Grumpy Conservative, The 2010 Midterm Results Prove Nothing.

As of 5:00 PM on November 3, 2010, I've heard a President admit he made mistakes and I've heard a resurgent GOP and their pundits talking about a "mandate". 

Florida Senator-elect Marco Rubio said it best. This election result is not an embrace by the people of the GOP, it is a second chance to get it right.

I'm already betting they don't. Because in order for the GOP to get it right, they are going to have to finally convince the American people that we no longer can afford all the programs, services and entitlements that we have come to expect from our federal government. They are going to have to convince the American people that they are going to have to cut over $600 billion dollars from the 2011 federal budget.  They are going to have to repeal parts of the health care reform. But that's only the start.

They are going to have to convince the people that every category of the budget will need to be cut.  They are going to have cut over $150 billion from health and human services. They are going to have to cut over $150 billion from the federal defense budget. They are going to have to dramatically change the way social security payments will be made to people who retire five or more years from now. They are going to have to cut and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut the budgets of federal agencies like the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FBI, CIA. Across board. Nothing is sacred.

Oh yeah, they are going to have to RAISE taxes too. On everybody. Even those who currently don't pay.

And if you the American people don't buy it, then the GOP and the Democratic party are both screwed and the United States defaults on it's debt in 2012.

But the American people won't buy it so why in the hell am I even bothering? I'll see you in the bread line.

CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".

Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"?  These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation? 

He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.

In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard. 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.

Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.

Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.

To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.

Arizona Enforces What the U.S. Government Will Not

The State of Arizona passed Senate bill 1070, a wide-ranging illegal immigrant measure sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce. This bill is now sitting on the desk of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and you can be that this one is a nasty poser for her.

It makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and gives state and local law enforcement broad authority to determine an individual's legal status if there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual may be in the U.S. illegally.

Sadly, since our Federal government does not have the political will to enforce Federal law concerning border security and the problem of illegal immigration, Arizona has been forced to this difficult pass.

There have been three Arizona ranchers killed recently, and the evidence strongly points to Mexican nationals in the U.S. illegally, probably either part of the illegal drug trade or the human smuggling trade. Frustration is so high on the southern border of the state that a militant militia group is offering it's services to provide armed patrols along the border to interdict persons crossing the border. It would be laughable except that the ranchers are frustrated and scared.

Why is it that those advocates for leniency on illegal aliens steadfastly do these things?

First, they do nothing to discourage persons who contemplate coming to the U.S. illegally.

Second, once they are here, the advocates actually assist them in going underground, being paid under the table, and moving further into the heart of our country. You never hear them encouraging these good people who become law breakers by this action to turn themselves in or to return to their homeland. NEVER.

Third, they fail utterly to acknowledge that any sovereign nation has a right, and responsibility, and a duty to know the identity of any foreigner who desires admission.

Fourth, they fail to identify and condemn business and industries that employ these people.

In the face of such advocacy to promote this illegal behavior the State of Arizona has been forced to take action that it would otherwise not take.

I hate this bill, because the vast majority of illegal immigrants simply desire to find work. However, the safety and security of our people demand that we take this action, with all of it's police-state like apparatus.

God help us all.

Like it or not, the US is still a superpower. What?

In a response to a question about how the recent U.S. led "nuclear summit" would affect Middle East peace efforts, part of his response was this:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them, and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

I was not aware, Mr. President, that being a military superpower was a burden. In fact, I feel that it's quite the other way around. Being a nation that generates such wealth that we can maintain such a powerful military is a privilege and blessing that allows us to share the principles of peace, equality and personal freedom throughout the world.

Of course, when the character of the government no longer represents equality and personal freedom, then maybe the fact that we are the sole superpower should be a matter of concern for all. At one time, the United States was considered a beacon, an example of a government established by the governed for the benefit of the governed, not a privileged ruling class. And the military might that backed that government was in opposition to tyranny. And that military might was only ever intended to protect our way of life, and to help other people to gain their freedom, if only by the living example that it COULD be done.

I think that Senator McCain, Obama's Republican opponent for president in the last election said it as well as can be said:

"That's one of the more incredible statements that I've ever heard a president of the United States make in modern times. We are the dominant superpower and we're the greatest force for good in the history of this country, and I thank God every day that we are a dominant superpower."

Amen, Brother McCain.

Representative Government is Replaced with Absolutism.

Today, the President of the United States and Congress celebrated the passage of "landmark" health care legislation. In a crowded White House East Room a beaming President Obama signed the United States National Health Care Reform Act into law while numerous senators and representatives looked on.

Although this is not the first time that the US federal government passed unpopular legislation into law, this is clearly the most egregious example from both a procedural and financial standpoint.

Thirteen US states Attorneys General have filed lawsuits against this legislation to challenge it's constitutionality. This is rapidly being seen as a "state's rights" issue. States, who are not able to print money like the federal government can, are wondering how they are going to pay their share of this huge expansion of government involvement in not only the regulation but also the financing of the US health care industry.

Even as he signed it the American people remain firmly opposed to this law as shown in this poll by Rasmussen on March 21st, 2010. 54% of Americans oppose it, while only only 41% are in favor with about 5% undecided.

The manner in which Congress passed it, using a procedural rule instead of a straight up and down vote, has incensed many Americans.

The American people have been left with a rancid taste in their mouth. Even many Democrats are unhappy with this bill, albeit for reasons other than my own. They are also disgusted by the manner in which this law made it through the legislative process. Many of those who voted for it were quite literally offered sweetheart deals for their districts or states in order to entice them to vote for it. In the real world, these are called "bribes".

We have been lied to. How can any reasonable person think that adding 31 million people to the health care system, many of them being persons already very ill, to a health care system with no provision for adding doctors, nurses or facilities to the same system will not result in increases in costs for all? Well, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a host of other progressives have sold us that bill of goods. Now we'll see.

Why is it that progressives believe that for good "social" programs to work they only have to provide access to those who have little or none, without also working to improve the quality? And damn the consequences.

Why couldn't they also include some cost controls?

Whey couldn't they make the FDA drug approval process less expensive or less intrusive?

Why couldn't they put in some reasonable limits on malpractice lawsuits?

Why couldn't they put in some stronger consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits.

Why couldn't they put limits on how much of a class-action settlement lands in the attorney's bank account instead of the plaintiffs?

Why couldn't the government allow enhanced competition by allowing us to purchase insurance plans from across state lines?

Those are cost controls and none of it is in any of the 2000+ pages of this monstrous intrusion into the private lives of 80% of American taxpayers who are happy with our current insurance plans.

Today, I no longer feel like a citizen of the United States. I feel like a subject of King Barack I and his Parliamentary Lords Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The federal government has become exactly what Thomas Jefferson and other founders feared it would be.

Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " There was never an intention by our Founders for our nation to be a democracy. Yet that is exactly what the Progressives want. He further said "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Well, this new legislation is certainly going to take more of my "bread". Count on it.

On a more local note, whereas Arizona had finally balanced their budget deficit, the moment that USNHCRA became law we were once again $400 million in the hole, because the law requires that we restore 310,000 people to Medicare/Medicaid. Where's the money coming from, Your Majesty? Should we stop ALL road construction? How about if we just close ASU or NAU? No? Let's fire some more state troopers, or eliminate more positions in the National Guard. No?

There is a scene from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" where the South Carolina legislature is debating whether or not to join the rebellion against Great Britain. One of the representatives states: "Our rights are being trampled by a tyrant 3,000 miles away". Mel Gibson's character responds: "Tell me, Mr. Howard, what's the difference between one tyrant 3,000 miles away or 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

Are we at that point? Is our federal Congress no longer working on behalf of their constituency? I argue that it may have been that way for some time and that we are now only waking up to that reality.

Trent Lott and Harry Reid. There Is a Difference.

While attending the 100th birthday celebration for Dixie-crat Senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stated in essence that the United States would be "better off" had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Mr. Lott was pilloried not only by the Democrats but even by his own GOP, which ultimately resulted in Mr. Lott stepping down as Majority Leader.

Now, a new controversy has arisen concerning the current Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid who is the senior Senator from Nevada and a Democrat. In a book titled "Game Change", Mr. Reid claimed that the reason that then-candidate Barack Obama had a good chance of becoming the first African-American U.S. President was because he was "light-skinned" and did not speak with a "Negro dialect" unless he chose to do so.

Republicans are now crying "racist!" while Democrats circle the wagons around the "inartfully articulating" Senator Reid. The Republicans are furious that when Sen. Lott made his "inartful" toast to Strom in 2002, they stood against his comments and were a major force in his resignation from the Senate Majority Leader position. By contrast, the Democrats, instead of declaring their abhorrence at Senator Reid's "racist" statements are in fact standing behind him.

I'm a member of the Heritage foundation and a reluctant supporter of the Republican party. But I think that in this case that the Republicans are trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist.

When Trent Lott made his famous statement, he essentially said that he supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "pro-segregation" Dixiecrat platform. Equal but separate. How could any modern politician think that he could publicly articulate such an opinion and then not be held to account for it? Not to mention that segregation has been proven to be bad policy.

Senator Reid, by contrast, was stating a painful fact about American politics. White Americans in general are more comfortable with black politicians that speak Harvard English and whose appearance more closely correlates with their own. Senator Reid has been a strong supporter of civil rights legislation, especially as seen by the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus.

A far more appropriate subject for comparison would be Rush Limbaugh, who lost his NFL commentator position when he stated his opinion that the mainstream press was motivated to overstate Donovan McNabb's accomplishments in order to support the position that black quarterbacks can perform as well as whites, who at that time dominated the quarterback position. He later clarified that he felt that Donovan McNabb had the potential to be a great NFL quarterback but that at that time he did not deserve the praise that was being given him by the press.

In any case, I believe that the Republicans are making a case that is not supported by the facts or public opinion. Trying to equate Lott's comments that essentially said that a pro-segregationist president would have produced a better America with Harry Reid's analysis that Barack Obama, as a light skinned African-American who spoke very precise English are not even remotely the same class of comments.

In this situation, I think that the GOP needs to figure out that "this dog won't hunt".

Is Archie Bunker talking about 1974 or 2010?

Faith, Hope and Charity -- Glenn Beck Talks About These Virtues

Today on the Glenn Beck radio program at the beginning of his third hour, he talked about how he had spent the previous week closing the case on all the arguments that he had raised in 2009, but that he now wanted to look forward to 2010.

So imagine my surprise when he stated that going forward, he was going to be talking to America about "Faith, Hope and Charity". He specifically said during the second hour of his show "Faith, hope and charity is the direction we're going. Remember who you are and faith, hope and charity. And when you hear the way I define through the founders, how I define faith, hope and charity, everything's going to lock into place and you'll remember who we are and who you are and what you have to do."

I have no idea where Glenn Beck is going with this, but since he has obviously long studied the "Founders" of our government, I would not be surprised if he found these particular three words tied together through the Fraternity known as "Freemasonry" or that many of the "Founders" were proud members of the "Craft".

"Faith, Hope and Charity" are taught to every initiate who receives the 1st Degree of Freemasonry, also known as the "Entered Apprentice" Degree. They are considered by the Fraternity to be three of the most important virtues that a man can possess.

Faith gives us the ability to believe in the unseen. It is the basis of trust. Trust in our fellow man's word. More importantly, Faith is a necessary virtue for those who are obedient of God for without Faith it is impossible to believe in the Divine. And for those of us who are faithful we earnestly believe that the divine attributes of God beautifies man and gives us a worthy goal for good living by putting into execution those "divine" attributes.

Hope gives us the ability to believe that mankind can progress to a better condition than those that exist today. As a single class of people, Christians believe that God has restored to mankind the promise of eternal life through the sacrifice of his only begotten son. But notwithstanding, hope is what gives all men the ability to continue to try and be good even in the face of overwhelming evil and inequity in the world.

Charity, for Freemasons, is the greatest of the three. For charity is not more or less than the sacrifice by a man for the benefit of others. It is the embodiment of benevolence. The charitable man is the most like the divine because like the divine, he gives time, resources, or money to relieve the sorrowing or to benefit the disadvantaged. And charity will endure forever, unlike faith and hope. Faith ends when man is confronted with the truth of his belief. Hope ends when a man's goal is achieved. But charity uplifts mankind and the effects of charity and it's positive effect will outlive the charitable man.

President Obama Promises Openness, but Won't or Can't Deliver

Whoo boy. The honeymoon is over. President Obama hasn't been in the White House quite one year and yet he's got some pretty influential reporters pretty steamed at him.

Of course everybody who keeps even a token watch of politics remembers how distinguished senior White House reporter Helen Thomas dressed Robert Gibbs down for President Obama's inaccessibility. That was quite a sight. In my opinion, Ms. Thomas is as much a shill for the DNC as any reporter I've seen in some time. That's quite all right, as long as we're up front about it. If anybody doesn't think that Fox's Major Garrett doesn't lean right, then I'd like to smoke whatever it is they've got.

Then there was the Saturday Night Live sketch on President Obama's accomplishments prior to receiving the Nobel peace prize: "I've done absolutely nothing". OK, it is SNL after all, so we can just laugh that one off.

But Jack Cafferty? CNN's Jack Cafferty? That Jack Cafferty? This reporter had no problem giving a negative opinion about pretty much every aspect of President Bush's administration. Jack has a nightly opinion segment on CNN. Here's what the acrimonious Mr. Cafferty had to say about the "transparency" that President Obama promised:



Ouch.

And then you have CNN's Gloria Berger with this article.

Ouch more.

When CNN starts really ripping on the Democrats and their leadership, you know that there are stormy waters ahead. While this is coming about due to the health care "reform" debate, the fact is that this administration and this Congress seem to be just as reclusive and hidden as any other, especially considering both Candidate Obama and Speaker Pelosi's insistence that we would find ourselves witnessing the "most open and transparent" government ever.

I think that President Obama's campaign promises were laudable. Unfortunately, I never believed them.

An Open Letter to the President from Harold B. Estes

This letter was written to President Obama from 95-year old Harold B. Estes, who served in the Navy for over two decades in the 1930's and 1940's and is now a retiree in Hawaii. This has been posted on numerous websites and blogs. According to www.snopes.com, this letter is authentic and correctly attributed to Mr. Estes. I agree with every sentiment expressed in this brave letter.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
"We're no longer a Christian nation"
"America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world, "America is mean-spirited." Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you but I don't think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said, "America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean?

1. Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ?

2. Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War?


3. I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellahs I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom.

4. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer,young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

2009 Christmas Thoughts

As I write this, according to NORADSANTA.ORG, Santa Clause has distributed over a billion gifts to little boys and girls throughout the world and he is currently in the Maldive Islands.

For hundreds of millions of Christians the Christmas season has become perverted by rampant consumerism, boxes, wrapping paper and bows. We annually tally up thousands of dollars of consumer debt so that when our kids return to school after the holiday break they aren't left out of the "WhadidyagitferChristmas?" conversations. Simple games and clothes have given way to game consoles, cell phones and other electronic gadgets.

Our family decided this year that it was out of hand. So we threw names into a hat, and we each drew a name. The budget: Get as close to $100.00 as you can. That doesn't necessarily include stocking stuffers and the annual Christmas jammies. My own budget will probably come to about $200.00 because my mom, who now lives with us and hasn't participated in our Christmas traditions, hasn't quite caught on this year. So between the five of us, that's about $600.00 bucks. That's down considerably from the two-thousand we spent last year and the three-thousand the year before that.

And this year, I don't think one electronic doohickey was purchased. I know that my own Christmas list this year was for some nice shirts, some new socks and some really nice tobacco for my pipe.

And yet, the tree still has lots of presents under it.

But more importantly -- I will be spending Christmas with four of the seven most important people in my world right now: Laura (my wife), Mom, Heather (my daughter) and Mat (her husband). Chris is stationed in Norfolk Virginia and his girlfriend, Alex, is spending the holiday with her folks in Salt Lake City.

We will eat holiday ham and I will enjoy hot buttered rums and smoke my pipe while enjoying the company of my family while we sit in front of the fire and watch "A Christmas Story", "It's A Wonderful Life" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told".


But just as importantly, that's twelve-hundred less credit card debt than the previous year. Which means that we are that much closer to completely getting rid of all our credit card debt, which will take at least a couple more years.

Here's my Christmas wish list for the future.
1) That we all stay healthy.
2) That we all continue to keep our jobs.
3) That after we get rid of this credit card debt, that I can give Laura the following:
3.1) A decent kitchen.
3.2) A nicer living room.
3.3) Finish the front yard.
4) Be able to afford to contribute more money to charity that really counts:
4.1) Shriner's hospitals
4.2) Fraternal Order of Police
4.3) Modest Needs (a new charity that I really think is on the right track).
4.4) Order of DeMolay (a young man's organization).
And I'd like to start tithing. I just haven't figured out which church yet...

No new cars, no new computers, no new games. I'd like to fix the place I live in a little bit and then really ramp up the contributions to charities that I already support.

I don't need the Federal government to be charitable. They're not good at it anyway. They don't hold themselves nearly accountable enough. But every American who has some extra coin in their pocket should be asking themselves... "How can I help? How can I give back?"

Freemasons have been doing this for over four hundred years (and longer if you believe the "myth" of Freemasonry). I strongly suggest to anybody that reads this blog that you should become more active in your church charity programs. If you aren't currently active in a church, please, please, please consider joining a Fraternal Organization (like Freemasons, The Elks, The Eagles, The Moose, Knights of Columbus, Fraternal Order of Police, Volunteer Firefighters) or simply contribute to charities.

Christmas is not about wrapping paper and gifts under the tree, although the smile of a child on Christmas morning is hard to beat.

But consider this: How about the smile of a child in a burn ward who got the care she needed because men like Shriner's care? And how about the smile on a young man's face when he graduates from college because the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement fund paid for his education after his parent list his/her life on the streets of Chicago or in the fields of Afghanistan? Or the single mother of two who received enough money from Modest Needs to be able to put down the security deposit on an apartment so that she has a safe, warm place for her kids to live? Or how about the smile of your mother who is grateful that you have given her a place to live in your own home? I get that smile every morning.

Those smiles might be even better to see on a Christmas morning.

Christmas should be about caring for the people in our families and communities that are less fortunate than ourselves. It's about taking on their burdens, putting our shoulders to the wheel and making our communities a little better place because we care.

Isn't that what Jesus did?

CBS Airs "Dirty Frosty the Snowman" ads.

I'm not going to link to anything. Look it up if you don't believe me. Simply put, CBS ad executives have aired a couple of voice-overs of snippets of the beloved Christmas classic cartoon "Frosty the Snowman" that are ads for their child-inappropriate comedies Two and A-half Men" and "How I Met Your Mother".

Millions of children will now have to be shielded from YouTube searches for "Frosty" that have him talking about his "Porn stash" and other inappropriate topics.

Thanks CBS. As much as I love "CSI", I'll catch it on reruns now. You won't see another minute of my viewer time.

Chris Matthews' Characterizes West Point Academy as "Enemy Camp" to President Obama.

Follow the weblink to a video of the relevant excerpt of Chris Matthews' commentary after President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech of December 1, 2009:



Now... I'm a former Marine. My son is currently serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. I have a fair number of friends who either are serving or who have served in the U.S. armed forces. And I don't think it's news that these people are generally not friends of members of the Democratic party or persons who lean towards liberal/progressive ideology.

However, I think it is safe to say that neither the regular military establishment, or the military academies such as West Point (Army), Annapolis (Navy) or Colorado Springs (Air Force) have ever taken any action that would make it fair to label them as "enemies" of any President of the Unite States.

Just as the rhetoric against George Bush during his administration was way over the top, we still continue to see extreme partisan invective from both sides in this administration. Chris Matthews' rhetoric will continue to reinforce in the minds of his devotees that the military is openly antagonistic of the President and his policies, which is patently untrue.

If we look at recent American history, we can see that the U.S. Military establishment has reasons for being suspicious of Democratic presidents. President Carter canceled more military programs than any U.S. President since Harry Truman. While President Lyndon Johnson increased our commitment of troops in Vietnam, he purposefully did not try to build public support for the conflict because of his fear that support for our Vietnam commitments would take support from his "Great Society" social programs. Because of this, service personnel returning from duty in Vietnam were literally spit upon by anti-war protesters that Johnson did very little to control (although when he did, such as at Kent State, the result was disastrous). President Clinton, exulting in the Reagan-caused collapse of the Soviet Union, tried to leverage the so-called "peace dividend". The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Shah of Iran and rise of militant fundamentalist Islam in Iran and elsewhere, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1998 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen all occurred during Democratic administrations. Many in the military believe that these relatively unpunished acts encouraged the greatest act of terrorism ever experienced, which were the September 11, 2001 assaults on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and possibly the Capitol building or the White House.

Only during the American Civil War did large elements of the regular military establishment openly defy the President of the United States. Otherwise, the U.S. military has been a devoted and faithful servant of the American people, directed by the legal orders of their President. To characterize West Point or any other military establishment as the camp of the enemy is absurd and an unwarranted accusation against the honorable men and women who learn the trade of war in order to preserve the peace and security of our people.

Politicians Should Really Look at David Letterman Today.

Last night (October 1, 2009), comedian/talk show host David Letterman admitted that he had a number of sexual relationships with female members of his production staff. He admitted this because of allegations that "48 Hours" producer Robert "Joe" Halderman last month gave a package to Letterman that contained threats that if he did not pony up $2 million dollars in "hush" money that Halderman would go public with that information. The prosecutor said that Mr. Halderman's package "contained clear, explicit and actual threats that indicate this defendant (wanted to) destroy the reputation of Mr. Letterman and to submit him and his family to humiliation and ridicule."

Mr. Letterman's admission on national TV last night created an end run around Mr. Halderman's alleged threat by making the information public before Mr. Halderman could. By executing his "pre-emptive first strike" Letterman also controlled the way in which the information was presented to the public in order to control the damage it would do.

Make no mistake that this episode is not over. Mr. Halderman will have to defend himself against an extortion charge. There will be inquiries as to whether Letterman used his position of authority on his production staff/crew to induce these women to submit to his sexual advances.

It should be noted that Letterman has only recently married and that he married one of the members of his production staff. It is reasonable to assume that these "incidents" occurred while he was still single so infidelity is not an issue. Of course, sex out of wedlock is still "adultery" but we don't really care about that anymore, do we?

Politicians take note!
Mr. Letterman ought not to be "sleeping" around with his staff. However, when it became clear that it was going to get into the public domain he diminished it's damage potential by admitting it and not hiding it from the public. Contrast this to the behavior of people like Larry Craig, John Edwards or Bill Clinton.

Adulation of the MAN vs. the INSTITUTION (Follow up to previous posting)

The American system of government is greater than any one man or even group of men. This why adulation for the MAN instead of the INSTITUTION is so scary to me and many who share my point of view.

Barack Obama's accomplishment of becoming the first American President "of color", especially considering our checkered history with the institution of slavery, specifically the slavery of Africans is momentous. But the accomplishment of Barack Obama pales when viewed in light of the greater context that our system permits any person regardless of creed, race, sex to achieve the highest levels of success and authority.

But are these children being taught to praise that system? I doubt it. I suspect that Dr. Denise King, the principal of the school where this song was recorded, would probably say that the American system is full of inequalities and injustices and that minorities are repressed. She is probably teaching children that capitalism is "evil" and "uncaring". She probably dwells on the mistakes of our nation's past, such as the nearly successful genocide of the Native American or the institution of African slavery.

I suspect she does NOT teach much about the indentured servitude (economic slavery) of Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles and Italians in the 1800's or the Chinese and other Asians in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I also bet she doesn't talk much about the current genocide taking place in both eastern and southern Africa, where Africans are enslaving or destroying whole other tribes of Africans solely on basis of clan affiliation. Or how about the sexual enslavement or mutilation of African women by African men? Hmmm? Or how about the current repression by China of Tibet and it's eastern Muslim population, or the destruction of millions of lives in Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

Then there's India with it's caste system. Does she spend much time talking about the purely social discrimination of the Bhangis ("untouchables") by the Brahmins, even though those people are genetically the same family? Or the "honor killings" practiced in much of the Islamic world? Or the outright racist attitudes of most Asians? To this day, Japanese print media depicts Africans with big lips and low foreheads and the book "Little Black Sambo" is a popular children's picture book. In fact, there is no redress for "hate crimes" in Japan because there is NO JAPANESE LAW protecting civil rights.

The American system of government and the society it has created is far from perfect. And by definition, a capitalistic economic system means that people will fail although that does not mean that those people are failures. People become failures only when they prove unable to overcome adversity. But in our society, which is now dominated by an arguably corrupt and non-representing representative system, the charged are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and people like Bernard Madoff or the CEOs of corrupt companies like TYCO, Enron or MCI Worldcom go to jail for destroying the financial future of others. While perfection eludes us what other nation on Earth presents as much opportunity as the United States? Even in decline with possibly our best days now behind us are still one of the freest, safest places on Earth to live.

So when I see children pouring out their adulation for only a MAN instead of the INSTITUTION, in my opinion I am justifiably concerned. If this is an innocent act then it's wrong. If it's purposeful then it can only be called one thing: INDOCTRINATION.

Showing Respect to the Office of President is Worshipping His Name.

There is a video on You Tube titled “(No background music} School kids taught to praise Obama.” The tape shows a class of students, about thirty or so, singing this little catchy ditty. According to the notes with the video, it was filed at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ and uploaded on June 19, 2009.

Here are the lyrics to that song:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

I have stated before on my blog and elsewhere that any person that is elected to the Presidency of the United States is worthy of respect, even if you are opposed to many of the policies or political views of that person. In my own case, I won’t ever represent President Obama as a monkey or a witch-doctor, as some of the 9/12 protesters did. I do not use inflammatory names when referring to Mr. Obama. But I have no problem with disagreeing with him on any policy he presents that grows government or limits personal freedom. Further, I have no problemexpressing those views on my blog and in personal conversations.

Prior to the 1970s, it was not uncommon at all for photographic portraits of the current U.S. President to hang in classrooms all across America. But during my public school education journey from 1966 to 1979 I do not ever remember singing a song about the man that held that office. We had our ditties about George Washington and Abe Lincoln back when those President’s birthdays were actually celebrated on the anniversary of their births. But a living currently serving President? Nope.

I find the lyrics in this song to be bordering on cult of personality worship:
“He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight.” This is almost demigod worship in its tone, much like the song “Jesus loves the little children”. This is a message to children that President Obama loves you no matter who or what you are. It is nearly cultlike. It is not the job of the President of the United States to love us. It is his job to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic and to ever support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance.”
Who can argue with this sentiment? The problem here is that our children are being taught that there is blatant inequality in our culture, which I concede there is still some. However, the reality is that not everybody makes the most of the opportunities that life and our culture provides them. If opportunity for "minorities" was truly as bad as the progressives would have you believe, then why do Haitians fleeing abject poverty in their own country bypass Cuba, the Turks and Caicos, Jamaica and the Bahaamas, which are all far closer in order to emigrate to the United States? Why do hundreds of thousands of Mexicans flee to the U.S. in the face of the chance of capture, punishment or deportment? Opportunity! That's why!

But instead, for the sake of creating "nurturing" environments where our children are not subject to the "threat" of failure we are instead creating a whole generation of kids who do not know how to learn from their mistakes and overcome adversity using innovation, dedication and persistence. This school environment is emulated nowhere in the real world of employment. If you fail and give up, or repeatedly make the same mistakes you will be written up, demoted or terminated. But I digress...

I have no problem in teachers encouraging an attitude of respect for our President, but I am vehemently opposed to teaching our kids politics unless you will teach them by presenting both viewpoints equally or worse, adulation for a man who has yet to prove if he deserves the respect of the office that the People of the United States have already entrusted to him.

Ben... It's the UN. Of Course They Have No Shame!

An excerpt from the dramatic speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu: "But to those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

He was addressing the UN. Therefore this was clearly a rhetorical question.

Comparing Joe Wilson's "You Lie" to the "New Face of the KKK". You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has now taken the political debate to yet a new low, showing that the Black Congressional Caucus and the Democratic Party is completely prepared to throw the "race card" down on the table at any time that it looks like it might create political advantage.

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) blurted out "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's September 9th speech promoting his health care reform plan to Congress. Wilson personally apologized to the President the following day, and that apology was accepted.

However, since Congress is a tank of sharks that just love the smell of blood, and partisan rhetoric is just as rancid and raucous as ever, the Democrats wasted no time in debating and then voting on a censure of Wilson today (September 15th). Of course CNN was there to cover this debate (where were they on Van Jones, ACORN, All the President's Czars, etc?). CNN caught Johnson on camera and he had this to say:

"He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man, I would say it instigated more racist sentiment and feeling. 'It's OK. You don't have to bury it now. You can bring it out and talk about it fully.' And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on uh, white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people. And uh, you know, that's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude, uh, is not rebuked. If Congressman Wilson represents, uh, he's the face of it."

I've never cussed on this blog before. But I'm going to now. You've got to be shitting me. Joe Wilson is now the face of racial intolerance and hatred in the United States of America because he disagrees with the President's assertion that SR3200 will not prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care benefits? You got all that from two words?. In my opinion that's one helluva stretch. This just demonstrates and proves what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and all the other conservative talkers have been saying since Obama started campaigning for election, which is that you cannot disagree with the President on any topic and then avoid being charged with opposing the President because you are a racist and he is an African-American.

I'm sure that were I to have an opportunity to speak directly to Representative Johnson, and he were willing to actually waste his time defending himself to me, that he could come up with some convoluted explanation about how he can rationalize the connection between Rep. Wilson to the KKK by the evidence of the two words "You lie!" In my opinion, this can only be rationally explained by Saul Alinsky rule #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." By portraying Wilson as a personalized face of racism, Johnson successfully demonizes Wilson and weakens him and what he stands for. The simplest explanation is the most likely, and this certainly fits the data.

Political discourse in this country is dying. And the rules are skewed. Nobody will defend Wilson against this ridiculous, baseless and from my point of view, irresponsible charge because no white guy is going to get fair representation.

Hey! Conservatives! Can you TONE IT DOWN A LITTLE!?

OK. 9/12 and Jim O'Keefe's videos show that the conservatives can run plays from Saul Alinsky's little handbook too. But the message is being lost in the rhetoric.

Do we have to completely crawl down in the mud with "World Can't Wait", "Code Pink", "ACORN", "MoveOn.org" and others who feel that the only way to get the message across is with vile statements?

Some examples: A poster showing President Obama with a Hitleresque moustache. How does a poster that says "Long Legged Mack Daddy" help our cause? How about a Confederate battle flag? Good Lord! Could anything be more offensive to a black man than the Confederate battle flag? There were others that were in even poorer taste and judgment but I refuse to describe or restate them hear.

We will win this argument because we have better facts and figures than the opposite side does. We will win this argument because we will create better opportunity and freedom of action than a government that calls the shots for more and more of the decisions in our lives. We will NOT win by calling President Obama a "Mack Daddy" or somehow connecting him to Adolf Hitler, who designed the most heinous genocidal program of the 20th century.

When we crawl down into the mud with the opposition, the message is completely covered and lost in the filth.

I recently decided to spend some time on MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress.org. I absolutely cannot tell what the message is because of the amount of dreck and libelous noise that you have to wade through.

How can I seriously argue against my opponent's agenda when I can't even tell what it is? Not what the politicos are saying but because of what the common citizens on the other side are saying, feeling and wanting.

Both left and right need to go get a hug and then let's try to discuss and compromise a deal based on the value of the arguments.

Kanye West's Disgraceful Behavior is Mirror of our Times

One of the reasons I don't watch the Academy Awards, VMAs, Emmys, or any other award program, because crap like this happens.

Taylor Swift wins the Best Female Video at the (MTV Video Music Awards). During her acceptance, 37 year old rapper Kanye West jumps up on the stage, rips the microphone from her and then pimps Beyonce, who does NOT need defending from anybody when it comes to her musical prowess. Of course, this completely destroys Taylor's moment forever.

A shocked MTV CEO could only comment later, "It's rock and roll." Excuse my impoliteness but that's a bullcrap response. That kind of tolerance only encourages this kind of behavior.

So... with the dumbing down of America's schools, the destruction of our culture and the acceptance of increasingly rude and socially improper behavior in the name of "unity", "tolerance" and "sensitivity", is anybody freaking surprised?

Until Americans start treating Americans with more respect ALL the time, this kind of behavior will only become MORE common, not less.

However, there was a glimmer of hope. When Beyonce went up to accept her award for Video of the Year, she instead invited Taylor Swift back to the podium to finish her acceptance speech. In a word, that's class.