"Building model airplanes," says the little fairy. Well, we're not buying it.

Eerily prophetic words from Ronald Reagan, befitting our present situation, reminding us we don't have to settle for a second-rate America:

"They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where — because of our past excesses — it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true. I don't believe that. And, I don't believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency. I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself. Our leaders attempt to blame their failures on circumstances beyond their control, on false estimates by unknown, unidentifiable experts who rewrite modern history in an attempt to convince us our high standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce as we join in sharing scarcity. I don't agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands. I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world."

~Ronald Reagan, presidential candidate (13 November 1979)

Never apologize and never explain -- it's a sign of weakness.

Here we have an Illinois congressman, Mike Quigley of the 5th District, apologizing "on behalf of this country" to the American Islamic College Conference in Chicago.

I've grown weary of this and others that remind me of the "blame America first" mentality that was so prevalent in the late 70s that weakened the United States internationally.

It's like deja vu all over again. If you're not familiar with it, I high recommend Democrat Jeane Kirkpatrick's remarks at the Republican National Convention in 1984. An appetizer:

"But then, they always blame America first.

The American people know better.

They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States didn't cause Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression in Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or the new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.

The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.

They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.

He wrote: 'Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.'

With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace."

• Also published at Conservative Reformed Mafia.

Adieu, auf wiedersehen, gesundheit, farewell.

Some of us, like my bad self, who lived in England during her tenure, remember her fondly. But for those less familiar, here's some good Margaret Thatcher for ya.

This is from what we might consider her farewell "address" to the British parliament. Incidentally, she's right on the money identifying the liberal approach to the gap between the rich & the poor.

In case I want to read it more than once.

If I could require just one book for political education it would be this 122 page gem, The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. The following are some quotes from that which was a very formative book for me politically, through you'll miss out on much of the gold that could be mined without the argumentation and further support found within.

Rereading it again , I'm shocked by how timely his 1960 words are in our era of an ever expanding government.

• Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, ore even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State. (12)

• The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. (13)

• Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liberty. (16)

• The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. (23)

• The Republican Party, to be sure, gives lip-service to States' Rights. We often talk about "returning to the States their rightful powers"; the Administration has even gone so far as to sponsor a federal-state conference on the problem. But deeds are what count, and I regret to say that in actual practice, the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, summons the coercive power of the federal government whenever national leaders conclude that the States are not performing satisfactorily. (25)

• States' Rights means that the States have a right to act or not to act, as they see fit, in the areas reserved to them. The States may have duties corresponding to these rights, but the duties are owed to the people of the States, not to the federal government. Therefore, the recourse lies not with the federal government, which is not sovereign, but with the people who are, and who have full power to take disciplinary action. If the people are unhappy with say, their State's disability insurance program, they can bring pressure to bear on their state officials and, if that fails, they can elect a new set of officials. (28-29)

• Not only does [the Constitution] prevent the accumulation of power in a central government that is remote from the people and relatively immune from popular restraints; it also recognizes the principle that essentially local problems are best dealt with by the people most directly concerned. (29)

• Nothing could so far advance the cause of freedom as for state officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost state power; and for the federal government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserved to the states. (30)

• A civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law. It may be asserted by the common law, or by local or federal statutes, or by the Constitution; but unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law. There may be some rights--"natural," "human," or otherwise--that should also be civil rights. But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution. We must not look to politicians, or sociologists--or the courts--to correct the deficiency. (32-33)

• The intentions of the founding fathers in this matter are beyond any doubt: no powers regarding eduction were given to the federal government. Consequently, under the Tenth Amendment, jurisdiction over the entire field was reserved to the States. (34)

• The Constitution is what its authors intended it to be and said it was--not what the Supreme Court says it is. (36)

• The teaching of the Constitution on this matter is perfectly clear. No power over agriculture was given to any branch of the national government. (39)

• Where is the politician who has not promised his constituents a fight to the death for lower taxes--and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible? (58)

• We have been led to discount, and often forget altogether, the bearing of taxation on the problem of individual freedom. We have been persuaded that the government has an unlimited claim on the wealth of the people, and that the only pertinent question is what portion of its claim the government should exercise. the American taxpayer, I think, has lost confidence in his claim to his money. He has been handicapped in resisting high taxes by the feeling that he is, in the nature of things, obliged to accommodate whatever need for his wealth government chooses to assert. (58-59)

• Government does not have an unlimited claim on the earnings of individuals. One of the foremost precepts of the natural law is man's right to the possession and the use of his property. (59)

• It has been the fashion in recent years to disparage "property rights"--to associate them with greed and materialism. This attack on property rights is actually an attack on freedom. Is is another instance of the modern failure to take into account the whole man. How can a man be truly free if he is denied the means to exercise freedom? How can he be free if the fruits of his labor are not his to dispose of, but are treated, instead, as part of a common pool of public wealth? (59)

• Therefore, if we adhere to the Constitution, the federal government's total tax bill will be the cost of exercising such of its delegated powers as our representatives deem necessary in the national interest. But conversely, when the federal government enacts programs that are not authorized by its delegated powers, the taxes needed to pay for such programs exceed the governments rightful claim on our wealth. (61)

• What is a "fair share?" I believe that the requirements of justice here are perfectly clear: government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth, and no more. (61)

• I do not believe in punishing success. To put it more broadly, I believe it is contrary to the natural right to property to which we have just alluded--and is therefore immoral--to deny to the man whose labor has produced more abundant fruit than that of his neighbor the opportunity of enjoying the abundance he has created. (61-62)

• The graduated tax is a confiscatory tax. Its effect, and to a large extent its aim, is to bring down all men to a common level. (62)

• I believe that as a practical matter spending cuts must come before tax cuts. If we reduce taxes before firm, principled decisions are made about expenditures, we will court deficit spending and the inflationary effects that invariably follow. (62-63)

• I do mean to say, however, that neither of our political parties has seriously faced up to the problem of government spending. ... The root evil is that the government is engaged in activities in which is has no legitimate business. (65)

• The only way to curtail spending substantially, is to eliminate the programs on which excess spending is consumed. (66)

• The government must begin to withdraw from a whole series of programs that are outside its constitutional mandate--from social welfare programs, education, public power, agriculture, public housing, urban renewal and all the the other activities that can be better performed by lower levels of government or by private institutions or by individuals. (66)

• By reducing taxes and spending we will not only return to the individual the means with which he can assert his freedom and dignity, but also guarantee to the nation the economic strength that will always be its ultimate defense against foreign foes. (67)

• Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed. People can understand the consequences of turning over ownership of the steel industry, say, to the State; and they can be counted on to oppose such a proposal. But let the government increase its contribution to the "Public Assistance" program and we will, at most grumble, about excessive government spending. The effect of Welfarism on freedom will be felt later on--after its beneficiaries have become its victims, after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail. (70-71)

• Conservatism is through unless Conservatives can demonstrate and communicate the difference between being concerned with these problems and believing that the federal government is the proper agent for their solution. (71)

• Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism--that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it. (73)

• I agree with lobbyists for federal school aid that education is one of the great problems of our day. I am afraid, however, that their views and mine regarding the nature of the problem are many miles apart. They tend to see the problem in quantitative terms--not enough schools, not enough teachers, not enough equipment. I think it has more to do with quality: How good are the schools we have? Their solution is to spend more money. Mine is to raise standards. Their recourse is to the federal government. Mine is to the local public school board, the private school, the individual citizen--as far away from the federal government as one can possibly go. (76)

• The truth, of course, is that the federal government has no funds except those it extracts from the taxpayers who reside in the various States. (80)

• The money that the federal government pays to State X for education has been taken from the citizens of State X in federal taxes and comes back to them, minus the Washington brokerage fee. (80)

• ... federal aid to education inevitably means federal control of education. (81)

• In the main, the trouble with American education is that we have put into practice the educational philosophy expounded by John Dewey and his disciples. (83)

• Responding to the Deweyite attack on the methods of teaching, we have encouraged the teaching profession to be more concerned with how a subject is taught than with what is taught. (83)

• We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation, and to so train the minds of the new generation as to make them capable of absorbing ancient learning and applying it to the problem of its own day. (84)

• We should look upon our schools--not as a place to train the "whole character" of the child--a responsibility that properly belongs to his family and church--but to train his mind. (84)

• If an enemy power is bent on conquering you, and proposes to turn all of his resources that that end, he is at war with you; and you--unless you contemplate surrender--are at war with him. (89)

• But the Constitution does not empower our government to undertake that job in foreign countries, no matter how worthwhile it might be. Therefore, except as it can be shown to promote America's national interests, the Foreign Aid program is unconstitutional. (95)

• For many years now, our allies in Western Europe have devoted smaller portions of their national budgets to military forces than we have. The result is that the American people, in the name of military aid, have been giving an economic handout to these nations; we have permitted them to transfer their domestic economy funds which, in justice, should have been used in the common defense effort. (96)

• Our present Foreign Aid program, in sum, is not only ill-administered, but ill-conceived. It has not, in the majority of cases, made the free world stronger; it has made America weaker." (99)

• Unlike America, the Communists do not respect the UN and do not permit their policies to be affected by it. (113)

• Not so with us; we would rather be approved than succeed, and so are likely to adjust our own views to conform with a United Nations majority. (113)

• Finally, I fear that our involvement in the United Nations may be leading to an unconstitutional surrender of American sovereignty. (114)

• In all our dealings with foreign nations, we must behave like a great power. Our national posture must reflect strength and confidence and purpose, as well as good will. We need not be bellicose, but neither should we encourage others to believe that American rights can be violated with impunity. We must protect American nationals and American property and American honor--everywhere. We may not make foreign peoples love us--no nation has ever succeeded in that--but we can make them respect us. And respect is the stuff of which enduring friendships and firm alliances are made. (119)

• We must adopt a discriminating foreign aid policy. American aid should be furnished only to friendly, anti-Communist nations that are willing to join with us in the struggle for freedom. (119-20)

My hypocrisy only goes so far.

Thursday, President Obama called for a return to the 1967 boundary lines with regard to a solution to the friction between Israel & the Palestinians.

Friday, KISS's Gene Simmons (born Chaim Witz in Israel) responded to the man he voted for, criticizing his suggestion. Check out this video clip where Simmons also addresses the moon, the UN, insects, and the death penalty [questionable language has been bleeped].


Let me just say, in general, I think it's hypocritical for the US to champion the idea of independence given our own history of denying that type of endeavor (e.g., the Civil War).

And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Some quotes Ann Coulter's book How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)

"Torturing randomly chosen people on the off chance that they might be up to something -- as was routinely done in liberals' favorite country, the USSR -- clearly doesn't work. Torturing the guy you know for a fact is withholding information actually works quite well. There may be good and sufficient moral reasons for not torturing people for information, but efficacy is not among them." (6-7)


"When was the last time you heard someone say, 'The help here is way too slow and incompetent. Why don't they hire some civil service people?'" (79)

"Why is it so difficult for people to grasp the advantages of a free market? It's never going to get any easier than this. Only a little over a decade ago, the centralized planning of the Eastern bloc was exposed as having created a squalid, poverty-stricken abyss. Meanwhile, corrupt running-dog lackeys of the capitalist system here in American managed to produce a society in which the poorest citizens have televisions, refrigerators, telephones, and the opportunity to appear on the Jerry Springer Show." (135)

"Republicans made Southern Democrats drop the race nonsense when they entered the Republican Party. Democrats supported race discrimination, then for about three years they didn't, now they do again. They've just changed which race they think should be discriminated against." (145)

"In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade versus seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!" (165)

"In fact and needless to say, it is the Democrats who have turned the Confederate flag into a federal issue, because they relish nothing more than being morally indignant. Not about abortion, adultery, illegitimacy, the divorce rate, or a president molesting an intern and lying to federal investigators. Indeed , not about anything of any practical consequence. Democrats stake out a clear moral position only on the issue of slavery. Of course, when it mattered, they were on the wrong side of that issue, too." (171)

"Demonstrating their famous appreciation of "nuance," liberals believe the Confederate flag is pure evil and anyone who flies the flag is pure evil -- and George Bush is a moron who sees the world in simplistic black-and-white terms of good and evil. I guess that's what liberals mean by 'nuance.'" (171)

"Guns are our friends because in a world without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are. Any male -- the most sickly 98-pound-weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute force. For some reason, I'm always asked: Wouldn't I prefer a world without guns? No. I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting chance." (306)

"What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence -- not a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we can't have a world without violence, because the world is half male and testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence -- that is to say, with men -- but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for women. As the saying goes, God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal." (306)

"Stupid Argument No. 2: Prohibition failed. No it didn't. Prohibition resulted in startling reductions of alcohol consumption (over 50 percent), cirrhosis of the liver (63 percent), admissions to mental health institutions for alcohol psychosis (60 percent), and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct (50 percent). That doesn't mean Prohibition was a good thing. Christ's first miracle wasn't turning wine into water. But Prohibition is one of the strongest arguments against legalizing marijuana. The reason Prohibition failed was that alcohol had become a respectable libation, it was part of the social fabric in high society and low. Once the genie is out of the bottle (so to speak), it's hard to put it back in." (312)

"Whenever politicians say they want to restrict something by taxing it, you know they're lying: The very fact that they are taxing it means they need people to keep doing it. Otherwise they'd run out of revenue." (312)

"The quintessential Libertarian argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies even if it ruins their lives. But that's not true. Back on earth, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. Ann has to pay for their stupid decisions." (313)

"The entire dating system runs on implicit understandings. If the hunter male doesn't like a girl, he doesn't call. That's the end of it. If the hunted female doesn't like the boy, she's unavailable without a good excuse three times in a row. No explanations, no hurt feelings. When you start fiddling with a centuries-old system like this, you're just asking for trouble." (315)

"Among the stupidest theories that liberals have about conservatives is the idea that we are a well-oiled political machine. Hillary Clinton somberly warns of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The New York Times has actually published a flowchart of the "neoconservative" cabal. Conservatives couldn't put together a three-car funeral without producing six books denouncing each other. It is doubtful two neoconservatives could agree on where to have lunch -- which is going to complicate their secret plans to trick the nation into perpetual war." (322)

Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really believe. Meanwhile, it is a source of constant alarm to conservatives that the public will not understand what they really believe." (322-323)

"Back in the prelapsarian fifties, women worked if they happened to fall into the .01 percent of the population who are able to have interesting jobs or they retired in their twenties to raise children and, incidentally, do what all serious people would like to do anyway -- be a dilettante in many subjects. As far as I'm concerned this was a division of labor nothing short of perfect. Men worked and women didn't. So when our benefactors come under attack as "patriarchs" and "oppressors," I realize, someone has to put in a kind word for the oppressors. For cocktails alone, I figure I owe the male population several thousand dollars. So I will be the one to step forward and say: To the extent one gender is oppressing the other, it's not women who should be complaining." (327)

"(L)et's say I don't care about my country, politics, or civil affairs. All I want to do is make porno movies. I could spend a million dollars producing speech of the Debbie Does Dallas variety. But if I want to engage in speech of the "Vote Against Chris Shays" variety, I can only spend $2000. It is easier to pander obscenity in this country than it is to engage in core First Amendment speech." (332)

"My argument is that the First Amendment doesn't just apply to working journalists. The First Amendment protects speech that is robust, wide open, etc. etc., and not just speech that is robust, wide open, etc., as between competing newspapers (like the Post and the Times). The First Amendment refers to 'the people,' not to 'the newspaper editors.'" (335)

"Perhaps the greatest disservice of Hollywood movies is their cartoonish villains. In real life, I promise you, the devil will look more like Julia Roberts than Snidely Whiplash. Evil does not arrive with a flashing neon sign: MEPHISTOPHELES! LUCIFER! SATAN! FOR ETERNAL DAMNANTION, APPLY HERE! Evil arrives packaged as a winsome movie about a long-legged brunette who manages to marry a rich, handsome bachelor and live happily ever after -- all by turning tricks on Hollywood Boulevard! There's a reason Beelzebub is known as the prince of lies." (342)

Sorry I had a fight in the middle of your Black Panther party.

My offering for Black History Month: Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats.

I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place.

30 years ago today, this country made one of its greatest decisions ever, electing Ronald Wilson Reagan to be president of the United States of America.

Those who really lived through it know you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a president better suited for that era and the challenges specific to it.

I have a feeling President Reagan's closing remarks in the presidential debate with Carter will be useful in 2012:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."

Among other things (e.g., economic recovery, strengthening of military, restoring respectability internationally, etc.), President Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, despite claims by the other party to the pro-woman party.

Of course, he was known as the "Great Communicator," so I leave you with a few of his quotes.

• "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
• [to Carter] "There you go again."
• [about Mondale] "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."
• "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
• "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
• "Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets."
• "But there are advantages to being elected President. The day after I was elected, I had my high school grades classified 'Top Secret.'"
• "We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added."
• "The problem is not that people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much."
• "The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
• "Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
• "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."
• "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
• "If we ever forget that we are 'One Nation Under God,' then we will be a nation gone under."

My kind of trouble doesn't take vacations.

I guess it's never too early to starting thinking about the 2012 presidential election.

The merits of Chuck Norris have been often lauded, but this is the first time I've seen a commendation for him to be president of these somewhat united states.

Top 10 Reasons Chuck Norris should be president:

1. If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you. (All of our economic problems would be solved!)
2. Chuck Norris can eat just one Lay's potato chip. (We definitely need a President with self-control).
3. There are no races, only countries of people Chuck Norris has beaten to different shades of black and blue. (No more Soviet leaders beating their shoes on the table!)
4. When Chuck Norris was denied an Egg McMuffin at McDonald's because it was 10:35, he roundhouse kicked the store so hard it became a Wendy's. (The movie "Super-Size Me" is all I have to say.)
5. Scientists have estimated that the energy given off during the Big Bang is roughly equal to 1CNRhK (Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick) (No more dependency on foreign oil!)
6. When an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side. (Enough said)
7. When Steven Seagal kills a ninja, he only takes its hide. When Chuck Norris kills a ninja, he uses every part. (He is not wasteful! No more pork barrel spending!)
8. Contrary to popular belief, there is indeed enough Chuck Norris to go around. (Equality for all!)
9. Chuck Norris always knows the EXACT location of Carmen SanDiego. (Osama doesn't stand a chance!)
10. When taking the SAT, write "Chuck Norris" for every answer. You will score over 8000. (American Education will be the best in the World!

Cereally, he apparently does have some pertinent political thoughts:

• Chuck Norris, Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America

Wake Up, America!

It seems like wherever you turn these days, the news is bad. Illegal immigrants are swarming over our borders. Our nation and American families are crippled by debt. We remain vulnerable to Islamist terrorist attacks. Judges ignore the Constitution and instead legislate from the bench. Faith and traditional values are under incessant assault from the media, leftist lawyers, and the liberal establishment. The core message of the Declaration of Independence--that everyone has a God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is under threat from liberals who deny the right to life (or even the very idea of God-given rights), and who think the answer to every problem is a government program. They think that God, if He exists, might not know best, but liberal-run government certainly does. If you're worried about the direction our country is going, you're in good company. Chuck Norris remembers a better America--an America of faith, freedom, and respect for tradition, history, and human life--and in Black Belt Patriotism he shows what we need to do to reawaken the American dream, reignite the American spirit, and give our children and grandchildren the America they deserve: an America of freedom, opportunity, and faith. In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, Norris gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do. With the optimistic, get your-hands-dirty, can-do spirit that typifies what's best about America, Chuck Norris grapples with the toughest problems facing our country and proves that they're no match for Black Belt Patriotism. (from inside flap)

That's a lovely accent you have. New Jersey?

Saw this 2nd bit while on vacation, but couldn't share until tonight ...

Okay, Miss Teen USA South Carolina was made (in)famous with this clip.


However, after watching a video clip of Peggy West (Milwaukee County Supervisor), perhaps she was on to something with this need for maps! The YouTube Nazis removed it, but you can view Peggy West's criticism of Arizona's immigration stance here.

It was certainly very kind of the senator to let her know by letter that Arizona does indeed border Arizona.

For geography help, Peggy West should consult with the man who's visited 57 (fifty-seven) of these United States.

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it?

A shout out to President Obama for a very nice memorial speech at Fort Hood yesterday.

An excerpt:

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

(read or watch the speech.)

HAPPY VETERANS DAY!

Thanks for your sacrifice on behalf of others as you stand watch on our walls.

You're talking about stuff I haven't done yet in the past tense and it's driving me crazy.

We don't often get all political up in this piece and this isn't so much a political comment as more a rhetorical question to express incredulity.

By now you've heard that Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Normally, I don't get too concerned about these things because they're so subjective and often make little sense to my small brain.

But this time I have to ask one question: What was so impressive and peace creating about Obama's thirteen (13) days as president* that merited a nomination, let alone dominance over the rest of the planet of peace pursuers?

I personally made peace many times among my kiddos during 2008 where there was no peace and I didn't even get a nomination? That's an outrage!

Seriously, and interestingly enough, at least one commentator thinks Obama should turn it down. That might be a great PR move, actually. Rush Limbaugh thinks this is a "greater embarrassment" (for Obama) than not getting the Olympics.

P.S. I wonder if Kanye is going to show up at the award ceremony to suggest someone he deems more worthy.

*The deadline for 2009 nominations for said Nobel Peace Prize was February 1st, 2009.

I don't scratch my head unless it itches and I don't dance unless I hear some music. I will not be intimidated. That's just the way it is.

It's always bothered me that African-Americans who choose to be Republicans are often regarded as "sell outs" or "Uncle Toms." I remember vividly a conversation where I had expressed admiration of J.C. Watts, but was told he wasn't "really black," because he was Republican.

In addition to such criticism being patently unfair, I think it overlooks a key historical fact, namely that the Democratic party has historically been the anti-black people party, and some would argue, still is. That is, of course, why the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other African-Americans were Republican.

I've wanted to write on this topic for a while, but came across an article that puts together the facts in a way on which I need not try to improve.

For your reading pleasure, Why Martin Luther King was Republican, by Frances Rice.

P.S. I'm not so much criticizing African-Americans who choose to be Democrats, unless they do so blindly, but I am trying to defend the Republican party as a legitimate option (cf. Hip Hop Republicans), which in no way amounts to ethnic treason.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

I came across this quote and I think it's right on the money.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
- H.L. Mencken

Often I think the government, like some music ministers, feel the perpetual need to legitimize their existence.

Later. Right now let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

This Veterans Day I would like to attempt to dispel the VERY popular myth that the Republican Party is the "Warmongering" party.

Ironically, I don't think the GOP minds too much being seen as quick to fight, or strong on national defense, depending on your perspective.

But the truth is we have the Democratic party to thank for getting us into the following wars:

• World War I (President Wilson)
• World War II (President Roosevelt)
• Korean War (President Truman)
• Vietnam War (Presidents Kennedy & Johnson)

Anyone want to pit the death totals of those wars against those with Iraq?

Funny, isn't it, how Republicans are seen as "Warmongers"?

A man's got to know his limitations.

Recently, I was called out for being male and being pro-life.

"... did i mention how creepy i find it when MEN are over-zealous pro'life' campaigners/preachers."

The implication was/is that a male had no business voicing anything with regard to abortion, since it's an issue (only) affecting women.

But ...

• I don't think you have to have children to be against child abuse.
• I don't think you have to have a pet to be concerned about the treatment of animals.
• I don't think you have to have a wife to be against spouse abuse.

And I don't think one has to have a uterus in order to enter the conversation about protecting human babies from violent death, though it probably doesn't hurt.

I'm not about love; I'm about showin' you the money!

I couldn't help but pass this on, the best explanation of the complexities of the tax system. (HT Rick Ballard)


Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

I guess the bartender ate the remaining dollar but it is not really germane to the outcome

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Attributed to
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

Many may not aware of the Born Alive Protection Act and all that implies where Obama is concerned.

In a comment, Kasey wrote:

"I had planned to vote for Obama... until I saw a video of Gianna Jessen speaking about the Born Alive Infants Act. I had no idea that some infants who were to be aborted were actually born alive, and then thrown away to die. (See bornalivetruth.org.) Obama voted against Born Alive 4 times. My conscience won't allow me to vote for someone who thinks that's ok."

Gianna Jessen survived a botched abortion, but the issue is whether or not those infants born alive should receive medical assistance or be left to die or have their lives terminated. Here's a clip with Gianna on Hannity & Colmes (9/15/2008).


Kasey also recommends these 2 clips of Gianna's testimony found at
Radical Womanhood: Because being a biblical woman in a modern world is a radical act.




I encourage you to read the whole article, Abortion: The Strong Define the Rights of the Weak.

(See also BornAliveTruth.org, Barack Obama's record against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

I am not an animal! I am a human being.

I am unashamedly a one-issue voter. To clarify, there are MANY issues that I find of interest and/or importance, but all those issues are not created equal.

That one issue for me is the stance toward the rights on the unborn, either by a party or a candidate. On Oprah today is Lisa Ling talking about how we treat the animals we eat.

I wonder if Oprah would have someone on her show to talk about how human babies are treated. To further explore the different approaches toward animals or humans, I share John Piper's experience with animals that led him to be a one issue voter.

“…When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, ‘No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.’ Subdivision 7 says, ‘No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.’ The penalty: ‘A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.’

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that ‘no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.’ Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to ’maim, mutilate and kill’ a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.”
Read the rest of the article, One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society by John Piper (1995).

How looks 2008?

Princeton professor Dr. Robert George:
“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress…” (HT Justin Taylor)
Read the rest of the essay, Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George (10/14/2008).

I think you can do the math on this one. I must oppose Barack Obama, for this issue alone is enough to disqualify him.

Well, fortunately, I had my fingers crossed the whole time.

One of the recurring themes of this presidential election is the affections of the supporters of Hillary Clinton. I shared a link a few Mondays back where Geraldine Ferraro gave a good overview of the different kinds of Hillary supporters and who might vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, particularly the PUMA group and a video where she explained the probability further.

My own contention is that if I was a Hillary supporter, I would vote for McCain/Palin in 2008.

If Obama wins in 2008, then he clearly runs again as the Democratic nominee in 2012. What that means is that at best Hillary could have a crack at the Democratic Party's nomination in 2016 (i.e., 8 years).

Hillary will be 61 next month. She would be 69 at the time of the 2016 election.

I submit to you that she will be considered too old at that point. The American people like the pretty politicians and we're in an era where youth and potential are highly valued, more so than experience. Obama and Palin should tell you that.

Plus, our country is sexist in many ways, particularly the superficiality whereby men grow older and become more distinguished looking, but women are judged much more harshly regarding age.

If you're a Democrat and just want your party to win, then you vote Obama. But, if you're a die-hard supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton or of a liberal woman president, vote for McCain/Palin.

If Hillary is content to be a senator, that's fine, but if she REALLY wants to be president, I think in the quiet privacy of her voting booth, she'll be pulling the level for John S. McCain. I know she gave a speech in favor of Barack Hussein Obama, but perhaps you didn't notice she had her fingers crossed the whole time.