Diametric Differences of Domestic Doctrine…

The vast gulf fixed between the intellect of Thomas Sowell and Barack (aka "Barry Sotero") Obama has never been so apparent as when examining the "facts" behind the current "govt shutdown" as presented by both men.

Obama (and cronies) forced a "government shutdown" and continue to lay the blame at the feet of "unreasonable" Republicans in the House that have failed to step up and do their jobs.

Sowell succinctly lays out his own proof that blaming the shutdown on the House would be inaccurate (as found in the Congressional Record), then continues by citing the Constitutional mandate of the House to fund (or "not fund") those things that they believe are in the best (and worst)  interests of the nation, and to support those things that best represent the beliefs of their constituents.

Personally, I wish we had gotten Sowell... the classy, articulate, intellectual, war veteran (Marine) that worked hard to put himself thru college after dropping out of high school. Unfortunately, he never had a big enough ego to run for President.

Therefore, the one currently occupying the White House is instead the brassy, teleprompter-dependent, activist, community organizer (& self-confessed marijuana smoker) that put himself thru college by successfully applying for numerous "foreign student" scholarships.

(FWIW— These well-known black Americans have had interesting parallels in their lives: both were born poor, both espoused Marxist ideology in their 20s, both graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, both went on to teach at the college level, and both worked in some capacity in our government.)

a poor President

Long ago (elementary school), I was the shortest kid in my class -- every class; I also remember being a little more plump than most of the other kids, too. Thankfully, I wasn't always ridiculed, harassed, or "picked on" by the bullies, but it always irked me to see the results of the inevitable "pecking order" in school. As a result of occasionally having people think of me as "different" and (very few) bad experiences, I still dislike it when others call people names, ridicule them, or attempt to wrongfully impugn the character of any weaker person, nor do I (usually) do so myself. Of course, I do have a few exceptions: if the description is spot-on truthful, the person continuously annoys me, or if the person is a friend, everyone around is a friend, and all know it's in jest.

Unfortunately, there is no jesting today. Our President's life story is the least stellar of all who've come before him. Several times in the last year I've blogged about his utter lack of legitimate qualifications to hold the office. If you don't want to read that huge (old) link, here are a few points (distilled and refined) from which I drew those conclusions and a few new ones to round out my convictions:

* Who, exactly moves to Chicago for it's exemplary politics?? any honest people you know ever do that? not me.

* Who believes any person could sit under that many years of Jeremiah Wright's version of Farrakhan's theology and not be affected? (I'm not impressed with Oprah's theology, but even she couldn't take the continuous stream of hate-filled hurl he has spewed from his pulpit.)

* Does anyone believe both of his books were not ghost written? (Especially when he was asked to describe his feelings about multiple passages in both, and he was clueless?)

* How many other incompetent, inexperienced politicians have ever been so highly worshiped by the media? (yet, he only reads teleprompters well -- his impromptu speaking ability stinks)

* I'm supposed to believe that it was a complete coincidence that a socialistic nobody moved to the city Ayers lived in, got himself introduced to Ayers, moved next door to the man, taught with him, served in numerous positions alongside him, and started his political career in Ayer's LIVING ROOM? ALL of that is pure happenstance?

* What other US politician has ever asked every school he attended to seal his records? and then there was no media outcry? what's he hiding from the public?

* How far will the troops trust a President that just told The Marine Band he doesn't want them to play for him anymore?

* Why is he the only politician in recent memory that's ever gotten a pass on self-contradictory statements? stupidity? admitted drug use? etc...

* Why have there been so many attempts by him to promote a whole slew of crooks to fill high level positions in the government? isn't the "normal level" of corruption in government enough? Any "regular" Americans would be doing jail time with the types of records these nominees have, yet all his guys keep getting off scott-free?

* No McCarthyism intended, but why is this the first time any U.S. politician hasn't been questioned for associating in a friendly manner with Gaddafi, multiple anti-US Muslim-terrorists, and terrorist supporters (both Hamas & PLO)? Aren't we still in a war against said terrorists? Isn't there a double-standard in "consorting with the enemy" here?

* Why does he bristle if he's asked anything but softball questions? and those at his leisure? yet still doesn't give definitive answers even to those?

* Where is the "transparency" in this administration that we heard so much about? so far (less than a month in office) "transparency" has just been a word bandied about in a failed attempt to shore up his political image and crashing poll numbers. There's only so much mileage in repeating untruths, especially if crooks are repeatedly proffered as "preferred teammates" in running the show.

* What valid reason prohibited even a few questions by the mainstream media of the caliber of the man when viewed in the light of the questionable and low moral character of his numerous associates? Was there, perhaps, no "valid reason" -- only collusion?

* He has consistently castigated and belittled average Americans from all walks of life (often) in his previous efforts to appear most appealing (to whatever group to whom he was speaking at the time), so just how many campaign promises should we realistically expect will be kept? are TWO too many? and which ones do we choose? Oh, I forgot, he's already railroading us on the murder of our future citizens (pro-abortion) and killing our economy (with this massive government-waste plan).

In short, the President is a shyster on all counts. I have yet to find one thing with which he has enough experience to make an intelligent decision about. He has snowed the world (and our nation) with his empty rhetoric, platitudes, and idol-like messiah complex.

Until the results of this past election cycle came in, I didn't realize "mystique" and "rhetoric" had the slightest chance at trouncing "ethics" and "administrative experience" so soundly. What a pathetic commentary on the general lack of intelligence and objectivity of the citizens of our once-great nation. I will be surprised if he can muddle through the next four years without ruining our nation.


P.S. I was just thinking, we're stuck with him for four years unless, of course, some poor deluded soul kills (or attempts to kill) him; then we'll have a new "National Martyr/Hero" of epic proportions -- imagine the combined worship of past heroes and idealization of the world's worst dictators. That outcome would be worse than letting him run his course -- and be the root of his own demise.

Good Government Spending?

The massive work projects following the Great Depression kept our nation's economy depressed longer than most of the rest of the world. It forced many of our citizens into low-paying jobs for years on end. The only benefit was to the government: the cheap labor to build infrastructure. If it hadn't been for the high labor demand (caused by the advent of WW2), we would have been affected even longer.

Why would we as a nation ask for that again? If this administration fails to stop the flow of funds to bad loans, all of this spending will do nothing other than increase inflation.

I'm reminded of a quote by Hegel:

What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.

"Good Government Spending" is never "good" for us, it's an oxymoron -- akin to "government intelligence" (intelligence is never encouraged by bureaucracy, it's quashed by it), "social security" (what socialist nation is safe? they just lack freedom), and a host of other failed government programs of the past.

Trumped!

I was surprised to learn President Obama has, once again, made history within a few days of assuming the Presidency. In addition to him keeping his Blackberry (that was a shocker, hope he doesn't get cracked), the White House announced that there is now an "official" White House Blog.

Just what does this bode for bloggers everywhere? I believe it conveys (to everyone not in the blogosphere) some measure of legitimacy to us poor deluded souls that enjoy seeing our lives and opinions posted in an electronic-print format -- constantly read, reacted to, and discussed by friends and total strangers everywhere. There is one other (probably overlooked) aspect that we (as bloggers) should also be aware of: None of us have any chance of making it into the top spot for at least another four years. No, my blogging buds, no matter how long you've been posting -- we've all been trumped. The title of "World's Most Influential Blogger" was captured at the first post of the new blog. (Not like I had a shot anyway.)

Granted, 44 will probably not be making a majority of the posts on the blog, but it is his House now, and his blog. No need to consider the viability of adsense on his blog. (Although, the value of renting the blog's white space would more than pay for the team administering it.) Wonder just what kind of salary I could draw as an "official" blogger for the President of the USA?

I was also wondering just how Obama chose who got to be on the blog-team? No matter what your political affiliation, that would definitely be a very cool business card to have in your pocket. Can you imagine handing your brand-spanking new business card to one of your parents (or a grandparent) and getting to say, "Yes, I'm now the first-ever 'Official Blogger' of the President of the United States." Of course, my family would want to know what a "blog" is, what a "blogger" does, and if it came with long-term benefits. (They're so practical -- and non-tech-savvy.)

I think it would be even better to show up at my high school reunion with that business card. Yeah, the nerd has finally made it big by blogging for the President -- and the school jock is -- what? moving furniture?

The keyboard IS mighter than the letterman's jacket!
At least... for a few bloggers.

A New Day, A New Way!

Last May, I blogged about a conservative political candidate I supported: Dr. Marion Thorpe. My one regret was not that he was running against Alcee Hastings (I was quite pleased with that). Rather, I wished that I could have had the opportunity to vote for him -- but he wasn't running in my district.

In our current political climate, Hastings was a very difficult incumbent to challenge, even for another African American that fit the district's demographics better than the incumbent. I thought Dr. Thorpe had a great opportunity, but unfortunately, Hastings' "normal" amount of support was greatly bolstered by the turnout to elect Obama. (Most likely, had it been a "normal" year for Hastings, the number of votes Dr. Thorpe received would have easily catapulted him past Hastings.)

However, I am glad he lost that race. Because of that loss, one year from November, I may get the opportunity to cast my vote for Dr. Thorpe in another, bigger race! Wednesday, January 7, Dr. Thorpe officially announced his intent to run for one of Florida's two seats in the U.S. Senate! (The one being vacated by Mel Martinez.)

To say I was excited would be a gross understatement. It's been quite awhile since I've gotten to vote for a true conservative -- in any office. I've had to vote for the "best" of the worst for so long, I didn't expect to have the opportunity for vote for a candidate I can support. I knew Dr. Thorpe had been considering the idea of running for some seat in government, but he'd been waiting to make sure his friend, Jeb Bush, wasn't interested in any of the same offices in which he, Dr. Thorpe, might have an interest. That Wednesday evening at church, he told me (and a few others) Jeb didn't seem to be interested in the Senate seat, and he'd finally decided to throw his hat in the ring. Did you notice, I said "at church" was where he told us? Well, Dr. Thorpe is one of a minority of politicians that makes no apologies for his belief in God.

In very few politicians, or even candidates for that matter, will you find a person with enough conviction to regularly attend church services. If you do find one, it is the rare individual that feels any responsibility to attend a service on a week night as well as just Sunday morning (when they can shake more people's hands). Throughout all of last year's hectic campaigning, Dr. Thorpe made the time to regularly stop and "recharge his spiritual batteries" with us.


I do know my blog may suffer, but I'm going to help in this race even more than the last -- as much as I'm physically and mentally able (without disrupting my commitments to my church and the provision for my family). My professional experience "happens" to be in small business consulting; thankfully, several of my past contracts have given me some experience that may assist Dr. Thorpe in keeping track of the finances of his campaign.

There are still papers to be filed, and an "official" fund-raising campaign to begin (it will actually help accelerate the filings if unsolicited donations started mysteriously "rolling in"). If you, or anyone you know is interested in supporting Florida's first Republican, African-American candidate for the U.S. Senate, please (for those that know me personally), let me know. For those that don't, but have a FaceBook account, you can join the Dr. Marion Thorpe for US Senate group. And for those that only have internet access (or just want more info on the candidate), you can visit Dr. Thorpe's site directly. Support can consist of your time, your skills, your money, or any combination of the three. Whatever it is, it won't be turned away.

The Straw Officer Of Movie Night

Last week, I heard 2 different questions that I thought would be interesting enough to address in detail here (I do plan to cross-post this to a FaceBook note tho).

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

The first question was something to the effect of, "Did you see the news conference with the President-elect?"

To which I responded, "No, it's a straw office and completely irrelevant, why would I waste my time watching?"

After attempting to explain "straw office" (combine a straw man argument with a political office) to the person (he could not understand), he said, "What do you mean it's irrelevant? How can Obama be irrelevant? It says right on the front of the podium, 'The Office of the President-elect' -- how could that possibly be irrelevant? He's the President elect!"

I gave him a simple answer (which he still didn't understand, thank you crummy public education system), but decided to write out a more detailed response here. Knowing that people who read blogs would at the very least understand me, even if they (you) don't agree with my position.

I personally believe Obama must be insecure (or the world's biggest grandstander) to allow that to be placed on his podium. Yes, of course, he IS the President elect, and everyone knows it, but what you see on the podium is a made-up title for a non-existent "office."

There is no "office" of President-elect. By adding "The office of" and placing it around the seal of the President of the United States, Obama has created a placeholder title with absolutely no standing, political or otherwise. Until the day he's sworn in he is a nobody, with no official status (Just like every other President before him). After the ceremony is when he holds The Office. Until that time, he's technically only the (winning) "Democratic Candidate for President."

Just why he has done it is open to supposition, but it's my opinion that rather than make normal press releases, he felt it was imperative to keep his face before the American people AMAP (as-much-as-possible). He's too proud to make all of his speeches (as President elect) without overt recognition of himself, so they're most likely just working on image-building.

Furthermore, I cannot recall any other President-elect in history that felt the need to hold "official" press conferences prior to assuming office and used "The office of President-elect" displayed on a podium as a title. It's an immature, unprofessional placebo -- a back-handed attempt to pressure the out-going President.

[EDIT: Come to think of it, I could probably expand this post using chronological campaign references, historical comparisons of previous Presidential candidates, and write a best-selling book: The Audacity of Hype. Anyone want to set me up with an advance?]

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

For question #2, someone else asked me if I was going to record the inauguration. Without thinking about the possibility of offending him, I laughed and answered, "No, I'm not even going to watch it."

He said, "Why not? This is history being made! The nation's very first black President will be sworn into office!"

So I proceeded to explain that:
1. No, Mr. Obama is not our first "black" President, his race is actually quite well mixed, but I do hope, whenever we finally get one, that the first black President does a good job.

2. I don't care if someone is black, brown, yellow, red, purple, or green-with-pink-and-blue-polka-dots -- the color any man or woman's skin is irrelevant to their performance. If any person "of color," "without color," or anywhere in between is elected to any office in our government, I only care that when holding their office (President, Governor, Senator, Congressperson, or anything else), that they govern responsibly -- in a manner that seeks to promote our country above their own ideology.

3. This is only a "passing the baton" ceremony for the office of President, eventually, there will be another President. I don't recall ever going to a basketball game for the primary purpose of watching the cheerleaders; I'd rather watch the game -- so I'm going to pass, just as I did for Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan (I was too young to remember the ceremonies before Reagan). I'm sure the highlights of the Obama-bash and all of its "beautitudinous glory" will be all over the news, anyway. (Come to think of it, I was always kinda leery of the guys that didn't like basketball, but still went to every game and only watched the cheerleaders -- creepy-ness.)

And finally,
4. I'd rather stay home, ignore the fluff and circumstance, and instead spend time with my family -- maybe we'll watch a movie.


I've since decided I like that third point (of #4) quite a bit. In fact, we might even rent The Manchurian Candidate -- for obvious reasons.

Legitimate Lockup -- Understanding Gitmo

I've been continuously appalled at the lack of intelligence on the part of those that wish to close Gitmo and bring those detainees here -- to US soil. Obviously, the media has been remiss in reporting the reasoning behind holding them there, and has instead focused on the lack of a warm-fuzzy feeling of good-will when contemplating the plight of these poor, underprivileged, misguided, freedom-bashing terrorists. I was glad to see Obama state that he wouldn't rush into dismantling the detention center (even tho he does want it closed). I hope he sees the wisdom of having this detention center before he does serious harm to our nation. Here are the main points for my opinion:

I. The US has never in the past, does not currently, and should never in the future agree or disagree to any so-called "human rights for all" merely to promote warm-fuzzy feelings all around; that would be immature, unprofessional, and completely irresponsible. We grant rights to our citizens. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.

A. Each nation on earth grants & restricts the rights of its citizens according to the individual charter or constitution of each state. Our nation DOES NOT grant rights to citizens of other nations, but if citizens of other nations attack our troops, our citizens, our land, or our interests, we have reserved the right to take steps to protect all of the above. (As have all other nations.)

B. By our nation's "right" of self defense (as recognized by the UN as well as numerous international treaties) we have choices of how we prefer to stop the commission of any of the acts of aggression. It is fully legal to "shoot until dead" any aggressors that choose to act against us; however, our nation takes the "high moral ground" of exercising the "right of restraint" as often as possible. Attempting to capture and incarcerate these terrorists is much more expensive, but our current government (all 2 days of it that's left anyway) would rather spend the money than leave piles of bodies. What most bleeding heart liberals propose to grant these detainees goes well past what is legal (and moral) and even further -- far beyond the edge of lunacy, right into the heart of it.

II. There is no "political loophole" for Guantanamo.

A. It is FULLY legal (by ALL international treaties) to hold enemy combatants for the duration of whatever conflict they were involved in at the time of their apprehension. Has been for many years. "The Great" FDR did the same thing, yet no one had a problem with it back then.

B. The right of incarceration of combatants has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Cuba has, or has not, ratified conventions binding the US. Instead, they are detained in Cuba because no other country in the world wants them held on their soil. (Since our lease of Gitmo from the Cubans is not subject to a lease extension anytime in the near future, we can pretty much do as we please.)

C. Some would like to classify these detainees as "civilians" rather than "unlawful combatants;" this would mean they are covered by the 4th Geneva Convention. The 3rd Geneva Convention (1949) outlines incarceration of combatants, here is my opinion on these detainees:


1. These are not people that have racked up excessive library fines, stolen a handful of rice to feed their families, or jacked a bubble gum machine for kicks. They are actively engaged in warfare against our nation, citizens, and soldiers. They want us dead or our nation destroyed -- and have gone to war to attempt to bring it about by any means necessary. That is what excludes them from civilian status. Since they operate well outside the bounds of the convention (engaging in some type of combat while not in the direct employ of a nation) they are obviously (to me) enemy combatants, not civilians, and as such, fully subject to the 3rd, and not the 4th.

2. Even tho the people in Gitmo are UNlawful combatants, they have still received the same humane treatment as lawful combatants, less the representation. The detainees receive three (Muslim) squares a day, medical, clothing, showers, hygenics articles, freedom to worship, mail privileges (screened), and regular visits from the Red Cross. Our govt has gone well beyond the bare minimum in their care.

D. As I see it, the "problem" today is actually a pseudo-problem: (primarily) socialists are using this as a platform to push their ideology on the American public. Much of the media is either in lock-step with these political ideals, or ignorant of the implications of pushing this. Don't be in a rush to jump on this bandwagon until you've explored the endgame:


1. My definition of Socialism is pretty straightforward. Most people understand the redistribution of wealth and supposed "equal opportunity" of Socialism. It is more than that. Socialism also advocates collective ownership AND central administration of not only all types of production and all of the distribution of all of the goods, but also, every aspect of the entire system of exchange. Old-school hardliners propose total state control, while most of those found here in the US think everything could be structured into a pseudo-free-market economy.

2. The danger of collectivism for OUR society is in the details of administration. Most of the liberal media (due to their influence from countless socialistic professors across our nation) think that the current opinion of "the people" should dictate all US policy. However, "the people" is an abstract, barely-definable concept (in terms of quantification). Who is to say which portion of "the people" make the easy decisions? let alone the controversial, hard ones? As soon as we digress from our only framework of "fairness, justice, and equity" (our Constitution and codified laws), we begin a downward spiral toward a complete dictatorship; in which one person (the dictator) is the voice of "the people" and is highly unlikely to keep their interests at heart.

3. The media is being used. It appears their dislike of Bush has become a flagpole on which they hoist their own standard: a socialistic worldview. By couching their abhorrence in terms that appear to put "we the people" into positions that are opposed, disliked, or hated by any segment of the "victimized global citizenry" they instigate class- and racial-tension in our country. Possibly even escalating to a general "struggle" during a transformation from capitalism to communism. While this is not a true "proletarian revolution" in any sense, it would be fatal for our economy.

4. I doubt there is a physical "playbook" for this, but it's obvious to me that the media operates in concert to promote their agenda.

5. We (the people) cannot swallow their line, to insist on melding these detainees (citizens of the world) into the collective melting pot of US citizenry because it is "humane." It is not humane, it is a criminal surrender of our rights, as citizens of the USA, to proffer the same rights we have under our Constitution to those who are our sworn enemies and wish for nothing less than the complete destruction of our nation.

6. The phrase "citizens of the world" is a feel-good, fallacious attempt to desensitize the patriotism of citizens -- every nation's citizens. Accepting it as a valid argument would be an extremely dangerous step by any sovereign govt. The result of wholeheartedly subscribing to this ideology is a socialistic, one world govt in which all rights are subservient to the good of the whole.

7. It is also a straw man argument. There are no "citizens of the world" -- just as no aspect of "humane" and "ethical" should be afforded those that have actively participated in any attempt to destroy of our way of life, our soldiers (many of whom are my friends), or my country. Any attempt to eradicate any of the above must be stopped.

III. These Gitmo inmates DO NOT DESERVE a trial.

They are NOT criminals, but enemy combatants. The US has detained enemy combatants in EVERY major conflict in our nation's history. Just like soldiers, enemy combatants may be detained or face military tribunals, but they NEVER get a trial. (The "Nuremburg Trials" weren't trials, they were international tribunals, convened after the cessation of all conflict.)

IV. For any that still do not understand the importance of the semantics, I'll make it very simple: there are only 2 kinds of enemy combatants. (Both types participate in armed aggression against our nation.)

A. "UnLawful" enemy combatants (Gitmo detainees) participate as private citizens while NOT employed by any state (i.e. not soldiers in a military), or while affiliated with a terrorist organization. Thus, the Gitmo detainees fully conform to every definition of unlawful enemy combatant recognized by every member of the UN (every definition I've ever read anyway... going back to the Hague Convention). Unlawful enemy combatants are not POWs, because they bear arms, operating as soldiers and or terrorists outside the guidelines of the 3rd Geneva Convention.

B. While it is legal to detain both types of enemy combatants, only LAWFUL enemy combatants ARE ELIGIBLE for all of the protections afforded POWs -- under ALL the treaties and conventions that have been signed to date.

V. There is one final aspect of trying these detainees on US soil that most people overlook. If they are afforded US rights, they must also be tried by US laws, and face US punishments. Ergo -- they have committed treason.

The laws currently on the books in the US (for treason) call for death, so in that sense, I would not be opposed to allowing any unlawful enemy combatants currently being (legally) detained at Gitmo a military trial on US soil. As long as all guilty verdicts result in immediately carrying out the execution of the convicted. (Of course, since they've not broken any civil statues, they wouldn't be eligible for civil trial with juries and appeals processes, only military trials.)

In conclusion, I'll offer my advice to the ignorant (that so frequently proffer opinions garnered from the liberal media as fact):

If you are going to look to some source (such as the media) for general information, check the info they are disseminating. If they feed you false information, even if only intermittently, then make sure you are consistent in checking sources and seeking the truth on any matters of importance to you (or your nation).

Every media personality with any semblance of intelligence or integrity knows full well that Gitmo detainees are there lawfully, detained legally, and completely ineligible for ANY trial of ANY type on US soil. Anyone in the media that does not inform others of this is (whether knowingly or in ignorance) participating in an effort to undermine our nation, our government, our military, the rights of our citizens, and our way of life.

Someone Thinks I'm Still "Young"!

I'm a non-attending member of the local Young Republicans club.
I know, you probably want to know how I can be a member and never attend, right? Well, thru the wonders of technology, we meet on FaceBook. And, I must say, it is VERY convenient. Gone are the days of renting space once a month somewhere so everyone gets some "Facetime" and networking time. And with the loss of the meetings, we don't NEED to be gathering dues, so that's a plus. The downside is the loss of personal interaction, but I wouldn't be involved at all if it were only personal interaction. I'm not giving up any more nights home with the family for a political meeting.

Anyway, back to the YR club: I was surprised they let me join. I'm pushing up against 38 now, with 5 months to go. But the "regular" Republican group here is still doing the Yahoo-Group-thing, and some still don't even have email!! (You're killin me Smallz.) So I sent my FB friend request to the local YR, and voila! I'm young!

This year there is an added benefit to being in the Broward County YR FaceBook group (mostly due to Obama's crushing eMobilization) -- they emailed me the link that ALL YR's can use to make their voices heard to the RNC! I'm not going to post the link publicly, but if you're my FB friend, or (for you stone-age backwards people) at least have my email address I'll get you the link. (Deadline is January 12th tho.)

So here's what's on the survey (along with my not-so-humble opionions)

1. Reflecting on this election cycle, if you had been the RNC Chairman, what ONE THING would you have done differently to ensure young voters supported Republican candidates?

I WOULD HAVE BEEN AGGRESSIVE on EVERY FRONT, throwing political correctness OUT THE WINDOW! Every day, ALL day, in every race, in every state and territory, at every public appearance, and every media event. (Showing weakness on almost every front is ridiculously infantile and leads to apathetic Republicans.)

2. What are the three most important issues to young voters that the RNC Chairman must prioritize when preparing Republican candidates to run for Federal office in 2010 and 2012?
(Remember, these are issues important to non-Party affiliated young voters.)

College education affordability
Corruption/ethics reform
Economy/Job creation
Energy independence/gas prices
Environmental protection
Health care/insurance reform
Housing affordability
Illegal immigration
Lower taxes
National security
Social issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage)
Social security
The War in Iraq
US image in the World
Other (please specify) National security, border security, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on terrorists everywhere (including Hamas and Hezbollah) should be one COMPREHENSIVE policy.

3. What 3 strategies must the next RNC Chairman must put into practice in his/her first 100 days to prevent losing more of the younger generation to the Democratic Party?
(This is not an exhaustive list. Please use the comment box!)

Fund the Young Republicans and College Republicans
Integrate young voters into the RNC's overall political strategy
Recruit candidates with a demonstrated appeal to young people
Build coalition of young Republicans to develop a social marketing strategy for young voters
Use social media (e.g., facebook, twitter, etc.) smarter and better
Crack down on corruption in our own Party
Perform outreach to high schools in every state
Actively recruit under age 40 candidates to run for office in every state
Make technology a central part of how we do business
Make young Republicans a part of every State Committee
Open the RNC donor lists to Young Republican groups so they can fundraise effectively
Other (please specify) ALL technology (social media, economic video games, online donations, etc.) must be embraced, with a VERY strong emphasis on outreach to colleges, high schools, and Jr High schools, and pointed inclusion of EVERY strong, conservative, common-sense Republican demographic. This will draw more Y.R.s as well as Independents, Libertarians, etc.

4. Is there anything else you think is important for the RNC Chairman to have (i.e., qualities, characteristics) in order to effectively engage young voters?

It would be very helpful if the "troops on the ground" saw a strong presence -- anywhere. John McCain's "stands" all seemed like standing a fork in oatmeal; I'd like a leader with a SPINE. Push for investigations of EVERY Congressman and Senator (both D & R) that is "bending" rules, regs, or laws. Illegal contributions (mainly Obama's online fund raising FRAUD), voting fraud (like Alcee Hastings purposefully voting from a residence he hasn't owned for the LAST THREE ELECTIONS), and other violations that are allowed to "stand" with no protest, investigation, or any action at all are just plain stupid. Hit them first, hit them hard, and don't let up. Don't wait! 2 years or more prior to national elections (i.e. now) is the best time to start. Eliminate the D candidates as early as possible. Even if all that's ever done is occasional press releases to conservative media outlets (radio, blog, etc.), at least DO SOMETHING. I was appalled at all of the blatant law-breaking by the Dems that was allowed to go by unopposed.

5. In what state are you a Young Republican?

Florida

6. What is your age?

37 (Minimum is Under 18, Maximum is 41 or Older)

7. Are you a Young Republican leader in your state?

No

8. Which declared RNC candidate would you direct your National Committee Members to vote for?
(We will not be publishing this information until the night before the election.)
Which declared RNC candidate would you direct your National Committee Members to vote for? (We will not be publishing this information until the night before the election.)
Chip Saltsman (I like his stances, plus, he's willing to take risks.)
Katon Dawson (I like many of his stances.)
Ken Blackwell (Toss up, but Blackwell is more litigious & older than Saltsman.)
Michael Steele (my absolutely LAST choice of these candidates)
Mike Duncan (decent record, but not much bulldog in him)
Saul Anuzis (he's my third choice)
Supporting no candidate at this time
Other (please specify)

9. If you were not emailed this survey directly, you are not on our email list! To be added to the Young Republican email list, please provide us your email.

Ha!

This concludes our survey. The Young Republican National Federation thanks you for your valuable contribution. We will put this information to good use!

Please check www.yrnf.com on January 16 to see the results of the survey.

There's another one-question survey there to vote for the person you'd like to see in the office of RNC chair; please at least click thru to the link and vote for your choice (unless it's Steele). =)

Thug-Politics at Their Worst -- Again

Relatives have asked many times if we will ever move to Chicago (where much of my Mom's family lives) or southern Illinois (where some of Mom's family and much of Dad's lives) to be "closer to my family." Southern Illinois would be nice, but the thug-politics of the Illinois/Chicago machine has no appeal for me. While disappointed, I wasn't overly surprised by this morning's headline:

Ill. Gov. Arrested in Obama Successor Probe
By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer -- 11:21 am
Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday on charges that he brazenly conspired to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.

(The article continues if you click the link, but the gist of it is contained in the first paragraph.)

This makes me think my previous post needs to be expanded... not only federal House and Senate members need mandatory standardized testing, but all politicians in large cities, state, and federal positions. Maybe even submit to and pass yearly polygraph-linked ethics tests as well.

I hope most Americans going into politics today are NOT doing so soley for the money, power, influence, and a chance at a free get-out-of-jail card when they break the law -- although, I have yet to be proven wrong.

Dumb People on the Loose

I frequent Yahoo's Odd News section. I love to see what the crazies are doing, as well as what the "normal" people like me are doing to defend themselves against the encroaching mobs. (As the British Royal Observer Corps' motto says, "Fore-warned is fore-armed.")

I ran across this article yesterday. Too bad I passed up that elective in fencing:

Man uses candy cane to subdue attacker with knife
Wed Dec 3, 5:53 pm ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A man using a candy cane lawn ornament fended off a knife-wielding neighbor who had been attacking holiday guests at a Sacramento home. Police spokesman Sgt. Norm Leong said the man used the two-foot-tall plastic ornament to subdue the attacker until officers arrived.

He said the 49-year-old suspect became intoxicated, went over to a neighbor's home on Thanksgiving and began waving a kitchen knife at people gathered on the lawn.

He cut several peoples' clothing before one of them decided to fight back.

Police said the man with the knife was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. The guest who took up the candy cane was not arrested because police determined he acted in self-defense.

The drunk was only arrested on "suspicion of assault" even though "He cut several peoples' clothing" -- Wow. I'm surprised they didn't go ahead and arrest the victim for carrying a concealed candy cane.

This morning I found another story worth repeating:

Aussies mull breath-test before voting
Thu Dec 4, 1:38 am ET

CANBERRA (Reuters) – Politicians in Australia's most populous state could be breath-tested for alcohol before voting on laws after a series of late-night incidents that have embarrassed the center-left government.

New South Wales state lawmaker Andrew Fraser resigned from his conservative opposition frontbench role after shoving a female colleague in the wake of Christmas party celebrations.

"Breath test this mob," said a front page headline in Sydney's mass-selling Daily Telegraph newspaper. State police minister Matt Brown was dumped from his portfolio in September after allegedly "dirty" dancing in his underwear over the chest of a female colleague after a drunken post-budget office party.

Conservative Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell said he would support alcohol breath tests for drunkenness for lawmakers before they entered parliament, while Green MPs John Kaye and Lee Rhiannon also backed the plan, along with the parliament's speaker.

"Honestly, if you are going to have breathalyzers for people driving cranes you should have breathalyzers for people writing laws," Kaye told the Telegraph.

I wonder what would happen if we here the U.S. implemented across-the-board monthly drug testing as well as yearly standardized achievement testing for every member of the House and Senate? Maybe our resulting laws would make more sense.

Troubling Things

During the last election there were many that said Bush "stole" the election due to the fact he won only by electoral votes. I know how the electoral college works; Obama won it on votes, and unless the electoral college breaks precedent, next year Obama will be voted in as the next President.

How the electoral college works doesn't "trouble" me a bit, what has been troublesome this year is having listened to several people relate how easy it was to register more than once (everyone one I heard interviewed said they were voting for Obama). Now I'm hearing people also voted more than once. Take, for example, this fine upstanding citizen (Ron Jones) of Philadelphia who stated he "decided to come back and vote a couple times."

(This video was copied from YouTube.)
Hopefully, he just misspoke? Perhaps he meant he came back several times until the lines weren't long? but after listening to it 5 times, it still didn't sound that way to me.

Last month I was unhappy to see a precursor of the Youth Brigades Obama has touted. (If you haven't seen it, watch it on YouTube, or message me for the video.)
Seriously, who in their right mind would allow their child to be involved in any group that encouraged them to march around in a quasi-military outfit spouting political rhetoric purporting adoration of their anointed leader? When I watched that video I was immediately hit with visions of Hitler's Brown Shirts.

Then last night I was extremely upset to see this video of a teacher "brow beating" her class into submission to conform to her personal opinion:

(This video was also copied from YouTube, and no, I haven't any clue what language the people at the beginning are speaking, nor can I read the subtitles.)
What irked me most was her statement "I can support whomever I want to support, as long as I don't, uh, browbeat another person for the candidate they supported..." (In my not-so-humble-opinion, she is surely pushing the envelope.)

As a side note, I find it strange that most videos of this "type" (the anti-obama type) are not remaining online very long. They seem to have been "reported as offensive" by so many people that YouTube has pulled them down: de facto censorship -- by the masses. (As I find videos I may want to share or watch a second time I have begun saving them to my computer.)

I don't like conspiracy theories, I generally find them so far-fetched as to be amusing, annoying, and too "incite-ful" to be worth wasting time on. However, I have found at least one thing every day that is illegal, bordering on illegal or just out-right troubling. Is anyone else finding (at bare minimum) one thing -- every day -- since the election happened as well? Am I paranoid? perhaps crazy? or does it look really look like "1984" is a possibility?

In closing, I'm least concerned about dying (yeah sure, go ahead, threaten me with heaven). I'm also not "worried" by whomever is "in control" in America from anything other than a political or economic standpoint (I do, however, like to see my kids eating regularly). Nor am I particularly concerned about the rapid introduction of radical, communistic mandates by the soon-to-be new government. I think what concerns me most is the apathy of the general populace regarding what is "right" and "wrong" (i.e. legal vs. illegal) and why it is "OK" to stifle, hide, or attempt to stamp out altogether the ideas of conservatives -- be they fiscal, social, or political conservatives. But -- it's "unconscionable" to even mention a single irregularity when discussing a left-wing viewpoint -- whether they're slightly progressive, liberally socialistic, or full-bore "hyper-radical communists" (the "lunatic fringe").

A Day of Infamy

"For the first time in my life, I am truly ashamed of my country."
This was the first thought that crossed my mind as I happened to turn on the television last night (just in time to hear McCain's concession speech live). I rarely watch election returns; I prefer to spend the time with my family (and get the full story when all the results are tallied).

In explaining my position, I think it's imperative I first relate the things about our nation that do not cause shame:

I am not ashamed that we elected a black American; that isn't relevant to being a President. (FWIW, I did vote for Alan Keyes in a past election, but I feel the color of someone's skin doesn't determine how well they can, or cannot do any task.)

I am not ashamed that we elected the first illegitimate President in the history of the U.S.A.; disappointed for his personal loss, but that too is not relevant to being the President. (It is, however, a good example for others.)

I am not ashamed that we elected a Democrat; we've done that before.

I am not ashamed that we elected a liberal; of the Presidential candidates running this year, I knew whomever won the election would be hard-pressed to label themselves "conservative."

I am not ashamed that we did not elect a fiscal conservative; it's been a long time since we've seen one of those in the White House.

I am not ashamed that we elected a pro-abortion candidate to the Presidency; disappointed yes, but we've seen this done this before.

I am not ashamed that we just elected the most inexperienced President in the history of our great nation; again, disappointed, but someone must hold that dubious distinction.

In fact, I am not even ashamed that the President-elect cut his political teeth in the Chicago arena of thug-politics-at-its-worst; disappointed yes, but we've had thug-politician Presidents in the past.

So what, you may wonder is so shameful that I would make this statement?

There are a number of minor reasons; I'll relate two of those before the crux of my statement.

First, I'm ashamed so many voters focused on a candidate's personal polish & appearance, reading ability, and continuous recitation of platitudes (all shallow extraneous traits) to the exclusion of personal experience, full disclosure of all aspects of personal history & character, and values.

Secondly, I'm ashamed that a US Senator could go to Africa (at U.S. tax-payers' expense), campaign for a Communist Muslim (wanna-be dictator) in support of sharia law (one that incited riots and instructed his supporters commit murder when he lost), and not be required to answer for his actions. Not as a Senator, not when he became a Presidential candidate, not as President Elect, and even highly unlikely he will ever be held accountable for his actions as President.

Both of these minor reasons don't surprise me as much as I would think they should. Bill Clinton's appearance on the national political scene was Obama's "polish precedent" and guide. As for the "corruption precedent," it is rampant at the highest level of government in every nation I've studied.

What I'm primarily ashamed of is the fact that for the very first time in the history of the U.S.A. a majority of the voting public has eagerly embraced a radical, activist communist.* The United States of America experienced a meteoric rise to greatness -- becoming the greatest nation on earth -- in less than two hundred years via support of capitalism -- rejecting communism. Yes, we have had Presidents in the past that embraced both socialistic and communistic ideals, but none so blatant as our coming President.

I have no hopes that the next four years will strengthen our nation in any lasting economic or political manner (one possible exception is faith - Americans have historically turned closest to God in times of crisis). I can only hope that for the next four years Obama remains so focused on reelection that he steers the course of liberal Democrat, or at least no further than moderate (perhaps even survivable) socialism. Whatever the course, I pray it isn't so radical it crashes our economy, corrupts our citizens, dismantles our morality, shackles the freedoms enjoyed by our churches, or harms our nation in an irreparable manner.

**NOTE: I realize some would attempt to take me to task on the variance of "socialism" and "communism" as they relate to Obama. However, the beliefs I've heard outlined by the now President-elect barely skirt the edge of Socialism even when tempered by his pseudo-moderate public image. Therefore, I've elected to call this spade a spade.

Early Voting, Vote Prep, & Another Oddity

Every year there seems to be a bigger hype about early voting than the previous year. I think voting is one of the most important things one can do as a citizen, but I don't early vote, nor do I like early voting. If it were up to me, I would abolish early voting and instead have two days of voting (Monday and Tuesday), a longer lead time to send out absentee ballots (for those overseas - domestic voters would have no change), and theater-wide electronic voting (for our overseas troops) that could be electronically beamed back to the U.S.A. on election day.

There are several reasons I dislike early voting as it now is: the long lines are key, also, the fact that some item may be revealed about a candidate in the last few days (thus, negating support for a candidate by a voter) is another. This is not to say I would not vote early; if there were any chance of me missing an opportunity to vote on election day, I would probably vote early rather than fill out an absentee ballot.

One of the main reasons I don't early vote is due to the fact that few of the voter guides I read are completed prior to election day. Which means, unless I want to do all of the research on all of the candidates myself, I'm voting in ignorance. This year, in particular, voting in ignorance could have been bad.

In the past I have voted by issues first, and then, if there weren't any issues of interest to me, I would vote for whatever Independent or Republican I liked the most. (Typically, Democrats in south Florida are left-wing Liberals, Tree Huggers, or Socialists, none of which appeals to me. Also, most of the Republicans and Independents promote conservative or libertarian values, both of which appeal to me.)

One of the local races I can vote in this year has proved to be an exception. There are three people running, none are Libertarians or Republicans. The incumbent is a liberal Democrat -- I haven't voted for her since I moved to south Florida (14 years ago). One of the two challengers is an avowed, hard-line Socialist; people with those political leanings disgust me, so I'll definitely not be voting for him. The other challenger is listed as an "Independent." I initially thought she was a Libertarian, but her endorsements seemed a bit odd. After further investigation, I realized she is a hard-line, far left, socialistic environmentalist! Two Socialists and one liberal Democrat in one race!

As you can probably guess, I'll be voting for the liberal Democrat. This particular race brought to mind a passage of scripture:
Jeremiah 12:7-11 "I have forsaken mine house, I have left mine heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies. Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest; it crieth out against me: therefore have I hated it. Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, the birds round about are against her; come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to devour. Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. They have made it desolate, and being desolate it mourneth unto me; the whole land is made desolate, because no man layeth it to heart."

In closing, I talked to an individual last week that had an interesting, albeit jaundiced, view of politics in the U.S.A. It was this individual's contention that for those who are Believers voting is:
1. irrelevant (because "God's Will" will be done anyway),
2. unnecessary (because it is "of the government"), and
3. sinful (because we really shouldn't be involved in any part of government).

I disagreed. Voting is a right afforded to all citizens of this country. If I, as a citizen of this country, choose not to exercise a right, then that is my privilege. If however, I, as a citizen of heaven choose not to exercise a right that could enable me to have a positive influence on my community, or have a Godly testimony to others in my community, or could improve my ability to witness to those around me (by not allowing those into office who seek to curtail my rights as a Believer), then I am committing sins of omission, negligence, apathy, and irresponsibility. I really hope my explanation didn't offend that individual, but I was extremely disappointed by the naiveté of that opinion.

A Matter of Trust

As I've stated in the past I'm not overly impressed with all aspects of either candidate, I WILL, however, be voting for the candidate that is (and has been) the most transparent in all aspects of their political career, their education, their long-term associations, and future aspirations.

I cannot conceive of anyone entrusting the office of President to any person that is unwilling to unveil their entire life to public scrutiny. Whomever assumes the office of President of the USA will be "in charge" of the world's only remaining superpower. That is a HUGE amount of responsibility and MUST NOT be taken lightly. One of these 2 men (McCain or Obama) is going to be left holding ALL the keys to ALL the "locks" that hold back the most advanced military in the history of the world. I would NOT give a set of car keys to ANY person that I could not trust explicitly, nor should anyone with any semblance of common sense vote to elect a commander-in-chief that has yet to demonstrate any degree of integrity. Additionally, I refuse to vote "present" by voting for some impossible-to-elect 3rd-party individual merely to show my disapproval for both major parties and "teach them a lesson" (whomever "them" happens to be at the moment). That type of "teaching" is never teaching, it is the selfish, irresponsible, and highly arrogant antics that stem from prideful immaturity.

With so much at stake this election, anyone not voting for the candidate that will most closely follow the principles that brought our country TO greatness, is not only voting to take our country FROM greatness, but is also voting FOR the destruction of all we have, all we hold dear, and all that is unique to us as Americans. I realize that this "destruction" may, or may not happen in the next four years, but each individual that fills a term as President leaves a mark (for better or for worse) on our nation.

As a Believer I'm required by God to be a good steward of everything with which HE has entrusted me; my citizenship in this nation is one of those blessings. As a citizen, I am responsible to exercise my right to vote, and as a voter, I am responsible to do what is best (long-term) for my country.

In conclusion, I think the words of Sir Francis Bacon sum it up the best, "Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper."

Political posts from the past

I've decided to delete my "other" blog (which is even less used than this one) and combine it with this one. Since there were only two major articles on the other blog, I've combined them here in one post. On rereading my post from February, I was surprised how relevant it still seems.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Why are race, gender and religion the focus?
6 February 2008

Are the people in the media un-educated? or are they attempting to entertain too many middle-schoolers that have no real interest in politics but revel in gossip? For months I’ve heard various and sundry newscasters gush about Obama’s skin color and Hillary’s gender while lambasting Huckabee and Romney for their choice of religion. [Editor's note: The media gushed happily about Hillary's gender, yet have bashed Palin for hers - not to worry, they're unbiased.]

To put it bluntly: WHO CARES!!! Am I the only one that realizes no one in their right mind should vote for ANY current- or ex-members of Congress to run this country? especially inexperienced junior Senators?

Hello!! Morons of the media (and anyone else that doesn’t have half a brain) legislators (i.e. Congress people) are good at running their mouth, period. Most of them have never had to make anything work!! A few of them CAN get things done, yet most of them have spent an entire career doing NOTHING worthwhile. They have no any positive impact on our economy, our social values, or our environment, yet they proffer their “extensive experience” (of doing nothing) as reason to vote for them as administrators? and instead of intelligent commentary, the media slobbers all over itself trying to make news of non-news-worthy events?

All these people in Congress pass more and more laws every year and expect some administrator (i.e. President) to get it done… or delegate someone to get it done. They expect all of us to pay for their “lofty idealism” which in reality is nothing more than pompous self-aggrandizement. I see all of this ridiculous pork-barrel spending that should be eliminated, yet, those in Congress have guaranteed incomes... no worries about recession for them... no strikes or lockouts... they vote for their own raises whenever they feel any economic pinch. They’re virtual demi-gods in their own minds.

Then whenever any one of them wants to throw their hat in the ring as a "candidate" for President the media frenzy locks onto inane details and TOTALLY IGNORES what is genuinely important to running as a viable Presidential candidate.

Expecting a legislator to be a good administrator is like appointing a homeless person to run HUD as a publicity stunt: yes, the homeless may have many ideas on affordable housing, but they have no clue of the complexity of day-to-day issues and operations of administering the business. And if they get their fingers too deep into management, it’s all going to come crashing down.

An acquaintance told me Hillary is "experienced" because she’s "been there." If that is the case, then show me see the volunteer willing to be the first surgery patient of the hospital janitor — he's "been there" and has watched at least 2 minutes of every surgery for the last 8 years. We all know that wouldn't happen anytime soon. Furthermore, if she had "been there" then how did Bill have so much time on his hands to chase (& catch) skirts? As a Senator, she has never pushed through one major piece of legislation (I don't think she's even gotten any minor legislation through). She was a do-nothing on all the boards she sat on. The only "experience" she can claim is being married to an ex-President. If that is all that's needed to run this country, I’d rather vote for Laura Bush, at least she was nice enough to read books to little kids.

Another person told me they liked Obama’s message of "Hope." That’s stupid: hope is what you need when your child is missing in the jungle and someone else is doing the search and rescue work. I don’t want hope, I want intelligence, I want administrative experience, and I want fiscal responsibility. The only thing Obama offers beside dark skin is an aura of mystery. No one knows anything about him or his political aspirations, other than the fact he wants to be President. I googled his church and read the statement of faith... that has got to be one of the most racist, anti-American churches I’ve ever heard of!! If they haven't changed it yet, you can read it yourself right here: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm [Editor's note: They have since rewritten this page, but it can still be found on the "Internet Archive" website right here. It is difficult to read unless you highlight it with your mouse first.]

As far as "race" goes — it’s blown all out of proportion. Why is someone that is 1/2 Caucasian and 1/2 anything else never called "white" if they have any color in their skin?? I’ve got several kinds of Native American in me, but I ran for office no one would call me the first "Native American" to run for office. Pointing to the fact that Obama may be the first black President is ridiculous, not only is he not "all black" but the genetic difference between, white, black, brown, & any other "color" is only about 4% on the DNA level! He’s got the most blackness of any candidate so far? whoop-dee-doo-daa. If I were to rate my friends of color based on the shade of their skin, I’d (rightly) be called a bigot; Obama and the media have done it and they state they’re pointing out diversity? They are not pointing out diversity, they are MAKING diversity: a mean-spirited, aggressive diversity which does nothing more than place a false barrier between darker skinned people and lighter skinned people; as if someone's brain can be "black," "white," "red," or "yellow" — ignorant media people.

Moving on, one of the local talk-radio guys keeps talking about how McCain is a "great war hero" and could represent the Republican Party well. His arguments rest mainly om McCain’s ex-POW status and because he isn’t afraid to "cross the aisle" to get things done. I for one, think the war-hero/political prisoner card has been played way too many times. Every other person I’ve known that’s gone to war (I’ve known many) does not like to flaunt the fact that they had to kill people, or that they were tortured, or whatever it was they had to do. (Let me be very clear: I do highly respect the fact that he was willing to go, and the character he showed in staying when he could have come home early.) What annoys me is when McCain revels in the "war hero" attention... when he signed up he knew that could be a part of the job. And the only "aisle crossing" I’ve seen him do is in direct opposition to core conservative values of the Republican party... then rather than crossing the aisle and coming right back, he seems to want to pitch a tent and camp out over there. If he’d stab his own party in the back for personal political gain, I surely would not want that kind of person in the White House. Politically, he seems to stand somewhere between moderate (I think they called them Blue Dogs in Reagan's day) and semi-liberal Democrat; he just wears the Republican hat so people take him seriously when he bashes other Republicans.

Some of my friends tell me how great Ron Paul is, while others think he’s completely loony. Yes, he has a few good ideas, but some of his other ideas would cripple our nation economically (gold standard would mean we pay all our debts in gold... but we currently don’t have enough gold, that's why we’re in debt) as well as put us at a military disadvantage internationally (eliminating the CIA... the only federal agency mandated to gather intel overseas... not to mention, most political and military intel is drawn from there). He’s already run as a "bona fide" Libertarian candidate in the past, but he’s running as a Republican now to try to validate himself as a candidate? If you’re really a Libertarian, why would you lie to the American public? One of my biggest peeves with him is his bigotry. Yes, bigotry: as late as the 80s and 90s he was allowing white supremacists to write articles in his newsletters... but he claims not to have any knowledge of that — in HIS newsletter? suuure. I think if I published a newsletter I’d instruct the editor on submission guidelines and get (at bare minimum) a list of the articles to be published... PRIOR to the publication date — of course, I’m no doctor.

Then there’s Huckabee. People complain he was a minister, but — hello — he gave that up... and even if he didn’t, he belongs to exactly the same denomination (even from the same state) of Baptists that Bill Clinton did — and no one had a problem with Clinton's religion. I DO have a problem with Huckabee outspending every other governor of Arkansas in history: outspending the next 3 closest "big spenders" combined. Also have a problem with him releasing more criminals than the combined total of 16 separate states that are near Arkansas: 16 states to his 1, and he put more criminals back on the streets — Oh yeah, that’s SO safe, I'm "inspired" by him — inspired to buy a gun to protect myself if he gets anywhere near Pennsylvania Avenue. He also claims to be a Republican, but his record refutes more core values than McCain’s — he too is a "de facto" Democrat. If no one else in America noticed, at least the NEA did — he’s the only Republican candidate I’ve ever heard of to be endorsed by them.

And lastly, we have Romney. Everyone is bent on destroying him, but I’m not 100% sure why. I really don’t like that he’s a mormon, but that’s not politically relevant, so throw that argument out. He’s been independent, and he’s now Republican, but no matter what he "is," "was," or "claims to be," he WAS elected governor of one of the most liberal Democratic-run states in the union. If he could get elected there, then he is really a Democrat. At least he did do some good things there, and he alone (of ALL the candidates that are still in it) has prolonged administrative experience in times of economic adversity.

We only have ONE OF SIX candidates with extensive administrative experience, and that is NOT IMPORTANT to the media??? They need to be fired.

I think my biggest peeve with this election is we really only have one party running for office. Yes I know, Ron Paul is Libertarian, but technically, Libertarianism is a subcategory of Liberalism. (i.e. The end result is the same, but the processes to get there aren’t: a few ideas are radically different, but it’s still not conservatism.) All the other candidates that are still in the running are either self-professed Liberal Democrats (in fact, Obama and Clinton respectively were the 1st and 16th most liberal senators in 2007), or de facto Democrats running as Republicans. They’re too "conservative" for the far left, but too liberal to mesh well with middle-of-the-road conservatives. Their political ideas only serve to muddy the divide between left and right. The most "conservative" of the pseudo-Republicans that are currently running for office are no more than 25 years worth of "leftward drift" policy behind the "liberal Democrats" that are currently running as Democrats. Either no one in the media is intelligent enough to notice and point this out, or they are more concerned with making news than reporting it. (I could write several posts on this, but the short version is: there seems to be a "leftward drift" in both conservatism and liberalism. As Liberalism becomes more "liberal" Conservatism follows behind. How far behind varies issue-by-issue, but in most cases seems to stay approximately 15 to 35 years apart, so that values today viewed as "liberal" will in the near future be hailed as "conservative.")


Yes, I am Caucasian; yes, I am male; and yes, I do go to church regularly, but who in their right mind is really so IGNORANT as to express race, gender, or religion as more important than extensive administrative experience?!?! We are preparing to vote for the leader of the free world! Yet the stories proffered to pique our interest in the political realm are less intelligent than what my 5 year old son thinks up? How did we get so many dumb people in the USA? How did so many get into media? How in the world can so many "sheeple" citizens listen to this drivel and be swayed by it? I thought we were living in the greatest country in the world, but if this election cycle is a true indicator, the "great" people that inhabited our country must be gradually moving out... or dying off.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Idolization of Politics
9 October 2008

I am not a fan of "politics" as currently practiced in the USA. The fact that someone was able to get elected to the House of Representatives or the US Senate does not automatically defer "experience" on that individual. "Experience" is gained by years of doing, not by an election, not by speaking about doing, not by blood-lines, and not by the "old-boy" network. Furthermore, when considering "experience" it is vitally important that the experience gained is fully manifested and represented to the public in a manner that is open and truthful, rather than highlighting some aspects of said experience and downplaying other aspects (in most cases, half of the truth is less truthful than an out-right lie).

It seems to me that McCain’s "experience in crossing the aisle" has as many (if not more) cons as it does pros. I would prefer to know a seated President has rock-solid convictions and will do what is legally and ethically right regardless of media-generated public opinion polls, than to have a President that folds up his (or her) convictions and packs them away for the sake of unity — via compromise. McCain’s early (Reagan-era) Senatorial experience is in many respects, admirable, while much of his recent experience is at best mediocre, and some is positively horrendous. The "McCain-__________" bills of the last few years are the most-obvious example. I won’t beat those dead horses here, but suffice it to say, at the times-of-passage most of those bills seemed (to me) to be no more than political posturing. This year's Presidential race has verified my original opinions. There is much I dislike about McCain, some things I could tolerate if he were President, and much I absolutely abhor. It is disheartening to see he is the "best candidate" that the Republican Party could agree upon this year. [Editor's note: my opinion of his judgment was greatly improved by his pick for Vice President. I would not mind her filling his role should something happen to him. Biden on the other hand? hate to say it, but I'd rather have Hillary than Biden.]

Similarly, the Democrat Party's choice of Obama as their representative is sad; however, in that case, it is worse than just "sad" — closer to unimaginably pathetic. Obama is a different breed of candidate altogether; one that is (thankfully) rare in our system of government (although, I fear that from this election forward, candidates like him will become more prevalent). Other than a law degree, there was no experience in his past to qualify him to be elected to the Illinois State Senate. Other than his experience as an Illinois State Senator, he has nothing in his past to qualify him to run (let alone be elected) to the US Senate. Which leaves us at his current bid for President: there is no fundamental knowledge base in his past from which he can draw to make intelligent, informed decisions as a President. To put it bluntly, all of his "experience" is illegitimate: it is based strictly on his skin color, dress, demeanor, and speaking ability. Obama has become the "American Idol Candidate" for President.

If I were to take the next few years of my life to earn a law degree and then run for the Florida State Senate, it would be nearly impossible for me to get elected. Even if I could find deep pockets to back me, and even though I would have more life experience, business experience, and political experience than he had when first elected, it just would not happen. I cannot understand why people waive the need for experience when a candidate’s skin color happens to be in the minority of the populace. "People of color" are not any more or less intelligent than the typical "WASP" living in the USA. The fact that an individual’s skin color is different shouldn’t mean they need more "help" — if that were the case, then that would mean all "people of color" are inferior. I reject all reasoning that stems from the opinion that any race is inferior to another. The genetics underneath our skin are no different from any other "race" of humans. Prejudice of any kind (positive or negative) based on skin color is arrogant, ridiculous, and immature.

Furthermore, much of what Obama claims as "experience" would negate any possibility of me hiring him to fill any position. When hiring any individual for positions of power, influence, or extreme responsibility, clear references are critical. Anyone with a record of consistent ethics violations in their past (even if committed in ignorance) should be disqualified. I would like to see the institution of full background checks for all candidates for political office before they could qualify — treasonous or terrorist-supporting candidates need not apply.

Surprises are NEVER good when hiring a new employee. It amazes me that very little that has come to light regarding the past acquaintances of Obama has been adequately covered by the media. Much of my family is from the Chicago area, much of my family that is not from Chicago is from some part of Illinois (and has, in the past, been involved with "less than stellar" enterprises, and individuals). Consequently, the politics of the region was of interest to me, and I learned much of Chicago-style politics, ACORN, and Rezko long before I’d heard of Obama. Any one of those "3 strikes" would immediately put any "potential hires" in jeopardy, on probation, or in the "uninterested" pile of resumés.

I believe background information is extremely important for anyone striving for the position of President. As "President" one answers solely to "the people" — and "the people" is an abstract concept: meaningless to those with little or no personal standard of ethics. If I could not trust someone to "watch a till" I would not entrust that person to protect my family, country, and way of life.

Lastly, it appears to me that, to-date, all of the debates, venues, moderators, and questions have been designed to promote the "stage presence" of each candidate: "The Idolization of Politics." Stage presence is an extremely poor indicator of an individual’s character. A good stage presence plays to the masses; it ensures that each person hears what they want to hear, rather than the truth. It uses long empty phraseology which can be restated (at a later time) to mean totally opposite opinions and cover all discrepancies that may come to light. It is far better to focus on documented fact, evidence, and character (including the character of acquaintances) when making any important decision.

In short, "Stage Presence" is perhaps the single worst possible character trait upon which to make a decision regarding the hiring or firing of any individual for any position:
All con men have stage presence in spades.

I'm Tired of Politicians, Political Propaganda, and Media Hype

The current Presidential campaign has dragged on so long that I quit paying much attention to it... as of Florida's primary. There were so many psuedo-conservative candidates in the race, that the true conservatives had either dropped out or fallen too far behind the rest of the field, leaving me little more choice than the best remaining option. I'd much rather vote for the best candidate than the best one left. Since then, even the other "good," and "OK" options have dropped out. Currently, we have the most liberal Senator in the US, the 16th most liberal Senator, and a pseudo-Republican Senator running for President. It appears than no matter who wins, the USA loses.

All three of the candidates have serious baggage. McCain, once a Reagan-conservative, has sponsored legislation that would move our country even closer to socialism. Hillary, ugh, 4 more years of the fiasco that was the Clinton's Presidency? I hope not. Then there's Barack, and Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger, and Louis Farrakhan -- except I don't understand why the Republicans haven't dropped the hammer on the closeness of the Obama-Farrakhan ties. Perhaps they're waiting for him to be nominated as the "official" opponent with hopes that surely no one in their right mind (living in the USA) would vote for a supporter of Farrakhan?

Anyway, the immediate consequence of the long-drawn-out Presidential campaign is two-fold: 1. none of the three have had any recent executive experience, and 2. all are hoping to bring our nation ever-nearer to Socialism. This has pushed me to look much more closely than I normally would at the other races.

Locally, I've found only one decent candidate for public office, Dr. Marion Thorpe, who is opposing Alcee Hastings for the 23rd U.S. Congressional District. (Unfortunately, the 23rd isn't my district.) Having spoken with him often, I feel I know him quite well. Dr. Thorpe is a candidate that, in my opinion, would be one of very few assets to the Congress. The "Myth Debunker" blog has a May 30th post that mentions him in detail. I just wish more honest people with firm convictions (like Dr. Thorpe) were in Congress (or at least trying to get in there). I've had enough of these professional, lifetime Congress-people that are so out of touch with the realities faced in day-to-day living by "normal" Americans.