America's Evil Genius

Should we really criticize the "$10,000 bet"?

2011-12-13T21:47:00.006-06:00

By now, you have no doubt seen, heard, or otherwise have been made aware of the now-infamous "$10,000 bet" that Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry during the most recent GOP debate. If you missed it, whoomp, here it is:

In the aftermath of this comment, Romney has taken a lot of heat for being "out of touch with "regular Americans". Media members, Democrats, and even a number of Republicans (including Rick Perry) have castigated Romney for this remark.

Now, let me be clear, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney. I couldn't warm up to him if we were cremated together. I think he's a Moderate (something that is practically a four-letter word among modern Conservatives), a flip-flopper, and the epitome of the word "RINO". You probably won't find anyone on the planet who is more eager to find a criticism--any criticism--of Romney and play it to the hilt more than I am. I'm the first guy to look for anything that could possibly derail the Romney campaign and milk it for all it's worth...

...and even I think the this criticism is ridiculous.

Since when has the GOP been the party of leveling criticism at a man merely for having been successful and attaining wealth during his lifetime? Since when has the GOP been the party that characterizes free-spending of private funds as a "character flaw"? The GOP hasn't been that party--at least not during my lifetime--and we never should become that party.

Note to Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken some jabs at Romney because of the "bet": Knock it off. You both are sounding like the President and the party that we are trying to remove from power. Placing a $10,000 bet with your own money (or spending $10,000 of your own money on any other thing you wish to spend it on) is nothing to be criticized, is none of your damn business, and is no reason to think less of any man.

Two weeks ago, I was playing poker in a local casino. While I played in my low-buyin No Limit Hold 'em game (a game where, at best, a few hundred dollars was on the line at any given point), the next table over housed a Pot Limit Omaha game. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the finer points of poker, Pot Limit Omaha is, generally speaking, a "bigger" game than No Limit Hold 'em. Omaha is wilder, more action-packed, and with many more "swings". To make a long story short, it takes a lot more money to play Omaha than it does Hold 'Em...and at the next table over from me was one of the biggest Pot Limit Hold 'Em games ever seen in a Missouri casino.

I'll admit it, I was curious...I glanced over at the Omaha table. I noticed several stacks of chips that ranged from $10,000 up to nearly $20,000 in front of one player. It was far and away more money than I've ever played poker for (and more money than I likely ever will play poker for). And with such a wildness and aggressiveness that typically surrounds your average Pot Limit Omaha game, there's no doubt that many of those $10,000+ stacks were "all in" at various points.

Now ask yourself a question, as I glanced over at the Omaha table, what should I have thought of those players who had $10,000...$15,000...even $20,000 in chips in front of them? Should I have viewed them in a negative light? Should I have considered those $10,000 stacks of chips in front of them to be indicative of some sort of deeper character flaw? Should I have thought that anybody who would have $10,000 in play during a poker game would therefore be "out of touch" with many Americans?

To me, the answer is an obvious, "No!" The only thing I know about any of those players is the stack of chips they had in front of them--hardly enough information to make any type of reasonable judgement about any of them, character-wise. For all I know, they could have all been wonderful, church-going, family men. Or, for all I know, they could have been criminals. Or they could have been charitably-active, civic-minded individuals. Or they could have been wife-beaters. The bottom line is that I have no idea the character of any of those individuals at that table, and the amount of money that any of them had in play could do absolutely nothing to lead me towards any sort of character judgement about any of them.

There's a ton of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney (Romneycare for one. His inconsistent positions on, well, everything, for another. His lack of Social Conservatism for yet another...), but I don't see where his ability or willingness to place a bet of $10,000 with his own money should be listed among those reasons. Is Romney "out of touch" with the poor? How should I know? Heck, I have a lot less money than Mitt Romney, and I'd say that I'm "out of touch" with the poor. And given the criminal behavior, the constant "gaming of the system", and the lack of family structure that we see out of large swaths of the poor, I hope I remain "out of touch" with those people.

Perry, Gingrich, and the rest should focus their criticism of Romney on the important issues (and there's plenty of red meat there with which to combat Mitt). The discussion and criticism of how wealthy someone is--or what they choose to spend that wealth on--should have no place in a Republican primary season.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do a couple of shots of Pepto Bismal...all this defending of Mitt Romney makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach...

My initial thoughts on Herman Cain's "Sexual Harrasment"

2011-10-31T19:50:00.005-05:00

So the Democrats...or other jealous GOP candidates...or the media...or somebody...decided to drop the dime on Herman Cain today with claims of sexual harrasment against him. I've been a pretty voiceferous supporter of Cain up to this point, so will these accusations affect my view of him? Well, unless there's something much deeper to these allegations than what has come out to this point (what I've heard so far--while perhaps fitting the legal definition of "sexual harrasment"--seem to be little more than "normal behavior of a healthy male"), I can't say that it will. The allegations as I understand them at this point (some sexually suggestive--but unclear--conversation and physical gestures) make this seem as though this is, at best, a misunderstanding (or, at worst, perhaps an attempt at "gold digging" by a female co-worker...something we see all to often by "professional harrasment victims" that populate much of the modern workplace environment). Unless there's a much more pervasive (or perverted) pattern of behavior here, I don't see how this would dissuade me from the reasons that I have supported Cain up to this point.

Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):

From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )

"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."

Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).

Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.

The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".

No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.

The 2012 GOP field--Where does everybody stand?

2011-10-23T18:06:00.016-05:00

It would be an understatement to say that the run up to the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination has been one of the most eventful, interesting, contentious, thought-provoking, surprising, and wacky buildups to a primary season that America has ever seen. Whatever you might say about the run for the 2012 Nomination, you certainly can't say that it's been dull.

So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:

(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)

Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).

Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.

Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.

Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.

Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:

Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.

Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".

Buddy Roemer: Who?

Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.

Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.

So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.

It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.

A Primer for the Protesters--Explaining Economics and "Fairness"

2011-10-09T14:59:00.011-05:00

While it would be easy to dismiss the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters as little more than hippies, druggies, and union thugs, the fact remains that there are some younger folks in these mobs who might very well have the mental capabilities to one day become solid contributing citizens. The only problem is that they've been negatively influenced by popular culture, by their "education", and yes, by those hippies, druggies, and union thugs who have shown up at these protests. Frankly, we have allowed these young people who would otherwise have so much potential to have their views of fairness and capitalism to become corrupted by those to whom their ultimate goal is to remove capitalism and fairness from America.

Therefore, since there are some young people within these mobs who have some "potential" in life--if only they could be exposed to common sense viewpoints on capitalism and fairness--I've decided to do my part to help these few among the mobs who have that potential. These unfortunate victims of popular culture and the educational establishment have likely never been exposed to people like Milton Friedman. They've likely been repeatedly told that the "New Deal" of FDR ended the Great Depression, when in fact it prolonged it. They've likely been told that LBJ's "Great Society" was the catalyst for tremendous growth within the minority community, when in fact these types of social programs have done far more harm than good to those of minority persuasion and those who are poor.

In other words, these kids have been lied to all of their lives--how can you possibly expect them to recognize the truth when they finally hear it?

It is with this in mind that I'm providing some video clips of some of the great thinkers that our nation has ever known when it comes to these topics. I know this won't "turn around" these misguided youth overnight--but it may provide those initial seeds of thought within their minds which hopefully will lead to a further examination of their opinions of capitalism and fairness. One doesn't undo a lifetime of miseducation in one blog post--but one can at least open the door towards challenging those misguided beliefs about America, Capitalism, and our Culture that so many young people have been poisoned by.

So with that in mind, set down your protest sign, pick up your laptop (for all the protests against capitalism, there sure seems to be a high number of laptops and other mobile communication devices at these protests, amiright??), and watch these great thinkers discuss many of the ideas and institutions you are "protesting" against.

Let's start with legendary economist Milton Friedman discussing the very idea of Greed. In this appearance on The Phil Donahue program back in the 1970's, Friedman is asked a series of questions by Donahue that are likely quite similar to the questions many of you are asking of society through these protests. You might find Friedman's take on the concept of "greed" to be surprising and a bit enlightening:

Along similar lines, here is noted professor, economist, and writer Walter E. Williams discussing the fact that greed does not work against social responsibility, but instead that our greed usually leads us to take the most socially responsible actions:

What about the concept of "fairness"? Isn't it--according to those in these protests--somehow "unfair" that the rich have what they have, while others don't? Perhaps it is...but it is only because *nature* is "unfair" in how we are created. And it is this unfairness that defines the talents and capabilities that each of us have as individuals. Milton Friedman explains:

So, since nature is unfair in terms of what our talents are or what our capabilities are (and since the differences and inequities of wealth that we see are largely a result of this), shouldn't it fall to the government to redistribute wealth so that we can all have "equality"? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and here he explains why such government-mandated wealth re-distribution (an increase in which is exactly what the Wall Street protesters are advocating) is nothing more than theft, and therefore is deplorable:

Not to be outdone, here is a clip of Friedman discussing wealth redistribution--specifically his argument about what would happen if a 100% inheritance tax were established, and all incentive to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations were destroyed (and again, notice how similar the young man's question in this video is to the rhetoric you are hearing out of the protesters today):

And here, Friedman specifically discusses whether government has any sort of responsibility towards the poor:

So what if you are poor? The position of most of the Wall Street protesters is that those in poverty (or even in the middle class) are somehow trapped on a treadmill of poverty from which they can never escape. But is this really so? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and in this clip, he provides a fairly straightforward plan for how anybody can avoid poverty:

So, protesters, there you have it. A different (and I would argue, a more sensible) viewpoint on economics, "fairness", wealth redistribution, and poverty. You won't hear this from the hippies, druggies, or union thugs protesting alongside you. You won't hear it from your teachers or college professors (many of which have been misguided over the years by those who wish to punish and vilify success, just as they have tried to do with you). There is no shame in wealth, or even in greed. The government has zero responsibility to insure any level of fairness or equity. And no matter how poor or disadvantaged you are, you--and you alone--can change that aspect of your life. Now put down your protest sign, join the rest of us in "Capitalist America", and realize your full potential at last!

Law & Order: A Winning Strategy for 2012

2011-09-26T20:14:00.019-05:00

Sometimes I'm just too damn charitable.

Every four years, there's an entire industry of political strategists that make millions of dollars devising strategy, tactics, and carefully sculpted messages for prospective political candidates. It is the job of these people to come up with that perfect strategy that will resonnate with the voters while both highlighting the candidate's strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. And there's serious money involved for those who prove to be adept at devising such gameplans. To put it another way, a winning electoral strategy is worth it's weight in gold.

So why in the Hell am I about to give away the perfect strategy for winning the 2012 Presidential Election away for free?

Well, before I come to my senses, hit the "delete" button, and sell this idea to a bunch of Republican suits for a few million bucks, here's the skinny: Everybody who's anybody in politics right now is talking about jobs and the economy...and well they should, as it's something that impacts nearly every American in some way. However, while the economy is an extremely important issue, it's not the only issue that's out there. I think there's a "secondary" issue that--if paired with a sensible economic plan as the primary issue--could be what some GOP candidate needs to seperate himself/herself from the rest of the pack.

That issue is the idea of "Law & Order". If you are a regular, normal, law-abiding American, chances are that you look around you and wonder if our laws even apply anymore...much less if the very concept of "right vs. wrong" even exists in American society. You see illegal immigrants who are lauded instead of castigated, Terrorists who are afforded rights and legal protections (while Christians who dare express their faith in public are shut down at the earliest opportunity), inner cities that have become literal war zones, people who don't even think twice about scamming government welfare and other programs, miscrents (with ambulance-chasing attorneys following close behind) who sue everybody in sight in hopes of "hitting the legal lottery", and criminals publicized and glorified by an all-to-eager media.

As that legendary pro wrestler and philosopher, "Classy" Freddie Blassie once opined, "What the Hell ever happened to the Human Race?"

Society seems to be bursting apart at the seems, and a lack of Law, Order, and Moral Clarity is at the center of it. And yet, at times, our sitting President seems to be on the side of those who would tear down American Society. Giving speeches where he identifies and sypathizes with Illegal Aliens. Openly advocating for more welfare and government "help" for the lower classes (which in the past has only resulted in the destruction of the family unit among poorer Americans...and the crime, violence, and lawlessness that goes with it). Speaking in conciliatory tones towards our enemies both overseas and domestically. It would not be difficult to portray Obama as--if not a President who is openly on the side of the criminal and immoral--at least a President who is ill-equipped to deal with our national "lack of character" crisis.

I'm certainly not saying that "Law & Order" could usurp the economy as the main issue, but instead I'm saying that there is a significant group of people out there (and I'm certainly among them) who view the rampant lawlessness in our society as a key issue--right alongside the economy. And these votes are up for the taking...if one of the GOP candidates spoke openly and with candor about bringing Law & Order back to American society, it would resonnate, and possibly be enough to nudge them in front of the other candidates.

Several months ago, I did an edition of my videoblog in which I discussed Obama's cowtowing to Illegal Immigrants. And while it's a small (perhaps even insignificant) sample size, I can tell you that, of the 31 "America's Evil Genius" episodes we've done to date, it was that episode that got the most views and the most feedback--the vast majority if it majorly positive. That tells me that this is an issue that is on the forefront of the minds of a lot of voters. Yet, nearly all the GOP candidates talk about it in measured tones--ever fearful of "offending" moderates and perhaps some Hispanics. If just one candiate would take a (pardon my French) "Take No Shit" position on Illegal Immigration, Conservatives, many Independants, and otherwise concerned Americans would get behind them in a hurry!

What, you didn't see my piece on Obama's glad-handing of Illegal Aliens? Whoomp! Here it Is!

But Illegal Immigration isn't the only area where people are seeking an uncompromising, "say what you mean and mean what you say" approach. Recently, during one of the GOP debates, Texas Governor Rick Perry's record of executing more criminals than any other state was brought up by the moderator...and was met with racaus applause by the gallery. And while both the Left and the Mainstream Media castigated that crowd for their reaction ("OMG! They're cheering death!!!" exclaimed the usual Liberal suspects), they missed the point of the meaning of that response. That crowd (and, I must admit, myself watching the debate in my living room) cheered not out of some bloodthirsty sadism, but they (or, shall I say, "we") cheered because Texas' use of "Ultimate Justice" indicates that--unlike many other places--they place a higher priority on the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens than they do on the protection of those who would do us harm. We've seen nearly a century of criminals being "understood", "excused", "explained", or otherwise coddled, and yet law-abiding citizens are no safer than they were before the 20th Century started. A more basic, sensible, and dare I say "Draconian" approach to crime and punishment is what a lot of us believe to be neccesarry in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, and our property.

Given the reactions of many Conservatives on issues of Illegal Immigration, Capital Punishment, or many other issues of Law Enforcement and Crime (as opposed to the stances of Obama and the Left on the same issues), it stands to reason that a candidate who would make "Law & Order" a major theme of their campaign could potentially do quite well. And it wouldn't be without precedent...just go back to 1968. At that time--somewhat similar to today--America seemed to be coming apart at the seems. There was violence and rioting in the streets, a youth culture that was turning their backs on the ideals that built America, and political assassinations had nearly become the norm. Richard Nixon succesfully positioned himself as the "Law & Order" candidate and easily won both the 1968 & 1972 Presidential elections. By appealing to those normal, traditional, law-abiding citizens (which Nixon referred to as the "Silent Majority"), Nixon had great electoral success.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a Nixon fan (Between things like Price Controls and the establishment of the EPA, Richard Nixon was about as Conservative as Lindsey Lohan is cellibate). However, speaking strictly in terms of political strategy, Nixon proved that an appeal to Law & Order during a time of cultural chaos can be a rather succesful way to win an election or two. Much like '68, America is in a time of cultural chaos once again. And once again, there is a "Silent Majority" of normal, traditional, regular, law-abiding Americans who not only can be reached, but are chomping at the bit to go to the ballot box and correct this situation (The only difference is that, today, that "majority" is not as "silent" as it used to be).

A secondary focus on Law & Order (combined with a solid primary focus on the economy) could be just what the doctor ordered for one of these myriad of GOP candiates to break out of the pack, overtake Mitt Romney, and go on to beat Obama and get our nation back on the right track. The time is ripe for one of you to emerge.

What's really deplorable about Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s Rhetoric

2011-09-07T18:15:00.012-05:00

By now, most of you are familiar with the comments of Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who recently stated in reference to The Tea Party, that he'd like to help Barack Obama "...take these sons of bitches out". Now, almost every Conservative within the last couple of days has taken offense to these comments, and has pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of the Left using rhetoric of this nature after trying to paint the Right with the same brush during the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.

However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.

I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.

So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.

However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.

Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.

To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.

Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.

Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.

However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.

Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.

And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.

John Edwards was right (sort of)...there really ARE two Americas!

2011-08-23T21:40:00.014-05:00

Remember John Edwards? He was the perpetual Democratic Presidential candidate who slept around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocked up a minimally attractive staffer. But, back before all of the scandal, he was a rising power in the Democratic party...many saw him as a future "face" of the Democratic party, and perhaps even the heir apparent to Bill Clinton (which, in retrospect, should have been our first clue that he'd end up sleeping around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocking up a minimally attractive staffer...hindsight really is 20/20, I suppose).

Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.

Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.

However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".

It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.

So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).

No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...

...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.

In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".

Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.

Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.

Which America do you belong to?

Explaining England's Riots...and those coming to America

2011-08-11T19:17:00.004-05:00

Some quotes from some of the hoodlums that are currently rioting in England:

"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth,"

"There's been tension for a long time. The kids aren't happy. They hate the police,"

"It's us versus them, the police, the system,"

"The people that run this country, they got money, they are rich, they got nice houses. They don't care about poor people."

(Quotes taken from the following articles): http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/uk-pm-recalls-parliament-for-london-riot-crisis/6274372/#ixzz1UlmMc7Bl

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809

Class warfare. Disrespect for mainstream Society and Authority. Vilification of the Wealthy. A misplaced sense of entitlement that the "haves" somehow owe something to the "have nots", simply because those have nots are breathing are and taking up space.

All are the stated reasons of the rioters in England this week. All are also among the primary tenants of the American Left for the better part of the last century (tenants that have been reinforced by Academia, Intelligentsia, and Popular Culture for as long as any of us have been alive).

Can America be far behind England?

When people begin to believe that wealth is seen as a badge of nefariousness and not accomplishment...when people begin to believe that they are owed an education or an opportunity...when people believe that they are entitled to health care or other basic needs not because they themselves have worked for it and earned it, but instead because it's the "duty" of someone "more fortunate" to provide it for them while receiving nothing in return...when these types of attitudes gain traction in a society, then that society faces it's biggest threat. The very pillars and structure that have girded the society for centuries, that have fueled achievement, innovation, and success, and that have helped to protect the world from evil, are under assault internally any time that these attitudes begin to take hold.

Am I talking about England, or America?

I'm talking about both.

We have a President and a Democratic party who refers to the wealthy as "those most fortunate among us" rather than "those most accomplished among us". A President and a Democratic Party who continues to promote the myth that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" in taxes, despite the fact that the top half of our earners pay 97% of our taxes. A President and a Democratic Party who's main strategy in all elections is to pander to that half of the nation who pay no taxes, take advantage of our social programs, and contribute nothing to our society--all while justifying the victimhood claimed by those to whom they are pandering.

A President, a Democratic Party, and a Left-Wing machine that has promoted, encouraged, and fanned the flames of the very destructive attitudes that have England currently engulfed in flames. After multiple generations during which the American Left has fostered and grown these destructive attitudes, one must look to situations like the recent attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair (not to mention the rampant crime in our urban areas) and ask one logical question:

How much longer before similar ideals and attitudes engulf America in flames?

A new addition to the America's Evil Genius empire!

2011-08-01T21:28:00.000-05:00

Since February, I've produced and hosted the "America's Evil Genius" political webcast on Youtube. The webcast has spurred lots of conversation, debate, and controversy, and has been quite successful in terms of being on the forefront of Conservative thought in America. Therefore, as a bit of a "supplement" to the web series, I'm launching this companion written blog in which we can continue the discussions that we start on the web series.

Also, some of you may be familiar with my work via another blog I've had for nearly a year entitled "Ask A Conservative White Guy". In the interest of alleviating any confusion or redundancy, I will slowly but surely be scaling back the "Conservative White Guy" blog and will be concentrating my efforts to the America's Evil Genius web series as well as this blog. But fear not--I've imported the best of my columns on the "Ask a Conservative White Guy" blog right over here. So this will serve as your "one stop shop" for the best in Conservative thought and analysis!

Check out the "America's Evil Genius" webcast at www.youtube.com/americasevilgenius

Missouri considers amendment to require photo ID at the voting booth--I'm in favor!

2011-05-03T18:59:00.000-05:00

With all of the major national stories going on right now (Obama producing a birth certificate, Osama Bin Laden being killed, Snooki showing up at Wrestlemania and *not* blowing half the locker room), we sometimes overlook some very important and thought-provoking local stories. So I wanted to highlight such a story today--My home state of Missouri (properly pronounced "Missour-uh", for those of you who are not natives of the "Show Me State") is considering a Constitutional amendment which will require photo ID to be presented when voting.

Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html

A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.

I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.

The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).

I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.

So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.

My reactions to the Libyan situation (and some kudos for Obama???? WTF???)

2011-03-22T19:14:00.000-05:00

Well, *that* was certainly an eventful weekend, wasn't it?

The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.

My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.

So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.

And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".

America leads. It does not follow.

So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.

To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.

Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.

Todd Akin--recipient of the CWG "Atta Boy" trophy!

2011-02-17T18:26:00.000-06:00

It's rare that I find it within myself to compliment a member of Congress. Between the Liberal Do-Gooders and the Moderate "Anything to get me re-elected" gang, it's difficult many times to find anybody on Capital Hill who has the guts to, you know, actually *represent* the beliefs and interests of their constituents. For that reason, the approval rating of Congress is normally fairly low at any point in history--and it's positively circling the commode as of late. As a result, the general impression that most Americans have of Congress is not far off from what "The Poet Laureate of Television", Nipsey Russell, stated nearly 30 years ago:

So it's extremely out of the ordinary that I can look at a member of Congress and say "Atta Boy!" But today is one of those days. Todd Akin made the people of Missouri proud--and indeed, echoed the sentiments of many Americans, when grilling Timothy Geithner. In reference to budget increases that could result in the IRS adding more employees, Akin commented upon the need for this when such energy might be better spent streamlining or simplifying the tax code, he went on to say “Not to mention the fact that it’d make us all look better if we don’t have a goon squad of 5,000 IRS agents tromping around the country with the economy the way it is,” (Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/144633-republican-congressman-calls-irs-agents-a-qgoon-squadq )

Hell yes!!!

It's about time that somebody on capital hill called the IRS out for the thugs and criminals that they are (and in case you think that's an overstatement--the entire concept of progressive taxation is legalized theft. Look up Walter E. Williams thoughts on the matter--you can find them in his many books and on Youtube--for a complete explanation). Of course, when the truth is stated on Capital Hill, it will only infuriate those who side with the criminals and liars. And so it was with Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer (Democrat--like that's any shock) who characterized Akin's comments as "offensive on so many levels".

There you have it--some idiot in Oregon thinks it's "offensive" to call out theft when one sees it. Bite me, Blumenauer.

Representative Akin, please be aware that you have spoken well for we, the People of the Sovereign State of Missouri. I wish you were my Representative so that I could vote for you when given the opportunity--however I'm unable to do that because my Rep is one the biggest wastes of space in recorded history, Lacy Clay. However, as a Missourian, I'm proud that you have so sternly communicated the message advocated by Missourians on this matter--communicating it in a way not unlike the straightforward and matter-of-fact way that we Missourians communicate with each other on a variety of issues each and every day. We're not a group of people that wastes time on superlatives or flowery rhetoric--we'll tell you what we think without compromise or apology. You have reflected this quite well in your statements to Congress on this matter.

There is one way I could have the opportunity to vote for Todd Akin...how about a Presidential run? :)

Jim Moran plays Race Card--and obscures what would have been a good point

2011-01-29T08:44:00.000-06:00

Virginia Representative Jim Moran (or is that "Moron"?) recently used the primary play in the Liberal playbook--accusing those of us who oppose Barack Obama of racism:

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/rep-moran-dems-lost-dont-want-governed-african-american/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

Ok, so a Democrat falsely accusing Conservatives of racism isn't exactly something new, and indeed is something that happens so frequently that it's hardly newsworthy at this point. Sort of the political equivalent of "crying wolf"--the Democrats use this tactic so often that it starts to lose it's effectiveness, as I believe the majority of the American people are starting to recognize the baselessness of most of these attacks. But if Liberal cries of "racism" have become so common that they are largely ineffective, then why am I taking the time to point this particular case out?

Well, to answer that question, let's look specifically at the text of Rep. Moran's remarks:

"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"

What strikes me as different about these remarks (as opposed to most other playings of the "race card" by the left), is that after Moran makes the baseless accusations of racism, he actually goes on to make a pretty reasonable and salient point. Never mind that the salient points he end up making have zero connection to his accusations of racism (and as we all know, in modern America, when you bring race into the discussion, then the discussion will usually be dominated by race--and all other aspects of the conversation will normally be overlooked).

Did you read that right? Did you just read that I said Moran made a decent point? Yes, and I know you can't believe it...I can hardly believe that I wrote it. In order to explain my point, allow me to take the liberty of editing out the accusation of racism from Moran's remarks, and illustrating what would have been "left over" had he not played the race card. In mathematical terms, (Moran's Statement) - (Racial accusations) = this:

"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by....one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"

Looking at the above statement--and after having edited out the false accusations of racism--I'm struck by something rather astounding...I agree with it!!!! There ARE a significant number of Americans who do not want a President to be inclusive, to spend money on everybody, and/or to reach out to everyone in our society. To put it bluntly, many of us on the Right do not believe that it is government's prerogative to make sure people are "included" in society or to provide them with income/needs/wants...instead, we believe that those tasks should fall to the individual themselves. The Modern Conservative believes that it is not the job or the prerogative of the government to prop anybody up--instead that it is the job of each of us to prop OURSELVES up to the point that our talent, drive, motivation, and intelligence will allow us to do so.

Likewise, we do not believe that it is government's job to determine what groups of people should be "included" in society and who shouldn't be--instead, we believe that task falls to society itself (and make no mistake, most Conservatives believe that "government" and "society" are two separate entities--while I suspect most Liberals believe these entities to be intertwined, redundant, or even one in the same). Most of us believe and understand that the beauty of the Free Market is that even those who believe they are--in terms of society and culture--on the "outside looking in"--can work their way into society over time based on their contributions...without the government forcing society to "include" them. To put it in blunt terms, It doesn't matter if you are gay, a minority, a female, or have any other characteristic that you feel is a "disadvantage"--if you show that your contributions can fulfill a demand in society (in other words, if you can generate revenue for yourself and others), then society will include you. After all, in the end, the love of money always trumps the disdain people might have for other characteristics.

So you see that the last two-thirds of Moran's statement is actually spot-on in terms of the opposition to Obama and Liberalism in general. He is correct to state that this is a "basic philosophical clash" that is occurring within America today--in that sense, I couldn't agree with him more. Had he just stuck to the statements in the latter portion of his remarks, my reaction would have been "Finally! Somebody on their side understands exactly where we are coming from!" While--in such a fictitious case--Moran certainly wouldn't have been in agreement with the motivations and ideals of the Modern Conservative, it would have at least demonstrated an understanding and grasp of what we stand for that is far beyond what many other Liberals possess. In short, it could have been a magnificent starting point for the discussion that we need to have in America--the discussion of what specific roles do Americans wish for the government to take in their daily lives, and how large (or small) do Americans wish for their government to be.

But he just had to throw that Race Card out there, didn't he?

Moran--by leading off his statements with charges of racism--completely obscured those latter points which could have greatly contributed to the political discussion in 2011. On one hand, it's almost encouraging that someone on the Left comes so close to "getting it" in terms of what we on the Right stand for (as Moran sort of did in the latter part of his comments). But on the other hand, his mischaracterisation of the alleged and virtually non-existent "racism" in the American Right is yet another example of the Left purposely damaging racial relations and inspiring suspicion and distrust among the various ethnicities in America simply to keep themselves in power.

It's a disgusting ploy from the left--and one that they rely on far too often.

GOP pursues Healthcare repeal--White House begins playing "Roll out the Victims"

2011-01-20T12:12:00.000-06:00

With the GOP beginning the follow-through of their campaign promise to attempt to repeal Obamacare (an effort that passed the House and will now go to the Senate), the Democratic party--and more specifically the White House--has gone into overdrive with their favorite play in their playbook. Rolling out the victims!

Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0119/Pre-existing-conditions-at-forefront-of-White-House-s-response-to-health-care-repeal

As they have done throughout American History, the Left--when advocating an idea or program that will result in the Federal Government moving beyond the specific enumerated powers that The Founding Fathers intended--attempts to use what can best be described as a combination of Sally Struthers commercials and old Queen For A Day episodes. Just as they did with The Great Society, The New Deal, and pretty much every other government intrusion that they have advocated throughout history, the Left answers criticisms of potential government over-reach by responding with tear-jerking stories of people who will be "deprived" if we stand in the way of the Left's "Do-gooder" efforts.

Some of you who are older might remember an infamous cover of the magazine, "National Lampoon". On that cover, a cute little puppy dog was pictured with a gun pointed at it's head. The caption read "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog!." On wonders if a similar cover is used for the portfolio of every Democratic strategy. They figure that if they can bring a tear to our eye with some sob story of someone who is going to be "affected" by these decisions, then we'll just stand aside and allow them to continue destroying our freedoms.

And you know something--for most of the 20th Century, it worked. Time and again, Conservatives, Republicans, and otherwise ordinary American people would stop the argument when the Left would start rolling out the victims. They'd show a senior citizen or a wide-eyed child on the TV screen, and we'd back off and allow the Left to continue the destruction of America. However, in 2011, this particular Conservative, at least, is standing up and saying "No More!"

You on the Left can roll out all the old people, single mothers, children, handicapped, and whatever others you can find to attempt to defend (or at least distract from) your deplorable policies...but when you do, I and other Conservatives will finally start saying the three words that you've been betting all along that we'd never come out and say:

I don't care.

Or more to the point, it's not the government's job to "care" if somebody has health care, or if somebody has food or water, or if somebody has enough income. It is not the government's job to make sure that people have an education (not that the government has done a particularly good job of providing education anyhow, even if it *were* they're prerogative to do so), if somebody is given an "opportunity" in life, or if somebody has "self-esteem". And it's certainly not the government's prerogative to steal money from me so that these actions--none of which were ever intended to be undertaken by government--can become a focus area for them.

On the other hand, it is the government's job to defend us from our enemies, defend our property, and enforce property rights--and that's pretty much it. Everything else, they're supposed to leave to us.

So no, I DON'T care if somebody's pre-existing condition won't be covered (which, in and of itself, would completely screw up the concept of what "insurance" is supposed to be to begin with--but that's another topic). I DON'T care if somebody else has health insurance or not. And more to the point, Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CARE EITHER!!!! Contrary to your beliefs and the beliefs of much of the Left, people CAN take care of themselves without government influence or interference. People can--and should--undertake the task of making sure their own needs are met rather than waiting for a someone else to do so for them. To deny people this opportunity is to stifle their growth and keep them from realizing their true potential in life.

If you want to "care" about something so damn bad, then start "caring" about putting China and the Middle East back in their place. Start "Caring" about securing our borders or getting a handle on crime. In other words, "care" about what the American People actually "care" about!

NBC: Connecting Right-Wing rhetoric to assasinations since 1963 (footage included)

2011-01-12T19:15:00.000-06:00

As most of us have discussed until we're blue in the face, the Left and their stalwarts in the media have trumpeted a supposed "connection" between allegedly vitriolic Right-Wing rhetoric and the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

But what if I told you that wasn't the first time the media tried to play this card? You'd probably say, "Ok, you're going to go through the media's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombings, aren't you?" I could do so--and it certainly be relevant. However, the meme goes back even further!

The following footage is from the NBC live coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy back in 1963. This particular piece includes a series of "Man on the street" interviews (remember, we didn't have blogs back then!). The interviews start at 2:02 in the clip--but at the 2:38 mark the reporter begins asking two questions that perfectly set up the interviewee to speculate and place blame for the assassination--tasks he is only too happy to undertake:

Notice the first gentleman's answer to the question--he's extremely quick to blame "ultra-conservative groups" that he accuses of "spreading hate".

Does this sound familiar at all?

The reporter doesn't challenge the man's accusations, he just quickly says "of course no one knows if these people are, indeed responsible" (the journalistic version of "covering one's own backside"). But that's not all--after all, the "ultra-conservative groups" (aka. "Goldwater Republicans", a group of people in 1963 who were essentially the "original" Tea Party), were not the only political enemies of JFK--therefore there was more mud to spread around. Next, the reporter goes onto a lady and directly asks her to speculate if Kennedy's racial policies were connected to the assassination. And again, the lady is only too happy to place blame at the feet of the segregationists (not that I'm a fan of segregationists...but of all the things you could accuse them of, I'm pretty sure assassinating a sitting President isn't one of them).

So the pattern of the Leftist media fueling unwarranted speculation upon political enemies after an assassination is certainly nothing new. The only difference was that back then, they disguised it a bit better.

Rather than sticking to the facts during the breaking story (something that the Left would tell you *all* journalists used to do back in the "good ol' days") or perhaps restricting his questions to the feelings of the "man on the street" or specifics about how they heard the news, this reporter chose a line of questioning that did little but attempt to establish a speculative connection to polticial enemies of the Left of that era.

Reflections on the Assasination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords

2011-01-11T21:55:00.000-06:00

The horrible events of last weekend in Tucson, Arizona, when Representative Gabrielle Giffords was the target of an assassination attempt. And while everybody--whatever side of the proverbial aisle they stand on--certainly hopes for the fullest of recoveries for Rep. Giffords and mourns for those that died as a result of this tragedy, we still have had some spirited debates over the last several days on issues brought up after this tragedy. What follows are my reactions and opinions on a few of these issues:

**On the Sarah Palin Factor: Upon initially hearing the breaking news of this tragedy, I (along with millions of other Americans, I'm sure) went onto the internet to see what information was out there, and also to see what the "pulse of the nation" was at that moment among the message boards and opinion sites. I was sickened (though not surprised) to see that almost immediately upon the breaking of the story--when information was just starting to trickle in from Arizona and we didn't yet know who the gunman was or even how many gunmen there were--a full-blown attempt was on to link Sarah Palin to the tragedy. From "mainstream" Leftists like Paul Krugman, down to your everyday left-wing bloggers and message board posters, the assumption was quickly made that this tragedy was somehow the manifestation of Palin and the Tea Party's "chickens coming home to roost". You can go to any number of websites (one great example is the message board at www.stltoday.com) and see the anti-Palin and anti-Tea Party venom coming out in earnest--but do yourself a favor and check the timestamps of many of the original posts on those thread...you'll notice that these accusations were being written within the first hour after the news started to come in--in other words, well before we had *any* information on the nutjob that perpetrated these acts.

At the risk of sounding like some conspiracy theorist--it almost seemed like the left had a "plan" for whenever some public shooting spree or other such tragedy took place--link it to Palin and the Tea Party. Within minutes of the tragedy, the "Palin is responsible" meme was all over the internet and the media. Now, of course I know it wasn't an organized gameplan by the Left (after all, in this day and age, one person can lie on the internet and within minutes, 5 million others will swear to that lie...and it's a phenomenon that the Left has mastered), but the speed and consistency of this meme--unfounded and untrue as it was--was simply stunning in swiftness with which it permeated both the cyber and traditional medias. I suppose it just goes to show you that when these sick bastards decide to tell a lie, and stay consistent with that lie--they can get that lie out there in the public eye with lightning speed. We on the Right must never underestimate the pervasiveness, redundancy, and effectiveness of the Left-wing spin/lie machine--when it's running on all cylinders, it can get misinfomration out there with a frightening level of speed and effectiveness. Give the Devil their due, the Left does an excellent job of saturating both the internet and the "traditional" media with their story, spin, and interpretation of events. It would be a huge mistake for the Right to ever underestimate the Left's mastery of publicity and communication (and what happened the last time we underestimated their effectiveness in this area? Obama got elected. I rest my case.)

***On the "Political Vitriol" Factor: Once it became apparent that the shooter, Jared Loughner, couldn't be linked with Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, or any other political movement currently residing on planet Earth, the Left shifted their smear towards the idea that the "Level of Political Vitriol" in America was somehow responsible--either partially or fully--for the tragedy. As the afternoon of the tragedy went on and the news of Loughner's Youtube channel became public (and accordingly, millions of Americans--myself included--immediately went to that channel), it became clear that this guy could have been set off by as little as a strong gust of wind. There was (and still is) no evidence that the level of political discourse in America contributed--either directly or indirectly--to Loughner's heinous actions. However, this didn't stop the Left from ratcheting up this storyline on the Sunday Morning panel shows, and continuing with it through the week.

So why would the Left stick with such a meme if it has no connection to the reality of the situation? My take on it is that they see this tragedy as an opportunity--for Liberalism to get a stronghold in a nation, there must be some level of apathy or non-attention on the part of the public--which enables the Left to put their big government agenda in place over time, piece by piece. After all, if they were to attempt to execute all of their radical ideas at once, the populace would be horrified and put a stop to it. However, if the public is apathetic, distracted, or just simply not paying attention, then "bits and pieces" of government can be put into place and--after a generation or two--people won't question those government programs because, after all, "hadn't they always been there?" During much of the 20th Century, the Left had--with some short interruptions--the apathetic environment they needed in order to do their dirty work. However, the 21st Century is different--the public (and particularly the Tea Party movement) is no longer apathetic, and this interferes with what the Left wishes to do. Passing Obamacare was political suicide for many of the Democrats who supported it, and other extreme Leftist measures such as Cap & Trade and Card Check didn't see the light of day in the last Congressional session because of the public pressure against those ideas. The Left knows that for all the things you can say about vitriol and anger, you can't say those concepts are apathetic. Therefore, they need Americans to lose the vitriol and anger, and resume their apathetic slumber of previous generations, if they are to resume implementing their dangerous and over-reaching ideas. As a result, I believe many on the Left felt (and still feel) that last weekend's tragedy was a profound opportunity to attempt to lower the nations tone, and in doing so inspire the apathy that the Left desperately needs in place.

***On the "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" Factor: On offshoot of the "Political Vitriol" meme has been the complaints of the Left of "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" that they claim is used by the Right--despite (again) having no information or evidence supporting a claim that such imagery or rhetoric had anything to do with this tragedy. Soon after the shooting, the Left was saturating the internet with the Sarah Palin Pac ad where certain Congressional districts--which had been targeted for possible pickups in the 2008 election--had been marked with crosshairs. Also, there were cries from the left about speeches calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" (and if they're complaining about that statement, then by definition, aren't they complaining about the Constitution as a whole?) among other things. "This type of rhetoric and speech should have no place in politics" many of the Liberal Do-Gooders whined. Pretty quickly, Conservatives were able to come up with just as many examples of "violent" imagery (a map showing districts targeted by Democrats with bullseyes) and speech (among many others, Obama's remarks about "not bringing a knife to a gunfight")

So now that it's been established that such imagery and speech has come from both sides, let's tackle the question--does such speech and imagery have any place in the political arena? I don't see why not. Since the beginning of our nation, speech and imagery referring to combat, gunfire, or items of a military nature (now deemed by the Left to be "Violent Imagery") have long been used as illustrative devices in the political process--just as they have in almost every other aspect of life. We use them when talking about sports, about business, about personal relationships, or darn near anything else you can think of. It's a natural part of our speech because such things are examples that most all of us can relate to on some level--hence why they are such excellent illustrative tools. So the Left wants us all to stop using violence in our speech? To do so is so natural to most people that the Left would have more success asking us not to use verbs or adjectives in our speech!

***The "Politicization" Factor: From about Sunday on, I've seen much sniping about how crass it is to politicize this tragedy. Now, on the surface, I agree with that criticism. However, many who have leveled such a criticism have objected to *both* the Left and the Right participating in this politicization--and that's just flat-out wrong. It is quite true (as illustrated in the examples contained in the above paragraphs) that the Left started politicizing this tragedy from the first moments that the nation heard about it. However, from what I've seen, the Right's participation in the politicization has been simply to defend ourselves from the unfounded and ridiculous accusations that the Left has levied over the last several days. Beginning on the Sunday shows, The Left began throwing the accusations at the Right mentioned above--that our "tone" and "vitriol" were somehow responsible for this. On Monday, when some Conservative commentators responded to those charges, the Left criticized us merely for responding.

So let me get this straight--the Left somehow has the authority to connect the Right to this tragedy by way of accusing us of mythical actions that had zero to do with tragedy--and when people on the Right had the gall and temerity to *gasp* respond to those accusations, the Left somehow had the authority to criticize us a second time merely for attempting to respond to their accusations? Bullshit. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year old in a sandbox screaming "He started it!", the truth is, in this case, the Left really did start it. And their accusations--unfounded though they might have been--were so egregious, off the mark, and potentially damaging that we had no alternative but to respond and set the record straight. To those of you who would criticize the Right's part in the politicization of this issue, ask yourself this question--what should the Right have done instead? Once we were falsely accused of having some kind of connection or responsibility for the actions of Jared the Nutjob, could you have really expected us to turn the other cheek and ignore the falsehoods and lies being spread--and thereby allow those falsehoods and lies to take root in the public and potentially come back and hurt us at election time? Should we have allowed the Left to have Carte Blanche to make any accusation and tell any lie that they wanted without challenging them? And if so, how on earth would we go about undoing the damage that such lies, falsehoods, and connections would surely result in?

We did not want to engage in this political pissing match--we were dragged into it kicking and screaming. If you're disgusted with the politicization of this tragedy (and on some level, you certainly should be), then be disgusted with the Left. After all, they are the ones the saw this tragedy as political opportunism, and launched baseless political attacks accordingly.

Many times, you'll hear some Conservatives (and certainly myself) talk about how sick, demented, and morally bankrupt the modern American Left is. And I realize that many people chalk these statements up to just "partisan political rhetoric". But if this week has illustrated anything, it has illustrated that our characterization of the American Left--as a disconnected, evil, sick, soulless group of morally and spiritually bankrupt people masquerading as human beings--is all too real.

Your WTF Moment of 12/16/10: Harry Reid claims earmarks are "what we are supposed to do"

2010-12-16T18:36:00.000-06:00

The WTF moment of the day is back with a doozy today. Every once in a while a crooked, career politician accidentally makes a statement that peels away the mask and gives the voter a true window into their character. Today was one of those days, as Nevada Senator (and pork purveyor extrodinairre) Harry Reid made the following comment on earmarks:

"That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do."

Linky: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/16/reid-earmarks-are-what-were-supposed-do/

With that comment, Reid proved himself to be a relic of a (soon to be) bygone era in Congressional politics. A relic from a time in which the American People didn't pay day-to-day attention to the actions of Congress (understandible, considering that watching Congress--with all of it's procedural pomp and slow-motion legislating is about as exciting as watching the proverbial grass grow). A relic from a time when you didn't really think about your Congressman until election time, and even then you could be easily fooled by the "Well, he got that nice new Senior Center bulit" argument.

What Reid (and other like him--mainly Democrats but even some old-line Republicans) have missed is that the electorate has changed. We're actually paying attention now. Some of us (many more than in previous generations) actually pay attention to the day-to-day activities of Congress...boring though that might be. We are much more aware of the dire financial situation our nation faces than our elected "leaders" give us credit for. As a result, fewer Americans are swayed by the simple dangling of pork in front of our faces. When it comes to Congress, previous generations of Americans seemed to have the attitude of "They should cut everyone's spending except for my district!". But more and more Americans of this generation are realizing that--in order to regain our financial footing--we must reject senseless spending wherever it exists...even if it is in our own backyard.

P.J. O'Rourke made the comment that November 2 wasn't an election, but instead a restraining order. A very loud, abrupt, and unquestionable message was sent to Washington six weeks ago--the old style of politics doesn't cut it anymore. We see through the bread and circuses routine that Congress has relied upon for generations. We realize there are major problems facing this country, and we will no longer be distracted by a few crumbs thrown to us by our Representatives and Senators.

But Reid and his ilk didn't seem to hear that message. Instead, they are stuck in the past--believing that obtaining "federal funds" will buy our loyalty. The problem is that We The People now see through the charade--we realize that "federal funds" does not equal "free government money"--that's OUR money, dammit! Remember that scene from "Rounders" where Mike McDermott beats Teddy KGB in the big poker game to win back the $15,000 he'd lost to him years before? After fuming for a bit, KGB settles down and says "It doesn't matter...after all...I'm paying you with your own money!" That's exactly what Congress had done for years, and Reid and his kind would like to keep doing--buy our loyalty and blindness by paying us with our own money.

What? You haven't seen "Rounders"? Where in the blue Hell have you been? Only the greatest poker movie of all time...

Anyhow, the people have spoken, and they are flat out against earmarks. We see behind the curtain and we understand the dog and pony show that Reid and many other "Career Congressmen" have perpetuated for no other reason to stay in power for decades on end. Now, will the end of earmarks resolve the massive financial issues our nation faces? Certainly not--you'd have to tackle "mandatory spending" to really make a dent in what we owe (such as Social Security)--but those earmarks are nothing to sneeze at either. And more and more Americans are realizing (many from personal experience) that when you're in debt, every dime is important. For Harry Reid, like so many Congressmen (many of which are thankfully leaving Washington for good at the end of this session), that lesson has gone right over their heads.

The American people want a different kind of Congress and a different kind of government. "Politics as Usual" has failed miserably over the second half of the 20th century, and the polticians who continue to do business in the manner of that bygone era will find their days numbered.

Sarah Palin's Perfect Job: RNC Chairperson!

2010-12-15T21:23:00.000-06:00

One of the curses of being a genius and a highly developed analyst of politics and culture, as I am, is that upon occasion I will say something incredibly brilliant that only a few people will ever hear or see. This is the case with what I am about to post--recently on a message board at www.wrestlingclassics.com I posted something that I feel is an incredible idea that could be hugely beneficial for the Conservative movement and the 2012 Presidential election. The problem is that only that particular message board got to see this ingenius idea, and let's face it, I'm pretty sure the movers and shakers of the GOP are not hanging out on a message board that discusses classic pro wrestling. With that in mind, I'm going to bring this brilliant idea over to this blog for the world to see.

Incidentally, if you are a fan of old-school, classic professional wrestling, there is simply no better place on the internet to discuss and learn about this topic than www.wrestlingclassics.com . You can find an answer to practically any question you have about classic wrestling, and even interact with some performers from the "glory years" of the sport of kings.

Ok, back to the topic at hand--many of us are Sarah Palin supporters, but realize that she could have a difficult time if she ran for President in 2012. It's not that Obama is popular (far from it), but there are many people out there who--for whatever reason--absolutely despise Sarah Palin. It's not just that they dislike Sarah--it's that they absolutely hate her. Irrational hatred to the point that some of them will shoot their TV with a gun when her daughter so much as appears on the screen! Now, an analysis of this hatred would make for quite a post of it's own, but for this discussion, let's just acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of the American public who hates Sarah Palin and would take action (for example, showing up at a voting booth) to prevent her from being succesful.

Now look on the other side of the coin, Barack Obama won the Presidency on the heels of unprecedented turnout from "non-traditional" and "casual" voters. By any measure, the "rock star" status has worn thin since his election, and all of those rainbows and lollipops that he promised to those non-traditional voters who just didn't know any better haven't come through. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that Obama won't be able to win on the same "smoke an mirrors, style over substance, massive non-traditional turnout" that he had in 2008. It's not that those voters would vote for the GOP candidate--I suspect that very few of them would "flip"--but that a certain dissatisfaction and malaise is likely to set in among voters who thought Obama would be the man that would change the world. So if those voters don't get fired up and turn out in droves, how does Obama win in 2012?

He doesn't.

So if it's clear that Obama can't win without a surge of casual and non-traditional voters (as he did in 2008), then one can begin to see the possible issues with a Palin candidacy. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is a magnficent public servant and ambassador of Conservatism, and I deeply admire her. But speaking strictly in terms of electoral strategy, the level of hatred that many of those casual and non-traditional voters have for her could drive voter turnout for Obama where it otherwise wouldn't have been. I'm not saying Sarah can't beat Obama--I think she could, but it would be one hell of a fight.

I am however saying that there could be another solution that could all but gurantee a Conservative Presidential win in 2012. From my post on www.wrestlingclassics.com , here is my proposal for that solution:

"I think I've mentioned it here before, but you know what would be the *perfect* job for Sarah?

RNC Chairperson.

Before all of you spit your adult beverages all over your computer screen, think this through: What are the most important functions of a party chairperson? Raising funds and appealing to the base. There is, of course, some responsibilities in terms of agenda and strategy for the party--but it appears to me that the biggest (or at least the most highly visible) part of the job is 1) Convicing the base that the candidate isn't "leaving them behind" and 2) Convincing that base to open their checkbooks and financially back that candidate.

Nobody appeals to the base of the GOP like Sarah does, and she's among the best fundraisers we have (maybe Karl Rove is slightly ahead of her at this point, but I'd say she's right up there with him). A party chairman is there to rally the base of the party while the candidate is out there trying to rally everyone else--and it's role that Sarah's made for!

You know who else has done a pretty good job in a similar role? Howard Dean. And as scary as it might be to say this, there are some similarities between Dean and Palin:

**Dean appeals to the "true believers" of the Left as much as Sarah does to the true believers of the Right (perhaps only Al Gore gets more love from the committed Left than Dean does)

**Both scare the pants of the opposite party and much of the centrists (making it more difficult for either to win on a national level)

**Both can "fire up" the base and get people to open the checkbooks.

**The media will give both of them all the airtime they want, because they know that either one of them will be good for a juicy soundbite virtually on command.

And the best part--all of the "Palin Haters" who would come out strictly to vote against her would likely stay home. After all, *she* wouldn't be running for anything, and would have no real power (at least in a governing sense), so attacks on her--a mere party chairperson--during a Presidential campaign would fall flat. Seems to me that you'd get the best that Sarah has to offer (ability to fire up and appeal to the base, ability to raise money, and perhaps some efforts at nudging the party platform more to the Right) with none of the negatives (all of the nitwits and crazies who think Sarah is "evil incarnate" would likely stay home--and as I've said a million times, low or moderate voter turnout would work against Obama regardless of who the opponent is).

I do think Palin would make a magnificent President, and would support her wholeheartedly if it came down to her or if she were the only truly Conservative candidate. However, if we can find another True Conservative to run (and that might be a rather large "if") then Sarah as RNC Chairperson might be the brilliant move that puts it over the top."

Now, the key to all of this is for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2012 while Sarah handles the fundraising and firing up of the base. As I've said before, in 2012, I will back the most Conservative candidate, I will not back a moderate simply because they have an (R) after their name. But with that having been said, a Conservative candidate--even one with relatively little experience--could beat Obama in 2012 if our poltical machine is humming along at it's highest efficiency. And I think Sarah Palin could be the perfect person for the job.

Unfortunately, the GOP establishment hasn't figured this out (no big surprise there), and they continue the charade of Micheal Steele desperately trying to hang onto his job while several others--who don't have the recognition or potential for grabbing donations as Palin does--challenge him for it. It has become a common theme of the GOP over the last 20 years: Yet another brilliant idea going to waste.

Your WTF Moment of the Day: Congress from Hell plays the part of America's Psycho Ex-Girlfriend

2010-12-14T21:54:00.000-06:00

Time for a new re-curring feature on your friendly neighborhood blog: "Your WTF Moment of the Day"! These are intended to be "quick hit" commentaries and reactions about a particular news item of the day (as opposed to the long-form articles I've been writing here...don't worry, those aren't going away, but the WTF Moments are desinged to add another dimension to this, the greatest blog on teh interwebs)

Today's topic: Senate Democrats show off their agenda for the remaining weeks of this Congressional session, and appear to be intent on doing as much substantial damage as possible before Capitol Security throws them out.

Link to Washington Post story with the details: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/14/reid-threatens-keep-congress-next-year/

So despite the utter rejection of the American People during the 2010 mid-terms, the Dems are committed to playing the role of the psycho ex-girlfriend who won't go away no matter how many times we don't return her phone calls, sleep with her best friend, or otherwise humilate her. Instead of taking a hint, understanding that the meaningless fling was just that, and moving on, they are instead convinced that we the people would fall madly in love with them if we would just come to our senses and realize how good they are for us. Instead, they simply don't realize that we have completely rejected everything they stand for, see them for the skank that they are, and refuse to put up with their proverbial "psycho ass" any longer.

As the legendary band Motley Crue once sang: "Girl, don't go away mad...Girl, just go away!"

The American people don't want $1.1 Trillion in spending, an arms reduction treaty with Russia, repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", or additional pork any more than a single guy wants to hear some chick (who he only banged because he was drunk) drone on about feelings, commitment, Twilight, or any of that other shit they talk about the next morning when you're trying to come up with some excuse to get them out of your house.

Note to Dems: I believe I speak for the American People when I say: "Bitch...Get Da Fuck Out!!!!"

...and put my shirt back in the closet where you found it! Psycho bitch, trying to take my shit...

Why we must declare war on intellectualism

2010-12-08T14:19:00.000-06:00

It almost goes without saying that a massive change has occured in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of Americans living today and the values, beliefs, and behaviors of our grandparents and great-grandparents. When one examines this change in our culture (and the mostly negative consequences that arose from the actions generated by this cultural change), it can lead one to the rather daunting questions of "How in the Hell did we allow our nation to get to this point? Where did we wander off the trail?"

There are many potential scapegoats, of course. We could spend post after post laying blame on the media, the Democratic Party, or the entertainment industry (and who knows, perhaps at some point I will spend post after post doing this), but the fact is that none of those entities could have had as much influence over our beliefs and actions as they have unless we had somehow allowed them to do so. But if that is the case, then how on Earth did we allow these entities to co-opt and corrupt us?

One of the key answers to that question might surprise some of you--indeed, it might be something you've never considered or thought about. Indeed, when I mention what it is in the next few lines, it might seem counter-intuitive--or perhaps even flat-out crazy--to you. But if you think about it, and look back at the 20th Century, I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

It is our trust in Intellectualism and Academia that has done untold damage to our society through the 20th century.

To put it in most simple terms, we as a society have abandoned our own knowledge, observations, judgement, understanding of human nature and yes, common sense...and have instead deferred to the pontifications of those who have spent their lives in our Colleges and Universities, but have produced little of actual value. Through the 20th century, we have been told that "the smartest guys in the room" have all the answers, and that those of us who don't have the "Ivy League Seal of Approval" should feel compelled to defer to whatever comes out of the mouths of the Intellectual Elite--no matter how ridiculous those words or ideas might be. Forget that many of the ideas that Intelligensia has backed over the last 100 years or so have been counter-intuitive to any sort of basic understanding of human nature, psychology, or sociology--we have somehow determined that those counter-intuitive ideas must somehow have more value than our own instincts and understanding, simply because these "new" ideas are coming from those who have a particular sheepskin on their wall or certain letters after their name.

In short, we have confused edcuation for intelligence.

What is the difference between education and intelligence? Think back to your childhood--if you're anywhere near my age (mid-thirties...though I'm not above claiming an age of 27 when speaking with a lovely lady), then you likely remember growing up around people in your childhood who always seemed to have the right answer or solution, regardless of what problem or situation arose. It might have been a parent, grandparent, neighbor, uncle, aunt, pastor...chances are, there was someone around early in your life (and perhaps, many someones) who had the ability to "figure out" the right solution or answer to whatever life handed them. Now, think a bit further--how many of those people were college educated? Of that group, how many had a Master's Degree? How many had a Doctorate?

For most of us, maybe a few of those influences had a college education. Perhaps one or two had a master's degree. And beyond your pediatrician or dentist, you probably didn't know anybody who had a doctorate. Speaking for myself, I grew up in an area where very few adults had anything beyond a High School education (and many didn't even have that)--but yet many of the adults I knew back then understood how do deal with people, understood how to teach them when necessary, understood when you should give people a helping hand (and perhaps more importantly, the knew when you shouldn't give a helping hand). They understood how to run a business, how to manage risk, invest, and grow money, and how to protect the interests of themselves and their families. All without the "Ivy League Seal of Approval".

These uneducated adults understood that you cannot prepare a child for adulthood without instilling discipline in him (but the intellectuals of the same era would argue that you have to be your child's best friend and not take an authoritative role in their lives). These uneducated adults knew that putting money away and spending responsibly would put you in good stead later in life (as the intellectuals claimed that one must spend, spend, spend with little regard for fiscal responsibility in order to keep the economy moving). These uneducated adults taught us that it is not acceptable to steal, lie, or kill in life (but the intellectuals of that era told us that if someone is economically, socially, or racially disadvantaged, then such actions must be understood, not criticized)

In short, most of the "uneducated" adults I grew up around had more intelligence and better judgement than many of the allegedly "educated" people I've met in the ensuing years since I left my hometown.

But how can this be? Shouldn't those with hours upon hours, and years upon years of education have the ability to make better judgements or come up with better answers than those without such education? One would think so...but there's one key element missing in mondern academia. The missing element is the connection of that education (and the theory it entails) to the realities of the world we live in. So much of what passes for modern education isn't proven, but is instead theorectical in nature. It is not meant to relate to how humans really behave in live, but instead is meant to relate to how those within the cocoon of intelligensia feel that humans should live.

Where the uneducated "rubes" that I grew up with made judgements, analysis, and decsions within the realm of reality (if I do X, then I know Y will happen next), much of intelligensia make their judgements, analysis, and decisions based outside the realm of the world that currently exists ("If we understand the terrorists, perhaps we could connect with them and make everybody more safe!"...despite the fact that World History would indicate this has never happened with this group of people).

This is not to say that education--in and of itself--is a bad thing. Heck, I have a bachelor's degree myself. However, it is to say that education is not the be all and end all of intelligence. The education one receives must be based in the practical, not the theoretical, in order to be of any value. Think back to LBJ's Great Society--a series of programs that the Intellectuals told us would level the playing field for poor Americans and give them opportunities that they were allegedly being deprived. The result? Cities that are in a shape as bad--or in many cases, worse--than they were before the meddling of LBJ and the intellectuals in his ear, not to mention a creation of a Welfare Class that burdens us to this day. The intellectuals never saw this coming--but the "good ol' boys" would have told you that giving money to people without having them work for it would do nothing more than encourage those people to remain unproductive and lazy (and indeed, they have).

It's high time that we start trusting in our own judgement again. The 20th Century has proven that the judgement of the Intellectuals is no more superior or less flawed than our own. Each of us has the power to analyze a situation or a problem, look at the facts avaliable, and use our own experience and knowledge of human beings to take proper action--we do not need an "educated" class of people to make those decisions for us or to try to influence our decisions. An education should be used to supplement what you already know and understand about the world, not to replace it.

If an intellectual tells you something that just doesn't make sense in your gut--then trust your gut, chances are that it has a better track record than the intellectual. When an intellectual tries to feed you come cockamamie theory that doesn't pass the "smell test" of reality (you know, like telling you we can provide health insurance to all Americans without raising the cost or comprimising the availability of that insurance), reject them! Their judgement-steeped as it is in the trappings of intelligensia--is no better than yours.

Remember, the "intellectuals" led us to failed ideas such as Keynsian Economics, The Great Society, Social Security, and The Community Re-Investment Act (and it's bastard offspring, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac), all of which have contributed to the financial problems that we experience today. With that type of track record, perhaps it's high time that we sat Academia in the corner, and put the Dunce Cap upon their collective head.

Diversity in Conservatism Part Deux: Why don't affluent African-Americans flock to Conservatism?

2010-11-18T16:21:00.000-06:00

Writer's block is something that many great authors and thinkers--such as myself--are forced to deal with from time to time. Once the mid-term elections came and went, a certain calm--ok, maybe not "calm" but "chance to step back and at least take a breath"--seemed to descend over those of us in the realm of Conservative Commentary. The passionate energy and fervor with which we wrote over the last two years seemed to subside, at least on a temporary basis. I can tell you that, at least speaking for myself, I've actually had a hard time trying to find something to write about for the last couple of weeks.

But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?

Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.

But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?

This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?

There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?

While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).

As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".

To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.

This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.

On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.

An open letter to the soon-to-be-elected Republican members of Congress

2010-10-31T21:19:00.000-05:00

Dear Freshman GOP Congressional Class of 2011:

As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.

As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.

In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.

I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:

Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.

Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.

Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.

Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.

Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.

Sincerly,
The American People

The Most Destructive Phrase in the English Language

2010-10-21T22:08:00.000-05:00

There is one phrase in the English language that I absolutely despise. I mean, I reeeeaaallly hate it. Can't stand it. Makes my skin crawl whenever I hear it.

And it's not "Last Call".

That offending phrase is "You just can't say those things!"

It's usually a phrase that is used when something controversial--but true or reasonable--is stated in a public forum. It is the epitome of Political Correctness--a retort indicating that while the "offending" comment might have some validity, it's still a comment that somehow shouldn't enter into public debate as it's just too "offensive". It is usually generated by the unspoken notion that it is better to be polite and inoffensive in public debate as opposed to being truthful.

Suppose you're having a conversation with a group of friends, and you say "There's more violent crime in poor, black areas than their are in the suburbs". You're likely to get at least one person in the group to pipe up with the "You just can't say that!" phrase. They won't dispell your point--anybody who would attempt to do so simply could not be taken seriously in light of what human beings see and observe every day--but there is something about that particular piece of truth that doesn't jive with the worldview that they subscribe to, and as such, they cannot tolerate that type of fact into the discussion.

National Public Radio perpetrated perhaps the biggest "You just can't say that!" moment of all time by firing Juan Williams for his comments on the Bill O'Reilly show. Williams "controversially" said that he gets nervous or worried when he goes on an airplane and sees other people wearing Muslim garb.

Well, Duh! After 9/11 who among us doesn't do a double-take when seeing these kind of people in an airport or on a bus?

However, NPR evidently decided that Williams didn't do a suitable job of pretending that the threat of Muslim Terrorism doesn't exist, the way that NPR wants their employees to do so. In the PC world of NPR, the fact that Williams had a reasonable reaction to seeing people in an airport wearing Muslim garb, and dared to be truthful and admit it, was somehow beyond the bounds of good taste. Likewise, I've heard many people since that time say that you just can't say what Williams said, though they would admit that his reaction was somewhat natural and understandable.

Are you fucking serious?

Williams never impuned Muslims as a whole in his comments (and in fact, later in the interview, cautioned Bill O'Reilly that we as a nation should be careful not to view all Muslims in the same vein--a statement that I don't exactly agree with Williams on). All he said was that, after the events of 9/11--when, might I remind you, WE WERE ATTACKED BY RADICAL MUSLIMS--he gets a tad nervous when seeing Muslims on a plane. He didn't say he interferes with them, or that he takes any action against them, or that they shouldn't fly, just that he is a bit more "aware" of them than he might have been previously.

Nobody is suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists--but it is clear, based on recent history, that there is a percentage of them that are. We've also learned that it doesn't take many radical Muslims to cause large amounts of damage (remember Ft. Hood? All done by only one radical Muslim). Therefore it is only logical that a human being who is concious of his own safety would give an extra look towards those who may potentially be among a group that would pose a threat--particularly when in a vulnerable environment such as an airplane.

So it's certainly reasonable that one would take extra precautions with this group of people when you consider the events of the last nine years (and longer if you count the destruction that they have wroght worldwide). The stand of NPR (and those who agree with their decision) gives the appearance that we are to ignore the threat of radical Muslims, by forcing us to "pretend" that such a threat doesn't exist, or is, at worst, minimal.

It is my view that we can't fully address and and solve the problem of radical Islam (or many other problems for that matter) if we are not allowed to honestly discuss them--with no restrictions placed on what we say for "political correctness". See #10 on the CWG list of key Conservative concepts--"The truth hurts, but that's ok." In other words, ignoring an issue, or refusing to acknowledge it because doing so would force us to overturn the unrealistic worldview of those who naively believe that human beings of all races, religions, and nationalities can somehow live in peace (World History shows us that this is, indeed, impossible), will only lead to more problems, and the issue will remain unsolved.

If you have a relative with a drug problem, does insisting that nobody mention it make it go away? Of course not. If you are having financial problems, do they get solved by never looking at your bank statements? Certainly not. It should go without saying--but I suppose it doesn't--that problems cannot be solved when they are ignored. Those problems just fester, grow, and become unmanageable if they are not attacked at first site.

I'm going to say something now that will offend many of you Liberals who read this blog (and I know you're out there): Radical Islam is a problem in America and the World at large. It is not a philosophy to be understood or contained, it is not the result of any group of people having a legitimate gripe with the United States or Western Culture, and it is not a result of the favorite buzzword of the Left--"unfairness". These people hate our culture and our nation, have already attacked us multiple times, and have made it clear that they intend to keep attacking. We must do all we can--on a personal level as well as on a national security front--to address this problem and eliminate it. Our survival depends upon it.

There is never a time where Americans should sacrifice their safety and security merely for abstract and high-minded concepts like "fairness" and "understanding". If protecting our safety crosses the line into bigotry or even racism, then so be it. I hope the American Left can learn this lesson before their inaction results in the demise of us all.

The Rebellion of the Responsible--How the "$75 Tennessee Housfire" points to a changing attitude regarding "Safety Net" government

2010-10-11T19:05:00.000-05:00

First, before we get into the topic at hand in this post, a bit of housecleaning: As you may be aware, I'm a bit new to this "blogging" thing--so I'm learning what I'm doing as I go. As you likely are aware, comments on this blog are moderated by yours truly (only for the reason that I don't want this to turn into the typical AOL comments section filled with nothing of consequence). Tonight, when I logged in, I noticed a comment waiting for moderation that I had somehow missed for nearly a month. This is my fault, as I didn't notice the comment waiting for moderation, and I take full responsibility for the oversight. I assure you, faithful readers, that this shall not happen again. The comment has been published (It was in response to the "Gays and Kiss Cams" post), along with my response to it. My sincere apologies, particularly to the poster who originally made the comment...this type of oversight on my part shall not happen again, so sayeth the CWG!!!

Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.

The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.

Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.

After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.

But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.

For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.

However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.

We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.

If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.

A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.

Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.

The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.

On Gay's, Lesbians, Kiss Cam's, and Sporting Events

2010-09-16T21:45:00.000-05:00

If you've been anywhere near the St. Louis area in the last 24 hours, you've undoubtedly heard the controversy (fueled mainly by the fact that it was, indeed, a slow news day): Gays and Lesbians feel they are being discriminated against at St. Louis Cardinal baseball games because they aren't included in the "Kiss Cam" that goes around prodding unsuspecting couples into not-so-spontaneous liplocks at dull points in the game.

I'll get to my opinion about this in a second, but first, some full disclosure: I generally don't have much love for any of the bizarro scoreboard stuff that we get force-fed at your typical American sporting event these days. I don't need a scoreboard to tell me to "get loud" or to "pump it up". I don't really care which of the three hats the animated baseball is hiding under. I don't need the Jumbotron to "entertain" me...after all, that's what the damn game is for, isn't it? Over in England, soccer fans don't have to be prompted by a scoreboard to begin singing "In The Liverpool Slums"--they do so out of pure passion,(and also, because there's a lot of truth to the song as well!)

As an aside, here's a site with many anti-Liverpool soccer chants...you never know when these might come in handy: http://www.prideofmanchester.com/sport/mufc-songs-liverpool.htm

As you might be able to ascertain, the concept of the "Kiss Cam" itself isn't exactly something that I would consider a necessary (or even entertaining) part of any sporting event. I paid $80 to scream at referees, watch the Rams offensive line miss blocks, witness Blaine Gabbert scramble into trouble, or see the Cardinals blow another insurmountable lead. I'm not paying that money to watch complete strangers (and mainly unattractive ones at that) slobber all over each other.

So I've got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended) as far as "Kiss Cams" go to begin with. Therefore, you can probably imagine that I'm even less inclined to sympathize with the comments of a few gay people that they are being "excluded" in some way. The argument on their side is that they should be allowed the priveledge of appearing on the Cam just as straight people are (wait...appearing on that thing is a "priviledge"? I'd put good money on the statement that at least half of the people appearing on the damn thing would rather not show up on it!) Here's the problem I have with that idea--the Kiss Cam (and assorted other scoreboard crap) is ostensibly presented as a part of the overall entertainment at the stadium...never mind that it really isn't all that entertaining, the idea is that it is supposed to be entertaining. Therefore, one would think that the emphasis would be on presenting "entertainment" that would be palatable to the majority of people in the stadium. I hate to break this to all the gay/lesbian/transmorphified/whatever groups, but the majority of the people in the stadium *don't* want to see you smooching (heck, a good number of us don't want to see the straight people doing it either), therefore, since it wouldn't be palatable entertainment for the paying customers, you can't expect to be "included".

Besides, what do they think would actually happen if the Kiss Cam did catch a gay couple in mid liplock? The crowd would react one of two ways, neither of which would be what the Gay Community wants: If the smoochers were two guys or two unattractive women, the crowd would likely boo or groan. On the other hand, if the smoochers where two attractive lesbians, you'd instead hear an uproar of catcalls and other assorted testosterone-inspired comments (I'll be the guy yelling: "Take her shirt off!!!"). Would either reaction be what the Gay Community is looking for? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, there probably are some cities in America where such a display wouldn't be offensive to the paying cusotmers (San Fransisco for example...of course, they also serve Sushi at their sporting events, so I've lost all respect for San Francisco sporting culture right around the time that Ray "The Crippler" Stevens left town). If we're talking about one of those towns, go for it, knock yourselves out, whatever. But here in the midwest, the vast majority of people don't want to see such behavior. The Gay groups that are pushing this out here are trying to do one thing and one thing only, they want some quick publicity by trying to push something onto the public that they want no part of. Most straight people have no problem with gays doing whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes...but that doesn't seem to be good enough for many spokespeople in that community. They wish to force mainstream society to "accept" their behavior and change our definitions of what an acceptable family structure is. And that's where I have the problem with it all. I'd have much more respect for the Gay Community (and perhaps some empathy) if they were focused on assimilating into society...instead, they seem to be focused on changing society, and I think that's where they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

Remember #8 on my list of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts": "I don't care what you do in your bedroom...but I do care whe you expose my kids to it". Gays have made the decision to live a lifestyle outside the norm of society. That's fine, I've got no problem with that. But when they try to force mainstream society to accept or appreciate that decision, then that is what cannot and should not be accepted.

Who's really to blame for the lack of "diversity" in the New Right?

2010-08-31T18:45:00.000-05:00

You hear it from the "news" media everytime there is a major Tea Party rally, or even in the case of last weekends Restoring Honor rally in Washington...the snide comments about how "white" such gatherings are. (My favorite insult from this weekend: The frequent references to the Restoring Honor rally as "Whitestock"). Setting aside the absurd notion generated by the Left that no endeavor can be seen as legitimate unless certain percentages of all ethnic groups and sexual orientations are present (one must wonder if some Liberal parents go through the guest list of their 5-year old's birthday party to make sure there is a certain percentage of black children, a certain percentage of Hispanic children, a certain percentage of Asian children, a certain percentage of Indian children, a certain percentage of gay children---wait, does that even exist?--a certain number of female children, and not too many white children. Oh, and they have to make sure there's enough cake in case an illegal immigrant children show up unannounced--after all, they're just coming by because they don't have yummy cake at their house. Of course, they could just make it easy and invite their kids actual, you know, friends...but wouldn't that be a bit culturally insensitive?), let us ask the question, Should the modern Conservatives be blamed for the lack of participation in the emerging and re-branded modern Conservative movement?

We have seen ad nauseum the isolated racist signs and placards that showed up at some of the first Tea Party rallies in small numbers. While the "Lamestream Media" (thanks, Sarah!) continues to report these incidents as though they are current instead of the old news that they are, the fact is that the fringe racist elements are long gone from the New Right. You don't see racist signs or rhetoric at your neighborhood Tea Party rally these days, and I personally have seen situations where people tried to show up as such rallies with objectionable signs and demonstrative elements, and were abrubtly and unapologetically turned away at the gate. So the knee-jerk explanation that minorities are not participating in Conservatism because the Right is sensitive to and inclusive of racist elements simply doesn't hold water to anyone who has honestly examined the facts as they stand in 2010.

So if it's not the racism (overblown and isolated as it was all along), then what is the problem? Are we on the Right somehow not including or encouraging like-minded minorities to participate alongside us? I don't believe so. Just the other day, I was speaking with a Liberal friend who remarked "Every time a black person shows up at a Tea Party, you all rush them on stage and put a camera in their face!" Now, that is certainly an exaggeration--but on some level there is a thread of truth to it. If I'm honest about it, I believe that most people within the Conservative movement today actually *are* a bit sensitive to the race-baiting that comes from the Left in terms of the Tea Parties. And while it would be folly to bend over backwards and simply react to whatever the whims of the "news" media are at the moment, I do believe that most of us look for situations where we can highlight those strong-minded people within our movement who happen to be minorities. We know that showcasing a strong Black or Hispanic Conservative flies in the face of the narrative that the media has used against us for years--and completely deflates the biggest criticism that is routinely launched in our direction. At most any Tea Party or Conservative rally you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one speaker of minority persuasion (and make no mistake, there is an emerging group of strong young Conservatives who are beginning to make their voices heard these days. Here are two of many examples--Alonzo Rachel: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction , Kevin Jackson: http://theblacksphere.net/ )

So, if the racism is non-existent, and we're not only welcoming minorities into the movement, but are doing all we can to highlight and showcase those minorities and their voices, then why aren't more minorities flocking to the New Right in droves?

The answer is not pleasant. It is also not simple. It is also an answer that involves giving some back-handed credit to the Left and the Democratic Party. For over a half century, the Left in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--have pursued a cohesive strategy of convincing minorities (particularly African-Americans) that they are victims, and just can't make it in "unjust" American society without help from the government. Make no mistake, this strategy--appalling to any reasonable person as it is--has been wildly succesful for the Democrats. Whether we're talking about Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" (which has cost us more money than any actual war ever has), the demands for "justice" from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even the community agitating of a young Barack Obama, the message has always been consistent--you are a "victim", and simply cannot make it without our (meaning the government, funded by "evil racist rich people") well-meaning assistance. The result--quite tragically--has been a significant percentage of people across multiple minority groups that are comfortable living off the government teet, with no desire or willingness to get off their duff and compete for a life of their own, using the talents and capabilities given to them by God.

The lowering of expectations, ambition, and responsibility perpetrated by the Democratic Party in the minority community through the 20th Century has destroyed countless human potential. While such a long-term political strategy whould have been viewed for as patronizing, insulting, and even racist towards African-Americans, the American Left must be given...well, maybe "credit" isn't the right word...but at least acknowledged for delivering such a message in a manner which has resulted in multiple generations of minorities (at least a significant percentage of them) buying this toxic ideology hook, line, and sinker. American minorities have been "Punk'd" by the Democratic party, and as a result, many within these communities do not see the need, nor have the desire for personal achievement, to pursue a different path than the destructive one provided to them by the Left. Quite bluntly, if you want to know who has destroyed the inner cities, who has torn apart the Black Families, and who has turned the African-American community into a shell of everything it could (and should) be...you can look no further than the American Left.

When you consider that the clear message of the New Right is a message of limited government, individual responisibility and opportunity, and a rejection of the "cultural victim" ideals of the Left, it is somewhat understandable that we would have some difficulty gaining traction within minority America, given how the American Left has turned Minority-Americans (is that even a real hyphanated-American term?) against their own best interests. Hence, why so few minorities are showing up at Conservative gatherings. However, I sincerly believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see minorities who are seeing (and speaking out against) the last 50 years of Liberal dominance in the minority community and the destruction it has caused. These minorities--small in number, but loud in voice--are beginning to gravitate towards the New Right. As more minorities begin to see the lie that the Left has sold to them for several generations, they will be looking for a message that offers REAL hope...not the "hope" that comes from extended unemployement benefits or unchecked illegal immigration, but the hope that comes from having the freedom to pursue your best interests without having to concern yourself with the alleged best interests of "society". We on the New Right espouse this message, and we are welcoming these minorites, we are encouraging them, and we are showcasing them. Our doors are open to all minorities who have discovered (or are just now in the process of discovering) the truth of the last 50 years.

So to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this post--It is not the Conservatives that are to blame for the lack of minority participation in Conservatism. It is, instead, the fault of the American Left, and to an extent, also the fault of those members of the minority community who do not wish to pursue a fate other than lifetime dependance on the government. To those minorites who do not fit this category--those who with to use their talents and gifts for the betterment of themselves and their families intead of the betterment of a government who only wishes to make minorities dependant upon them--thereby controlling you...you have a home in the New Right. The Left sees you as African-American, or a Hispanic-American, or as an Asian-American, and they want you to believe that you are limited in your potential for achievement by your status as a "victim"...but the Right sees you as an American, period. No hyphens necessary. And we believe that you are not limited in your potential for achievement, because of your status as an AMERICAN.