What Is Wrong With Republicans?

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane

So, McCain has won the Florida primary. The first primary in which only Republican voters may vote for Republicans. And he has won fifty-seven delegates to the Republican National convention.

This is what Republicans want?

Would there be any point in Democrats (or independents) registering as Republicans just to skew the vote in his favor, now?

I think it's pretty clear now that many more Republicans support McCain than true Conservative voters presuppose.

This reminds me of the particular phenomena on the Democratic side where it appears a majority of Democrats swear they would never vote for Hillary, but nevertheless Hillary gets the majority of the Democratic vote.

I think there are "closet voters" on both sides. That's pathetic in my view. If you support a particular candidate say so. Don't say you don't when you do.

What is wrong with Republicans?

I have pointed out before my belief that there are some self described Reagan Republicans who tend to abandon their Conservative principles simply because they believe another, less Conservative candidate is more "electable".

Those who say they support candidates like Guiliani because the more Conservative candidate isn't electable have it backwards.

You aren't dumping your core Conservative principles because the Conservative candidates are unelectable. Conservative candidates become unelectable because Conservatives dump their principles.

John McCain is a likable, charismatic man. He sounds very sincere when he talks. He appears to the public to be the kind of guy that everyone likes. He has the kind of public persona that some bloggers have described as "presidential".

But John McCain is not Conservative. He is wrong for this country. Granted, he is better than Obama, Clinton, or Edwards, but not much better.

Do you see, now, why standing on principle, no matter how impossible it might seem, is the better course? In sacrificing your principles, you have inadvertently thrown the better, more Conservative candidates under the proverbial bus. And now we will have to choose between two evils in the upcoming general election.

Now, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being forced to vote for a candidate that is far from a Reagan Conservative.

Well, you wanted the most electable candidate to run against Hillary, and you got him.

Duncan Hunter is looking pretty darn good, now, isn't he?

It appears that McCain is the most electable candidate. If he is our party's eventual nominee, and it certainly appears that is where we are headed, I will vote for him. Not because I believe he is the best man for the job, because he isn't. But because he will be the only choice for Republicans. I will not vote for a third party candidate. I do not recommend voting for a third party because that will insure a Democrat win. I will not vote for a Democrat. I will do whatever it legally takes to prevent a Democrat win.

Congratulations, Republicans. You got what you asked for.

I hope you are happy.

Gun Control

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." ~ James Earl Jones

There is an interesting poll over at Lone Ranger's place. It is supposed to show you how you stack up against the various presidential candidates on the various issues.

I took it twice because I misinterpreted a question the first time.

On the first poll, my answer to a free trade question was wrong because of my misinterpretation. For the record, I don't believe we should have unrestricted free trade. I think, in this case, the word "unrestricted" has too broad a definition. I've never had much of a position on NAFTA and CAFTA because I am not very well informed on economics, however, after reading Duncan Hunter's position in his opposition of NAFTA and CAFTA, I would have to say that I am opposed to "Unrestricted" Free Trade, but, as I have already implied, it is not a big issue for me.

On my second try, on one of the questions about gun control, the one about whether assault weapons should be banned, my answer was exactly opposite what I really believe.

I know I risk incurring the wrath of my fellow Conservatives on this one, but I don't believe American citizens need assault weapons.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not against guns. I believe in the second amendment. I believe Americans have the right to bear arms.

I don't personally own a gun, but I am not opposed to gun ownership. I have used guns before, and I am a rather good marksman, but I have never felt the need to own one.

People should be allowed to own guns for sport, and for protection, but I see no reason why anyone needs to own any gun that is capable of firing multiple rounds per second.

I can see where firing a machine gun at a flock of ducks would resit in a successful duck hunt, but that kind of takes the challenge out of the sport, doesn't it?

So, there is no reason to carry an M-16 on a hunting trip, but why not for protection?

Assault weapons were created for one purpose, and one purpose only.

To kill people.

Now, I have no love for criminals who are willfully trying to take the lives of myself and my family, and who try to steal my property. But if I can prevent them from doing so with one small caliber bullet, and I can, why would I need to blow him into an unrecognizable mass of tissue and blood? Wouldn't that be non-essential overkill?

If a criminal can be stopped by wounding them with one shot from a small caliber weapon, why would we need to use a multiple shot weapon using armour piercing shells? Unless a burglar is trying to break into my house with a tank, I think a .22 or a .38 is sufficient for protection.

What do you suppose the odds of a burglar using an armoured vehicle to gain entrance into your domicile are, anyway?

There have been numerous examples given of what could have happened in different situations when shooters have opened fire in schools, malls and businesses across the country. In some cases, there was no one with a gun to stop the shootings, and in some cases there were.

In every case where there was someone with a gun nearby, the shootings were brought to a swift conclusion with a relatively negligible loss of human life.

These shootings could have been just as effectively stopped by simply wounding the shooter with a small caliber handgun or rifle. Still, assault weapons were not needed.

When I was a young adult in Wichita, Kansas, a sniper began shooting people from the 27th floor balcony of the downtown Holiday Inn. He was captured when police fired a shotgun through the wall between balconies wounding him in the legs. The assault was over, and the gunman captured, not killed. Again, assault weapons were not only not needed, they weren't used.

On the other hand, if assault weapons are banned, the only people who have them will be the criminals and then how do we protect ourselves?

The second amendment was written a couple of centuries ago by men who couldn't have foreseen the advent of assault weapons. Would they have written an exemption into the second amendment had they known how far technology would advance in weaponry?

You know? I don't think they would have.

On second thought, what right does the United States have to refuse us the right to own assault weapons? Doesn't the individual American have the right to decide if he needs (or wants) assault weapons or not?

Suddenly, it seems cut and dried to me.

Ok, you have read along while I worked through the process of deciding for myself whether it is constitutional to ban assault weapons. I have decided we should not ban assault weapons as they are a protected right under the second amendment.

So, again, I changed my answer.

Ownership of assault weapons should be allowed. But, I still believe they are not needed.

Hunter Endorses Huckabee

"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." ~ William Shakespeare

My personal favorite Presidential candidate, Duncan Hunter withdrew from the race, and now, has endorsed Mike Huckabee. I don't understand that endorsement. If Huckabee is really as Liberal as the Conservative pundits and bloggers and commentators say, why would the most Conservative of all candidates endorse him?

Duncan Hunter knows Mike Huckabee personally. Maybe we should start with that knowledge and examine the endorsement from Hunter's viewpoint. According to Duncan Hunter himself:

“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail. Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China’s emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America’s industrial base.
Along with these issues of national security, border enforcement and protecting the U.S. industrial base, I see another quality of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy that compels my endorsement. Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed. The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well.”

So that is his official explanation. Unofficially? Who knows?

I think we need to be careful when drawing conclusions from anything any politician says. One thing I've learned in my 56 years is this:

You can always tell when a politician is lying. His lips will move.

I'd say that's a pretty good rule of thumb.

I will say this, though:

I trust Duncan Hunter. I believe he is a man of integrity, a man who sincerely believes in his stated principles. I don't know him personally, so I could be wrong.

I heard some interviews with Huckabee and I thought he acquitted himself quite well. He gave clear and logical explanations in response to the various charges against him. He sounds believable. Some of the accusations that have been made about him could well be taken out of context or be misrepresented.

But, once again, I have to defer to the rule of thumb stated above.

Did Huckabee convince Hunter? Or has Hunter seen something in Huckabee that the experts don't see?

What do I think? I am not saying. I've learned another lesson from all this:

If I publicly support a candidate, he will withdraw. I supported Hunter, and he withdrew. Then I reasoned that the next most Conservative candidate was Thompson. Then he withdrew. So now, I'm not announcing who I will support.

I am not sure now, anyway.

So, I will not publicly support any candidate until the Republican nominee is chosen at convention.

If anyone wants to know who I will vote for, you can be assured:

I will vote for whoever I think best represents my principles. I will vote for principle before I vote for who I think will win. At this point, there is no candidate left in the race who represents my core principles, so, I will hold my nose and vote for the Republican candidate.

OK. Update: The New York Times has endorsed McCain. So guess who I won't support?

There's only one thing I know for sure:

I don't know anything for sure.

A Visit To The Past

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Lone Ranger has posted a link to a poem about Martin Luther King today, whose author has pointed out the negative changes in the black culture since MLK's death in 1968.

Two years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper. It was in response to an article about Martin Luther King and what he accomplished. It was the authors contention that MLK didn't accomplish very much, that there had been little positive change. I then copied and pasted the letter into a MLK day post here on my blog. The paper published my letter in it's entirety. The following, self edited, is what I wrote on my blog:

The local newspaper here had an article written by a David A Love, a writer for Progressive Media Project in Madison, Wisconsin, as a guest columnist. In it, Mr. Love made some pretty astounding statements.

He said since Dr. King died, "Americans have learned few lessons from King". His first example was, "37 million people live below the poverty line including 13 million children."

I had it in my mind that perhaps the percentage of those living below the poverty line might have been higher than that at the time of Dr. King's death, but I couldn't find much information specifically addressing that issue. So, I didn't reply, but I wonder what that has to do with racial equality.

Black and poor are two words that are not synonymous.

Next, he said, "45 million of us don't have health insurance", But I think there are too many factors influencing that to draw the conclusion that Americans haven't learned to accept everyone as equals from that. Some people choose not to have health insurance, and anyway, that isn't the governments responsibility. I decided not to address that statement in my reply, as my letter was already getting longer than I intended.

With that in mind, this is the letter that I sent to the editor of the Hagerstown Herald Mail, addressing the rest of the statements he made:

To the Editor:

According to your guest columnist, David A. Love, in the article entitled, America Should Honor King's Teachings, (Herald Mail Monday Jan. 16) "Americans have learned few lessons" since the death of Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Love arrogantly assumes the readers will blindly accept whatever he says as fact, without questioning or doing research. That is a mistake. In this age of the internet, fact checking can be done effortlessly and without having to have a formal education. Let me set him straight.

Today, a black man can enter any restaurant or lunch counter anywhere in America, including the deep south, and sit down next to a white man without fear of being lynched. Or even frowned upon.

And we haven't learned?

No more are there two sets of bathrooms or drinking fountains, one labeled white and one labeled colored. Today a black man can drink from any water source he wants to without fear of angering any white people. In fact, it is doubtful that any white people would give him a second glance.

And we haven't learned?

There are no more lynchings, no more black church bombings, no more middle of the night abductions of black people followed by brutal beatings.

And we haven't learned?

No one forces black girls to sit in the back of the bus, or stands in the doorway of schools to block their entrance.

And we haven't learned?

Today Black writers can write editorials that make outrageously racially biased statements without fear of retribution. You couldn't have written your piece in a mainstream newspaper in 1960, Mr. Love.

What haven't we learned?

Yes, Mr. Love, there are isolated incidents where some backward, ignorant, racist, white people burn crosses in front yards and scrawl racist graffiti on black people's houses, etc. But those instances are few and far between. And there are more, much more incidents of black racists committing racially motivated crimes nowadays.

Mr. Love also writes, "The devastation in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast brought to light the lingering problems of race and class."

Recently some interesting information was reported in newspapers and on television and radio news outlets across the country: More white people were effected adversely by the hurricanes than blacks.

What lingering problems, Mr. Love?

Next, Mr. Love makes this claim:

"And the nation squanders away it's resources on the failed war in Iraq."

Oh really? What exactly, is Mr. Love's criteria for what constitutes a "failed war"?

For the first time since Saddam Hussein gained power in Iraq, free and independent elections have been held. Not just one. Three of them in the last year.

A murderous, vicious, sadistic dictator, who had hundreds of thousands of his own people slaughtered has been deposed.

Torture and rape rooms all over Iraq have been shut down. Women, who up until now, have been treated as second class citizens at best and pack animals at worst, have attained personhood in Iraq.

Note: Let me add here in 2008: The surge is working.

And all this at the cost of many less American lives than have died in any of America's previous wars.

And we haven't learned?

His last point:

"On March 31, 1968 King preached his final sermon...four days before his assassination. In the sermon, he noted that, 'one of the great liabilities of life is that all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, and the new situation demands. They end up sleeping through a revolution.''

Mr. Love, it's time to wake up from your 35 year nap, and see what Americans have learned.

A Little Comic Relief

"The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think." ~ Horace Walpole

After reading about Lone Ranger's adventures at the doctor's office, I was inspired to post this:



Dennis Wolfberg. Another comic who died too young.

Note: The quote at the top describes the difference between Liberals and Conservatives well.

Bin Laden For Peace

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil." ~ William Shakespeare

Osama bin Laden's son says he wants to be peace ambassador between the West and Muslims. He says his father is only trying to defend Islam.

"My father thinks he will be good for defending the Arab people and stop anyone from hurting the Arab or Muslim people any place in the world," he said.

He doesn't condemn his father for masterminding and funding terrorists attacks throughout the world, but he thinks there is a better, less violent way to accomplish his father's goals.

According to the Liberally biased AP, "Omar is convinced a truce between the West and al-Qaida is possible".

So, he and his British wife are going to sponsor a horse race.

My god, he sounds like a Democrat!

"My father is asking for a truce but I don't think there is any government (that) respects him. At the same time they do not respect him, why everywhere in the world, they want to fight him? There is a contradiction," he said.

How is that a contradiction? Oh, and by the way, we don't want to just fight him.

We want to kill him.

In my opinion, Omar Osama bin Laden, the child of Osama, is acting like ...well...a child. Does he really think the west is going to just forgive and forget his father?

He wants to broker peace and he wants his father to go free at the same time.

I wonder. Is Omar Osama bin Laden familiar with the old maxim, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"?

Osama offered a truce to the West in January 2006, but it was summarily rejected, and rightfully so. Osama seems to think he can get out of his predicament alive.

He can't.

There is no possiblility of a truce of any kind with bin Laden unless he turns himself in or is killed. One or the other. Or both.

A Life Worth Living

"The secret of a good life is to have the right loyalties and hold them in the right scale of values." ~ Norman Thomas

Tuesday evening, a man named Gary Tebbets received his promotion to the "Church Triumphant". Mr. Tebbets was a music teacher on the faculty of Allen County Community College in Fort Scott, Kansas.

But he was more than that. Much more.

This was the same Gary Tebbets mentioned in a New York Times article after he unsuccessfully petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court to prevent the euthanization of a young woman, Nancy Cruzan. She had been inhumanely denied food and water. According to the Times, "Gary Tebbets of Kansas City, Mo., and Gary Rickman of Kansas City, Kan., asked the State Supreme Court to order that the feeding be resumed, a request denied ... by the State Court of Appeals".

This was also the same Gary Tebbets who fought tirelessly for unborn children, and wrote many articles and letters to the editor of the Kansas City Star protesting abortion. He was an unashamed proponent of the right to life, and unlike so many of us, actually put his words into action.

He was born and lived most of his life in Kansas City, Mo. On Monday night, while driving home from work, he suffered a brain aneurysm and immediately went into a coma, causing his car to run off the road. He had to be cut out of the wreckage and was air-lifted to Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas. He never regained conscientiousness.

Gary Tebbets was a Christian.

Gary Tebbets was a Musician.

Gary Tebbets was a loving son, sibling, husband, and father.

Gary Tebbets was my cousin.

Still No Clear Winner

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Three primaries. Three different winners. What does this all prove?

Absolutely nothing.

On the Democrat side, Hillary looks to be gathering some momentum, however, she ran pretty much unopposed in Michigan, and still only garnered 54% of the vote. She will declare herself the big winner in Michigan, but the results are misleading.

The way I see it, she did poorly compared to her competition, which was Kucinich, Gravel, and undecided.

I try to put myself in the shoes of a Democrat voter and think, "Who do I vote for if Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot?" I can't think as Democrats do, so I can only surmise, but if I am trying to make a statement against Hillary, I would choose "undecided". If I am simply showing my support for the Democrats, I would vote for Hillary. So, nothing is proved by Hillary winning this primary.

For Republicans, was anyone really surprised that Romney won in a state where he was born and where his father was once the governor?

It is a hollow victory at best.

I'm sure it is heartening that Fred Thompson fared as well as he did, considering he wasn't even running in the Michigan primary. The same goes for Guiliani.

I wonder though, how their decision to skip this particular primary will effect them in the general election should Fred or Rudy win the eventual nomination. Are people generally thin skinned enough to take umbrage at the fact that their state was considered not important enough for Fred and Rudy's campaign?

So, after the smoke has cleared, what have we learned? Is there yet a clear front runner?

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I just don't see any point in holding state primaries.

The Great Divide

"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation." ~ George Washington

Since some time before the beginning of the Presidential primaries, I have become increasingly concerned over what appears to be a divide between factions of the Republican party. Specifically, between the backers of the various candidates.

There is a divide in the Democratic party, too, but as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. So, they can fight until the destroy themselves for all I care. In fact, I wish they would.

It's American to back a particular candidate for President, but let's not lose our focus in our zeal to convince others to agree with us. Republicans need to stick together. The vigor in which we back our favorite candidates is admirable but we must remember when the convention comes, we have to come together.

This is my concern:

If this divide widens, we face the very real possibility of accidentally creating a third party candidate and that would virtually hand the election over to the Democrats.

And that is something we cannot let happen. That would absolutely be the worst case scenario.

I like Hunter. Others like Thompson, and still others like Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. Some others even like Ron Paul.

But some of us (me included) are growing increasingly angry with each other over our particular choice of candidates. That also concerns me.

No matter who our favorite candidates are, when the convention convenes, we must back whatever candidate the party chooses. Even if we have to hold our noses to do so. We cannot embrace a third party candidate or simply refuse to vote at all.

And we must not let our personal feelings cause a disruption of friendships that we have forged and cultivated out of a mutual love and respect for our country and our party. Our goal remains the same whoever we choose to lead us into the next four years.

I, for one, hereby resolve to be less snarky with my fellow Republicans, even if they are supporting Guiliani.

Let's back our candidate until he either wins or loses the nomination. Don't let the primaries make your decision on who to support for you. Support the candidates that best reflect your own personal ideologies regardless of who wins in South Carolina, or Michigan, or wherever. When you vote in the primaries, the issue will resolve itself.

If your candidate doesn't win the eventual nomination, then throw your support behind the party's candidate. But in any event, let's remains friends.

It's A Popularity Contest

"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." ~ Gore Vidal

I probably wasn't the first person to point this out, but I am the first person I know of to point this out.

Now, many others, both professional and non-professional, have agreed.

I called it. I said Hillary's (almost) crying was a blatant attempt to win votes from the Liberal Democrats, because Liberals feel instead of think. And it worked. Just as I knew it would.

Liberals are so predictable!

Hillary's show of emotion won her Blue Hampshire. She played the whiny bleeding heart sob sister Liberals like a Stradivarius, and they bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Dan asks me why I have such a low opinion of the rank-and-file average Americans intelligence....well, that's why.

I will say it again. The average American doesn't pay close enough attention to politics to be able to make an informed decision. That's why the Democrats win elections. They only vote (if they vote at all) for the candidate they hear the most about, and the media makes sure the people mostly hear about the candidates that the media wants to win. And the media usually overwhelmingly support Democrats.

But Democrats aren't the only victims of this media manipulation.

Republicans can sometimes be just as gullible, and for the same reason. Whatever candidate the media talks the most about is the candidate that Republicans end up supporting. Example?

There is Conservative media. Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Hewitt, Savage, and many others. Rush refuses to endorse any one candidate, and technically, so does Hannity (or so he says). Mark Levin has remained pretty much silent on which candidate he favors but he has mentioned on many occasions that he likes Duncan Hunter (as I do).

But if one listens to Hannity even once in a while, it becomes blatantly evident he is a Rudy Guiliani supporter. I really don't know who the others support, but Hannity is the second most listened to talk radio host in the country so his influence cannot be denied.

Guiliani has a lot of support from self-described "Reagan Conservatives", yet he bears little resemblance to Reagan. In fact, he may very well be the most Liberal of all the Republican candidates (not including Ron Paul, of course, but he's not really a Republican anyway). So why do they support Rudy so vigorously?

I may be way off base here, but I believe it has to do with the exposure he gets from Conservative pundits like Hannity. Especially Hannity. Does Hannity show such enthusiasm for Duncan Hunter?

No.

Why not?

Watch this:



Hunter is the most Reaganesque candidate in this election field. Hannity claims to be a Reagan Conservative. Hannity even claims he likes Hunter. In fact, all the Conservative talk show hosts say the same thing. I have never heard a negative word about Hunter from any of them. So why will they not support him instead of Liberal Rudy Guiliani?

I don't know.

But it makes my point. The average American voter will not do the homework necessary to find out which candidate best exemplifies their own politically ideology. They rely on media hype to make those decisions for them.

Republican or Democrat.

You want to become President? All you have to do is get your name out there in the media, and have them (as Ann puts it) talk you up. If you can get them to mention your name more than anyone else's, you will have the election sewn up.

Good luck.

Hillary's (Crocodile) Tears

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" ~ William Shakespeare

OK. Every one's talking about this, so I guess I'll have to add my take. Hillary in tears? Hardly. Hillary is simply doing what Liberals do. Attempting to win the sympathy vote. She finds herself losing ground against Obama, so she's playing the sympathy card. She's either learned from Bill or she is being coached by the same person or persons who taught Bill how to cry on cue. Remember the funeral of Ron Brown? Here's a video to remind you:


The only difference is she hasn't yet learned how to manufacture real tears.

As Rush often says, "Liberals feel. Conservatives think".

Yes, the whole thing is phony. A transparent display of false emotion expressly intended to buoy up a sinking campaign.

Give Hillary's handlers credit, though. They know how to manipulate the Liberal base by using emotion.

But note this: We are often told that it's important to listen as much to how it's said as to what is said. In this instance we need to pay attention to what was said here.

Watch the video, and pay close attention to what she says:



The first red flag goes up when the question is asked. Is this another of Hillary's planted questioners?

Next, listen to her answer. "I have so many opportunities for this country. I just don't want to see us fall backward." What the heck is she talking about? Fall backward? From where? We have a strong thriving economy. We have the lowest unemployment in decades. We have low taxes. Thanks to the surge, which Liberal Defeatocrats like Hillary have opposed vehemently, we are winning the war in Iraq.

And by the way, notice she said "I have so many opportunities...", rather than "I see so many opportunities." That speaks volumes in itself.

Then, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening...We have to reverse it."

Reverse?

Reverse??

She wants to undo all the progress the Republicans have accomplished? Does she want to return America to the days of high unemployment, recession, and high taxes? How about returning us to a pre-9/11 mindset, where we blissfully ignore the buildup of terrorist organizations, supremely confident that they would never have the audacity to actually attack us out of fear of this "paper tiger"? Does she want to return us to the days of desperation? Hopelessness?

No, that's not it at all.

Yes, she sees what's happening, alright. Shes losing! She needs to reverse that or she will not win the nomination, not to mention the Presidency. It seems to me that is very personal.

Very personal indeed.

And It's not about the election. It's about our country and our kids futures.

Please!

There the consummate socialist Liberal goes again. Trying to claw her way to power on the backs of "the children". The same old Liberal line. When all else fails, make it all about protecting our children. How pathetically transparent!

Another note, as an aside:

Has anyone noticed how she precedes almost every statement with the term, "as a woman..."?

Naw, she wouldn't stoop to playing the gender card now, would she?

This, according to Hillary, is about our country.

No, it's not.

It's about Hillary's lust for power. It's about her plans to make this country the United Socialist States of America. It's about making her the Commissar of America. It's about destroying America as we know it, and creating a proletariat cooperative with Hillary as "President for life".

Like Castro.

On the plus side, I believe this obvious ploy will backfire on her. Sooner or later, even the most gullible Liberal voter (and believe me, nothing describes Liberals better than the term, "gullible") will begin to see through this sham. And I believe that time is right around the corner.

Update:

The Liberally biased media agrees with me, Hillary is using emotion to attract voters, as I said. See here.

The big difference is the media sees this as a good thing. I see it as bad. Very bad.

The Wussification Of America

"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race." ~ Don Marquis

I found this in my e-mail this morning. It is too true:

SCHOOL 1967 VS 2007

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1967 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.

2007 - School goes into lock down, the FBI is called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.


Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1967 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.


Scenario: Jeffrey won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.

1967 - Jeffrey is sent to the principals office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because Jeffrey has a disability.


Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1967 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.


Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school .

1967 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from School for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.


Scenario: Pedro fails high-school English.

1967 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. American Civil Liberties Union files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover Independence Day firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.

1967 - Ants die.

2007 - Homeland Security and the FBI are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. Teams investigate parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.


Scenario: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.

1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.

2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.

End of e-mail.

The following is my own observation:

I've been concerned with what I call the wussification of America for quite a long time. It's getting worse.

It's long past ridiculous.

If things keep going the way they are currently, and at the current pace, the terrorists nations won't have to set off any bombs in this country. We will have effectively destroyed our own survival instinct, and they will be able to just waltz right in and force us into whatever level of servitude they wish.

Who will be able to stop them?

Still Unoriginal

"When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." ~ Bernard Bailey

Disclaimer: This post is intended to poke a little fun at myself. It is not intended to be taken seriously, so if the reader feels inclined to chastise me because I appear to be feeling sorry for myself, I have only one thing to say: Don't.

Over at Eric's place, Eric coined a new term, "Hyper-Cyberia". He said he googled his new term and found no references to it anywhere on the internet, which inspired me to do a similar search for a term I thought I coined a few years ago. My term is "Techno-moron".

So, I googled "Techno-moron" and the results humbled me. There are thousands of websites that have the term embedded somewhere within their pages. Snopes.com mentioned a humorous but false letter of resignation (which is posted numerous times itself in Google) with the term "techno-moron" in it started circulating around the world wide web in September of 2001. I didn't have access to the internet until sometime after that date, so now I know.

Once again, I am not original. Alas. Woe is me.

The first entry of the term posted by myself on Google is on page 15, where I told Marshall Art that I am a techno-moron. I have used the term many other times before and besides that, but it is now clear that my usage of the term was apparently not my invention.

The interesting thing to me is that the myriad other uses of the term listed by Google show that all those others who use the term are substantially more technically savvy than me, which should, paradoxically, give me the singular distinction of being the most techo-moronic of them all.

I don't know whether to gloat or keep that to myself. It is rather a dubious distinction, is it not?

I suppose it doesn't make any difference that I had never heard or read the term before I used it the first time. The fact that it is original to me does not mean it originated with me.

So, my own self important attitude again takes a hit. The more I try to prove I'm not just one of the crowd, not just "your average Joe", the more I prove that I am exactly that.

Oh well, at least I have not proven myself below average. Yet.

Then again, I have ER and others to do that for me.

Do We Know Anything Yet?

"Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." ~ Robert Louis Stevenson

The results of the Iowa caucus are in, and Mike Huckabee has won on the Republican side. Mitt Romney finished a distant second and Fred Thompson a distant third. What happened to Rudy? Are Republicans starting to see through his pretense of Conservatism?

On the Democrat side, Barack Obama has won and John Edwards and Hillary finished second and third respectively. I don't think any of those three could win against any Republican, but then, my faith in the intelligence of the American people has been proven misguided before.

Democrats Biden and Dodd have dropped out of the race. Apparently they think their Democratic constituents are too dumb to vote for experience.

When will Ron Paul, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter (the best choice for President) drop out, and who will they ultimately endorse?

Rarely has the winner of the Iowa caucus won the eventual Presidential election. So, does the outcome have any significance?

More Legislation Against Stupidity

"For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." ~ Bob Wells

This Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star article informs us of yet another egregious but typically Democratic abuse of power by another Democrat lawmaker. This time, they are trying to outlaw our private use of text messaging on our cell phones while driving.

In Virginia, Democrat Delegate James M. Scott has introduced legislation to ban text messaging while driving. The legislation would include text messaging while operating bikes and motorcycles as well.

Admittedly text messaging while driving is a stupid, dangerous thing to do, but it is nevertheless a fundamental human right:

The right to be stupid.

This legislation is another example of how the government uses extortion to force it's will on the people, in spite of the people's wishes. Forcing us to wear seat belts, buy auto insurance, and add unwanted accessories to our vehicles engines in the interests of our own safety under penalty of law is the textbook definition of extortion.

The reasoning behind Democrat lawmakers continual introduction of legislation which infringes on our personal private rights to be stupid is this:

Since we are not smart enough to take care of ourselves, the government must take care of us for us. We cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions that will affect our own lives, so the government must make those important decisions for us.

Often the government is right. Some people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

But that is our right.

We have the right to do stupid things without requiring government assistance.

And, because all people have a fundamental right to be stupid, it isn't surprising that Democrat legislators so frequently exercise that right, by introducing legislation that is all but impossible to enforce. Such as outlawing text messaging while driving. How do they propose to enforce this?

Democrats are always squealing about Government invasion of privacy when the government is trying to protect heterosexual law abiding citizens from unwanted homosexual advances and from being blown up by bomb wielding terrorists, etc, but strangely, they seem to have no qualms about preventing us from being stupid.

They want to allow pornographers to assault our sensibilities with offensive pictures, writing, and music lyrics, but they don't want us to be allowed to keep and bear arms, which is our constitutional right.

They want to outlaw smoking, as long as its not pot, but they insist we have a right to destroy our livers and endanger other people by letting us drink until we drown in a puddle of our own vomit.

They want to lower the sexual age of consent to twelve and allow underage girls to get abortions and birth control without knowledge or permission from their parents, but woe to us who want to opt our children out of school classes that teach evolution and global warming as fact instead of theory.

The examples of hypocrisy by Democrat legislators are legion. There isn't enough space here to list them all.

My question is this:

If freedom to be morally stupid is so important to Democrats, why isn't freedom to be intellectually stupid?