yeah, and this does not put a black mark on the whole Iowa process, doesn't it?
If they want to maintain the first-in-the-nation voting in the presidential race, they can not claim one thing on election night and two weeks later say never mind.
Team Santorum needs to emphasize the fact they won the Iowa caucus. It should be a huge boost in South Carolina on Saturday.

Perry Out; South Carolina, Vote FOR SANTORUM!

2012-01-19T17:48:00.000-08:00

To many, this did not come soon enough.
That the Texas governor, Rick Perry finally dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for president.
But he did go out with a sort of bang by endorsing former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich in his bid for the GOP nod.
This is for anyone in South Carolina reading this.
So Carolina, do not vote for Newt Gingrich. If you want to keep the race going with an authentic conservative alternative, you must vote FOR Rick Santorum.
But Mr. RVFTLC, Newt will take the Dear Leader, President Obama, out in the debates!
OK.
But we will be lucky to see one debate let alone multiple debates no matter who the Republican nominee is.
But Mr. RVFTLC, Newt is full of ideas.
Yes, Mr. Gingrich is always full of ideas. And he says a lot without giving much thought. Take the assault on Bain Capitol. It was straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook. And yet Mr. Gingrich does not seem to get why many of us would defend the good work of Bain Capitol. Mr. Gingrich, even the government at many levels (not the federal one) have had to shed jobs. That is what happens in the real world.
But Mr. RVFTLC, he is angry and that is what we need. A real fighter.
Yes, I do agree. But, and this is important, one that can thread the needle. Call it the Happy Warrior if you will. Like it or not, voters do not like angry people. And sometimes, Mr. Gingrich comes off as too much on the anger and not enough on the smile.
But Mr. RVFTLC, what about three marriages?
Ahh, there is a rub. And it maybe the rub that does him in.
Ronald Reagan was the first divorced man to be elected president. His divorce from first wife Jane Wyman was not because Mr. Reagan was shtooping the secretary. It was because Miss Wyman felt his political activities were cramping their life. It was irreconcilable differences but not scandal. And by the time Mr. Reagan ran for California governor, he was happily married for 14 years to the former Nancy Davis.
But Mr. Gingrich has not had the same situation.
Now on his third marriage, Mr. Gingrich has had another woman ruin the other two.
The latest former Mrs. Gingrich. Marianne Gingrich in an interview with ABC News seems to say that Mr. Gingrich wanted an "open marriage". Where he can have Marianne and his then paramour, Calista.
Oh yeah. Forgot this nugget. Too bad the second former Mrs. Gingrich was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis nine months before divorce proceedings began.
Look, I think people forgive one failed marriage. Two, and the circumstances make a lot of people turned off. And that, like it or not Gingrichnistas, is all you would hear from Team Obama.
So, if you are in South Carolina, it comes down to Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.
And I ask you to vote FOR Mr. Santorum.
In almost every way he is the opposite of Mr. Gingrich.
A solid guy married to his wife, Karen, for 21 years. Have six children. A very blue-collar background. From a large swing-state, Pennsylvania. And has won races where he was written off almost every single time.
I want to keep the debate within the Republican party going. But to do so it must be between two men that are serious and do not flail all over the place.
If Mr. Romney is the eventual nominee, what better than to be sparring with some one like Mr. Santorum? Both are offering a different and positive vision for the United States. Both are disciplined. And it will be much easier for the party to unite no matter who wins.
But I just think that while a long shot falls in Rick Perry, he backs another long shot in Newt Gingrich. And in the end it all helps Mitt Romney.

Perry Going For The Anti-Catholic Vote?

2012-01-17T21:32:00.000-08:00

I have written many times that I do not get the Rick Perry candidacy for the Republican presidential nod.
I mean, he has been a great governor of Texas. Policies that he has enacted has led to the state being one of the few to add jobs in this Endless Recession.
But now I am finding out that I kind of sort of loathe Gov. Perry.
And if this from Brian Bolduc over at National Review is right, it appears that a desperate Rick Perry is denigrating former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
Oh, it is not a new one.
But and oldie yet moldie.
It appears that Gov. Perry not once but twice in a speech emphasized that Mr. Santorum was one of them there Cathyliks.
Amazing.
And I write that as a staunch Protestant Christian.
When I was baptised, it was in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. No allegiance to the Pope or the church of Rome. Sure, I do the sign of the cross. But as a Christian, affirming the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And in reciting the Nicene Creed, I will not say one pesky little word.
So, here is that part of the Creed:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Nope, won't say it. I just skip over it. And before you explain to me it is not in reference to the Roman Catholic Church, does not matter.
So, I am here to denounce Gov. Perry and his clear slander about Mr. Santorum and his being a faithful Christian. A Roman Catholic Christian.
Although I still try to be a good Episcopalian, some days by the skin of my teeth, in many ways am much more inclined to accept Catholic teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage and being freely able to practice one's faith. That does not mean I am thinking of switching Christian denominations. It is just my reality.
But what makes me like Mr. Santorum is that he freely speaks of the meaning of his faith in his life. And does not denigrate others as Gov. Perry seemingly, in code, has done.
I guess Gov. Perry figures "Hey, I'm gonna lose anyway! Why not go out in a blaze of glory?! Huyuck, yuck, yuck!!!"
Is this what the GOP nomination contest has lowered itself to? Worrying about whether another candidate is a Roman Catholic or not? Bashing Mormons?
I should hope not.
Right now, if I had to vote in South Carolina, I would vote for Mr. Santorum. I think that he is the real deal. But hey, I could change that. I don't need some hayseed Texas governor not wanting to deal with issues, but throwing out the code word.
C a t h o l i c.
Really? In 2012 America.
Let's hope that South Carolina proves Gov. Perry wrong and gives a big boost to the Santorum campaign by voting for him on Saturday. Not against the others.
And hopefully, vote for Mr. Santorum because you agree with him on the issues.
Oh and for Gov. Perry, I have one for you.
Psst.
You know who else in the race is one of them there Cathyliks?
His first name starts with an N and ends with a T.
Are you gonna remind voters that he is a good Catholic too as you misrepresent his record.
Just askin!

Yes, There Is The 8,319,012 Republican Debate Now

2012-01-16T18:05:00.000-08:00

No, I won't spend time now writing about it.
But if you wish to comment, please feel free.
Look at this as an open thread.
All I know is that one candidate needs to show up and win this debate.
That is Rick Santorum.

FINALLY! Huntsman, Jr. To Drop Out Of GOP Presidential Race

2012-01-15T20:40:00.000-08:00

As if New Hampshire did not tell him enough, maybe the fact that there is no way former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. could muster any votes anywhere makes this decision easy.
He is finally dropping out of the Republican nomination for president.
GOOD! It is about time.
After literally living in New Hampshire since he resigned as The Dear Leader, President Obama's ambassador to Red China, all he managed was about 15% of the vote and a very weak third place.
But for some reason, maybe he was delusional, Mr. Huntsman, Jr. saw that as a sign. That maybe, maybe those that voted for Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, excited about the recycled "Country First" slogan were gonna come out and push him to the top.
But, as the combined polling over at Real Clear Politics shows, uh, not so much. When you are fighting with the Texas governor, Rick Perry, for fourth place, that must have been the sign. The sign that South Carolina is not going to say "Country First".
For some inexplicable reason.
Stop right there.
There is an explanation.
The reason that Mr. Huntsman, Jr. never caught on with the Republican grass roots is because his brain trust, led by the worst campaign "strategist" in either party, John Weasel, er Weaver told him to ignore them. Appeal to the moderates and independents. That is the ticket. Oh, and totally ignore Iowa.
Here is a clue.
If you already write off states to maybe win the nomination, they might as well be written off in the general election as well.
So, why did Mr. Huntsman, Jr. allow his brain trust to do that to him? After all, this guy is really pretty conservative. I mean, sure he believes in Globaloney Warming. And yeah he is a little squishy about same-sex marriage. And he did serve as The Dear Leader, President Obama's ambassador to Red China.
But I do think that he could have overcome those obstacles had he made a serious effort to attract the conservative base.
Mr. Huntsman, Jr. did not make any serious effort with the Republican base. In fact, when one looks deep at the New Hampshire primary results, it appears much of Mr. Huntsman, Jr's. support came from Democrats and people that do not like the Tea Party as Ed Morrisey points out over at HotAir.
The lesson that people like Mr. Weasel, er Weaver and his bunch do not get and seemingly never will is this. A candidate, running for the Republican presidential nomination, needs to appeal to Republicans first and formost. And to really have a chance, he or she should appeal to the the majority of the party, which is now a conservative one. Like it or not.
It is almost kind of sad that his campaign is coming to an end. Because had he done things right, he might well have been the Republican front runner and not Mitt Romney.
Well, I wonder if Mr. Huntsman, Jr. will be gracious in bowing out or mad that we just did not see his political hotness? We shall see about 8 am Pacific Standard Time tomorrow.

Children Are NOT Animals

2012-01-15T10:28:00.000-08:00

I usually stay away from the these type of stories but what is amazing that the perpetrator of the following behavior is an M. D.
The background is this.
Mom has unruly child. Just learned to walk and is walking, no, running away from parents.
Mom's wonderful solution.
Put said child on a leash.
Yup, that is the startling confession of Claire McCarthy, M. frickin D.Unbelievable.
The essential confession of Dr. McCarthy is that she could not handle her daughter, Elsa, because she had two other children. And the poor doc was often left alone on weekends while the hubby worked.
Boo! Hoo!
Here is a thought.
If you know that this is going to be a problem, and you are a doctor and I think could fork out a little cash, would it not have been better to have Elsa stay home with a babysitter? Or the older children?
See, the leash on children is a lazy solution to a real problem. One that would take some extra time and patience.
But no, it appears that Doc. McCarthy had neither.
In a previous life, while going through college I worked at a department store no longer in existence. It was The Broadway and it eventually got bought out by Macy's. There were more than several occasions that I would see parents with children on a leash. Sometimes, I would not quietly utter to my fellow workers that I thought it was disgusting. The it dehumanizes the children. And also more than several times, it was whole families and all the kiddies were on a leash.
What really amazes me is that today, 2012, we talk about having off-leash parks for dogs. Yet this doctor justifies and asks for no judgement for putting a supposed unruly child on a leash.
No matter how one justifies it, it is wrong to put a child on a leash and parade said child around in public. As I wrote, it dehumanizes the child. It is something that we once did to fellow humans and it was called slavery. What makes this any more humane and or right?
Doc McCarthy thinks that it is wrong for me to judge her. No ma'am, it is not wrong. I read your article multiple times. And I still believe that it is always wrong to put a child on a leash. From what I get, it turned out to be a convenience for you. Not the child. Kind of like a pacifier. I get that. Though I do not like them either. It is not a form of dehumanization to put something in a child's mouth that may make them feel better. Often times, the child is crying due to teething.
Let me go back to the slavery analogy.
Why did the sellers put the slaves on leashes and worse, chains? Well for one, so that they would not get away. After all, they were someone's potential property.
What makes Doc McCarthy different from the slave owners?
I do not think all that much.
A more humane and loving solution would have been not to take her daughter in situations until she addressed the actual problem. Which is not so much a problem. It is natural for many children to explore. It is how parents deal with it that makes the difference.
And I think that Dr. McCarthy dealt with it totally wrong. And that it is immoral.
A leash on a child represents bad parenting and should be scorned. And one point Dr. McCarthy made is that many of those who would have been horrified to see a leashed child said nothing to her. I do not disagree. But what would have wanted them to say? "Hey, what the hell are you doing having this kid on a leash?" Or things much worse.
As a doctor, I think that she should know better. But this shows that for all the book learning, some people are not all that smart when it comes to showing a little common sense.
The point is do not treat children as animals. Do not put a leash on a child no matter what. It will be better for the child in the short run and you as a parent in the long run.

Will The Tebow Haters Celebrate Tonight?

2012-01-14T20:41:00.000-08:00

OK, everyone who hates Denver Bronco' quarterback Tim Tebow, now you can celebrate that he lost this playoff game to the New England Patriots, 45-10.
Is that what they should be doing?
Well, if you actually like the Pats and think that they are the better team, sure you should be happy and celebrate the victory.
But, if you are on the Pat bandwagon just to rub it in to Mr. Tebow and to mock his genuine faith, then there is something fundamentally wrong with you.
I can just hear that hate-filled Bill Maher make some kind of crass comment. You know that he has already as I noted here.And some players will mock Mr. Tebow for showing his thanks to God in the end zone after the Broncos score touchdowns. Yup! Damn that Tebowing.
No question in the quarterback battle.
The Patriots' Tom Brady had a better game. Tim Tebow did not have a good game. The box score is always the best indicator of the stats. And in this case, the stats don't lie.
But let me be clear.
Football is a team sport. Yes, the quarterback is the offensive leader. He is the one that makes the plays. But without a good supporting cast, no quarterback no matter how good he is, can do it all himself.
I hope that those that hate Mr. Tebow if nothing because of his honest Christian faith will look at themselves. Why would you hate someone like Mr. Tebow because of his faith? Does that not say something about you?
Tebow Haters, think about that.
Now, I can write that once again, the Pack is back and the Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl. After all, it is one of my predictions for this year!

The Duke On Liberals

2012-01-14T16:46:00.001-08:00

Whilst going around the internets, I found this over at The Other McCain.
It is comments made by the late, great John Wayne.
We do not know when this was done, but it is worth the under five minutes of your time.
The Duke speaks plainly about what liberalism hath wrought on the United States.
Warning.
It is defiantly not politically correct.
The Duke refers to Native Americans as, Indians.
The language is blunt, if not colorful.
The frightening aspect about this is that not much has changed. It may be that it has only gotten worse. And yet, if one speaks openly about this, one can now be rightfully worried about being tarred as anti-fill-in-the-blank lefty cause.
We need more plain speakers like John Wayne, not less. Enjoy watching the link.

HT: The Other McCain

This Is A Great Reason Conservatives (And Myself) Can Support Santorum

2012-01-12T20:52:00.000-08:00

A lot of us have decided to be undecided for the Republican presidential nominating process.
Last time around, I was all in for Mitt Romney. I was very disappointed that he did not fight all the way to the Twin Cities and fight to the bitter end against the eventual nominee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain.
But that was then.
Now, the fight is for what kind of Republican party we will be moving on to this election and the next several election cycles.
So, I have predicted several surges that occurred before votes were cast. One was the Gingrich Buzz. One non-surge was the Perry Fizzle.
But always in the back of my mind there was Rick Santorum.
I always though that he is one of the most forceful, articulate conservatives out there. One not afraid of taking to the left and the Democrats.
So, I ran across this piece by Lisa Schiffren at National Review Online's The Corner.
It articulates what I believe is what I like about Mr. Santorum.
That at his core, he says what he believes and will fight for them. That he understands the stakes and will be plain with us, and our enemies.
Born of immigrants, Mr. Santorum went through public schools. Went to Penn State University. And probably better than any of the other Republican presidential candidates understands what it may be like to balance that checkbook at the end of the month. To really get the aspirations of millions of Americans. That is what separates Mr. Santorum from someone like Mitt Romney.
Like Mrs. Schriffren, if Mr. Romney is the eventual Republican presidential nominee, I will walk through fire to vote for him.
But what bothers me is that I worry that Mr. Romney does not have the same fighter instinct that Mr. Santorum does. That maybe being governor in very liberal and very Democrat Massachusetts can make even the most conservative person feel drained.
Here is Mr. Santorum's plea from his successful 1994 senate run:

“Vote Santorum. Join the fight.”

Fight. It is always a fight with the left and the Democrats. And while like any other politician, he worked with the other side when he could, when he could not he went on offense. And sometimes, what he had to say was not popular. Even among Republicans and yes, some conservatives.
And Mrs. Schiffren makes this very important point about the last two Republican presidents, Bush and Bush:

On top of this key insight (the traditional nuclear family), which the last two GOP presidents chose to ignore because it sounds emotional, religious, and down-market.
In other words, don't let that aspect of the Culture Wars get in our way. We WASPys don't want to be bothered by such things.
But what made me sit up and say, Mr. Santorum is spot on is one of the recent Republican debates.
He gently scolded Mr. Romney for using the term "Middle class". What Mr. Santorum said, and I do not remember word for word, is that there are no classes in America. That there are people that are middle income. Lower income. Higher income. But no classes.
It is going to be important for the Republican nominee to articulate that salient point. Because Team Obama is going to hammer the theme "Middle class" until election day. Not like they have not the past three, mind-numbing years.
And in reality, like it or not, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is hardly the poor, Black kid that went all the way to the White House.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, has essentially never spent a day in public schools. He went from Indonesia to Hawai'i where he went the the most prestigious private prep school on the islands. Then to private Occidental College. Then to private Columbia University. Then to private Harvard Law School.
There is nothing wrong with that. But to imply that one is something that they are not, well that was the Big Lie of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Hopefully, the voters in South Carolina will give Mr. Santorum the ability to fight another day. To go to Florida and beyond.
And Mrs. Schiffren makes a great point.
Win or lose, Mr. Santorum would now have to be under serious consideration for the number two spot on the Republican ticket.
And that would be a great team. Romney/Santorum. The ultimate good cop/bad cop.
I like Rick Santorum and hope that he will continue in the GOP race because the last thing we need now is any kind of coronation of any candidate.
What we need is a fighter. And Mr. Santorum is a fighter!

So What About Those New Hampshire Primary Results?

2012-01-10T21:28:00.000-08:00

Well, the people of the Granite State, New Hampshire have spoken and for the Republicans, it was a good win for Mitt Romney.
As the results show, Mr. Romney won almost every county in the state. OK, there are only 10 counties. But winning nine out of 10 counties is rather amazing. And considering Mr. Romney did so only winning 39% of the statewide vote. The only county to fall out of the Romney victory is the northern county of Coos county which looks like it is going to go with, gulp, Crazy Uncle Ron Paul.
So what is behind the numbers?
Mr. Romney seems to have swept all the major categories. And that does bode well as he begins to take the campaign to the next state, South Carolina.
Crazy Uncle Ron Paul may have peaked by getting about 23% of the votes in this open primary. As the primary season continues, many of the states are closed but to Republicans. Thus, all the independents and Democrats that voted for Crazy Uncle Ron will find it harder to pump up his numbers.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. What is to say about this guy? He lives in this state for the election season, eschewing the Iowa caucus and comes up with. . .17% of the vote?! I mean, with the Boston Globe endorsement, doncha think he could have at least gotten, oh I don't know, at least 20% of the vote?!
So there is a battle for fourth place and that is between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
At this writing, both are coming in at about nine percent each. Mr. Gingrich is in fourth in five of the ten counties as is Mr. Santorum.
Now they are tied, but I think that Mr. Santorum is helped much more than Mr. Gingrich. If you look at the chart at the link, Mr. Santorum went from being on life support to almost 10% of the vote. Mr. Gingrich went from being second and seemingly a real threat to Mr. Romney to crashing trying to win double-digit numbers.
Rick Perry? Yup, he chose to make his stand in South Carolina and skipped New Hampshire.
Here is a clue.
Whenever a candidate does not make at least a token effort everywhere, that campaign is on life support. And Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich are there. On life support.
So, what should happen from here?
If he were smart, and I don't think he is, Mr. Perry would drop out and support Mr. Santorum.
Mr. Gingrich needs to look at the landscape and wonder, where can he make a stand. And it does not look good for him as South Carolina looks bleak and so does the next state, Florida. He may have to make a decision soon as well. And maybe before next week's primary in South Carolina.
Mr. Huntsman, Jr. should let his ego go and leave the race. Again, he will not because he thinks he is just, well so above it all. So cool.
That leaves Mr. Santorum.
And for me, this is where I believe the race comes down to.
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
The above mentioned are already also-rans.
Mr. Santorum must do a strong second place finish in South Carolina. And he will be up against Gov. Nikki Haley and possibly Sen. Jim DeMint. Sen. DeMint supported Mr. Romney in 2008. And while he is not formally endorsing anyone, I do not doubt that he does pretty much support Mr. Romney. But Mr. Santorum is tough, smart and gets that Mr. Romney is not the enemy.
If he remains competitive to the end, Mr. Romney could look to Mr. Santorum as his running mate. And I would love to see Mr. Santorum debate Vice-President Plugs, er Biden.
And this race for the Republican nomination may have gone into the race for second place, literally, in a quick couple of weeks.
That is what will be important about the New Hampshire Republican primary results for 2012.

A Correction

2012-01-10T12:53:00.000-08:00

In my previous post on predicting the outcome of the New Hampshire Republican primary, I listed the out come this way:

Mitt Romney: 45%
Rick Santorum: 24%
Jon Huntsman, Jr: 15%
Newt Gingrich: 9%
Rick Perry: 5%
The Rest: 2%

I did not realize that I meant to write another name at the five percent number.
So, it should read this way:

Mitt Romney: 45%
Rick Santorum: 24%
Jon Huntsman, Jr: 15%
Newt Gingrich: 9%
Ron Paul: 5%
The Rest: 2%

That is what I get for my strong displeasure at Ron Paul and my still wondering why Rick Perry is in the race at all!

Why Jon Huntsman, Jr. Is Nothing But A Tool

2012-01-09T22:45:00.000-08:00

You know that I loathe the former ambassador to Red China under the Dear Leader, President Obama, and current Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Mitt Romney made the case about the fundamental problem with Mr. Huntsman on Saturday night in the so-called debate on ABC.
Mr. Romney made the point that while he was working to elect Republicans to blunt the ill-effects of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his Democrats that controlled congress, Mr. Huntsman, Jr. was working for, well the Dear Leader, President Obama. Mr. Huntsman, Jr. had a weak response that he was putting his country first. He even used his two sons service in the navy to somehow justify his, well stupidity.
First, lets make something clear.
There is a difference when someone joins the armed forces of the United States. They are doing so to protect the United States. From all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are not political appointees.
Mr. Huntsman, Jr. was appointed by the Dear Leader, President Obama to be the ambassador to Red China. He had to be approved by the senate and was.
So there is a huge difference.
But here is something so, so John "F--- You" McCainish.
That Mr. Huntsman, Jr. is so much running against the Republican party that he is recycling the ever so-winning McCain slogan from the 2008 presidential campaign.
"Country First".
Really?
This is the best Team Huntsman can do?
Remember, a slew of McCainistas joined his campaign led by chief tool and dim bulb John Weaver. Mr. Weaver has tried to do two things. Help Democrats and his patron, Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Period.
Again, explain to us on the Republican side how this excites the base and gets people to vote for you? If there is not much difference between someone like Mr. Huntsman, Jr. and the Dear Leader, President Obama, will Republicans come out in masse to vote for a Jon Huntsman, Jr.?
I think not.
And it is true that Mr. Huntsman, Jr. is but one that can not be trusted.
Please, do not test our intelligence, Mr. Huntsman, Jr.
You claim to put "country first" and work for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Then suddenly, you resign and claim it had nothing to do with the worst kept secret. That you were going to run for president.
As noted in this post from Jim Geraghty at National Review's Campaign Spot, Mr. Huntsman, Jr's. official resignation took place on April 30, 2011. On May 3, 2011 Mr. Huntsman, Jr created a political action committee. The first step in declaring his candidacy for president.
What it reeks is that it shows a total lack of loyalty to the Dear Leader, President Obama. When has a presidential appointee from the other political party taken a job in an administration and in roughly two years resigned and decided to run for president?
Why should anyone be loyal to a, gulp, President Huntsman, Jr.?
See the fundamental problem.
I think that tomorrow night at this time, Mr. Huntsman, Jr. will have a disappointment. That will be the voters of New Hampshire saying thanks, but no thanks, to Jon Huntsman, Jr.
It will be great to see this tool slither off in the sunset!

So, Who Will Come In Second In New Hampshire?

2012-01-09T21:58:00.000-08:00

OK, I will make the bold prediction that Mitt Romney will win the New Hampshire Republican primary.
So the real question is two-fold.
First, how many votes will Mr. Romney get.
Second is who will finish second and will it be close or not.
Lets take what I believe will be the percentage of votes Mr. Romney gets. I think that Mr. Romney will get 45% of the vote.
The disappointment for Team Romney will be two-fold.
First, that they will not break 50%. It would mean that there would be a run away for Mr. Romney and no one would really be able to stop him.
Second it will boost whoever finishes second and the distance between those votes.
So, here is my fearless prediction on how the percentage of votes will breakdown tomorrow night.

Mitt Romney: 45%
Rick Santorum: 24%
Jon Huntsman, Jr: 15%
Newt Gingrich: 9%
Rick Perry: 5%
The Rest: 2%

Ah, see who finishes second?
OK, maybe if you look at the results from Dixville Notch, you might think that I am off on second place.
But hang with me on this.
Sure, Rick Santorum is taking the beating now that he had his strong finish in Iowa. It will not be enough to win in Mr. Romney's neighborhood. But it makes him one to beginning to be taken seriously.
And judging by the crowds Mr. Santorum has been drawing, it is safe to say that he will be in the top three no matter what.
The huge loser, as he has been this campaign is Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Sure, I believe that he will end up third, but all the time and effort that he put into New Hampshire will make him this political season's Rudy Giuliani. All the rage of the Washington Beltway and the elites but no traction in the mind of the electorate.
And Newt Gingrich will not fare well here either. But he was not supposed to either. My guess is that he is making his stand along with Rick Perry in South Carolina.
If Mr. Santorum does indeed finish second, and Mr. Romney does not break 50%, then by default he will be the one that conservative Republicans will begin to look to as the primary-no pun intended-opponent to Mr. Romney.
It should be a very interesting night tomorrow in New Hampshire.
And the race will continue no matter what.

Rick Santorum And Their Family New Fodder For Obamawhore Media

2012-01-05T20:45:00.000-08:00

Keep this in mind folks. That the same media that ignored then Sen. Messiah Barack and his sitting in the pews of an Afro-centered, racist church, seem to have problem attacking Rick Santorum and his family for the way they dealt with a family tragedy.
In 1996, Karen Santorum was pregnant and in the 20th week of pregnancy developed an infection. According to the link, it was a life-threatening infection to Mrs. Santorum. Already with name in mind, Mrs. Santorum had little Gabriel Santorum. But he only lived two hours out of the womb.
It was without a doubt a horrible tragedy for the family to endure.
But, it is their strong Roman Catholic faith that helped them endure. And it was doing something to remember that Gabriel was a human being, albeit but a brief moment in time. Rick and Karen did not just take Gabriel to the funeral home. They stayed with the lifeless baby all night and the next day they took the now lifeless body home so that their children would know that indeed, for a moment in time, they did have a brother. Here is an account that was published in The New York Times Magazine from a 2005 interview with then Sen. Santorum:

"Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them. The next day, they took him home. 'Your siblings could not have been more excited about you!' Karen writes in the book, which takes the form of letters to Gabriel, mostly while he is in utero. 'Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, "This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel."

For me I am moved to tears at the way that this family dealt with such a tragedy. That in fact and indeed, both Karen and Gabriel could have died. Yet it was the baby that died.
And this is noted in the book written by Mrs. Santorum Letters To Gabriel about her pregnancy and her maternal bond that should never be broken.
But, alas, in the scorched-earth policy of the fever swamps of the Obamawhore media, this is fair game.
In fact, to Alan Colmes, it is weird. Because they "took the baby home and played with it". Um, I do not think that any account says that mom, dad or the children "played" with the baby at all. They did bond with Gabriel and know in their minds and hearts that he was alive on this earth for a short time. But that he was a part of the family. It is worth watching both clips at the link to see the smugness and arrogance that Mr. Colmes shows in discussing the matter. And to see Mr. Santorum explain why they did what they did with Gabriel. Mr. Colmes had to later apologize to Mr. Santorum. As he should have done. He should have never brought this up as somehow a disqualifier to be president.
But I'll be damned if this is not getting further review from Obama Worshipping tool Eugene Robinson over at The Washington Post.
Mr. Robinson wades into the matter to discuss how "weird" it was for the Santorum's to deal with their loss the way that they did. Yet in the link to HotAir, Allahpundit gives us this advice from the American Pregnancy Association:

After the tests are completed, you will usually have the choice to spend time alone with your baby. You can find comfort in looking at, touching, and talking to your baby. Most parents find it helpful to make memories of this precious time that will last a lifetime…

With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby. Ask for a Child Life Specialist at the hospital; these are trained professionals who can help you prepare your children for the heartbreaking news, and prepare them to see the baby if you wish.

And in reading the actual website, it appears that this is a mainstream organization.
But I suppose not to Messrs Colmes and Robinson. No, lets see Mr. Robinson's words them self:

“That I think some Republicans are going to be off-put. Not everybody is going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child whose body they took home to kind of sleep with and introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”

First, Mr. Robinson gets his facts wrong. But no matter. It is to tell a narrative. That Family Santorum is a bit out there. You know, because they actually loved their child so much that they were willing to have the baby, even at all the risks it carried with it.
And really Mr. Robinson, do you not realize that Republicans would be at the very least sympathetic to the Santorum family? I guess you just do not know real Republicans outside the Salons of Georgetown.
So what do I think?
Well, I have to say that grief is a matter that is different to people. It all depends on the situation.
I reacted differently to my parents death.
In 1985 my father was diagnosed with lung cancer. Two-pack a day smoker of Chesterfield, unfiltered, cigarettes. Literally within six months to the day of diagnosis, my father died. My mother decided to have the body embalmed as it was decided that it would be an open-casket wake and funeral. Through my tears several times I touched my father's lifeless body. I spoke with him. He looked peaceful. So much better than in the hospital room less than two days before his death. It was a comfort.
On the other hand, when my mother died seven years later, it was rather a shock. She had heart bypass surgery and was recuperating at my brother's home near San Diego. Two weeks later she died. The last time that I saw her, her whole body was bruised and battered from the surgery. regrettably that is the last time I saw her. I did not want to see her in the funeral home. I just did not want to deal with the way she would look. We decided not to have any open casket and thus did not embalm her body.
But, by the time my mother died, I had become a Christian. And I had more of an understanding what death of this life meant.
But a baby, no matter how old it is, to die is the hardest thing. I do not know that I would not think the same as the Santorums. To let the other children know that the baby was alive. That they should see it. Touch it.
This is from one Tommy Christopher. It is overall a balanced piece and takes Messrs Colmes and Robinson to task for the way that they take advantage of a family tragedy and try to somehow make it a political issue.
The Obamawhore media sycophants are not going to leave anything unturned that might hurt their guy, the Dear Leader, President Obama. Anyone that maybe a threat will get unbelievable scrutiny. Yet their guy seems to skate on almost anything. And they will even take a tragedy and make it an issue. What disgusting people they are. But they are exposing themselves. And that is something in and of itself.

Would Meghan McCain Slash Her Wrists If I Endorsed Rick Santorum?!

2012-01-05T18:16:00.001-08:00

Oh Lordie, Lordie! The brain surgeon better known as the daughter of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, Meghan McCain, came up with this gem while discussing her daddie's endorsement of Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.
She said that if her daddy would have endorsed the former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, she would have slashed her wrists had he done that. If daddy would have endorsed "the moron", Mr. Santorum.
So, Meghan, if I endorse Rick Santorum, would you slash your wrists? Not on the table with Larry O'Donnell but anywhere, anytime?
See, too many people actually believe that Miss McCain represents Republicanism. And some even think that Miss McCain is a. . .wait for it. . .a a a. . .conservative.
Please stop laughing and read on.
Look, Sen. "F--- You" McCain was endorsed by Mr. Romney literally the minute that he dropped out of the 2008 presidential race. So to me it is no surprise that Sen. "F--- You" McCain is endorsing Mr. Romney.
But really, does anyone give a flying fig what this dilettante really thinks about anything?
Yet for some reason, I guess because her last name is McCain, the good folks at MSNBC think that she must be the best kind of a Republican.
That would be a loser.
Just like the old man.
But watch the link. See how Mr. O'Donnell is goading Miss McCain to taking the cheap shot that she did against Mr. Santorum.
Calling him a moron? Really? Is that the best that you can do Miss McCain?
So yeah, I will make the endorsement of Mr. Santorum if you slash your wrists.
And also, please shut your grill. Leave serious analysis to people that actually pay attention to politics.

Michele Bachmann Quitting GOP Prez Race

2012-01-04T08:23:00.000-08:00

According to this from CNN, Congressman Michele Bachmann is "suspending" her quest for the Republican presidential nomination.
As I pointed out here last night, she needs to focus on reelection to congress now that Iowa has spoken.
Congressman Bachmann has presented herself as a leading conservative and now she needs to get back in congress and continue that leadership.
More on this later.

Romney Wins Iowa Caucus By EIGHT Votes!

2012-01-03T23:38:00.000-08:00

In an amazing night in Iowa, it turns out that Mitt Romney DID defeat the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum by a total of E I G H T votes.
According to The Des Moines Register, Mr. Romney did pull off the victory in the end.
But it is a Pyrrhic victory and does show serious signs that Mr. Romney needs to do a lot better if he is not only to win the Republican nomination but defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama.
If one looks at this Iowa map, Mr. Romney won in Des Moines and surrounding areas. In the Western part of Iowa, another larger city win was in Woodbury county, home of Sioux City, Mr. Romney won there as well. Basically, Mr. Romney won in the larger cities and Mr. Santorum everywhere else.
While Mr. Romney did win, he can not and should not ignore Mr. Santorum. A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Santorum was wallowing in single-digits in most polls. It showed that his hard work, tenacity and retail politics ended up connecting well with many Iowa Republicans.
Now that votes have actually took place, it appears that Republicans are narrowing the field down. And not what many expected. No doubt that this report about Texas Gov. Rick Perry heading back to the home state to "reassess" his campaign. Re: its over. And while Congressman Michele Bachmann is putting on the game face and moving on, she has to decided whether or not she wants to return to congress or continue a quixotic campaign. Newt Gingrich may be able to get to South Carolina. But unless he shows decent in New Hampshire, it is hard to see where he is able to break through.
While Mr. Romney may have won a very razor-thin victory in Iowa, Mr. Santorum truly won by his second place finish. And Mr. Santorum may now be the one to keep Mr. Romney from a coronation for the Republican presidential nomination.

And The Santorum Surge Is A Tidal Wave!

2012-01-03T21:18:00.000-08:00

OK, who has told you folks not to count out Rick Santorum out of Iowa caucuses?
Well, one has been The Other McCain, but the other has been your humble blogger at this spot.
And it appears that Mr. Santorum, former senator and congressman is about to pull off the upset and win the Iowa Republican caucus.
At this writing with 97% of the precincts counted, Mr. Santorum is ahead of the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney by 44 votes.
Amazing.
But what this has done is throw the Republican race in a whole other direction.
So many people pinned their hopes on another governor from Texas, one Rick Perry, to be the one. Yet Gov. Perry is mired in fifth place with 10% of the caucus vote.
Others tried to pump up Herman Cain. But he fizzled and ended up dropping out.
And still others jumped on the Newt Gingrich train. But it kind of veers off the track and Mr. Gingrich is mired in fourth place at 13% of the caucus vote.
No one, but no one seemed to grasp that Mr. Santorum is a serious man and has serious ideas for the future of this nation.
Oh, the serious people kept bringing up that Mr. Santorum lost his senate reelection bid in 2006 by 16 points. And same serious people leave out that it was the year that the Democrats took back congress and made then Sen. Santorum enemy number one.
But what they fail to point out is that the guy has won statewide in Pennsylvania and in very Democrat leaning congressional districts.
No, Mr. Santorum trudges away unnoticed. Except by the people that count. The voters of Iowa.
And before one says that they really are not representative of the nation as a whole, sure they do.
And they have spoken. They have decided that Rick Santorum should live to fight another day.
And now on to New Hampshire!

The Rose Parade 2012 And The "Occupy" Vermin

2012-01-02T21:53:00.000-08:00

I made my annual trek to the Tournament of Roses Parade in my fair burg of Pasadena, California as usual this morning.
As usual, it was a great parade full of floats, marching bands and equestrian units.
Many photos were taken and I will share some later this week.
It is what makes my hometown a special place.
Sure, the Rose Parade, as it is known to all, started off as a scam. A good one, but to be blunt it was a way to showcase Pasadena as a place to come to live and set up business.
Started in 1890 by the elite Valley Hunt Club, as this link shows it was to showcase the fledgling city.
Nothing wrong with that.
In fact, it has been doing the same thing for over 123 years. And thousands if not millions come here between Christmas and New Years to share in the biggest camp out and party in the world.
So, why was it held today instead of New Years?
Can't do in on a Sunday. To be correct, the rule is "Never On A Sunday". The essential reason is that when the parade began, it was down Colorado Blvd and that is where most of the churches in town were. And that is sort of the case. But I think it is one of the quirks and traditions that make the Rose Parade a wondrous event.
But some people mightily tried to ruin it today.
Leave it to the Occupy Wall Street vermin movement.
Like the rats they are, they put such a fright into the leadership of the city and the Tournament of Roses board of directors that they were allowed to participate. And the very end of the parade. Behind the police and tow trucks that bring up the rear of the parade.
Judging by the coverage of two major local television outlets here and here, they did not have much of an impact.
But let me share my experience with some "Occupy" vermin I had at the parade today.
First, my quibble with the ABC report is that the "occupy" vermin claimed that they did not want to disrupt the parade.
Tell that to the revolutionary Chica gal, complete in black beret, trying to get the crowd into a chant. While the parade was still going on. And she did have a wireless microphone. So, don't cover-up the reality that the vermin, like the rats that they are, just scattered among the crowd.
At my location, they set up two long folding tables-a no-no that was overlooked by law enforcement. After the revolutionary chicha couldn't get the parade viewers riled up, the parade ended. And that is when it got interesting.
On the tables were copies of their four-page "Occupy" newspaper. And they were handling them out to those of us leaving out fun time. A seemingly nice enough older woman handed me a copy of the newspaper. I proceeded to tear it in pieces in her face. Then her response was "Please don't litter! I'll take it back!" And I did hand it back to her. I also said. "Good, you should throw away this trash!" and I went on my merry way.
Let me explain why this movement is at its core bad.
It is because it looks at the United States as so flawed that they can not make change within the system. They look at elections as zero-sum affairs. The reason that they refer to themselves as occupiers is that they are assaulting the very "establishment" that they hate.
Thus what is more establishment that to assault the Rose Parade? Sure they marched in the route after the actual parade. But they had a full contingent of fifth-columnists tucked in the crowd. Harassing people that just wanted to see a parade and have a good time.
Thus it is a big lie. The "occupy" movement is bent on fundamentally changing the United States further than any garden-variety liberal's dream.
But judging from the crowd I was with, while most did not take the action I did, most were non plussed by the "occupy" vermin.
And that is how it should be at an event that brings so much joy and happiness to millions of people in Pasadena and around the world. The Tournament of Roses Parade needs to be clear of politics and should have never given these "occupy" vermin any platform to air their grievances.

Yeah, It Is Countdown Time

2012-01-01T20:39:00.000-08:00

And no, it is not about Keith Overbite and his show on what is it again? Current TV?!
It is about the new widget on the sidebar.
It is the Obama Countdown Clock.
It will be there until 12:00 noon, January 20, 2013 when there will be the peaceful transfer of power. From the Dear Leader, President Obama to the Republican victor. Who ever he or she may be.
For you that love and worship the Dear Leader, President Obama, read it and weep.
For those of us that do not like his policies and want to see a real change, keep you eye on that. For that is what we are in this for. To end the Obamanation and restore representative republican democracy.
Enjoy the Countdown!

Is The Rose Parade And Rose Bowl Worth It? You Becha!

2012-01-01T18:28:00.000-08:00

Every New Years Eve and New Year's Day, those of us that live in Pasadena, California get to ask the same question.
Is it worth all the hassles having the Tournament of Roses Parade and the Rose Bowl football game?
I say it sure is worth it.
It causes a divide in the RVFTLC abode.
Mrs. RVFTLC gets very frustrated very easy for the day after Christmas, motor homes start coming from out of nowhere to park on the streets north and south of Colorado Blvd, Pasadena's main drag and the route of the parade. And trust me, many are elaborate homes on wheels. Hell, many have satellite dishes that seemingly pop out of nowhere. If the apocalypse does come, I should think if we are lucky enough to survive, I will want one of those that someone no longer needs.
I digressed.
Back to the point.
The traffic in and around the area known as Old Pasadena is essentially a nightmare for a week.
And it also depends on who is in the Rose Bowl football game. It is the Granddaddy of them all and a reason we will probably never see a true playoff in NCAA Division I football.
This year it is the Wisconsin Badgers and the Oregon Ducks. Go Badgers! Sorry, but Oregon has the ugliest uniforms ever to grace a team evah! And well, why should I care since UCLA is nowhere near this game.
Now today it is rather unusual.
Sure it is New Year's Day.
But there was no parade. No Rose Bowl game. What gives?
Well, it is an age-old aspect of the New Year's festivities in this fair burg.
Never On A Sunday.
It traces back to when all the churches in town were on Colorado Blvd. They did not and do not budge that church takes precedent over bacchanalia. And good for them. And good for the TOR for not caving to the whims of convention and letting the parade and football game take place today.
So, the campers and the like had to wait a day.
Campers?!
Yep, people come on New Year's Eve from all over and have the biggest, longest and just plain camp out and party. For while you may see in the rest of the world the nice people in the stands at the beginning of the parade, keep in mind the route is over five miles long. And there are not temporary grandstands all the way down Colorado Blvd. In fact, most parade watchers come and enjoy for free. And part of that is staking a claim to prime real estate, really a part of the sidewalk. And it must be after 12noon the day before.
Well, let me tell you that is not really enforced and it usually starts early in the AM that day before the parade.
Amazing but there and a lot of laws, rules and regulations as to how this all works every year for the past 123.
According to this article, this event brings in more than $180,000,000 dollars to the local economy.
So on that alone, I will say yes it is worth it.
What it is all about is a mix of Americana, a football game and a great party that people participate in. Usually with little if any problems.
And trust me, there are few problems.
The combined forces of the Pasadena police department, Los Angeles county sheriff deputies and California Highway Patrol make the event go off with little if any trouble.
So yeah, I will put up with the extra traffic for a week. And eventually, Mrs. RVFTLC succumbs and realizes it is a good thing for our city. Because seeing the parade live and the game near my abode is something that makes a mark on a town that for the rest of the year is pretty non-descript in the grand scheme of things.

Is George Will Kidding?

2012-01-01T10:16:00.000-08:00

You know that someone has been inside the Washington beltway too long when you get a column like this from George Will.Really?
We conservative Republicans should just aim for control of congress?
And yeah, so what that the United States is an exporter of petroleum?
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
The problem with Mr. Will is that if one party does control the executive and legislative branches, then similar policies will be voted on and implemented.
In this piece, Mr. Will essentially makes the case for divided government.
Yet some examples that Mr. Will does not point out is an under reported one.
The federal judiciary.
If we have, God forbid, another four years of the Dear Leader, President Obama and a Republican congress, will he suddenly appoint conservative Republicans to the benches? Not on your life, buddy. The Dear Leader, President Obama, will still appoint liberal judges. And they will demonize a Republican senate for either not voting for them or using time-honored senate procedures to block said nominations.
Really, we are talking the moderately, and I do mean moderately, conservative supreme court. Imagine that in divided government, Mr. Will. And to refresh your memory, it is a divided government that gave us, ta da! Anthony Kennedy.
And what about the slew of Executive Orders that this president would do to circumvent a Republican congress? And don't kid yourself. The Dear Leader, President Obama, is hellbent and determined to get his agenda through no matter what. And he will do anything to get there. So, divided government=Executive Orders.
Mr. Will ends his tome with some snark about the election not bringing some kind of apocalypse.
No, it won't usher in the apocalypse, but if we conservative Republicans do not win both the legislative and executive branches, policies will still emanate from the White House either way. And they can be good, conservative ones. Or bad, liberal ones.
But to dismiss a potential reelection by the Dear Leader, President Obama by a conservative no less shows that this one, George Will, has no idea about what is going on outside the Washington Beltway. After all, even though I got the link from The Boston Herald, he does write his column for the Washington Post.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2012!

2012-01-01T00:10:00.001-08:00

Here is the FPOTNEW-First post of the new year!
All I have to say is HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Here is to a great year for you and all. May you keep your resolutions. May you remember to be thankful for what you have. May you help those that are not as fortunate as you are.
And I need to remember the I in that as well!
So here is to great 2012!

Out With The Old Of 2011 And In With The New In 2012-And A Few Predictions Of Course!

2011-12-31T20:37:00.001-08:00

As I write this, it will probably be the last post of 2011.
In a way this has been a great year, personally.
Mrs. RVFTLC and I became home owners for the first time. We have fairly decent health and Scout, the 14 and a half year-old Wonder Dog is still with us.
But for the United States, it has been a year of barely keeping our heads above water. Domestically and internationally.
But not all was bad.
Of course the seminal international event of this soon to be gone year was a the take down and killing of Osama bin Laden. And yes, I give the credit for making the decision to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The domestic story continues to be the foundering economy. And the mixed results of the year in the stock market and continuous high unemployment make our situation tenuous at best.
But enough of that.
There is the serious business of making the all important predictions of the Year of Our Lord, 2011.
So with a little fanfare, here I go.

1) Rick Santorum will pull off the upset and win the Iowa caucus this Tuesday night. Ron Paul will come in second and Mitt Romney third.
2) Lets move on a week later and Mitt Romney will win the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich will take second and Rick Santorum third.
3) That leads to the big one. The Republican presidential nominee. It will be Mitt Romney. He will not choose a veep from any of those who ran against him. But he will choose a governor. Not who you are thinking. No, not New Jersey's Chris Christie but South Carolina's Nikki Haley. A solid bridge between the Tea Party folks and those that will find Mr. Romney a bit too moderate for their taste.
4) Romney/Haley will defeat Obama/Biden on November 6, 2012.
5) President-elect Romney will reward most of his rivals with positions if not cabinet posts.
6) The GOP will take the senate and keep the House of Representatives.
7) Americans will not go to the movies as much as this past year and it will be another decrease, second year in a row.
8) More famous people will come out as homosexuals and a lot will be some real surprises.
9) Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional by the United States supreme court.
10) The United States Postal Service will go belly-up and be reformed. The quasi-government enterprise will be officially returned to federal government control.
11) Gas prices will rise to $5 a gallon at some point in the upcoming year.
12) The so-called "Occupiers" will seriously wear out their welcome by disrupting the Rose Parade on January 2, 2012.
13) The following are sports predictions:
A) The Green Bay Packers will win their second Super Bowl in a row against the New England Patriots.
B) The Chicago Black Hawks will win the Stanley Cup this season.
C) The Boston Celtics will win the NBA Championship.
D) The Anaheim Angels* will win the World Series.
14) The world will not end on December 21, 2012. The 22nd, maybe! But not on the 21st!
15) A major city newspaper will fold and it will be in a city where there is only one newspaper to serve that city. It will not even be kept alive on the internet.
16) Conservative media will continue to grow. The Glen Beck experiment will be a success and cause others to contemplate leaving free broadcasting all together.

Of course there can be many others. If you have any, drop off a comment.
As this 2011 draws to a close, I am always grateful to those that drop by and read this blog. Many do not comment, but I know that it is read. It is why I keep at it.
Lets all make a difference in the new year. Lets commit to being a help to one another. And to restore those things that have been lost in our lives for whatever reason.
Most of all, from the RVFTLC family to yours. . .HAPPY NEW YEAR!

*This blog will NEVER refer to the Angels as the L-- A------- Angels of Anaheim. If you want to see that, go somewhere else!

Want Another Reason California Is So Screwed Up?

2011-12-29T21:35:00.000-08:00

Well, probably not. But I have to offer you the latest installment of the never-ending series on why the once Golden State is ready to go off the cliff.
Thanks to my pal An Unmarried Man, I was treated to this story that is, well bizarre seems to be too tame.
So, this dude Robert Edward De Shields, a frequent guest of the county and state prison system, committed an act that is beyond unthinkable.
Yes, Mr. De Shields committed the act of bestiality. He had sex with a dog. Not any kind of dog, mind you. But a puny chihuahua.
But hey, I guess when you are tweaking on crystal meth, a chihuahua looks like any other kind of hottie, right?
Yep, Mr. De Shields was high on meth and raped a chihuahua.
Needless to say, it was not his dog. Thank God. But horrified homeowners came home to find the tweaker, Mr. De Shields, holding the terrified dog. And after being examined by a vet, it was determined that the dog had severe injuries to his rectum and internal organs.
Now insert a big, fat eeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwww!
But wait! There is more!
Rightfully, Mr. De Shields was convicted of a crime.
But not just any crime.
Mr. De Shields was convicted of sexual assault of an animal. And he must register as a sex offender. And because of that, Mr. De Shields will have to serve time in state prison.
Ten years is the sentence.
Now because of the budget crisis that has made county jails extensions of state prisons, supposed low-level criminals are being sent to the jails to make room for, well the likes of Mr. De Shields.
But here is the thing.
Is it not a more severe sentence than if he had committed a similar act against a human?
And is this not elevating the rape of a dog, gross as it is, over the rape of a human?
Bingo on both counts!
The question is why in the hell was Mr. De Shields allowed to roam among the citizenry? Should he have not been in jail and or a mental institution?
Of course he should have been in one or the other. The dude has been in and out of prison since 1992. What is more amazing is that Mr. De Shields is wheelchair bound and yet raped a puppy.
Leave it to the London Daily Mail to delve a little deeper into this tale. As the report pointed out, the basis for seeking such a sentence is Jessica's Law. And it is the first time it has been applied to the rape of an animal.
But since the dude was high on meth, did he really know what the hell he was doing?
No. Being convicted of animal abuse under the basis of Jessica's Law is going way too far.
Yes, Mr. De Shields should be somewhere away from civilized society. But this is not the way to do it.
This puts the puppy at an equal level as human. It is the extension of the animal "rights" movement writ large.
As I have written many times, I am an animal lover. I do not like to see animal abuse. I do believe in animal welfare. That animals, even those bred for food, should be treated well. But animals are not human. They have some human characteristics, but they do not have the cognitive use of reason we do. Thus they do not and can not have "rights".
It is why there are laws against having sex with animals. Because we, the human, even under the influence of meth, have the ability to reason that it is not right nor natural to do such a thing.
But treating it at the same level in a court of law, well this is wrong.
While many real criminals will serve minimal time because of state prison overcrowding, a sledge hammer was taken in this case because there seemed to be no other way to get this degenerate, De Shields, off the streets.
Two lessons should be learned here.
One, druggies like Mr. De Shields are not going to be helped. They need to be institutionalized. Yes, I want my tax dollars to go to building more to get people off the streets and the proper help that they need.
And second, animal abuse can not and should not be equalized in any way with human abuse. It debases the humans and elevates animals.
Now I wonder if California will learn any of these lessons? Or will we just continue out descent unabated?

HT: An Unmarried Man, aka David Quintero

Santorum Still Rising

2011-12-29T20:57:00.000-08:00

Well, if we out here thought that the Rick Santorum surge was a flash, it is one at the right time as another poll shows the former Pennsylvania senator at third place and rising.
Yesterday was the CNN/Time poll showing Mr. Santorum in third place at 16%. Today it is Rasmussen Reports also showing Mr. Santorum at third and 16%. And when you look at the Real Clear Politics polling average, guess who is in fourth and marginally trailing the former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich? Yep, it is Rick Santorum.
As I will continue to write, I am not making any endorsement of any kind.
But I caught the Gingrich Buzz before most of the experts. And same with the Santorum Surge.
The so-called political pros, pundits and analysts are getting a lot of this wrong.
All this "anti-Romney" talk is misplaced.
It is people looking for the most electable conservative. And that is why everyone is getting a look. To see if they are. Mitt Romney has the numbers that he has because he is the only candidate from 2008. People in Iowa know who he is. And believe me, if he showed the fire that he needs to, he would be leading a lot more in Iowa.
But Rick Santorum is peaking at the right time. A time that should gain him some GOP convention delegates. A time that voters in New Hampshire may take a real look and turn to him as the most electable conservative.
If Mr. Santorum continues to do well, he may do one of two things.
One, he could be the candidate to be the one that some GOP voters will rally to after all others collapse. It will happen. It could be Santorum vs. Romney down to the wire next summer in Tampa at the Republican convention.
Second, he maybe the one that a possible Romney nominee will pick to be vice-president. Think about it. If in the end it is Mr. Romney as the GOP nominee, he will need to do two things. Shore up support among So Cons. And have someone with Washington experience. And Mr. Santorum would fit both nicely. Oh, a third thing would be appealing to blue-collar Roman Catholics as Mr. Santorum also fits that bill.
Whatever the long term holds, there is no doubt that the Santorum Surge is real and should have other candidates very worried.

And The Santorum Surge Continues!

2011-12-28T22:56:00.001-08:00

According to this CNN poll, it looks like potential Iowa Republican caucus goers are taking another look at the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum.
Not only is Mr. Santorum in double digit territory at 16%, but has shot up to third place. And in the Real Clear Politics polling averages, Mr. Santorum is now in fifth place ahead of Congressman Michele Bachmann and gaining fast on the Texas governor Rick Perry.
Again, I am not on anyone's bandwagon. I just think that Iowa's voters have been kicking the tires and looking under the hood. And Mr. Santorum is peaking at the best time.
Can Mr. Santorum win in Iowa? I think now that is a better than 50/50 proposition.
Stay tuned for this race is going down to the wire.

Can Santorum Go Up The Middle For An Upset?

2011-12-27T22:54:00.000-08:00

As Newt Gingrich slams Crazy Uncle Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, Crazy Uncle Ron slams Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney slamming both, is there someone that can rise above it all and win the Iowa caucus scheduled for next Tuesday?
That is the question posed by National Review's Rich Lowry.
However, Mr. Lowry does not provide an answer.
So, I will.
And I think that this could be the opening one Rick Santorum may be looking for to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucus.
Yeah, Mr. Santorum is not burning up the poll numbers according to the Real Clear Politics averages. But if you look at the graph closely, Mr. Santorum's numbers are moving up. The closest to him would be Congressman Michele Bachmann at nine percent and going down. Then there is Texas governor Rick Perry at a flat-line 12%.
When you consider that there are six announced candidates and one, Jon Huntsman, Jr. is all but writing off the Hawkeye State, It can take as little as 25% to win the caucus.
And when you think about the fact that Mr. Santorum's numbers are going up and he is the only candidate to visit all 99 Iowa counties, there is something potentially going on.
And again, if caucus goers don't like what they see as The Three Stooges in Messrs. Gingrich, Paul and Romney, many may take that second look at someone like Mr. Santorum.
John McCormick at The Weekly Standard does a great job explaining why Mr. Santorum could pull off a win in Iowa. And radio talker Hugh Hewitt, a known Romney supporter in 2008 and leaning his way now is fair. He is pointing out how the Leftywhore media is writing about Mr. Santorum as they write about Mr. Romney. All negative, all the time.
But I want to respond to this Mr. McCormick wrote in the negative about Mr. Santorum and the Leftywhore media GOP establishment Axis:

There are reasons why pundits say Santorum can’t win. One is that he’s washed up—having lost his Senate seat by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr. in 2006. Santorum counters that he won two of his three statewide races as a conservative running in Democratic Pennsylvania—first in the 1994 Republican revolution and again in 2000, when he won by 6 points while George W. Bush was losing the state by 5 points.

UGH! So what that Mr. Santorum lost his senate reelection bid in 2006. By 18 fricking points. The 2006 election was a Democrat massacre against the Republicans. And one of the scalps big on the Democrat mantle was a Pennsylvania senator named Santorum. Funny how the same Axis of Evil never went after some dolt named Lincoln Chafee. He ran as a Republican the same year for the Rhode Island senate seat. And he lost. In 2010, he ran as an independent for the governor's office in Rhode Island. And won. Even Ronald Reagan lost a couple of runs at the presidency.
And that somehow, Mr. Santroum is overly polarizing. Really? More than Mr. Polarizing himself, the Dear Leader, President Obama? Because Mr. Santorum actually believes what he says? As long as he can articulate it and back it up, he will not have a problem in any way.
The problem for Mr. Santorum is that he may not have peaked right to make a difference in Iowa. That is a real concern for Team Santorum.
But maybe all the fighting at the top of the field is the opening that Mr. Santorum needs to pull of the Iowa Upset.

Tebow Hating Sinks To A New Low

2011-12-27T20:31:00.000-08:00

I know that you will be shocked to know that one no-so funny man Bill Maher tweeted a very nasty comment about Denver Bronco starting quarterback Tim Tebow over the past weekend.
Mr. Maher's tweet was in reaction to the Broncos being blown out by the Buffalo Bills this past weekend by a score of 40-14.
Warning, this tweet will be repeated verbatim. No d---es.
And here it is:

"Wow! Jesus just fucked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”

So nice! So, what is the word. Eloquent. If you happen to be at a bar and drunk off your rear end.
But what can one expect from this douchebrain.
Yeah, thats right!
Bill Maher is a douchebrain!
To unpack this, think about the way Mr. Maher describes Jesus Christ. As some homosexual getting off on seeing a bad game performed by Mr. Tebow. Really?
And to add more insult, the outward implication is that Jesus does not care about Mr. Tebow because this football game was played on Christmas Eve. Oh, yeah, "X-mas" Eve. X-Men, X-mas, yeah, whatever. But the vowed atheist Mr. Maher somehow brings in Hell, Satan and Adolf Hitler having a grand ol' time at Mr. Tebow's expense.
OK, let me point this out.
Some people think that athletes who are Christan believers think that God is actually involved in game outcomes.
No, God does not care about the outcome of any given sporting event. I believe that what God does care about is how said athlete played the game, or whatever it is. That the athlete gave it his or her all. And that he or she did not play dirty or cheap.
So, get that concept out of your mind.
In regards to Mr. Tebow, guess what folks? Psst! Tim Tebow is. . .human! Thus he is bound by the same things as the rest of us. And that includes having a really lousy game.
But Mr. Tebow, unlike Mr. Maher, showed a lot of class in his tweet about the game:

"Tough game today but what's most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB2."

And "GB2" is for "God Bless and Go Broncos.
And Mr. Tebow has the priorities right. It was a tough game for him. He was intercepted four times. And he just had a bad day. But it was Christmas Eve and his mind was on the meaning of the day. To celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It was not cursing God for his bad day. Or that the Broncos lost.
But it is the visceral hate that is being exhibited by the Tebow Haters.
Might I suggest that Mr. Maher would never had tweeted this if Mr. Tim Tebow was Abdul Mohammad Tebow:

“Wow, Mohammad just f**ked #AbdulMohammadTebow bad! And during Ramadan! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.”

No, I do not think that the chicken that Mr. Maher is would have gone off on that version of Mr. Tebow.
But it is very easy to write such things about someone like Mr. Tebow. And he did what anyone should do. Ignore the little man. He has more important things to do.
So it is for people like me to point out the hypocrisy of someone like Mr. Maher. His real animus is against Christians. Sure, he has made a comment here and there about Islam. But really, knowing anything about Mr. Maher, do you really think that the example I presented above would have been done? Tolerated? No. But when it comes to Christians, the crickets are chirping.
While Mr. Tebow seems to have driven a lot of people crazy with his praying after touchdowns-Tebowing-this tweet of Mr. Maher shows a new low in the Tebow Hate.

More Dirt On Crazy Uncle Ron Paul

2011-12-26T23:35:00.000-08:00

As much as I do not want to, I have to share this from a former Crazy Uncle Ron Paul aide.Now, I do not want to psychoanalyze this too much.
But this is not some low-level flunky but Eric Dondero and he writes how close he was on the post heading.
But a couple of take aways.
One, Crazy Uncle Ron talks a great game about wanting to "leave people alone". And that is all well and good.
And maybe he does not publicly have a problem with homosexuals. But in several instances, well he is not all that comfortable being around them.
And, here is a big shock.
Crazy Uncle Ron not only does not support Israel, but hates the very existence of the State of Israel.
But, he has no problem with the Joos, per se.
Kind of like he has no problem with homosexuals. So long as he does not have to be around them. Maybe the same is how he feels about. . .the Joos!
What this shows is that if this is the leader of Libertarian thought in the United States, they need a new leader.
More will come from this, I am certain.

A Lot Of Christmas Cheer

2011-12-25T12:49:00.000-08:00

Today is Christmas Day. It is a day to share in the birth of Jesus Christ. While of course the Holy Bible does not designate today the day of His birth, thanks to those Christians that came before us, we celebrate it today.
In the spirit of Christmas, I thought that I would share a couple of stories, and the best explanation of Christmas I know.
First, this Christmas season showed some people were extremely generous and helping those less fortunate.
Several department stores have layaway programs. Essentially, for a processing fee and weekly payments, you can shop for items, make the payments and pickup when the payments are completed. Three major retailers have been doing this and they are K-Mart, Sears and WalMart.
Keep in mind that people who use layaway programs are not exactly well-off financially. Usually these are people that live paycheck to paycheck. If they are lucky.
There have been many stories of so-called Layaway Angels this Christmas season. They are people that go into a store and payoff one or two people's layaways. And that happened locally at a K-Mart in West Covina, California. In the linked article, a couple were just going to pay up to $150. But the husband said what ever $500 will pay off.
Amazing.
And in the article, someone paid off over 175 layaways at a Washington, D. C. K-Mart. And that totalled over $20,000.
In this day of serious economic hardship, it is wonderful to see so many people willing to do this act of kindness for so many who can not do for themselves.
Another bit of great news is to find out that many Islamic people in the So Cal area are not turned off by Christmas. In fact, many actually celebrate it in their own way.
According to this article, for many local Islamics, it is a way to assimilate with their neighbors. And they do not see having a Christmas tree as somehow debasing their religion.
In fact, in the Traband household, the family has a Christmas tree. Puts out treats for Santa. And treats for the family dog.
But they do not put any decidedly Christian ornaments on their tree.
And the mother, Sahira Traband, has what I believe is the right perspective for those who are not Christian yet partake in the holiday:

"The magic of Christmas is the part we celebrate."

Spot on, Sahira.
One does not have to be a Christian to get the message of the holiday as it has evolved. Especially in the United States.
People like this I think get it. While too many people have a bug about Christmas, I think that they should just go with it rather that fight something that can mean many things to different people.
And that leads me to this.
To me, this is the best explanation of the meaning of Christmas.
It is Linus Van Pelt giving the Gospel of Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. It is from the 1965 Christmas classic "A Charlie Brown Christmas".
Every year I watch it twice if I can. I often tell Mrs. RVFTLC that this special could never be made for television today. for it delivers the decidedly Christian message in the middle of the show.
Amazing.
But that is what Christmas should be all about. And for me is all about.
From the Right View From The Left Coast family, Mrs. RVFTLC and Scout the Wonder Dog, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!

Another Obligartory Yes, Christians CAN Vote For Non-Christians Post

2011-12-22T13:00:00.000-08:00

Sigh! And a double face-palm.
Once again, a crazy Christian pastor is telling his flock, and by extension, anyone who is a Christian, that no, we can not vote for Mitt Romney for president.
I think that you know why. But I am obliged to delve into this once again.
Because Mr. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You know. The eeeeevvvvviiilllll Mormons.
The pastor in question is one Steven Andrew of a group called USA Christian ministries. And according to this article on The Blaze, Pastor Andrew is mad that Pastor Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said in a interview that it is OK for Evangelical Christians to vote for a Mormon for president. Or for any office for that matter.
Well, Pastor Andrew believes it is a sin to vote for a non-Christian for office. So much so that he wants Pastor Graham to "repent".
Really?!
Because a true Christian can not vote for someone like Mitt Romney and or Jon Huntsman, Jr. No, no, no. And if one is a Buddhist, the aforementioned Mormon or Islamic, forget it. Can't vote for them. The exact quote from Pastor Andrew is this:

Consequences of Voting for Ungodly People
Voting for non-Christians (Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists and others), or people who just say they are Christians but don’t rule in the fear God, results in God’s Judgment.

I am going to bet that Pastor Andrew did not quite want to come out and say this one particular group. But I am certain in another time, this would top the others.
The. . .Joos!
OK, I consider myself a Christian. Sure, I belong to the Episcopal Church. And yeah, they need a lot of prayer. But I have voted for people that were probably not Christians.
And you know what?
I forgot another group that Pastor Andrew would have mentioned in another time or place.
The Roman Catholics.
Many people who call themselves Christians do not think that RCs are really Christians.
See, I vote for a candidate that is closest to my conservative policies. If that person is not a Christian, but is a conservative, I do not have a problem. Because we will agree on issues probably more than 90% of the time. Maybe on religion we would not. But, especially for president, I am voting for the person that can lead the United States. I am not voting for the Christian Theologian in Chief.
Sure, I want more people of faith to be involved in politics. And that maybe a non-Christian that I will possibly vote for.
So, regular readers may note that in 2008, I was all in for Mitt Romney for president. And the Mormon thing, really does not bother me. Because in a strange way, on some of the so-called social issues, my thinking is more in line with Mormons than my own Episcopal Church. And if Nr. Romney is the Republican presidential nominee, I will be for him with no doubts. Mormon and all.
We are a Christian nation in regards to the majority religion. The founders were aware of that heritage. But they were aware of the co-mingling of church and state. They did not want one religion, more precisely one form of Christianity to be the religion of the whole nation. And so far for well over 230 years.
Again, I want to assure wavering Christians that should Mr. Romney or Mr.Huntsman, Jr. become president this.
Don't look for a mass of Mormon missionaries on bikes swarming the United States direct from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And no, the capital will not be moved to Salt Lake City. And no, the SLC Mormon Temple will not become the new capitol building.
The business of the United States will go on. As it has for over 230 years.
So my fellow Christians, please do not pay attention to Pastor Andrew. And pay attention to Pastor Graham. For I leave you with this straight from the words of Pastor Graham:

“I think when we’re voting for president we need to get the person who is absolutely the most qualified. You can have the nicest guy and he can be a Christian and just wonderful but have absolutely no clue as to how to run a country.”

Well, Well, Well. . .Here Is The Beginning Of The Santorum Surge

2011-12-21T23:18:00.000-08:00

Ok, you may look at this and shrug your shoulders. You may even say, "Huh?" Fine.
But looking at this poll from Rassmussen, courtesy of The Corner at National Review Online shows, surprise, surprise!
The former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum gains four percentage points moving into double-digits for the first time. And he is tied with Texas governor, Rick Perry, for fourth place.
In looking at the graph at the link, it is important to note that he has the largest gain of any candidate. In fact, Gov. Perry is a flat-line 10%. And Congressman Michele Bachmann has lost three percent.
Do you think that some of that is Mrs. Bachmann's supporters feeling she may not have it for the long run campaign? Possibly some Herman Cain supporters finding their new home?
Keep all this in mind.
Mr. Santorum has already toured all 99 of Iowa's counties at least once. Congressman Bachmann is just making that run now. Gov. Perry and the actual front runners are depending a lot on media and not as much on the kind of campaigning that can and does win in Iowa.
And guess what?
This movement can put Mr. Santorum in one of the top three slots. Maybe not a win, but a strong showing that can gain some traction going into New Hampshire.
I have suggested that Mr. Santorum was being sold short by, well almost everyone. And now people are getting serious about who they are looking at for caucus night, January 3, 2012.
I think that the caucus results are looking to be a very interesting result.
And the Santorum Surge is coming just at the right time.

Does Crazy Uncle Ron Paul Support Traitors?

2011-12-20T21:18:00.000-08:00

Well, of course Republican presidential candidate Crazy Uncle Ron Paul supports an alleged traitor in the person of one Bradley Manning.
Mr. Manning is the linchpin of the WikiLeaks saga that made Julian Assange a hero of the left.
But Mr. Manning handed classified information that only emboldened our enemies. All in the name of the armed forces policy of dealing with homosexual soldiers known as "Don't ask, don't tell".
Yet in the eyes of Crazy Uncle Ron, this makes Mr. Manning a "patriot" and a "hero" rather than the traitor and snake that he is.
That is what is reported in Accuracy In Media in this story.
If so, this should end the Crazy Uncle Ron presidential candidacy.
It will not, but it should.
I get it.
Crazy Uncle Ron is so against the War Against Islamofacsist Terror that he would support an unbalanced, troubled man, Manning, over his own national security.
While Crazy Uncle Ron is accusing fellow Republican presidential candidate and Congressman Michele Bachmann of "hating" Islamics, why is there any media coverage about Crazy Uncle Ron and his anti-Black and clear anti-Semitic writings?
Oh, well he tries the defense that he did not write clearly racist articles. Yet they were under his moniker "Ron Paul Political Report" or "Ron Paul Survival Report".
But hey, I have one for you.
This is my blog. I am responsible for everything that I write here. I write and edit the whole thing. And I have been around a newsroom and the production end. And an editor is responsible for his or his section and or page. And they read what goes in.
But this is a digression from the dangerous point.
That Crazy Uncle Ron sees Mr. Manning as little more than a garden variety whistleblower.
Even the Obama administration does not see him in such a heroic light.
For a major party candidate to support the criminal activities that will put our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at greater risk is the defination of insanity.
I have never thought much of this ol' codger. And now, his open support of a traitor as Bradley Manning makes me think even less of Crazy Uncle Ron Paul.

Are We Going To See The Santorum Surge?

2011-12-20T20:37:00.000-08:00

Well, this dovetails nicely in this post your humble blogger wrote recently about Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
Now that the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is peaking and possibly faltering, it appears that Mr. Santorum is getting the kind of backing that Iowa GOPers will want to see when they go to caucus two weeks from today.
And the Iowa GOP is not much different than many state parties. More moderate in the cities and suburbs and more conservative in the small towns and the rural areas.
And Western Iowa GOPers may take the endorsement from Family Leader CEO Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley to be what sways them in the caucuses. Western Iowa GOPers are much more conservative.
While Mr. Santorum seems to languish in poll after poll, I would not be surprised to see him get the third place or higher that I believe he will get when all is said and done.
Say what you want but with Mr. Santorum, what you see is what you get. And he is not shy about his social conservatism.
It will do him well in a state like Iowa. But I think it hurts in New Hampshire. So he would get a let down there. But has a real chance in South Carolina and even Florida.
What Mr. Santorum needs to do to gain traction beyond Iowa is to promote his overall conservatism. He needs to play up his economic and national security cred. He does have that as a member of congress and a senator.
A stong surge in Iowa has to force Mr. Santorum to broaden his candidacy. Because if he does finish strong, so cons are going to start to feel confident that he is their guy. They will be inclined to openly support Mr. Santorum. But he needs to address such foreign policy questions as this.
How would a President Santorum deal with the change in leadership in Red Korea? Now that the original Dear Leader is burning in hell, what will he do that contrasts him with our Dear Leader, President Obama. It is of great importance to know that from Mr. Santorum.
Or how would a President Santorum approach long-term tax reform? Would he support a flat tax? A national sales tax? A 9-9-9-like plan? How he answers that will determine if he can appeal beyond his base of so cons.
But, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average of potential Iowa caucus-goers, Mr. Santorum is at 6.3%. But unlike other flash-in-the-pans like the Texas governor, Rick Perry, or congressman Michele Bachmann, Mr. Santorum may be peaking at the right time. Also, as I noted, Mr. Santorum has campaigned in all of Iowa's 99 counties. In a state like Iowa, that can only help.
Come back in a week to see if indeed there is the Santorum Surge. I think we will all be surprised.

The Original Dear Leader Dies

2011-12-18T20:03:00.000-08:00

According to Red Korean state television, the original Dear Leader, Kim Jung Il has gone to the gates of Hell and left this world at the age of 69.
Kim, the hereditary heir to the Communist throne of North Korea, had a history of diabetes and heart disease. And liked to live the good life of booze, broads and food.
This was done while his people suffer with little to eat, barely subsistence living and one of the poorest nation's in the world.
But this is par for the course of how the communist world has operated throughout the 20th century. Talking a great game about the "people", the "workers", the "children". And yet enslaving them to a death sentence of fear and trepidation rather than the liberation communism promised.
The next heir apparent is, surprise, another son. No, not a Son of a Bitch, but a son of the Dear Leader. That would be Kim Jung Un.
Do you not find it odd that a vowed communist state would keep power in the hands of one family? As if it was some kind of monarchy. Well, I guess that the cult of personality is what counts in commieland, right?
And if one thinks that the economic basket case that is North Korea is simply a figment of our imagination in the West, look at this Wikipedia entry and the photo to the right. The dark area at night is North Korea. To the north is Red China. To the south is the highly prosperous South Korea.
The reality is that until one of the Kim's open up North Korea to outside investment and thus capitalism, it will continue to be a harsh place to live on this earth.
However, one of the causes of that misery, Kim Jong Il is in his just rewards now.

One Conservative's Case For Romney

2011-12-18T18:02:00.000-08:00

Much ado has been made about a recent editorial in National Review that essentially says nominating someone like a Newt Gingrich would be a disaster. Said editorial says that there are only three serious candidates. One is former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. One is the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. And the last and disqualifying one to me is the former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr.
That last one to me makes the otherwise thoughtful editorial a joke. Again, anyone that believes in Globaloney Warming, and Mr. Huntsman, Jr. does, can never be seriously considered for the Republican nomination for Dog Catcher.
So, I read a good piece by another National Review writer, Rameseh Ponnuru, and strong conservative case for Mitt Romney to be the Republican presidential nominee.
Before I continue, this is not any endorsement of Mr. Romney. I think if Republicans do nominate him, he will be an excellent antidote to the poison that is the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the left in general.
Mr. Ponnuru makes a very good point. That while Mr. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, while probably too conservative for many, he was to the left of the national Republican party. And he has moved right since then. But here is the more important point made by Mr. Ponnuru:

It’s true that Romney took a sharp right turn when he moved from state to national politics. But it’s also true that in 2008 he was the candidate behind whom Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among other conservative notables, said that the conservative movement should rally in order to stop John McCain from getting the nomination. He has not moved left since that time. His positions on policy questions are almost all the same as they were then. On a few issues he has moved right: He now favors a market-oriented reform to Medicare, for example.

If Romney was to McCain’s right then, he is still. He’s to George W. Bush’s right, too. Bush never came out for the Medicare reform Romney has endorsed. Bush never said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, either. Romney has. Romney’s long list of policy advisers includes people who are, within their fields, roughly in sync with the politics of the Bush administration or to its right; almost nobody is significantly to its left.

What Mr. Ponnuru points out is that in many ways, George W. Bush was not all that conservative. I will point out the whole No Child Left Behind scam. It was the federal government overreaching in nationalizing primary school education. Not a good thing whatsoever. There are others, as Mr. Ponnuru points out. But on many very important issues to conservatives, Mr. Romney is to the right of Mr. Bush and one Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. That is reassuring to me.
And Mr. Ponnuru makes a good point that the congress a potential President Romney will be dealing with will be a Republican one. A conservative Republican one. One that will send legislation overturning Obamacare. To cut and or reform taxes. To reform entitlements. These are things that a Republican governor in Massachusetts can not do on a good day. Yet at the national level with the Republicans in control of the legislative and executive branch, these things can and would be done.
Lets face it about this whole campaign.
Conservatives want to be able to actually govern as conservatives.
While the Republican party did control congress and the presidency much of 2001-2007, it was not a conservative one. It was one that gave a moderate president like George W. Bush way too much leeway on issues that it should have never let get out of the station. This congress and the next one will be decidedly conservative. It will set the agenda. Not the Republican White House. That will be a serious shift.
But Mr. Ponnuru does offer a rightful caution.
While I and many others believe that anyone can defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, it is not a given. One should not write him off.
I agree with that assessment.
And Mr. Ponnuru makes the obvious point. That the whole caucus/primary campaign season is to air all this out.
But once it ends, we conservatives unite behind the Republican presidential nominee. Because he, or she, will need all the stops to be pulled out to defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats any and everywhere throughout the United States.
It begins by having this campaign within the Republican party. It will end, God willing, with a new Republican president. And that may just very well be Mitt Romney.

Wanna Know Why Some People Hate Tim Tebow? Because He Was Not Aborted

2011-12-17T17:33:00.000-08:00

Denver Bronco starting quarterback Tim Tebow sure knows how to get under quite a lot of people's skin.
I mean, I don't hate the dude other than the fact he is the starting QB on Satan's team itself, the Broncos.
A digression for the pro football fans.
During the 80s, when my beloved Cleveland Browns were a really good team and on the thrust of a Super Bowl appearance not once, but twice, a certain guy stopped that dream. That guy is Mr. Ed himself, John Elway. He broke many a Browns fan's hearts twice preventing us from at least one Super Bowl appearance.
Hence, the Denver Broncos are Satan's team to every Browns fan!
But there is a real hate on for Mr. Tebow.
Well, one reason and what seems to be a starting point is that he is a. . .Christian. One that is not afraid to speak about it. And not afraid to show his thanks to God for his talent of being a professional football quarterback. The term for his showing thanks to God is now called Tebowing.

The above is Tebowing. And to some, it is a grotesque way of him showing his Christian faith. A short prayer after scoring a touchdown.
Funny, I do not remember that being the case when a former Los Angeles Dodger did something quite similar after the Dodgers won the 1988 World Series.
Orel Hershiser won game six of the 1988 World Series and when he pitched the final out, he dropped to one knee, put his finger in the air to thank God for his performance. In fact, it seemed to be celebrated rather than condemned. And while he was on the Dodgers, he was a member of Lake Avenue Church, a large mega church here in Pasadena, California.
But what drives the Tebow haters really crazy is something that they will not openly admit but is the truth.
That his mother did not abort him when she had a chance.
While pregnant with Mr. Tebow, his mother, Pamela, was diagnosed with a pathogenic amoeba. And the drugs used to treat it cause the baby to have a severe placental abruption. In reading about it, the risks of going through with the pregnancy is rather high. But Mrs. Tebow went through with the pregnancy. One can only assume that she made an educated as well as prayerful decision to carry out the pregnancy.
In other words, Mrs. Tebow made a choice. She chose life over aborting Tim Tebow. And neither was shy about pointing that out.
During Super Bowl XLIV, there were two 30 second ads sponsored by Focus On The Family, a conservative Christian group, that told the Tebow story. And it did not explicitly use the A word, it made a strong case that a woman does not have to chose an abortion. Even when the odds are against her having a successful pregnancy.
And since then, the pro-abortionists and the anti-Christians have teamed up to make Mr. Tebow seem like some kind of freak.
Many have mocked the open display of Mr. Tebow thanking God for his talent. Even some fellow NFLers mock his "Tebowing". And leftist radio talker Bill Press is so "disgusted" by Mr. Tebow that he wants his to STFU* about all his "Jesus talk".
Really, does anyone really think that if Mr. Tebow was not so vocal about his stand on abortion that he would be so viciously attacked? Yeah, I hear those crickets chirping.
There are a lot of serious Christian athletes that go on about their business and no one hears or reads about it like it is something odd. But take on the abortuary complex and boy, that is where the knives, or coat hangers, come out.
Mr. Tebow is a big boy and I am certain that he knows being vocal about his faith is a turn off for many. But it is also allowing for people to be more forthcoming about their own faith journey. And that is a good thing.
But for the abortionists and their allies, Tim Tebow is real threat. And he must be mocked and stopped.
And that is the real reason so much hate is heaped on Tim Tebow.

Are All The Republican Presidential Candidates Really RINOS?

2011-12-13T21:28:00.000-08:00

You know, I wonder if in reality all the candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination are nothing but RINOS-Republicans In Name Only.
I mean, look at the one-time front runner, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Everyday comes new evidence that Mr. Romney has such a RINO past, well, why does he just not challenge the Democrat president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, for the Democrat nomination.
I will not go into all the revelations and or evidence of Mr. Romney's RINOness. Just going to zero in on the latest.
While running against then Sen. Teddy Burp Kennedy, Mr. Romney said that he was a progressive. Keep in mind that Sen. Kennedy was a Democrat. A progressive Democrat.
But reading this over at HotAir, it appears that Mr. Romney is running to the left of Sen. Kennedy. But I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey's analysis. That Mr. Romney is not a conservative ideologue, but someone that likes what works. And that hey, he would never have gotten to even the governor's mansion in 2002 if he ran as a Ronald Reagan conservative.
But I suppose that nowadays, Mr. Reagan would be considered by some to be a RINO.
I mean, the man was a former Democrat. An FDR Democrat no less. And in this sober analysis from Victor Davis Hanson, he did do some not so conservative things. He got the big picture, but had to govern with Democrats controlling the House of Representatives throughout his eight years in office.
So, Texas governor, Rick Perry, is in some good company. For he was a former Democrat as was Mr. Reagan. But he fails the test on illegal immigration and his disastrous supporting mandating Texas teenage girls getting the HPV vaccine.
So, yeah, on those two issues Gov. Perry is RINO personified.
Then there is the current front-runner, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
He is so RINO that Glenn Beck would consider voting for a third-party candidacy of Ron Paul. So would Joe Scarborough. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people that speaks before he thinks. And yeah, Mr. Gingrich has a long list of RINO bonafides. And the latest is the issue of his taking over $1,000,000 in consulting fees from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But I will prefer to point out that as Speaker of the House he was pretty conservative. And he was an early supporter of that RINO Reagan fellow.
Then there is Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. Will, he is a RINO because he was a Libertarian. And on foreign policy, he is beyond an isolationist. And lets face it, Mr. Paul has never turned down federal money allocated to his congressional district. Hypocrite!
Oh, and lets get don to the lower tier candidates.
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, a RINO lover if there ever was one. Why he once supported. . .hold on. . .wait for it. . .RINO Sen. Arlen Specter. And this is when he was challenged by now Sen. Pat Toomey. That makes Mr. Santorum a RINO personified.
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, another one of those Democrats that became a Republican. Why she even voted for Jimmah Carter in 1976. Damn RINO!
Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.,what is his RINO sin?
Mr. Huntsman believes in Globaloney Warming, aka "climate change". On that alone, disqualifies him for any serious consideration for the Republican nod. That is his current position. Thus, he is truly a still rock-solid RINO.
There you have it.
Seven "Republican" candidates for president and RINOs, one and all.
The reality is that all have imperfections. Almost all have some kind of governing record. And that in the overall is what conservatives and Republicans need to look at. The reality is that every candidate has governed or voted or organized as conservative as they could given their individual situations. And that means sometimes, they will have blemishes on their records.
The key is to decide on which of these candidates is most conservative now and that they could win in a general election.
That is why we are having this Death March of a campaign. Whoever the nominee emerges from this still has to face one Dear Leader, President Obama. That candidate will have to deflect the RINO head that Team Obama will rear to scare away conservative voters. Who does that the best now will be the nominee and, God willing, the next President of the United States.
But do we really need all these RINOs running now?! Where is the last, great Republican, Calvin Coolidge, when you need him?!

And Now, Its Pile On Newt

2011-12-12T22:33:00.001-08:00

OK, one thing that I have chosen not to do is endorse a Republican candidate for president this time around.
Because of that, I have been more clear-headed and not doing my own spin.
I saw the rise of Newt Gingrich. Oh yes, it is real.
And now that he has risen, it is time to turn on Mr. Gingrich.
Of course the leftywhore media has that built in. And there are conservatives that support, tacitly or openly, someone else other than the former Speaker of the House.
So, lets take it from those on the right not all that pleased by this slam of Mr. Gingrich against the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney via Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard:

Gingrich was responding to a statement by Romney earlier Monday on Fox News. Romney was asked if Gingrich should return the $1.6 million he earned for advising Freddie Mac. “Boy, I sure do,” Romney said. “He [Gingrich] was on a debate saying that politicians who took money from Freddie and Fannie should go to jail, which is outrageous in itself.”

In response, Gingrich said: “I would say if Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employee’s over the years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him.”

Well, from Mr. Barnes and my perspective, it seems like a bromide from, oh some "Occupiers".
But what it really is a populist sop. It is what a candidate does in a general election campaign. I do not think that Mr. Gingrich is going to Occupy Wall Street any time soon.
But it was a loose-lipped comment that is not so much a lefty bromide as one highlighting the fact that Mr. Romney is from wealth and he is not. In a weird way, it is kind of Mr. Gingrich running as the outsider a la Ronald Reagan in 1976.
And Mr. Romney is seen as the Gerald Ford, establishment guy. That is what I take away from the comment.
So, I do not think that this is something to hyperventilate about.
At the end of the day, if the nominee is Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich, I will fly to the nearest polling booth to vote for either one.
But I will never vote for Crazy Uncle Ron Paul, no matter what.
Yet it appears that on this, for sure, Glenn Beck has jumped the shark and said that he would vote for a third-party Ron Paul bid over Newt Gingrich in the general election.
Why? I get that he is a purist, but there is something called reality. The current field is what we have. Unless someone like a Sarah Palin can come in, we have to make a decision based on the announced candidates.
So, if Mr. Gingrich should be the Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Beck really believes that if Mr. Paul ran third party, it is better for the country? Or is it that it is better for Mr. Beck? I do not know. But again, Mr. Gingrich is much more preferable, many warts and all, to the current occupier of the White House.
That is what the primary is about. It is why this time, I want to take a look at all the GOP candidates. See what the voters really think. And right now, many are looking at Newt Gingrich. Not as the anti-Romney. But as the most conservative candidate that can win the general election.
So, look for more piling on from all against the new GOP front runner, Newt Gingrich.

Occupy Vermin Target. . .Target?!

2011-12-11T20:20:00.000-08:00

All I can say is that it is about time the "Occupy" vermin take out their rat fangs against Target department stores!
Now why would I, a free-marketeer, capitalist pig, care about this?
One word.
WalMart.
For eons, the left has assaulted the hiring and work practices of the world's largest department store. Everywhere that WalMart wants to open a store and or one of their Supercenters, there is the odd assortment of the left. Mostly labor union lefties. They go to all the hearings, clearly make stuff up essentially about how eeeeevvvvviiilllll WalMart is and eventually, the WalMart gets built.
But so often, I ask Mrs. RVFTLC why a store like Target does not get the same treatment as WalMart. I mean, they hire part-time workers. They have no union representation.
But that has changed and I do have to give some credit to the "Occupy" vermin. They are consistant.
In this report courtesy of The Blaze, anywhere from 100 to 350 vermin decided to descend of a Pittsburgh area Target store. To protest it's treatment of said Target workers.
The comments of one Calvin Skinner of Homewood, Pennsylvania were eye-opening:

"We want full-time jobs with benefits in our community when you use our taxes to build our store."

OK, I am going to go out on a limb here and clean up Mr. Skinner's thought a little bit.
I do not think that Mr. Skinner meant to say that taxpayer's money was used to build the Target store the mob of vermin infested. But that Target did probably get a tax break to build in that particular area of Pittsburgh. And I do not think that Mr. Skinner really understands that business is not obligated to do any of what he believes that they should do. You know, hire people full time. Give a full benefit package. That is the decision of the business how they staff it.
But it is how the left "thinks". That somehow, a business exists to give people, anyone no matter their skills and or qualifications, a job. And then a full-time one at that. Even if it does not call for that to be the case. And that they must provide a full benefits package. Even if that means the cost of that will be passed onto the very people that benefit now with the prices being affordable.
A business exists to provide a good and or service at the most affordable price to maximize profit. And if it is a public company, one to maximize profits for the benefit of shareholders.
Everything else is pretty negotiable.
But see, in Leftytopia, profit is evil. Hell, in their world it would be a barter system economy. Pretty much how the Third-World works. Make that does not work.
But the "Occupy" vermin have also done something few WalMart haters have done.
Taken on a Democrat department store chain.
What?! Target is owned by the Democrats?!
Well, it is not necessarily a Democrat business per se. But one of the heirs to the Dayton company, the owners of Target is one Minnesota governor, Mark Dayton. One can not help but think that some of the reason Target has been, until now, left alone is because the Dayton family is more politically connected to the Democrat party than not.
But score one for the "Occupy" vermin and showing the hypocrisy of many who seem to have a bugaboo against WalMart and Target, not so much.
The reality is that the retail business is a difficult one at best. The profit margin is low to say the least. And that is why stores like Target and WalMart exist. To bring affordability to the broadest market possible.
As much as I despise the "Occupy" movement, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And by targeting a Target, they expose what has been a strange dichotomy about the opposition to WalMart and the silence if not support of Target.
Strange times we are living in, doncha think?

Can Rick Santorum Mess Everyone's Plans In Iowa?

2011-12-10T11:02:00.000-08:00

While all the media, conservative and leftywhore, are zeroing in on making the GOP presidential nomination a two-man race, can I throw a monkey wrench in that?
All media seems to be narrowing down the Republican field to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, and the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
The two states that start off the actual primary caucus season are Iowa and New Hampshire.
Iowans get to caucus first on January 3, 2012 closely followed by New Hampshire on January 10, 2012.
So, Mr. Gingrich is leading Mr. Romney in both states.
But, there is a vast difference between the two states.
In Iowa, the state Republicans are conservative. And much more religious. The Evangelical Christian community especially in Western Iowa holds a lot of clout.
Only one candidate running has actually visited all of Iowa's 99 counties.
That candidate is the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum.
Because the caucus system basically is free-for-all and based on a majority of groups, Mr. Santorum is banking on taking the traditional approach and doing the retail politics of meet and greet.
Not that the two others, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney are not. But not the way that Mr. Santorum has.
Sure, Mr. Santorum has been essentially shut out of the debates sponsored by and moderated by the leftywhore media. But when he does get the 30 second attempt at an answer, he is very sharp and focused.
One other thing that the media seems to not grasp is that Mr. Santorum's very strong stands on social issues can only help him with this group of voters. Just ask the Rev. Mike Huckabee. It sure helped him in 2008. It all but ended the Mitt Romney train.
Almost all Iowa polling shows Mr. Santorum in mid single-digits. But again, the caucus way is different from the primary way of voting. It is all about organization. It is also all about what candidate will appeal to that group of voters that could put some one like a Mr. Santorum on a momentum not seen by most.
A third place or above finish in Iowa could be a huge boost to Mr. Santorum's candidacy. First place could in fact throw the whole GOP race into beyond uncharted territory.
Now I know one of the knocks on Mr. Santorum is that he lost his bid for reelection to the senate in 2006. By 20 points. But almost every candidate for office loses an election. And what those ripping him for losing that race seem to forget is that is the year the Democrats regained control of the House of Representative. And the senate. And that Mr. Santorum never backed down from his positions to try to win reelection.
But when you listen to him talk, he has the passion for the issues that I sometimes think Mr. Romney lacks. A knowledge that does not come off that he thinks he is the smartest guy or gal in the room. A la Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Santorum has also won races that he was not supposed to win in the home state of Pennsylvania. Can he do that in Iowa?
Again, in Iowa it is all about organization. And it does appear that Mr. Santorum does have that. And that may not be showing up in polls. Did not for the Rev. Mike until just days before the caucus took place.
I think that one should watch for the possibility that one Rick Santorum may just mess every one's plans up in Iowa come January 3.

Mom Of 15 Kids Wants To Hold Others Responsible For Her Pathetic Station In Life

2011-12-05T22:44:00.000-08:00

I heard this epic rant on Glenn Beck's radio program this past Friday and really had to spend the weekend pondering how ridiculous this woman really is.
The immediate background on this story is that one Angel Adams, a mother of 15 children. Yes, 15 frickin' children, is upset that her man, oh my bad, her fiance, has been arrested.
But it is what she says about it that really has me wondering what has happened to our society:

“Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay,”

Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
This Adams gal, yeah someone needs to pay alright.
However, it appears no matter what that the good taxpayers of the state of Florida will be doing just that one way or the other.
But imagine that this gal had 15 children, all out of wedlock. Who do you think is paying for this? Do you think that Miss. Adams is. . .working?!
Not a chance.
What she has done is game the system. Counting on the kindness of people, people who do not want to see children suffer. To that end, a group called Hillsbourogh Kids was helping Miss Adams and the children out. Miss Adams was being helped living in a two-bedroom apartment with 12 of the 15 children. A wonderful home environment if there ever was one.
Eventually, Miss Adams was evicted from the manor she called home and ended up in even a better lap of luxury. A one bedroom motel. Very nice.
Now three of the 15 kids are old enough to take care of themselves. They are lucky. They are out from under of the burden that is Angel Adams. But the other 12 are wards of the state. They are in foster care. And the state is moving to take full custody of the two youngest children.
It is worth it to watch the video compilation over the the Glenn Beck link.
And yeah, Mr. Beck was harsh by saying, “Close the legs, lady. Close the legs." But he is right. The gal needed to be forced to do something.
She is the poster child of the entitlement, enabling culture that is culminating with the presidency of the Dear Leader, President Obama. And his sycophant "Occupiers". Those that believe that the government, any government, has to do something about anything. Even if they really can not do anything.
Lets unpack the somebody needs to be held accountable comment of Miss Adams.
Yeah lady, YOU need to be held accountable. You need to actually be in jail and stay there as long as Lady Justice allows. You are a child abuser. You kept producing children with at least three different fathers. Oh, you were going to marry one of them. Until that pillar of the community was arrested.
And before any one shouts to the rooftops that I am being a raaaaacist, let me be clear. If Miss Adams were White, I would refer to her in exactly the same way. But throw in the White Trash that she would be rightfully called for living this kind of life. And I don't care if she were Angela Avila. Angel Fill In The Asian Surname. Race has nothing to do with this. It is class. Or lack thereof.
I have a hard time writing this because in general I believe that the government needs to stay out of people's personal matters. But once it became clear that Miss Adams was popping kids out like one takes a dump, at some point the state had an obligation to forcibly sterilize her. Again, she has never shown any sign of visible support. There is a reason that Child Protective Services was involved in the first place. But I am certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would have fought such a thing. Not realizing that as I have noted, one way or the other, the taxpayers of the state of Florida were being put on the hook for this parasite.
This is extreme, but an important look at the culture of entitlement. Of what government dependency hath wrought. Yet when one Ronald Reagan pointed out such things many times, he was called a raaaaacist. Yet he was right.
Hey, Angel baby, I want to let you know this.
YOU are responsible for your station in life. It is time you got of the dependency gravy train, clean up your act and maybe, maybe you will have a real chance with some of your children. Until then, leave your kids alone. We will take care of them.

Can The Political Class Leave My Christmas Alone?!

2011-12-04T20:48:00.000-08:00

I should be ecstatic that the Iowa Republican caucuses are just around the corner on January 3, 2012. And the New Hampshire primary on January 10, 2012.
But I am not.
Why you may ask?
Because all this political talk is ruining the Christmas season.
I mean, for many people who take their politics way too seriously, again not that I do not, this is not a great time of year to start getting into discussions about who would make a better Republican presidential candidate. Or even thinking about caucusing or voting literally after the New Year.
But here we are.
Why are we here?
Because a lot of people do not like the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first in the process. And they are for various reasons to be addressed later in this post.
First, the diversity police hate these states.
According to the 2010 census, Iowa has a population of 3,046,355. Ninety-one percent are White. Five percent are Hispanic. Three percent are Black. The rest of the race stats are here. As for New Hampshire, with a population of 1,316,470, it is even worse. Ninety-three percent are White. Three percent are Hispanic and a little over one percent are Black. Again, the rest of those stats are here.
So, who wants to steal the glory of these two states?
Well, there is always South Carolina. The diversity police should like this state.
A little over 4,625,000 people and only 67% White. Twenty-seven percent Black and a growing five percent Hispanic.
Then there is Florida.
Now there is diversity.
Out of a popluation of a little over 18,801,000, the number of Whites is 75%. Hispanics are at 23% and Blacks make up 16%. Now it is worth looking at these numbers. Yeah, they do not add up but it is because of the way one can be asked what race one is.
For me, I do not care about the whole diversity thing.
What it really comes down to is power.
The larger states of Florida and South Carolina think that they should be determining who the nominee of each political party should be. They are fast-growing states. They have a lot of competing forces. Yada, yada, yada.
Because these states, and throw in Nevada too, want to be the determiners, they keep pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to insure that they will be the firs caucus and primary in the United States.
In my lifetime, the Iowa caucuses have been held in late January or early February, as noted here.
As far as the New Hampshire primary, they have gone from early to mid-March to the bleak winter of early February, again as noted here.
And really, would there have been a different result if some other state ot states got to go first? After all, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. And placed a very close second in New Hampshire. Would have Hilary Clinton won the Democrat nomination if Florida got to go first? And there is the Republican split decision in 2008. The Rev. Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa Caucus and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain winning the New Hampshire primary. Does anyone really think that the former New York City mayor, Rudy Guiliani, would have won Florida if it went first?
I think it is time to let these states have their place in the sun every four years. Let them be the first in the nation to kick off the presidential primary season.
But not at Christmas time.
We all need a break from the politics of the day. We need to be able to get together with family and friends. Some we do not agree a wit on politics. We need to spend this time of the year reflecting on how we can do, as individuals, making life better and easier for someone else. We need to reflect on the year coming to an end and what we will do in the upcoming year. We need to be able to do this politics-free.
But the political class is just saying no. It is saying, you must endure our circus show during the Christmas season. You will endure some candidate coming out wishing you a Merry Christmas. You will enjoy that bit of insincerity.
No, I will not. Does not mean I will not write about it. But I will not enjoy the political class trying to harsh my mellow on this Christmas season, once again.

So, Who Gains From Cain's Fall?

2011-12-04T19:46:00.000-08:00

I am not surprised that Herman Cain has "suspended", re: ended, his presidential campaign.
Even though I do question a lot of these allegations against him. Of sexual harassment. Of carrying on a 13 year plus affair. At some point, if this is all that is being talked and written about, there is no other choice than to do what Mr. Cain did.
Now, the political question is who does this help in the GOP Death March to the presidential nomination?
I think that there are three options for the average Cain supporter.
The first one is to take a look at the Texas governor, Rick Perry.
Now, Mr. Perry is not anywhere on my radar screen. I still want to know why he is running for president. But a lot of people like his style, if you will. But he has proposed some serious ideas. One is the, for lack of better term, alternative flat-tax. It is a way that tax payers can choose either to pay their federal income taxes under the current regime or do it on a post card and a flat rate with little if any deductions. Again, it is a plan, much like the maligned 9-9-9 tax plan of Mr. Cain.
But it is easy to understand.
Again, I think Mr. Cain's supporters that go with Gov. Perry are looking at the closest to their candidate.
A second option is to look at Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich is about as close as these voters will look at any candidate seen as part of the "establishment" of the GOP.
Mr. Gingrich has been a statesmen of candidates. He has not had unkind words for the opponents that he is facing. That could be because he wants to get the GOP voters that were for someone else totally on board his candidacy. A good strategy. Of course he has also had a rather undisciplined approach to the campaign. Something Mr. Cain also had. So, he is another avenue to go for the Cainiacs.
The third option for these voters is the underdog former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
A lot of conservative Republicans like Mr. Santorum for his uncompromising stands, especially on social issues. Now, this may not be the bread-and-butter for many Caniacs, but it is the fact that Mr. Santorum will be a fighter. Much as they saw in Mr. Cain.
But I do not see these voters going to the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney, for better or worse, is seen as the very "establishment" the Caniac despises. I do not agree with that assessment. I see Mr. Romney preferable to former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr. Congressman Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. The Dear Leader himself, President Obama.
I am very sorry to see the Cain Train derail. I think the man has some great ideas. But it is the problem for someone who has never ran for office before. If any of the allegations are proven to be true, and he went on deny, deny, deny, that ruins a candidate more than anything. Except if it is not true but people come out of the woodwork and it is the endless distraction that it proved to be.
Mr. Cain, do not leave the political arena. The United States needs more people like you. Not unlike the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, you can be a voice for the people. You do not need to be an elected official for that.

Finally The Dear Leader Is WORSE Than President Jimmah Carter

2011-11-29T21:30:00.003-08:00

WOW! Only three plus years into the era of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and he has actually accomplished something amazing.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is the worst president at this stage of his presidency in my 47 years on God's Green Earth.
Well, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is worst in standing with the American people according to the latest polling from Gallup.
This is a daily tracking poll from Gallup. And it is 1,500 adults. Not registered voters. Not registered likely voters. Just 1,500 American adults.
The really bad thing about this is that if is was narrowed down, the numbers for the Dear Leader, President Obama, would more than likely be worse.
The fact is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, has been consistently underwater with the American people according to Gallup. If you go the link and scan over the chart, the last time the Dear Leader, President Obama, has been anywhere near 50% was the period over May 24-26. Since then, it has been all downhill.
So, if one wants to drink Obamaade and believe that this is all a mirage and he will top the results of 2008, take a peek at this from U. S. News and World Report.
The previous worst president of my life time, President Jimmah Carter, was at 51% at this point before the total tsunami of one Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980.
In the link, Paul Bedard points out the trifecta of losers of the modern era were Presidents Carter, Gerald R. Ford and Harry S Truman. And only Mr. Truman pulled out a win in 1948. And yeah, Team Obama thinks that it is going to do the same thing this time around.
But I submit that it is Not. Going. To. Happen.
The economy is not going to drastically improve enough for the Dear Leader, President Obama, to take any credit. In fact, the economy is not exactly humming along at record growth.
Team Obama is pointing to stellar Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales. Yet according to this article, about half of Americans worry that they will not be able to afford Christmas this year. It could be that the two big shopping days of the year maybe all she wrote. Not a way to go into a presidential campaign, eh?
Something to consider is that the only president that had a positive rating at this stage and lost his reelection bid was George H. W. Bush.
But even more daunting is the focus of evil in the modern Democrat world, George W. Bush had a 55% positive rating this point before winning his reelection campaign.
So it is a possibility that the Dear Leader, President Obama, can pull it off. He will have a lot of advantages.
But he has to hope for something fast to turn things around. Because I do not believe that Team Obama is going to win in states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia this time around. And I think that they will have a lot of trouble keeping states like Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Oh yeah, in the mid term elections, these states went right and Republican big.
If this daily Gallup poll is not showing signs of life in the next three months, it will take a miracle for Team Obama to win reelection.
And they know it.
But for now, fellow conservative Republicans, relish the fact that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is worse than Jimmah Carter.
Can you smell loser?

Its Time To Blog Again

2011-11-29T20:54:00.000-08:00

I am back to the blog after a well-deserved Thanksgiving break.
Mrs. RVFTLC, Scout the Wonderdog and your humble blogger spent the Thanksgiving weekend in the Great State of Utah, visiting Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon National Park.
While it was unusual not to celebrate Thanksgiving with family and or friends, we had a wonderful time exploring a part of the United States we have not been to before.
And I have to admit, Utah looks really good to this conservative, Republican.
It has now the most conservative, Republican county in the United States, Utah County. It has the obvious strong influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Yet because many people are moving from many different backgrounds, the Mormon influence is not as pronounced as at one time.
It is just the overall conservative way of life that makes Utah so attractive. Not to mention the total natural beauty.
I would advise everyone to visit Utah at least once and to see the two National Parks we visited. They are amazing.
But now, vacation is over and the real world beckons. Regretably. But we have wonderful memories of a great trip.

Los Angeles Trying To Coddle "Occupying" Vermin

2011-11-22T22:33:00.000-08:00

As I have written, I am growing beyond weary of the "occupy" crowd. I have resorted to calling them vermin. Those that are part of this "movement" are continuing to believe that there is a free lunch. That society owes them something. Anything.
Well, leave it to Los Angeles and the brain trust led by Mayor Antonio Villar.
It appears that rather than confront and break up the vermin "occupying" around the iconic city hall, they are going to try to make a deal.
It is amazing that these vermin, people diametrically opposed to the American system of government and way of life are, essentially, going to be given office space. And farmland if they just end their "occupation".
Gee, I guess this is how we could have won World War II, right kiddies?!
Are you frickin' kidding me?!
No, this is really what is happening.
According to the Left Angeles Times, one of the lead negotiators is one Jim Lafferty of a group called the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing fifth columnist organization undermining from within the United States.
It is a capitulation that this is a legitimate group. That the city of Los Angeles will seek to reward those for their "occupation" by handing them means to carry out their work.
If that is not the case, then why does one Mario Brito, a leader in the Los Angeles "occupy" movement think it is an opportunity to expand the protests? That having an actual space will help them in their cause?
Should the effort be to remove these vermin, who have harassed many of those who work in and around the city hall and downtown Los Angeles area by any means necessary?
Not here in La La Land.
No, image seems to be more important than sending a message. That message should be enough is enough. If you really want the change that you seek, you need to stop the "occupying" and start participating in the system.
That is what separates the "occupiers" from the Tea Party. Well, a lot of things, but this is the gulf that makes any comparison illegitimate.
Those of us in the Tea Party movement believe in the American system. That getting like-minded people to run for office and seek change within the framework of the constitutional republic. No Tea Party person seeks to overthrow the government. No Tea Party person seeks to change from a mixed free-market economy to a socialist model. Yet those are two huge things the "occupiers" want to do. And the Tea Party never, ever has "occupied" anything. We have attended many political functions and asked our representatives pointed questions about where they stand on major issues. And our rallies take place in one day for a short time. For we actually have jobs and need to work.
And the Tea Party has never blackmailed any government to give them office space, farmland or anything.
It amazes me to write this, but I never thought I would write that Los Angeles political leadership makes San Francisco seem right-wing in comparison.
Coddling criminals is not what Los Angeles leadership should be doing. They should be removing them. Period.

More Lefty Media Misinformation

2011-11-20T20:22:00.000-08:00

In yesterday's Left Angeles Times, a poll was released regarding Californians views of the so-called California Dream Act.
What is important is how this was relayed both in print at the local news rack and online.
The headline in the print edition, and the lead story, reads as follows verbatim:

USC/DORNSIFE/
TIMES POLL
DREAM Act has state voters divided
Nearly 80% of Latinos back government
aid for illegal immigrants at state
universities, versus 30% of whites.

Now for the headline online:

USC/DORNSIFE
TIMES POLL
Survey finds ethnic divide among voters on DREAM Act
Among Latinos, 79% support government financial aid for illegal immigrants who attend state universities, compared with 30% of whites. And 49% of all respondents say UC and Cal State campuses are not very affordable or are unaffordable.

Now, what do you think is wrong with the headline?
Well, if you read the print edition, you would be led to believe that the poll itself is say maybe 50-50. If you read the headline only online, it defines an ethnic divide among voters.
Yet the real story is really buried in the article.
The fact is that among all voters, no matter ethnicity, only 40% of all polled support the California Dream Act. A number of 55% oppose the California Dream Act.
So, where is the division?
Seems to me that the majority of all polled oppose the act. The only group supporting it in any large numbers are Hispanics.
And Whites support/oppose it roughly about 30% to 70%. What I can not find is how the numbers broke down among other ethnic groups. Groups as Asian-Americans and Black Americans. It would seem that if we saw those numbers, while maybe not as negative as Whites, it would show that they do not support the act either. That is why you have a 40% for and 55% against split.
But the way that the Times portrays this as a battle between Whites and Hispanics. No doubt that the California DREAM Act is a boon to illegal aliens in the schools in California. It gives them a break at the expense of just as deserving, American-born Hispanics. These illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuition rather than the out-of-state that they should be paying. Actually, they should be paying what an international student would pay. Since they are not American citizens. And not citizens of the state of California.
And I wonder how many of the American born Hispanics, when they understand what this means for their potential family members, really do support the act?
But I fault a newspaper that should report the fact of the poll. That the majority of California registered voters oppose the California DREAM Act. That the underlying fact is that, again since I do not have access to other ethnic groups polled, only Hispanics seem to strongly favor the act.
But the Left Angeles Times seems to want to bury that real fact. No, they want to fan the flames of raaaaacism. That the eeeeevvvvviiilllll White people want to keep all the Hispanics down.
No, we do not. We want those who can to pursue higher education. And no, I don't want to throw those students here illegally out of the United States. They should just have to pay the higher cost.
And the real tragedy is that this is the Democrat party buying Hispanic votes. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is too bad that the Left Angeles Times used their poll for manipulation and not the facts.

A Rocker's View Of Conservatives Needs A Conservative Primer

2011-11-20T17:03:00.000-08:00

I start this post pointing out that your humble blogger loves rock music. Hard rock, metal, alternative, whatever it is called now a days. From such seminal bands as Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, to the 1980s and Iron Maiden, Metallica, to the 90s and Nirvana, and alt bands to the 2000s and bands like Rage Against The Machine, Rise Against I have followed the music with great love and interest.
So, I recently saw the Foo Fighters in concert at the once Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, California. There is a post on why it is the once Fabulous Forum.
But in today's Left Angeles Times was The Red Bulletin, the magazine put out by Red Bull.
On the front cover was my man, the front-man of the Foos, Dave Grohl. And the accompanying article about him and music.
In the article, definitely worth the read, Mr. Grohl is asked about the Dear Leader, President Obama. And I knew that I would not be happy with the answer. And he was asked if he would support the Dear Leader, President Obama's reelection. And I was even less happy with the Q and A:

If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.

Well, he is not downright insulting to conservatives and in a way just rather around the edges of grasping legitimate policy differences between conservatives and modern liberals.
I don't take my politics from celebrity whether they be on the left or the right. Many do and that is tragic.
So, in reading that part of the interview with Mr. Grohl, I find it is time for what I will call a conservative primer. It is what basically conservatives believe. And it is more personally what I believe as a conservative. Again, this is what I understand makes a conservative person.
First, a conservative believes in personal responsibility.
We all have to take an inventory of ourselves from time to time. Whether we are doing the right things in life or not. It is not just from a religious but a moral point of view. We believe that when one does wrong in life, there are consequences. But that there is also an understanding of the wrong and a way to change. Thus I, for one, believe in the ability of people to change based on an acceptance of personal responsibility. It also extends to our relationship with one another. It means not being a jerk to someone else. It means to be treated the way we or I would want to be treated.
Conservatives believe in thrift.
What that means is that we do not believe in living beyond one's means. What we have been told seemingly throughout my lifetime is that we can live beyond our means and that we should not want but demand the best in life. Thus I try to shop at the market with coupons. Look for the bargains. Don't go to Nordstrom's, but will go to Nordstrom Rack. Look for things on sale. Put a lot of money down on a home as we did and be able to prepare for the rainy day. We are not always good at that, which leads me back to accepting responsibility when we do not.
Conservatives do believe in taking care of one another. But not at government expense. We believe in the power of charities and faith-based institutions to provide for those less fortunate. We also believe in personal involvement to that end. It is not just about writing a check and then doing nothing more. Many of us do volunteer our time. Two years ago, Mrs. RVFTLC and I volunteered to serve Thanksgiving to those less fortunate in El Monte, California at our church's outreach. And we serve on the board of our Transitional Housing program at our church. It for those addicts who are trying to get back into society. In other words, we put our money where our mouths are.
In terms of government, we conservatives do believe in small, limited government at all levels. And we believe in bottom-up government. We believe that government at the most local of level can meet the needs of the people best. That the more government is centralized, whether in Washington, D. C. or state capitals, it is more removed from the very people it is to serve. Small, limited government is not as susceptible to the corruption and excess that big, unregulated government is.
We conservatives value tradition. But not just for the sake of tradition. And we are open to necessary change. Not change for the sake of it. Or to create some social experimentation.
Thus we look to history as our guide. Why we accept and respect how our Great Land came to be is because we study the history. From the first settlers. Those who landed on Plymouth Rock. Those that wrote the Mayflower Compact. Those that began the eventual United States of America. Those that wrote the most amazing document, the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation. The Constitution.
The constitution is an amazing document for it sets a delineation of power between three co-equal branches of government. The legislative, executive and judicial branches. All are to respect one another.
And the constitution is always amendable. But not made easy to do so. It is intentionally made hard to not have bad amendments adopted willy nilly. Thus it places a great deal of burden on the legislative and executive branches. The judicial, at its best, simply interprets the constitution and sometimes acts as a referee.
Conservatism is not perfect. We have made mistakes and have to reflect on those errors.
One that I can think of his how most people that identified themselves as conservatives opposed entering World War II. Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Many conservatives did not want to engage in a foreign war. Many thought that World War I was one we did not have to be in.
But when we were attacked that Sunday morning in December, it changed everything. Thoughtful conservatives changed their mind and recognized that the Axis powers needed to be defeated. What separated conservatives from many liberals was the recognition that there was another evil that needed to be defeated. That other evil was communism.
And the Cold War was born.
Conservatives did not have a solid voice in the defeat of the communists really until Ronald Reagan became president. He laid it all our there for the world to see. He said bluntly that communism was an evil empire. And that it would be defeated. And for the most part, it has been. Even in Red China, what passes for communism would have Chairman Mao rolling in his grave. The few outposts of the brutality that is communism are on their last legs. Hopefully in our lifetimes.
What I have written is really a short primer on what it is that conservatives believe. It is to respond to people that have a negative, not necessarily informed view of what it means to be a conservative.
And it is true. On the sidebar of this blog, I believe that to be a conservative is to be a real rebel. Especially on the college campuses throughout the United States. To many of one's friends and relatives. it is saying the the prevailing liberal world view is what is wrong. It is taking on what has really become the establishment.
I do not expect Dave Grohl or any other rocker to get it. I think that he knows a little about politics like many people. And unlike some on the left, I do not believe that he is trying to intentionally offend a possibly large part of the fan base.
But in reading his otherwise excellent interview, it was this I feel the need to speak up for and about conservatism. Albeit very briefly.
So, I owe a big thanks to Mr. Grohl. And while we strongly disagree about politics, I still love the Foo Fighters and the great rock 'n roll you put out there.

Vermin Escaping From "Occupy" Zones

2011-11-17T20:22:00.000-08:00

Ahh, today is the second month anniversary of the so-called "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
So how to celebrate?
By being like the vermin that most are, they are leaving (well being thrown out, finally!) their so-called "occupy" zones for many a downtown to get their sycophants and hangers-on all ramped-up.
Since the "occupy" movement jumped the shark a while back, they are doubling-down and taking their protests right to the heart of their hatred.
Today, the "occupiers" went all over New York City. To Wall Street itself. Then marching around the whole of Manhattan and on the iconic Brooklyn Bridge.
But read what this "occupier", David Suker, said about the day's activities:

"We just encircled Wall Street. We'll do it all day," said David Suker, a protester who was among the crowd, distributing copies of the "Occupy Wall St. Journal."
"If we don't have the park, we'll take the streets. If we can't take Wall Street, we'll take the side streets," he said.

OK, this is the problem with the whole "occupy" movement.
They are taking this as if it is a war, not a political movement. Again, as I pointed out as to why the "occupy" movement continues to lose support, it is because they sound and act patently anti-American. Like the anti-Vietnam war protesters, once there is violence and radicalism, the Great Silent Majority turn away. Even if they may agree with the basic point. And even then, that opinion may change.
While there was the joy of vermin desperately trying to really take Wall Street, their brethren were busy all over the United States.
Here in my neck of the woods, in downtown Los Angeles, the "occupiers" were pretty busy today.
While only 23 vermin were taken off the streets, they definitely made their creepy presence felt. Twenty-one of those arrested were sitting in a circle, in the middle of a major intersection. Of course they were blocking traffic in the middle of rush hour. Nice. But what does one expect of unrestrained vermin? Again, here is the words of one of the "occupiers", an unidentified one, that spoke with the local Fox television affiliate, KTTV 11:

"If they (workers, commuters) go through any inconvenience, that is nothing compared to the inconvenience that the American people are going through right now."

Uh, yes it is a major inconvenience you dim bulb.
What if there was ambulance going to an emergency call? Or a fire engine? Is that a minor inconvenience? I think not.
Again, people may have some agreement with the "occupiers", they do not particularly like the actions that these vermin are taking. And eventually, those people are deciding that we, the American people, have had enough of this mindless class warfare.
And if that is not enough, even here in my fair burg of Pasadena, California, the vermin were out in force.
Local lefty "activist", Patrick Briggs, got some fellow vermin at a local fire station to use in support of raising taxes on those making $200,000 a year.
BTW, the definition of rich changes all the time with these lefties.
The issue is that seven of eight fire stations need seismic retrofitting. And one closed down recently because there is not enough funds anywhere to do the retrofitting.
But, according to Mr. Briggs and his fellow-travelling left-wing vermin, if we just raise taxes on those making $200,000 or more, all will be well. The Pasadena fire department will have all the money it needs to retrofit the fire stations. Maybe even more than that. The state will have more money than it needs. Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Briggs, there are not enough Californians making $200,000 or more to tax to meet your nirvana. I am sorry to inform you of that fact and reality. Because once that were to happen, we will lose many of those taxpayers. And no way will we get enough, if any to replace those taxpayers.
Again, if government at all levels were to prioritize spending, many of these issues would not be issues.
But blaming the eeeeevvvvviiilllll "rich", Wall Street, the "bankers" and the like does not solve any problems. And "occupying" to bring about a change most Americans would not recognize is losing steam and fast.
But that is not stopping this vermin from scattering and seeking more chaos to bring about their "change".

Chris Christie Is Right-2012 Presidential Race No Cakewalk For GOP

2011-11-15T21:10:00.000-08:00

I am not always in agreement with the Republican New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
But, Gov. Christie is right on one thing.
The Republicans can not count the 2012 presidential chickens before they hatch.
In a Facebook chat yesterday. Gov. Christie said this about the 2012 race:

"Anyone who underestimates the president underestimates at their own peril," Christie said. "(Democrats) know how to campaign, they know politics. ... People who believe he's a shoo-in loser are wrong."

On this, Gov. Christie gets it.
Way too many of my fellow conservatives and Republicans think that the American people are ready to throw the Dear Leader, President Obama, out on his ear come November, 2012. And that maybe the case. But if the election were to be held today, based on these polls, the Dear Leader, President Obama would win. Not necessarily by a landslide, but he would win.
It is not a surprise to your humble blogger.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, will raise the most money evah. He will have a bevy of allies including his Obamawhore-worshiping media darlings. And there is the power of incumbency.
That is why it is important that no matter who is the Republican presidential nominee, save for Congressman Ron Paul or the former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr., to rally the troops to the main cause.
DEFEAT PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!
Clearly, any of the front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination are preferable over the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And the polls I do link have some interesting caveats.
One, all the polls involving former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, show him gaining ground on the Dear Leader, President Obama. As Mr. Gingrich is gaining traction with Republican voters, this solidifies that trend.
The businessman, Herman Cain, is starting to fade. I like Mr. Cain, but I fear that the amateurishness of his campaign is wearing thin on independents and some Republicans. I am not sure he can recover in time for the Iowa caucus.
That leaves the front-runner, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. His campaign is a well-oiled machines and Mr. Romney polls the best head-to-head against the Dear Leader, President Obama. And in looking at the Real Clear Politics average of all polls, Mr. Romney and the Dear Leader, President Obama, are essentially in a dead heat.
Most important caveat is that all the polling is national.
We do not know a lot about the early states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina. That is where the GOP nomination maybe decided.
But the thrust of Gov. Christies comment is that we can not and should not underestimate anything from Team Obama and the Democrat party.
This maybe it for them for at least four years. The Republicans may have two of the three branches of the federal government in Washington. They know that if they do not win at least the White House again in 2012, people may get comfortable enough with one-party rule to re-elect the Republican president in 2016. And that president could alter the course of the United States for a generation.
As I have noted many times, and Gov. Christie is saying that the Democrats eat, live and sleep politics. It is 24/7/365 for these dudes and dudettes. Republicans can not and better not get lazy and or complacent.
On Gov. Christie's warning, conservatives and Republicans take note. He is right and we need to keep our eye on the prize.
DEFEAT PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!

Finally, Salt Lake City Police Rout "Occupiers"!

2011-11-13T18:47:00.000-08:00

It is great to see that finally, somewhere in the dreaded "Occupy" protests, a city has said enough is enough.
That city is Salt Lake City, Utah.
Police took action, albeit way too peacefully than your humble blogger would have. They actually negotiated with the "Occupier" vermin how the event would occur. Of course even with such a negotiation, in which people were going to be assisted with lodging for the night, some would not go away. And of course they were arrested.
Why was this done?
Because an "Occupier", a homeless man, was found dead in one of the tents. I guess death is the only way that the authorities will deal with these vermin.
And authorities are letting the "Occupiers" protest during the day. Just no more tents overnight. Thus it does take one of the most important elements out of the movement. At least in Salt Lake City. That is that the "Occupiers" are taking over and claiming the land in Pioneer Park as their own.
I say it is about time that these vermin are knocked down a peg.
What raised the ire of some is that the Salt Lake City sanitation department used a front loader to knock down the areas that the slovenish occupiers have made a mess. Here is a quote from 21 year-old Drew Baker:

"This is what a police state looks like."

And Mr. Baker was leading a chant of that line.
Well, Mr. Baker, if it really was a police state, let me tell you, the protests that you are a part of would have never been allowed in the first place. You would have started and probably been taken away and never to be seen again. I believe that once you are released from jail, you will be right back at it.
But you will have to stop making it like some big camp-out.
What is happening is that, as I noted in this post, there is a push back among regular people. You know, those of us that actually have to work. Go to many of these areas that are now being "Occupied" by people that, beyond a few, have no idea what they are doing.
Eventually, even in parts of the nation where many politicians, Democrats one and all, have supported the movement, they will have to move these vermin along.
Salt Lake City is getting a jump on it. And there someone had to die for the authorities to do anything about it.
More cities must take the lead of Salt Lake City. Will there be confrontations? Of course there will be. But it is necessary to end this "Occupation" and if these people really want change, let them work peaceably for that goal.
It is time to stop this movement and either they will mainstream on their own. Or become the kind of movement that Americans do not want a part of. A violent one.

Perversion At Penn State And The Search For Scapegoats

2011-11-10T20:37:00.000-08:00

Gerald Sandusky maybe one of the most dangerous men in America if sexual abuse of young boys charges filed by a Pennsylvania grand jury are even remotely true.
The former Penn State football player and assistant coach has been indicted on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys (all under 18 years old) over a period of at least 15 years if not more. And almost worst is the fact that Mr. Sandusky started a charity for underprivileged, foster children known as The Second Mile back in 1977.
One can only wonder now if that was but a front for Mr. Sandusky to find young boys to have his way with, sexually.
The indictment here is graphic and NSFW.
Mr. Sandusky's alleged perverion even reached the man he hoped to succeed one day as the Penn State head football coach, Joe Paterno.
But it does not end with Mr. Paterno.
The athletic director, Tim Curley. The director of finance, Gary Schultz. The University president, Graham Spanier.
But a strange turn of events has occurred.
Mr. Paterno and Mr. Spanier were fired last night. Yet Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz are on administrative leave.
Mr. Paterno and Mr. Spanier are not charged with a crime.
Yet Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz are charged with failure to report an incident.
So, my question is why is Mr. Paterno and Mr. Spanier taking the fall while those that were told and allegedly did nothing are still employed by the university.
Because there has to be a scapegoat.
Or in this case, two scapegoats.
After all, in reading the indictment, Mr. Paterno did report to his superiors the incident in which the graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, told Mr. Paterno about an incident. The incident in question was Mr. McQueaey allegedly saw Mr. Sandusky engaging in anal intercourse in a shower on campus. In the indictment, Mr. McQueary notified Mr. Paterno and in turn he notified his immediate superior, Mr. Curley.
But when you read the indictment, you realize that Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz did not do the kind of follow up that they were supposed to do.
Again, those two men are still employed by the university.
Mr. Paterno is sullied for life because he did the right thing.
The real question is did Mr. Paterno do enough?
That is where I would say he should have done some follow up. But, what about the one who told Mr. Paterno, Mr. McQueary? Did he not try to see what was done?
A lot of people really failed these young boys. At some level, yes even someone like Mr. Paterno could have done more.
But again, why is he the one fired?
Because he is the easy scapegoat.
And I suppose that Mr. Spanier is as well. Because after all, he was the university president and should have known better, right?
I certainly do not condone the riots done last night in reaction to the Paterno firing. After all, he decided to retire before the university board of trustees got their first scalp.
But the legal system must do its thing. And two other men need to be fired now. They would be Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz.
Looking for temporary scapegoats makes things only maybe temporarily better. It does not begin to do justice for those boys forever harmed by this man, Sandusky.
If any of the charges against Mr. Sandusky are true, he is one sick dude.
But the witch hunt and the CYA* is worse than seeking true justice.

*CYA-Covering Your A--.

2011 Elections And 2012

2011-11-08T22:55:00.000-08:00

Well, I am not sure that this off-year election is a portend of the 2012 election, but the results are sort of positive for conservatives.
But I think Guy Benson over at Townhall sums it up best. A mixed bag for conservatives.
In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich had his clocked clean on the vote regarding Issue 2. That would have made it a constitutional mandate that collective bargaining reform instituted by the Ohio legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kasich.
But, one hand giveth, the other taketh. And that is what organized labor did in a rather decisive manner.
But on the same ballot was Issue 3 in which many of the same voters that scuttled the collective bargaining reform said no to the Obamacare mandate. And that was by a larger margin.
But alas, you will only hear the Leftywhore media harp on the defeat of Issue 2.
In Virginia, it looks like the Republicans will essentially control the legislature as at worst, the state senate ends up being a 20-20 tie and possibly an outright Republican majority. And in the House of Delegates, the GOP increased their majority.
In Mississippi, Republican Phil Bryant will succeed Gov. Haley Barbour. And the GOP may gain control of the state legislature as well. However voters rejected the "Personhood" amendment that would have defined life beginning at conception. There was a lot wrong with the amendment and apparent some pro-life groups even opposed it.
In Kentucky, Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear scored an easy victory over Republican David Williams. Gov. Beshear did not have any help from national Democrats in keeping his office.
I would say that it was not a great night for the Democrats or Republicans. It was a typical odd-year election season.
But for conservatives, we need to keep the powder dry for the other side. We need to stop beating each other up and remember that there is an election next year.

Do I Believe Herman Cain?

2011-11-08T21:14:00.000-08:00

Well, the Herman Cain Train has taken a helluva detour lately with the multiple stories of alleged sexual harassment.Today, after the latest accuser made a spectacle of herself yesterday in a her press conference, Mr. Cain decided to finally address the situation head on.
The first woman to go public is a woman named Sharon Bialek.
Miss Bialek claims that Mr. Cain made a very horrible advance to her after dinner and drinks. Miss Bialek claims that Mr. Cain drove her to a parking lot, put his hand under her dress, grabbed her privates and tried to force her head to an unmentionable area.
Now, Miss Bialek should be totally believed since she appeared with the ambulance chasing troll of a lawyer, Gloria The Red in her presser yesterday. And doesn't everyone accusing a serious presidential candidate of a serious charge of sexual harassment do it with glee?
So, Mr. Cain took on the allegations today in his own press conference in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Now generally, when there are so many similar allegations floating out there, one would say that Mr. Cain has a problem. Hell, even paying off a couple of gals does not look good.
But the problem is that noting really seems to stick to Mr. Cain. No one actually made a charge against Mr. Cain. And if Miss Bialek were to be believed, she had a minimal possibility of getting Mr. Cain on attempted rape charges. I mean, putting one's hand under a gal's dress and trying to force her head to a certain area of the body against her will would certainly qualify, right?
And why do most if not all the charges stem from the 90s and early 2000s?
If someone was as prolific a harasser as Mr. Cain and getting away with it, would he not get sloppy? Go too far?
And at the end of the day, I really looked at this man at this press conference and came away believing Mr. Cain.
Not a hundred percent. After all, he is a politician. But as much as I can and realize that maybe it is this possibility.
That Mr. Cain fancies himself as a kind of sort of ladies man. You know, flirts with women. Kind of in a way that, I suppose, a woman can take as kind of harassing. But not in the mind of someone like Mr. Cain. After all, Mr. Cain from the South. And men are much more friendly than in many other parts of the United States. Maybe these women did not see the difference.
But do I think that Mr. Cain is a serial sexual harasser?
No. None of what has come out, not even Miss Bialek's claims make me think that.
Having said all of the above, the real question is not about this. But whether or not Mr. Cain can or should be the Republican nominee for president.
I think that Mr. Cain finally tried to put this detour back on that train track and it will be up to Republican primary voters to decide.

The Occupy Movement Has Jumped The Shark

2011-11-03T21:35:00.000-07:00

Jumping the shark according to Wikipedia, shorthand version:

The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment in its evolution when a brand, design, or creative effort moves beyond the essential qualities that initially defined its success, beyond relevance or recovery.

The longhand version is here.

Well, the so-called occupy movement has jumped that shark.
What is the turning point?
The recent events in Oakland is the flash point that will make the movement the left-wing fringe that it is.
Yesterday, the movement called for a general strike and the strike went so far as to close the Port of Oakland. If that was not enough later in the night, thugs went on to riot throughout the downtown area. The rioters even hit a paragon of left-wing virtue, Whole Foods.
This is a culmination of rather disturbing events that have marginalized this left-wing answer to the Tea Party movement.
Some of the disturbing events include multiple rapes, robberies, well just a cross-section of Middle America.
NOT!
You know what this is a repeat of?
The anti-Vietnam war movement.
And you know what was the turning point?
The Kent State Shootings in which the Ohio National Guard was called in to quell student unrest in opposition to the war in Vietnam. On May 4, 1970, the National Guardsmen opened fire on a crowd killing four unarmed students and wounding nine others.
The anti-war crowd went ballistic and the unrest kept building up on college campuses throughout the United States.
And yet in 1972, when the Democrat party nominated anti-war dove Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), he lost the election to President Richard Nixon in a landslide. Sen. McGovern only won in Massachusetts, of course, and the District of Columbia. Sen. McGovern could not even win his home state of South Dakota.
To most Americans, the continuous unrest and violence at the colleges and universities was too much. Even those that were sympathetic to the anti-war cause did not like what they were seeing. Hence the phrase "The Great Silent Majority" coined by President Nixon in a famous speech in 1969. Although that speech was before the Kent State Shootings, needless to say it stuck in the majority of American minds come 1972 when they had the chance to vote for or against President Nixon.
Why am I sharing this seemingly ancient history?
Because it is relevant to the events of today.
One thing that Americans do not want to be a part of is a violent movement. After all, we have had one bloody and horrific Civil War. Though it is but a distant memory for us, the reality is that knowledge of that and the long-term cost to our Great Land keeps us from ever wanting or having another one. That is why extremist movements are abhorred by The Great Silent Majority.
Now that the Occupy movement has gone to violence, whatever support it may have had will dwindle.
And it may have already started even before the events in Oakland.
According to polling from Quinnipiac, the movement has a 30% to 39% support/oppose. Although the Tea Party movement does fare worse, I would like to see questions regarding violence and anarchy and what is taking place at Occupy sites throughout the United States. Bet the Q won't like those results.
And the real danger is that the Democrat party has embraced this movement. From the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down to the congressional leadership. What fire the Democrats support will burn them in the rear come election day in November, 2012.
People will turn against a movement that descends into violence and that is what is beginning to happen to the Occupy movement. And violence is this movement's Jumping the shark moment.

Is This Just The Republican Silly Season?

2011-11-02T20:32:00.000-07:00

Well, the two stories that seem to make me believe that to be the case involve the Texas governor, Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain, the current front runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Let's take the Gov. Perry "controversy" first.
Apparently last week during a speech to a group in New Hampshire it appears that Gov. Perry, at the very least, was hanging loose and having fun with his audience.
Now the linked video is cut and spliced so it shows Gov. Perry in not necessarily in the best light. The full video of the speech is here.
Now without going into great detail, I can assure you that the speculation that Gov. Perry was drunk or on some kind of meds is false. Trust me. I have been in an altered state due to alcohol consumption. And Gov. Perry is not drunk. He is not slurring his speech or doing anything other than going off script.
Have we become so used to the kind of politician, say like the Dear Leader, President Obama, or so many that are so tightly wound that a little fun and going off script has Carrie Nation rising from the grave? Suspecting a sitting governor of hitting the moonshine? I am afraid so.
I am not big on Gov. Perry. I still do not really get why he is running for president. But, the thrust of his speech was discussing his tax proposals, which are serious business. So he had fun with a friendly audience? To paraphrase our illustrious Vice-President, Brain Surgeon Joe Biden, it is not a BFD*.
Yet the Leftywhore media is jumping on this like a wino to Night Train. And worse is that there is no proof whatsoever that Gov. Perry was buzzed, drunk or over medicated on something. Possibly tired, but not drunk.
It is time to move off that story. Again, the real story is that Gov. Perry has as serious a tax reform plan as our friend, Herman Cain, and the 9-9-9 plan.
Ahh, but Herman, Herman, Herman. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The charges against Mr. Cain are potentially much more serious.
Allegedly, Mr. Cain while the head of the National Restaurant Association he was accused of sexual harassment not just by one but two women. This was in the 1990s.
The NRA (not the gun people), decided to settle with one of the women. And she got a full year salary of about $35,000 and the financial settlement.
Mr. Cain denies that he sexually harassed any women.
Now, having a financial settlement is not an admission of guilt.
Regrettably quite often when such charges are leveled, a deal is cut with the accuser to make it go away. Usually, there is no guilt to the accused, the accuser gets a settlement with a company and all are happy. Sort of.
But the website Politico has rehashed these charges and there is a lot of it that, for the moment, does not really seem to hurt Mr. Cain. In fact, it starts to look really like there is a political rat trying to derail the Cain Train. Over at HotAir, Allahpundit has a good round up of the Cain Case here and here.
Again, I like Herman Cain and think that he is a great, non-politician candidate. But is not the first rule of being in the arena to get these potential firebombs out of the way before they are thrown at you?
Of course all of this helps Mitt Romney. And I think starts making people take a second look at Newt Gingrich.
But the real story is that it really is a silly point in the endless political season.
And it needs to stop.
The United States has major problems. And we who believe that the current president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not up to the job are looking for the right candidate.
He or she does not have to be perfect, but ready for anything.
Right now, like it or not, Herman Cain and Gov. Rick Perry do not shine as one ready for anything.
For the sake of the republic, let us get back to the serious issues facing the United States.
Time for the silly season to end.

*BFD-Big f---ing deal.

Dodgers To Go Up For Sale

2011-11-01T22:49:00.001-07:00

The long Los Angeles nightmare is about to end as Frank McCourt will sell the Los Angeles Dodgers, Dodger Stadium and the surrounding land in bankruptcy court.
The potential bad news is that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban may now the the front-runner to purchase the storied franchise.
Mr. Cuban was interested in buying the Dodgers earlier this year. But not at $1,000,000,000.
Now, Mr. Cuban can pay a lot less, but more than Mr. McCourt paid for the team in 2004.
My hope is that an ownership group led by the former owner, Peter O'Malley, can buy the team. Mr. O'Malley would bring immediate benefit and stability to a team that has been rather unstable the past several seasons.
Whatever happens, Frank McCourt will not be the owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers come Opening Day, 2012. And the nightmare will be over. Hopefully.

Do Not Ignore Illegal Immigration

2011-10-31T22:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Morning Prayer And The Rare Beauty Of The Episcopal Chuch

2011-10-30T22:23:00.000-07:00

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.

In Praise Of One Of The Eeeeevvvvviiilllll Big Banks

2011-10-28T23:01:00.000-07:00

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.

What Is So Bad About The Republican Presidential Field?

2011-10-27T22:26:00.000-07:00

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!

So, What Is This November 9th Emergency Alert Test

2011-10-24T22:48:00.000-07:00

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?

Is Libya Heading To A Sharia Law State?

2011-10-23T22:24:00.000-07:00

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?

Say, Is This Occupy Crowd Hurting The Dear Leader?

2011-10-21T23:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Exactly.
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!

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

2011-10-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

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!

I Am Really Hating Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-19T20:46:00.000-07:00

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.
Really?
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!

Holiday Hatred Starting Early This Year

2011-10-16T21:52:00.000-07:00

BAH HUMBUG!
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?

Occupiers Hit Pasadena And It Ain't Organic

2011-10-13T18:11:00.001-07:00

Ahh, the "Occupiers" are hitting my fair burg of Pasadena, California.
Nice.
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 MoveOn.org 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 MoveOn.org 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.

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

2011-10-12T23:08:00.000-07:00

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!

2011-10-12T21:30:00.000-07:00

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.
STOP!
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.

Here We Go Again On Mormon Bashing And Mitt Romney

2011-10-10T20:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Exactly.
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

2011-10-10T20:17:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-10-09T21:26:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-10-06T21:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Sarah Palin NOT Running For President And Steve Jobs Dies

2011-10-05T22:00:00.000-07:00

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.