Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Politics Is Not Really A Laughing Matter, But...

I don't really think that politics is a laughing matter, especially as we may be looking at the next 4 to 8 years of liberal, even radical socialist government in the White House and both houses of Congress, but it may help to make fun of the politicians and their conspirators in the media. Friends often send me interesting stories, political cartoons, jokes and amusing quotes, so I thought it might be prudent to include some very pointed political axioms I recently recieved in this blog. I credit my friend Lynn Kleinman for these. As near as I can tell, the quotes are accurate and extremely correct in content and apply to this election, especially the ones by Mark Twain. If you read this and have not yet decided who you are voting for, perhaps these quotes will help you decide. If you have decided to vote for Obama, you will likely have a few more things that you do not appreciate.

Political Axioms:
'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.'
-Mark Twain

Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress....
But then I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity
is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul
can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man
which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-G. Gordon Liddy

Democracy must be something more than
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
-James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from
poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
-Douglas Casey

Giving money and power to the government is like
giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
-Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

Government's view of the economy could be
summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-Ronald Reagan (1986)

I don't make jokes...
I just watch the government and report the facts.
-Will Rogers

If you think health care is expensive now,
wait until you see what it costs when it's free!
- P.J. O'Rourke

In general, the art of government consists of
taking as much money as possible from
one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)

Just because you do not take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!
-Pericles (430 B.C.)

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe
while the legislature is in session.
-Mark Twain (1866 )

Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal:
a happy appetite at one end and
no responsibility at the other.
-Ronald Reagan

The inherent vice of capitalism is
the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is
the equal sharing of misery.
-Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist
is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

There is no distinctly Native American criminal class Congress.
-Mark Twain

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)

A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Order in da' court, cause' here come da' Judges!

Be afraid. Be very afraid. If you are frustrated as I am with the decisions the Supreme Court hands down from time to time and the crazy legislation from the bench, churned out by the various federal appellate courts and Federal judges in general, you have to be worried about the real—actually, I think “surreal” is the better term—possibility of Barack Obama obtaining the White House and the authority to appoint Federal Judges. During the next four years. Given the likelihood that there will be Democrat majorities in both legislative houses, you can be sure that we will get some activist judges crammed down our throats in the next four years. It has been estimated that as many as three Supreme Court Justices—the oldest and most liberal ones—would retire during an Obama Presidency, giving him the opportunity to fortify the liberal side of the court. And, with perhaps hundreds of lower federal judge appointments added to the mix, our federal court system could be damaged for a very long time.

Presidents in the past have made claims that there should not be litmus test for appointments to federal courts, but the reality is that only the Republican presidents have followed through on that claim. In recent years, the more conservative presidents, Reagan, Bush, and Bush, have endeavored to put conservative thinking strict constructionist judges on the various feral courts, but have not always been successful. Fearful that republican appointees will seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade, Democrats in the Senate, applying their litmus test that all judges agree with current federal abortion law, have fought hard to keep Constructionist types of the bench. One only has to look to the bitter attempts to smear Bork and Thomas during their Senate hearings to recognize the lefts commitment to abortion and liberal judges. Because of Democrat opposition to conservative judge appointments and the difficulty of finding a constructionist judge who has not made statements about the bad law that is Roe vs. Wade, and because of Republican efforts to be evenhanded, some of their picks have not been that good for us on the Right. O’Connell, Kennedy and Souter were big disappointments for Conservatives. On the other hand, when Democrats have had the opportunity to appoint, Republicans on the Hill have generally acquiesced, to the President’s privilege to choose federal judges as a right of elective victory.

As it sits now, the Supreme Court is fairly evenly divided, with Kennedy providing a swing vote either way, depending on which side of the bed—the left or the right—that he gets up from in the morning. Obama has been very vocal about the judges he will appoint if given the opportunity: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges." Clearly, if you like your legislation coming from the bench rather than from state and federal legislatures, Obama is your man. He sees the Constitution as moldable, like a piece of clay, to be remodeled and twisted into the shape necessary to change America. McCain has said that he will pick constructionist judges, who will interpret the US Constitution as the founders intended.

There are mechanisms within the Constitution to amend it as it seems necessary. The requirements are strict and suggest that amending the Constitution should be a thoughtful and no easy matter, as can be seen from the following:
Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Constitution should not be amended or changed by Judges’ decisions and Obama’s idea of a qualified judge does not inspire me. The image of justice that Americans generally have is of the statue of ‘Lady Justice” holding up the scales in balance and wearing a blindfold. This suggests that justice should be handed out equally, without respect to persons. I think Obama’s image is of a lady holding scales that are heavy on the left side and the blindfold is pulled up to see who her judgments might affect.
Of all the reasons to not vote for Obama—his socialist agenda, his relationships and associations with leftist radicals and unscrupulous characters are deafening to those who are listening—his intention to fill the courts with leftist ideologs should equally give us great pause. Even just four years of appointing judges without enough conservatives in Congress to check his efforts could drastically alter the direction of our country and would likely take many decades to remedy. But, you be the judge.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Time To Send In The Cavalry

Again I watched the Presidential debates last night and again I was frustrated both with McCain’s inability to articulate his case without coming off like a desperate septuagenarian, trying too hard to be a nice guy and the media’s non interest in anything that could make Obama look bad. And again, I tortured myself with the thought of “how did we get this point with McCain as our candidate?” when we could have had an articulate and genuinely brilliant business man who truly understands the economy, explaining the conservative answer to our country’s problems. Instead, we have McCain, who wants to get along with Left, seeing himself as the "Uniter" that Obama claims to be, rather than defeat them and expose them for the Socialists—in some cases, Marxists—and enemies of capitalism and free trade that they are. To be fair, McCain tried, but he was much nastier in the debates with his fellow Republicans—Romney in particular—than he was with Obama. He seemed like it was hard for him to say anything that might make him look mean in the eyes of the undecided voters.

What McCain does not seem to understand is that the reason people are undecided at this point is because those people don’t have any core beliefs. They wouldn’t know an ideological thought if it took the shape of a brick and landed on their heads. To my way of thinking, anyone who truly understands what the formation of the United States of America was about or cares about personal freedoms and the right of self determination would already have rejected Obama’s policies. Those on the left, of course, are champing at the bit to turn America into their socialist utopia. In fact, the American Communist Party announced today that they think the country is ready to accept their brand of ideology—I guess they think if we can accept Obama’s plans, we are ready for the unadulterated undisguised genuine article. So, sadly, it is the “undecideds” who will determine whether we try to get back on a more conservative track and work our way out of a looming recession or embrace socialism and dive right into another depression--raising taxes on business has never increased the national coffers to the degree that cutting taxes has. And, because the undecideds have no core principles or deep understanding of politics or policy--they see the world through their clouded visions of "me, me, I'm on fire, put me out" or "I think I want a change" no matter if the change is a bad one--they will likely choose style over substance. That is why it is lamentable that McCain is deficient in the style category and unable to articulate the substance. The only other chance he has is to expose Obama for who he is, by shining the light of truth on his unseemly associates without any help from the news media. If the "undecideds" understood who Obama really is even they would pull their heads out of where ver they have them located most of the time and make a reasonable choice. Or, you would think so.

Again, McCain tried in his fumbling way to do that last night. After bringing up Bill Ayers, he allowed Obama to skate along with his same lame explanations of his Bill Ayers, terrorist, association and later changing direction by making claims about “Kill him!” comments supposedly shouted at the mention of Obama’s name at Republican rallies. I might point out here that Agent Bill Slavoski of the Secret Service disputes that any such thing happened, that he was surprised at the reportage of such because he was there and none of his fellow agents heard anything either. As part of his job, they have since investigated the claims deeper and found nothing to corroborate the reports. Of course we can expect nothing more at this point from the media or McCain. I’m sure there were many people watching the debate last night who asked themselves, “I wonder who this Bill Ayers guy is.” The "undecideds" and uninformed will have to be spoon-fed if we are to pull this out for McCain. Bloggers and 527s are going to have to pull McCain’s butt out of the fire. The leftist media wants Obama to win and they will not report anything, especially if it is true, that could hurt their chances. In essence, McCain has tied himself to the railroad track and the Obama-Media Express is hurtling down the track. It is time to call in the cavalry, if it's not too late.

Monday, October 13, 2008

"But, He's Just A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood!"

I can’t help but blog again about politics, and Obama in particular. I just read Stanley Kurtz’ article in National Review, “Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?” and it raises even more questions about Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers than we have already had.

Of course, some of us know that Mr. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dorn were terrorists with Weather Underground during the 60s, that they bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol, that they are unrepentant for their actions—Ayers posed, stomping on Old Glory, for a magazine and was quoted by The New York Times as saying that the notion of the United states of America makes him want to puke, and that he felt that he had not done enough, and he was in Venezuela in recent years speechifying and ranting “Viva La Revolution”. And, some of us know that Obama’s wife, Michelle worked in the 90s with Bernadine Dohrn at the same law firm. And some of us know that, a few months prior to kicking of his first political campaign in an event hosted by Ayers and Dorn in their home, Obama became chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded and guided by Ayers to radically—the key word here is radical—change education in schools. Some of us also know that Ayers and Obama worked together in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to effect this “CHANGE”—Obama, as we know, is very big on “change”—in the way education worked in Chicago, altering the focus of the traditional English math and science focus to (as I understand it) questioning authority and everything else. Some of us know these things even though the mainstream media has yet to look into the Obama/Ayers relationship. They are satisfied with Obama’s statement that Ayres is “Just some guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Incidently, I wonder if they still have the Che Guevara picture up in some of Obama's campaign offices.

This has not been enough for journalist Stanley Kurtz who has been looking into the Obama/Ayers relationship in great depth. Oddly, Mr. Ayer’s refuses to shed any light on their relationship, and Obama is sticking to his story that they are just neighbors. In his investigation of Obama and Ayers work together at Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Kurtz keeps hitting brick walls in being allowed to see documents of the organization held at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago which would clearly shed light on their work together and, perhaps, the reality of their political agreements. He draws the conclusion that perhaps Ayers himself is responsible for keeping the documents out of his reach. Please read Kurtz’s 8/18/08 article at National Review for the details.

With what we know already, that Ayers is not just a guy in Obama’s neighborhood, we should be, at the very least, very afraid. If the guy is afraid to let us know the details of his friendship or “comradeship” with Ayers, it leaves us with the only conclusion we can arrive at: it would hurt his chances to get elected. Just as it would hurt his chances to get elected, if he admitted that during his over twenty years of attending the Black Liberation Theology “church”, he sat through anti-American and racist ranting (sermons) by his mentor and great friend, Reverend Wright. Still, Obama claims, with a straight face, he never heard such things from the Rev. It seems clear to me that Obama is lying about who he is and what his agenda as president will be. If more than just some of us knew who he really is we would reject him and his neighbors and mentors.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

These Controlled Debates Don't Tell Us What We Reaaly Need To Know!

I have watched three debates so far and have not been very impressed with anyone other than the leftish media’s control of the events and their shameless efforts to protect Obama. These debates do us a real disservice in regards to informing the public. They pick questions that leave the respondents with the option to sit on their pat answers and not veer away from their speech material. From my perspective, the questions of character and judgment are the most important. The candidates can say anything they want at this point and claim as Bill Clinton did when he promised middle class tax cuts and then reneged because the economy and government coffers were in worse shape than he expected once in office. When you neglect character and judgment, you get leaders like Clinton and Carter: Clinton, who cheated on his wife in the Oval Office—not that she did not know that he was doing it or was perfectly capable of it—committed perjury (lied under oath—this was the reason for the impeachment trial, coo laid drinkers, not for his classless sex acts in the Oval Office—accepting illegal foreign campaign money for obvious quid pro quo give-a-ways to China in the form of rocketry secrets and to Indonesia in the form of tying up our clean coal reserves in Utah by Presidential dictate and giving Indonesia—the only other significant possessor of such reserves—a literal monopoly on the resource; and Carter who, because of his outrageously bad judgment almost ruined our economy and military beyond repair.

I find it amazing appalling that no one in the debates can ask Obama about his past associations with the terrorist Ayers family—his political dealings with them and their attempts to indoctrinate children through education programs that Obama fed government money into—the Reverend Wright and Obama’s laughable denial of having heard any of his hundreds of outrageous racially divisive and politically charged sermons in twenty year of attending his church—or his associations with Tony Rezko, who sits behind bars, but was instrumental in Obama’s real estate deals and a major contributor and fund raiser for Obama’s Political career. I think, if Obama would have to respond to such questions in front of a bunch of people who are just now beginning to pay attention a little bit, the voters would be better informed about who he is and make a more informed choice. Obama can say anything at this point and not follow through. The public needs to know what the media refuses to inform the public about: Obama has substantial baggage which should give us good insight to his character and judgment. He, in my judgment will likely be a costly mistake, even worse and more dangerous than Carter was.

But, I also am frustrated by the republican’s choice for the presidential spot. I know we were unaware of the looming current financial crisis when the primaries were going on, but I can’t help imagining Mitt Romney debating Obama at this point, instead of McCain. Not only would he have had a better grasp of the problems we have at them moment, but he would also most assuredly be better equipped to deal with them. He looks better on camera—McCain has a hard time looking cool to the younger set—and he is squeaky clean in the character and judgment category.

Hindsight is obviously 20/20—though not for me, I voted for Romney in our primary—but we could have done better. Religious prejudice may likely have cost the republicans the White House, if something fortuitous does not happen in the next moth to expose Obama for the empty shell or clandestine Marxist—in my opinion, he is the latter—that he is. I think that Palin was a terrific choice and she and Bobby Jindal and other young Conservatives are our future, but we have likely shot ourselves in the foot with our choice this time around. We have to fight against three enemies in today’s political landscape: The liberal Democrats, the liberal mainstream media, and the ignorant electorate who do not pay attention or care to ask the right questions of their leaders. Character and judgment matter, at least to some of us.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Un-Civil War: The 2008 Elections

I heard Peggy Noonan this morning on the radio saying something to the effect that the civility needs to come back into politics. I only heard the last little bit where she extolled the virtues of Reagan and his refusal say cruel and hateful things about his political adversaries. The feedback from other listeners seemed to reflect that she was saying that we of conservative bent needed to be nicer in our political discourse. The majority of the respondents seemed to disagree with her. And, without having heard exactly what she said, I would say we on the political Right have very little to apologize for. If anything, Conservatives take it too easy on the liberal Left.

Reagan was indeed a great example. The most hateful thing I can remember him saying to an adversary was, “there you go again.” He saved his harshest statements—evil empire and the like—for his and our true enemies. But for all of his graciousness he was insulted and degraded by the left and the left-leaning media as only a nutty actor, homophobic and racist tendencies. If you had seriously studied his life at all, you could never have arrived at such a prejudiced conclusion. But the Left was not interested in the realities of Reagan. They hated his conservative ideals and they easily transferred their hate to his person.

Much of what the Left dislikes about us on the Right is our contention that there is a Wrong and a Right. We believe that morality is important in both personal and public behavior. Non-religionists are very uncomfortable with the concepts of wrong and right, because, judged by the traditional Judeo-Christian principles and the Ten Commandments upon which our nation and its laws were founded, they could possibly be found guilty of something. In truth, Conservative religious people who honestly practice their religions understand that we all fall short in our efforts to follow God’s commandments in respect our fellow man. We are willing to forgive. But we expect that our leaders reflect our ideals as much as possible.

When Bill Clinton ran for president the first time, I distrusted him. The many stories of his marital infidelities troubled me. And, if I believed that if he was unable to be faithful to commitments to his marriage, how could I trust him to be faithful to his commitments to the United States of America. Needless to say, as a Conservative, I was opposed to him on political grounds and I would have voted against at any rate, but his character flaws, as I saw them made me suspect of every action he took as President. History, I believe, has shown that I was right to doubt Bill Clinton. He was indeed the philanderer that his critics had warned us he was. His actions as President only reinforced my beliefs about him; that he was self absorbed and egotistical, more worried about himself than his country. He was basically a dishonest man.

The Liberals were embarrassed by Bill Clinton, but mainly because he was caught. Most of the leadership in the Democrat party knew of his character flaws, but he was their ticket to political power after 12 years of being out of the White House. We on the Right felt vindicated in our criticism, but those on the Left were angry about our righteous indignation. Nothing could have irritated them more than losing a contested election in 2000 to a Born Again Christian named George W. Bush.

Liberal Democrats still claim that the 2000 presidential election was stolen, even though it was Gore who tried to keep overseas military ballots from being counted and only wanted recounts in heavily weighted democrat districts. And, they tenaciously hold this opinion in the face of every recount and study that has substantiated the election results since. This close election of a man who professed strong religious faith created the “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” The Left was so eager to pin the label “Liar” on some one from the Right, because of their embarrassment over Clinton that they have had to jump over huge logical and reasonable hurdles to make the claim that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush came into office with high expectations of working with both parties to create more civility and bi-partisanship, but the bitterness over the close election left him little real hope of working with the opposition. Even the short lived respite from political divisiveness the 9-11 created was destroyed by the thought on the left that Bush was becoming a hero. At every turn, the Left and the leftist-media have tried to discredit him; attacking his efforts in the war on terror, focusing heavily on the costs in blood and treasure, and ignoring the successes. And through all of the attacks on his character, the labeling of “liar”, “Hitler,” and the incessant disparaging remarks on his intelligence, Bush has acted gentlemanly, never resorting to the tactics of his foes.

Now we find ourselves ready to elect a new president and we see more of the same in the way the Left and the media are serving up their opinions on McCain and Palin—especially Palin. Sarah Palin is a thumb in the eye for many on the Left. She is a powerful woman in politics who has strong values of a religious and moral base. The media has been almost humorous in their attempts to find something on Palin that will discredit here in Conservative’s and keep them from the polls; On the other hand, the Democrats have nominated a man who has clear background problems by his associations with despicable characters—thieves, racists and terrorists. Again, the Left and the leftist media know and do not care about these associations, or they are reluctant to look too closely for fear of exposing something that will turn off the voter in the political middle who pays little attention or has few core beliefs beyond their personal comfort. Again, I am not voting for Obama on political differences, but I am even more disturbed by his character questions than I was with Bill Clinton.

So, getting back to the civility question, we, on the Right, need not worry about being more civil. The Left will go crazy on Palin and McCain and ignore their own problems. We are generally not the offenders. If anything, we need to be more assertive, and honestly expose the Left for who they are and what they want to do. Do I here a big Amen?