The Positive Influence of Rush Limbaugh

On the heels of Barack Obama’s “Inauguration Speech from Hell”, MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz proclaimed the end of the Conservative era in American politics over the last 20 years.  To drive this point home, Schulz took a copy of Rush Limbaugh’s first book, “The Way Things Ought To Be”, and emphatically slammed it into a wastebasket on camera.

This illustration hit quite close to home for me, and I’m sure for others who came of age politically in the early 1990’s (and I suspect this was Schultz’ intent).  With Ed’s joyous proclamation of the supposed end of Limbaugh’s style of political thought and influence, I thought it would be appropriate to review the positive way that the influence of Limbaugh helped positively shape the politics of my generation.

When “The Way Things Ought To Be” was first released, in 1992, I was a fresh-faced high school graduate just starting the process of venturing out into the “real world”.  I was just starting to notice—on the most rudimentary of levels—politics in America, as well as just beginning to shape my political identity.  Despite being raised in a very Conservative, very Republican, and very rural area, I couldn’t have told you the difference between Republicans and Democrats, or the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism at that point in my young political life.  I knew that most people around me voted Republican, but I largely didn’t know why they did so (with the exception of their opposition to abortion, which even at that early point in my political development, seemed to be the most obvious and moral of all political positions to take).  To be sure, my focus was at that point in life was on my upcoming Freshman year of college, and the consideration of just how many pretty girls would be roaming around the campus of the University of Missouri.  But as far as politics went, I was essentially a blank slate at that point in life—as I suspect most 18-year old young men are.

Enter Limbaugh.  I had been vaguely aware of Rush during my Senior year of High School—his short-lived (but well-done) television show had aired in our market.  I watched the show every night, enjoyed the humor, and noticed that his explanation of the state of American politics at the time seemed quite sensible.  However, I didn’t initially place any more importance on Rush other than as an interesting half-hour television show that was a welcome break from the torturous boredom that was “Wheel of Fortune” (which competed in Rush’s timeslot in Springfield, MO.  Or maybe Rush replaced “Wheel”?…my memories of the specifics are hazy some 20 years later).  But then I began my college matriculation in the fall of 1992—and once in a while, here and there, I would hear the occasional person mention Limbaugh, perhaps speaking of an on-air joke or maybe his take on a current political or cultural event.  Sometimes I would hear my fellow students who worked with me in the dorm cafeteria mention something Rush had said on the air that day.  Or maybe I’d go to the small barber shop across the street from campus where I would get my hair cut-a barber shop that always seemed to have Limbaugh’s show playing on the radio when I would go in (and, I’m pleased to report, a barber shop that is still around today, as I discovered on a recent trip back to the Mizzou campus).  It seemed that Limbaugh was a topical part of the political environment, though I wasn’t specifically seeking him out myself.

Granted, not every mention I heard of Limbaugh I heard was a positive one.  It seemed every TV network and talk show of the day was going out of their way—tripping over each other, even—to do a show on Limbaugh and his “shocking” brand of radio.  And I noticed that nearly every mention of Rush on network television was quite negative in nature.  But I noticed something else—nearly every mention of Limbaugh from people that I knew and interacted with each and every day (many of which actually listened to his radio show) was quite positive.  And to be sure, the Mizzou campus in 1992 was no hotbed of Conservatism (as few college campuses are, even in the best of times).  But amid the rapturous feelings that permeated the campus for Bill Clinton, and amid much of the general rebelliousness against “establishment society” that young people in their late teens and early twenties invariably grasp onto at any university, and amid the countless college professors who were doing their dead-level best to convince me and other Freshman that the America we grew up in was the cause of many of humanity’s problems instead of the solution, there still seemed to be quite a few folks who heard Limbaugh’s message and gravitated towards it, even among the prevailing political and cultural tides on campus.  I suppose I noticed, though perhaps I didn’t initially realize it.

And then, one day during my Freshman year, I saw a copy of “The Way Things Ought To Be” on the shelf in the campus bookstore.  I purchased the book and quickly read it cover to cover—the first political book I can remember reading of my own volition, rather than reading for a class assignment or coursework.  And I was stunned.  There it was, in plain English…a down-to-earth, common-sense, humorous at times, explanation of American Politics—including all of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Instead of speaking in high-minded theoretical platitudes like my professors did (or like I’d noticed the evening news anchors or pontificators on the Sunday talk shows of the period did), Rush wrote in very real terms of America’s problems, it’s challenges, it’s history, and it’s future.  In written form, the book illustrated why voting Republican and standing for Conservative values was the most sensible path to take in America.  And there was something else significant—the confidence and pride that Limbaugh wrote with when discussing America and Conservatism. 

This confidence and pride was the exact opposite of the people I’d known through the years who seemed to share a Conservative worldview (a worldview that, instinctive as it was, I was still learning the finer points of).   Many of the adults I’d grown up around—most of which shared the political attitudes of Limbaugh and other Conservatives, whether they necessarily realized it or not—were nevertheless of a generation where speaking publicly about politics or political viewpoints was frowned upon.  “Not wanting to rock the boat” seemed to be a cultural motif of that generation (not only in politics, but in their approach to life in general).  In spite of having political and cultural viewpoints in common with Limbaugh or other Conservatives, it was like pulling teeth to get those adults to talk about or explain their viewpoints or publicly advocate for them. 

Perhaps they were too polite.  Or perhaps they thought of politics as something deeply personal that really wasn’t the stuff of polite discussion in mixed company.  But whatever the reason, this generation—though devout in their political viewpoints—were verbally silent during my youth and adolescence.  All while their political opposites where preaching Liberalism from every news broadcast, movie, pop song, sitcom, and textbook that my generation was exposed to.  While the previous generation of Conservatives did their talking at the ballot box (but few other places), the Liberals of that generation shouted their message from every mountaintop they could find…and the result was an acceptance (or perhaps even resignation) to Liberal ideas about culture, wealth, and crime that was the polar opposite of what my generation, deep down, knew to be “right and wrong”—but we felt that it was perhaps rude or out of line to question these things.  After all, our parents and grandparents knew differently, but yet they weren’t vocal about these differences.   Hence, much of my generation was “politically confused” when we need not be.

But no teeth-pulling was required with Rush—he was eager to explain to us, a generation that was ready and willing to become politically educated—the virtues of Conservatism.  Just as Liberals of the previous 40 years or so hadn’t been afraid to “rock the boat” and preach their gospel from every platform that they could get their hands on, Limbaugh wasn’t afraid to confidently and passionately express a differing viewpoint.  Rush was fighting fire with fire, in a way that people of my generation had never seen Conservatives attempt to do so before.  No longer did people—the majority of Americans, in fact—have to feel as though they could only speak in hushed tones about things like traditional values, hard work, and personal responsibility.  We would no longer allow ourselves to be confined by Liberals to the isolated corner of the room insomuch as the cocktail party of American political discussion was concerned.  Sure, people would get offended merely by Conservatives speaking openly about our viewpoints (just as I suspect our parents and grandparents feared), but Rush showed that maybe those people needed to be offended.  Perhaps their ideas, at last, needed to be publicly questioned by those of us who always doubted them, but were hesitant to speak out publicly in earlier times.

Rush took a lot of bullets publicly for advocating his political beliefs, just as Conservatives have always taken bullets privately for doing so.  But Limbaugh proved that you could take those bullets, and emerge stronger, more powerful, with a smile on your face and a trademark sense of humor, and continue to press on.

It was damn near an inspiration for the rest of us…and Conservatives are not often a group of people who naturally seek “inspiration” from anybody.

“The Way Things Ought To Be” proved in written form—just as Limbaugh’s show proved in verbal form—that common sense and traditional ideas had a place at the table in American political thought.  And the mere fact that we had finally wedged a seat up to that table—after having been relegated to the “kiddie table” for so many generations—was then and is now too much for the Left to take.  Rush—and countless others that followed in his footsteps, both publicly and privately—forced the Left to debate issues and questions that they thought had been put to bed for evermore.  Such debate was and is literally the last thing the modern Left wants to see in American politics, the biggest threat (in their minds) to their vision of what America should one day become.

So when Schultz threw “The Way Things Ought To Be” in the wastebasket—both literally and figuratively—I suspect it was with the hope that Liberals could turn the clock back to the 1960’s and 1970’s—when their ideology and demands went virtually unchallenged and unquestioned in American society.  Having to defend their ideas in the public square is something that rarely works to Liberal’s advantage in the long-term…sure, for short periods of time Liberalism can sound appealing to the masses (and we may be going through such a brief period in American history now), but over the long haul, Americans want to make their own decisions, live their own lives, and take advantage of the Liberty that is endowed to us not by any government, but by our Creator.  Deep down, Liberals know this, and that’s why they proclaim—and hope—that the era of Rush Limbaugh…and the era of robust political debate…is over for good.

How to Save CNN

Recently, Jim Walton, the President of CNN, resigned siting that the vaunted cable network “needs new thinking”.  A quick look at the numbers would seem to bear this statement out—CNN is showing it’s lowest ratings since the 1990’s, and during the second quarter of this year, some of their shows lost as much as 41% of their viewership.  In terms of comparison, CNN is consistently placing third (sometimes a distant third) behind competitors Fox News and MSNBC.    (Source:   http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/cnns-jim-walton-resigns_b79823 )

So if CNN is doing this poorly (at least comparatively) and is in need of some "new thinking"--then specifically what kind of new thinking or new strategies are needed in order to turn the network around?

In my estimation, CNN's main problem is that they are neither "Fish nor Fowl".  They certainly aren’t a “Conservative” network, but by the same token, MSNBC is the more blatantly Liberal network (CNN’s Liberalism seems to be more subtle).  They try to play the “middle of the road” angle (not that they actually are middle of the road—just look at their pro-control programming right after the Colorado of “convincing “ people that they are middle of the road).

 While many people claim to like the idea that journalism should be “middle of the road” or “unbiased” (as laughable as the idea of any sort of journalism actually being unbiased might be), the numbers (and distant 3^rd place finishes) would indicate otherwise.  We are in a politically contentious environment, and the American people are chomping at the bit to “choose sides”.  CNN is largely failing at convincing people to identify with them as a result.  In practice, it would appear that a comparatively low number of Americans (or, at the very least, a low number of the potential Cable news audience) actually want the middle-of-the-road, supposedly “unbiased”, approach to journalism that many people claim they want.

So, if CNN is to “pick a side” with their future hanging in the balance, does it make more sense for them to go more Liberal, or to go more Conservative.  Well, let’s look at where the opportunity is—On the left you have not only MSNBC, but all three major networks, most of the entertainment and music industry, and most of the newspaper industry.  Pretty hard to carve out a niche for yourself with that much competition!  But on the Right, you have only Fox News, Talk Radio, and a good section of the internet (think Drudge Report and Breitbart).  So, comparing the two, it would appear on the surface that there’s more room for competition and acquiring market share on the Right side of America’s political spectrum.

You read that right—in order to survive, CNN must swing hard to the Right.

But can you “outfox” Fox?   Is it possible to move even further to the Right than Fox and pick up market share?   Potentially, yes—look at the primetime lineup, the only rip-roarin’ Conservative among ‘em is Sean Hannity.  Bill O’Reilly (for all the people who bash him as a right-wing ideologue)  is downright Centrist some nights.  Greta Van Sustren doesn’t wear her politics on her sleeve, and the strength of her show is more on the interviews anyway.  Throw in Glenn Beck being gone, and you start to see that there is room to swing even to the right of Fox!

For all the talk from the Left of Fox News’ “Right Wing Extremism”, there is still a segment of the population that desires programming, news, and analysis that goes even further to the Right than Fox News does.  And it’s in this area where there is a bit of a void in the Cable news marketplace.  Perhaps this is an area that CNN could potentially challenge in.

It boils down to simple mathematics and simple business—unless either the Left-wing demand for programming or the Right-wing demand programming is significantly larger than the other (and presently, there is no indication that either are),  then trying to take a piece of the pie that already has a multitude of fingers in it is a sure path to starvation.  The Liberal “pie” already has many networks, newspapers, and other businesses trying to carve out their piece of that pie.  But the Conservative pie has far fewer fingers in it, despite the fact that it might indeed be growing.  If CNN would challenge for a piece of that pie, they could end up with a much larger and filling meal than they ever could otherwise!

Mitt Romney's Rich...So What???

Second verse…same as the first…a little bit louder…and a whole lot worse!

Some of our more loyal readers may remember that, last December, I made quite the criticism of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry when they began attacking Mitt Romney’s wealth in the primary.  (Original post here:  http://www.americasevilgenius.blogspot.com/2011/12/should-we-really-criticize-10000-bet.html )  Now, if you’ll recall, I was no fan of Romney in the primaries.  He was my last choice of last choices among the field (ok…maybe I would have backed him ahead of Jon “May I become a Democrat, Please?” Huntsman, but that’s about it!).  But despite my intense dislike…Hell, my hatred of Mitt Romney, I still believed that attacking him for his wealth was senseless.  There are many reasons to dislike or doubt Mitt Romney, I always used to say…but his wealth is not among them.

And so it has come to pass (or run, if you’re Georgia Tech) that seven months later, with the GOP primary a distant (if not fond) memory, that Obama and his minions are picking up those same “anti-wealth” arguments right where Gingrich, Perry, and the rest left them.  The last several weeks have been filled with talk of Swiss Bank Accounts (legal fiscal maneuver, last time I checked), people who lost their jobs when their companies were acquired by Bain Capital (although the alternative in most of those cases—for Bain not to buy those companies and allow them to die on the vine, costing even more jobs—would seem to be far worse), and general accusations that Romney’s wealth has somehow made him “out of touch” with regular Americans.

And seven months later, I ask the Democrats—just as I asked Gingrich, Perry, et al back in December—“As a voter, why should any of this dissuade me from voting for Mitt Romney?”  Should I consider it a character flaw that someone may legally place their money in a Swiss Bank Account as to avoid an unfair and arduous tax code?  Because I don’t.  Should I consider it an indictment of Mitt’s leadership skills that he consistently made decisions at Bain Capital that resulted in the company turning a profit (in other words, he successfully did his job)?  Because I don’t.  Should I worry that Mitt doesn’t always “relate” to that group of Americans who sits on their couches, watches Maury Povich while eating junk food purchased with their EBT cards and ironically bitching that the wealthy aren’t “doing enough” for them?  Because I don’t.

Now, if the subject is Romney’s lack of Social Conservatism, Romney’s own version of Health Care (aka “Obamacare v 1.0”), or Romney’s flip-flopping on nearly every issue during his political career, or Romney’s lack of chutzpah in going after Obama (where is the nut-cutting Mitt we saw in the primaries, anyhow?), then I’ll criticize Romney until the proverbial cows come home.  But on the subject of Romney’s wealth and how he attained it, I simply can’t see any reason to criticize him.  And I’m a guy who loves criticizing Romney whenever I get the chance!

To put it simply, I don’t want a President who can “identify” with society’s parasites.  Instead, I want a President who identifies with society’s producers.  And in this election, there’s only one clear choice in terms of which candidate stands with the producers, and which candidate stands with the parasites.  Obama is hell-bent on appealing to America’s “victims”…

…well I’m no victim, and I don’t believe that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be “victims” either, regardless of what socioeconomic class they might currently reside in.  Romney probably doesn’t identify with the “victims”.

And in 2012, neither does the rest of America.

Illegal Immigration & the Hispanic Vote

Recently, Barack Obama ruffled some feathers with a recent ruling that we would not deport young Illegal Aliens who were brought over by their parents.  While it’s extremely questionable whether or not Obama actually has the authority to declare such a fiat, the bigger point is that he unequivocally endorsed what amounts to amnesty for a large group of Illegal Aliens.  Unfortunately, Mitt Romney did not strike against Obama when he made this treasonous decision—instead he took the position that he’s become so used to taking as of late--the position of taking no position at all, and sitting on the fence.

Many who support Obama’s decision (and even some who support Romney’s non-decision) state that it would be unfair to send back Illegal Aliens who did not come here of their own volition but instead because of their parent’s lawbreaking.  While it is completely understandable to feel some sympathy (at least on the surface) for Illegal Aliens in this predicament, I still do not see where such sympathy should then translate to an obligation on our part to use our resources (already stretched to the maximum to begin with) to help them stay here.  While many of these young Illegals did not come here through any fault of their own, the fact remains that they are not here because of any fault on our part, either.  As such, why should we be the ones to take responsibility for the illegal and immoral actions of their parents (actions which many of them took purposefully in order to make sure that their offspring were born as “American Citizens” without going through the proper channels)?  Add to this the gang violence and drug trade that is perpetrated by many (though by no means all) of the young Illegals, and it becomes clear that—sympathetic or not—we simply cannot assist them in the callous breaking of the law which their parents undertook.  In a time of international war and economic issues domestically, this type of assistance would be nothing short of slitting our own throats.

Looking at this from a purely political perspective, one thing is apparent:  Obama is trying to use this stance to court Hispanic voters, and Romney is being very careful not to piss off those same Hispanic voters.  But is this a reasonable reaction from either candidate (particularly Romney)?  Is it a given that all (or even most) Hispanic voters are sympathetic to Illegal Aliens?  I ask that question rhetorically, as I honestly do not know the correct answer at this point in time.  But as I think about it, I would think that logically Hispanic voters should be no more sympathetic to Illegals than we are…indeed, logically speaking, they should be more angry with Illegals, as their actions reflect poorly on legal Hispanics and cause tremendous amounts of anger and distrust toward Hispanics who are here legally—anger and mistrust that would not otherwise be there if the Illegals weren’t such a significant problem.

Now, to be sure, there are many voters (and even large blocks of voters) who do not cast their ballots logically (see the nearly homogenous support for the Democratic party by the African-American community—despite a half-century of policies that have destroyed their families and confined them to near-permanent poverty—for an excellent example).  It is entirely possible that a significant number of Hispanics are sympathizing with Illegals and thereby voting against their own best interests…it certainly wouldn’t be the first time in American politics that such “misguided voting” has happened.  However, it seems to me that the best way to deal with this in the long term for the Republican party (or any party for that matter) would not be to accept the faulty premise put forth by these voters, but to instead better inform and educate them as to why they should turn against Illegal Immigration themselves.  To accept the faulty premise might win you some elections in the short term, but would do irreparable damage to the nation in the long-term (again, see the Democratic Party’s constant efforts to appeal to the lowest common denominator within the African-American community).  But if instead, you clearly and coherently make your case, you have the potential (over the long haul) to change the attitudes of the best and brightest voters within that community and start a generational shift in how that block of voters approaches such issues.

If your goal is simply to win one election, then I’ll admit, it’s a low-percentage play.  But if your goal is to save and improve the nation, it is the only strategy that makes sense.

But maybe there’s another alternative…maybe there are already significant numbers within the Hispanic community which already have the same disdain for Illegals as the majority of other Americans do.  After all, Legal Hispanics are just as much a part of—and just as much invested in—America as all other legal American citizens are.  Perhaps there are a significant number of Legal Hispanics who’s attitudes towards Illegal Immigration are logically correct.  Perhaps there is a group within the community who realizes that they suffer more directly than anybody else in America because of the actions of Illegals.

Those people may be out there (or if not, a significant number could be converted).  But as long as the Democrats appeal directly to the Illegals, and as long as the Republicans are too scared to upset them, we may never know.  And all American Citizens—regardless of ethnicity—will continue to live in massive danger.

Dispelling Obama's Lies on the Bush Economic Policy

In the midst of his re-election campaign, Barack Obama has resorted to telling bold-faced lies to the American people. Namely, he has characterized the economic policies of George W. Bush as “failures” in nearly every speech he has recently made. But a quick look at the facts indicates that Bush’s economic policies weren’t “failures”, but were instead quite successful…and that those policies certainly did not create the current financial mess.

In order to analyze the success (or failure) of Bush’s economic policies, we must first take stock of the environment with which he was working. In 2001, Bush was not only dealing with the burst of the dot com bubble, but also was dealing with the after-effects of the most heinous attack on American soil in our history. Life in America had virtually grinded to a halt—and understandably so—on September 11, 2001…the day that the entire world changed. And our economic habits were a part of that re-assessment of our surroundings, just as everything else was. So there’s no doubt, Bush was dealing with an economy that was dangling on the precipice to begin with.

Bush’s primary maneuver to answer this most gargantuan of economic challenges was the (now much-vilified) “Bush Tax Cuts”. And while it’s difficult to trace an upturn or downturn in an economy to any one factor, the fact remains that nearly six million jobs were created between 2001 and 2008 (or perhaps even more jobs were created, depending upon who’s estimates you believe. Stats, BTW, come from the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, as re-printed in the Tampa Bay Times: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-bush-tax-cuts-created-8-million-/ ). Furthermore, tax revenue increased after the tax cuts (just as it normally does when taxes are cut…that’s the pesky little economic fact that Liberals don’t want you to know!) Between 2003 & 2007, tax filers grew by 9.6%, and taxable income grew by 44% (Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery )

Critics often say that many of the jobs created during the Bush years were later “lost” in the 2008 recession. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that these jobs were created in the first place. Economic conditions and environments change over time, and no job is guaranteed to exist 10 or 20 years down the road—no matter what economic or political philosophies shape the environment in which the job was originally created. I’d be willing to bet that if, today, you walked up to an unemployed man who is presently struggling to feed his family and offered him a job—but with the caveat that “I can’t guarantee that the job will still be around ten years from now”, that man would eagerly take the job (and likely give you a heartfelt “Thank You” on top of it). Created jobs don’t suddenly lose their legitimacy simply because they may not survive different and unforeseen economic circumstances down the road. The bottom line is that Bush’s tax cuts were a significant factor in the economic environment of the early 2000’s—and that was an environment in which jobs were created. Seems like the definition of “successful economic policy” to me…

But what about the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis…that just had to be all Bush’s fault, didn’t it? After all, it happened during his term, so it must have been his fault, right? Why, you’re probably saying to yourself, if he’d just reigned in Wall Street, none of this icky recession stuff would have ever happened!

You couldn’t be more wrong.

It wasn’t George W. Bush—or even Wall Street for that matter—who caused bad loans to be made or unreasonable risks to be taken by the banking industry. Instead, it was the government itself that injected this undue risk into the system—via the Community Re-Investment Act that was implemented back in the late 1970’s. It was this law, followed by continual pressure from the Federal Government, which forced banks to lend to home “owners” who had heretofore been kept out of the housing market (and kept out of it for good reason).

Prior to this act, most banks had far more strict lending standards. Back in the 1970’s and earlier, it wasn’t out of the ordinary to see banks demand down payments of 20% or even more on a home loan, or to charge interest rates in the double-digits. While lending standards and conditions like these certainly make it more difficult for individuals to purchase homes, they also functioned as a roadblock to keep the riskiest investors out of the marketplace entirely—thereby reducing the risk for large-scale disaster. But government involvement in housing brought with it lower interest rates, lower down payment demands, and insistence on much looser and unreasonable lending standards (including the outlawing of the legitimate lending practice of “redlining”—the act of prohibiting home loans to certain zip codes in which homes are statistically unlikely to retain their value). All of this in an effort to attract the worst possible customers into the marketplace. Since banks were no longer allowed to make good investment decisions, they had to do the next best thing—find a way to sell the risk (which the government had forced them to take on in the first place) to some other sucker…er…”investor”…in order to glean some value out of it and mitigate this risk.

And all of these dominoes started falling long before Bush (or even before his father) ever took office. It wasn’t a lack of Wall Street regulation and banking regulation that caused these problems…it was instead the over-regulation of the housing industry which brought upon this financial disaster.

George W. Bush was far from a perfect President. There are many things that even the most ardent Conservatives and Republicans can find to disagree with him on (His gratuitous spending on education, “No Child Left Behind”, dumping money into AIDS prevention in Africa without getting anything in return, Medicare Part D, and a myriad of other issues). But to look at his economic policies and consider them to be failures is to completely ignore the facts and history of the 2000’s. The Bush Tax Cuts did not destroy jobs, and Bush’s economic policies did not cause the housing crisis. And while we’re on the topic, here’s another Liberal charge that we can debunk: “Charging two wars on our Credit Cards” didn’t play any kind of significant role in creating our massive debt. At the height of our military action—2006—Military spending and educational spending combined were less than 20% of our total budget. Entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, and the like) were nearly 2/3 of our overall budget! Blaming our horrendous debt on our wars and military action is like a 350 pound woman saying “this dress makes me look fat”. Honey, it ain’t the dress that makes you look fat…it’s the fat that makes you look fat. It ain’t the wars that have made us broke…it’s the Social Security, Medicare, & Medicade that have made us go broke, and that we’re constantly borrowing money to fund!

So whenever you hear Obama talk about the “failed economic policies” of the last administration, recognize that your President is lying to you. It would be bad enough if Barack Obama were simply an incompetent buffoon who was in over his head—he’d have to be replaced, but you couldn’t really get mad at him for his stupidity. But he’s lying to you on top of simply being incompetent, and the media is backing him up. And lying to the American people—when the facts to the contrary are as obvious as a Hollywood starlet’s boob job—shows not only a severe lack of character, but it calls into question one’s motivations, patriotism, and dedication to American principals as well!

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

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"

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?

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"

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

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

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!

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

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!

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