The Wisdom of Luis Rodriguez, Massachusetts voter.

According to a FoxNews.com article concerning the strongly contested race between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat, a voter by the name of "Luis Rodriguez" appears to speak for many across the nation:

The 46-year-old plastics factory supervisor, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1988 from Uruguay and became a citizen last year, said he's fed up with what he calls the lies told by Washington. It's enough for him that Coakley supports Obama, who Rodriguez says has failed to make good on his pledge for openness.

"We don't buy what we can't afford. We don't spend what we don't have," said Rodriguez, echoing the anger expressed by other voters who say Democrats are too eager to bail out bankers and people who bought homes they couldn't afford. "These people, what they're doing now, they're spending money they don't have so they can get elected again."

Assuming that the attribution is correct (you never know, after all, this was reported on Fox News, which according to President Obama's administration is not a "real news organization", then I would have to say that Mr. Rodriguez has completely and correctly stated my opinion concerning Democratic lead initiatives. They are a "chicken in every pot" in order to maintain control in a government that Democrats believe should be used to "take care" of it's citizens, whether they want it or not.

'nuff said.

MSNBC Ed Schult "I'd Cheat to Keep Brown From Winning".

MSNBC's political talkers continue to prove that they are an entirely owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

As reported on January 16th by the Washington Times and then highlighted on the much vaunted (or reviled) DrudgeReport, MSNBC's Ed Schultz made the following statement:

"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."



Ed's comments were made in context of the surprisingly competitive Massachusetts Senatorial seat election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Rebuplican Scott Brown. And expectedly, he's supporting Coakley over Brown.

I'd not be surprised if you were to say "Ed who?". Ed Schultz is a MSNBC primetime opinion talker (6pm to 7pm Eastern). This puts him up against Brett Baier on Fox News, who is crushing him in the ratings.

Ed appears to be a little unclear on the whole "democracy" concept that is supposedly the basis for our government. You know, that part that says that each person gets a single vote, and when you tally up those votes, the candidate with the most of them win? (OK, the US Presidential Election doesn't quite work like that because of the Electoral College thingy that actually helps low-population states a little, which makes it possible to win the popular vote by a slim margin and still lose the electoral college vote by a fairly large margin.)

What Ed, a national (in theory) cable commentator is doing is encouraging voter fraud in the State of Massachusetts for the benefit of the Democratic Candidate.

Now say what you like about the right-wing talkers like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley but you have not heard them encourage illegal voter behavior or insinuate that they'd do it themselves.

And what do you think the "main-stream" media pundits, talkers and bloggers would be doing right now had Hannity or Beck said the same thing in support of Scott Brown? So I'm completed fascinated by the defeaning silence from them concerning Ed's angry outburst. I attribute it to one of two possibilities: One) Nobody watches "The Ed Show" on MSNBC except for other political hacks, so they're the only ones noticing, or Two) most of media in this country is friendly to left of center commentators and are willing to give him a pass on his indiscreet commentary and thereby doing a huge disservice to the voting public by failing to equally illuminate outrageous commentary from either the left or right.

As I have said to my friends many times, you must consider the source from which the comment came and then discount it accordingly.

Not Kowtowing to Special Interests? Dems are Lying to Us.

On Wednesday, after a fifteen hour closed-door session between key Democratic Senate and House leadership and Labor Union executives, it sounds like just like Senator Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback", the special tax on "Cadillac" plans will be deferred until 2017 on labor union members.

What a crock of flup. Didn't Candidate Obama run on a platform that specifically said that they would not kowtow to special interests? In fact, doesn't he specifically say in a current political ad for Candidate Coakley, the Democrat running for Teddy Kennedy's vacant senate seat, that a vote for Coakley will help cement the progress being made against special interests in Washington?

This is how bizness is done in Washington, ladies and gentlemen. It's a process where people are bought and sold. The labor unions have managed to buy themselves 7 years of protection from Health Care Reform costs even though they will be permitted to participate in it immediately.

Just like the campaign lies of "transparency and openness" in the current administration, we are now seeing that special interest involvement in the writing of legislation is alive and well.

Candian Troops Show Their Heart To Belgian Boy

The Story: "A lone young Belgian boy is waiting to salute the Canadian troops passing
by who had been attending a memorial service."

This does not indicate where this little scene occurred. "Eyes right!" is a command normally reserved to troops that are engaging in a "Pass in Review", and is issued just prior to troops coming on line with the reviewing stand where the dignitaries or military superiors usually are.

Clearly, the little lad's military uniform and very proper military bearing impressed the fellow commanding the contingent (The quality of the video makes it hard for me to determine if it's an officer or an NCO. My guess would be that he is an NCO.)

May there forever be a Canada!

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.