Ranger's Arrows

When You Point the Finger at China for "Currency Manipulation..."

2011-10-19T16:58:00.002-05:00

Be aware there are three fingers pointed back at us, the US, and specifically the FED.

Laura Ingraham and Pat Buchanan went on today about howRomney was right to 'get tough' with China on trade Specifically he promised if elected to bring China up as a GATT violator due to currency manipulation.

China essentially laughed at this and the fact is, they're right to do so. The US has NO right to take China to the WTO, GATT, or anywhere. 10-15 years ago? Sure. But back then we were too busy falling over ourselves to given them "Most Favored Trade" partner status while they were running over their own citizens with tanks.

Now? Well, perhaps Ms Ingraham and Misters Buchanan and Romney have not heard of "Quantitative Easing." If they have not, here is an educational video on the subject they should watch. The simply fact is, Romney can scream all he wants about China being a currency manipulator. WTO will look at it and go "Pot, meet Kettle."

Because the world's biggest currency manipulator the past 3 years has been Mr Bernanke. He has devalued the dollar to the point where we only the meaninglessness of our current inflation statistics fail to show the runaway prices every family SEES in the supermarket. Doing this has harmed not only our economy, but the economies of dozens of nations around the world that have pegged the value of their currency to ours.

The truth is, this is nothing but another attempt by a candidate consumed by his self-importance, Gov. Romney, and his own sense of entitlement to the nomination of the party his father failed to win, to say anything he senses as 'popular' to win votes. He did the same thing in Michigan last cycle when he promised protectionism against Canada to the people there. If he goes someplace Free Trade has helped, I'm sure he'll be the #1 free trade proponent in the world. Why? Because Romney can't believe anything for himself. He only accepts policies to aid his own entitlement to hold office.

He is a man without principles or integrity. And he is just as unfit for the Presidency as the current resident of the Oval Office.

When You Hear Bachmann, Romney, and Santorum Whine about 9-9-9

2011-10-13T17:29:00.001-05:00

And how it's supposedly "unworkable." Here's some folks who say it WILL work.

Paul Ryan loves him some 9-9-9. And I would say "Miss Federal Tax Lawyer" Bachmann, that Paul Ryan knows the code and the math of what would work and what wouldn't better than ANYONE.

And Mr Santorum, if the CHAIR of the Budget Committee in the House says HE would support it, I think it's fair to say it would get GOP support.

Art Laffer, the Master of Supply Side Economics publically supports 9-9-9. Saying it would both simplify the tax code and unleash the economy, thereby creating JOBS.

Let's be honest. Bachmann, Romney, and Santorum didn't think of 9-9-9 because they're inured in Washington as Usual. Bachmann is ambition above competence. Romney is the guy obsessed with redeeming his family name after his father's failure. And Santorum is right on many things. But he's incapable of optimism.

And that is what Cain has in Spades, over all three of them, and over Obama. He wins by the Carville rule: The Most Optimistic Candidate will almost always triumph. The fact he has a workable economic plan, when Romney's is imbedded in loving the current tax code, Perry doesn't know what an economic plan is, and the other candidates are "coming out with their own plans" as well, makes their criticism laughable, as well as off-base.

Like Barbour, I'm not saying I'm endorsing the Herminator yet. But if I had to vote in the primary today, Cain would be my slam-dunk choice.

H/T: Ace of Spades HQ

Speaking Lies For Power. The "Wall Street Protest"

2011-10-09T17:57:00.002-05:00

First, I will say this: Every person has the right to be say what they wish, no matter how wrong it is. Unless it is a falsehood that harms another person's well-being or dignity, they have the right to be utterly, stupidly wrong-headed. Even the people clueless enough to say things like these.

They have that right, and I have served my time in the military to defend it. That said, I am no less free to call them what they are: Paid protestors, astroturfed by the Obama Administration and Labor Unions, whose sole purpose is to distract the voters from the reality that this administration has utterly failed at every single objective it has set for itself, other than promoting abortion and increasing class warfare.

Paid protesting has been one of the hallmarks of the Obama Regime. So this should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Left wants to compare these paid goons to the Tea Party. But the Tea Party was not organized by Parties, or Labor Unions. And it did not arrive without a clear idea of what "One Thing" it would demand from the "Establishment." They arrived on 9/12 to say specifically that the Federal Government had overextended itself, and that it needed to live within its means. Many among them did not subscribe to neo-Con foreign policy, or Social Conservative positions. But they understood government was too large.

This astroturfed whine-fest doesn't recognize the Constitution, or personal freedom, or a clearly articulated platform. It is nothing but the petulant rant of over-indulged children. The people whose votes have been given to the very Establishment they claim to resent.

I respect Paul Ryan. But in this case, he is dead wrong and Herman Cain is absolutely right. When the Obama Administration resorts to thuggery, like it did in Madison. Like it is doing now, there is no point in trying to speak civilly to a mob. You do not negotiate with children acting out. There is nothing to be learned from these 'protestors,' other than what we already knew:

The Obama Administration is perfectly willing to use any methods of the Chicago Machine, or Allinskyite tactics, to accomplish its goal of perpetuating power and class warfare. The only rational response is to follow the money and hold Trumka and his goons responsible for their unlawful actions. If the Tea Party had ever resorted to the kind of threats he has repeatedly employed, there would be thousands in jail.

To end the protests, we would only need to impeach one man, and arrest a second. There is ample evidence to do both.

Never Settle. Never Surrender. There is Always a Choice.

2011-09-28T18:50:00.001-05:00

The Florida Straw Poll wasn't just a protest. There is a real choice: Fox News and Zogby both show that Herman Cain is a serious player in the media's self-appointed two-man Establishment vs Establishment GOP race of Perry vs Romney. What's more, his economic plan is eminently workable. There are elements of concern I have for it. But it's superior to anything else the field has. The Fox News poll is potentially skewed against Cain as well. And certainly Fox has been trumping up Romney love to the best of its ability all along, right down to having Karl Rove, who sits on Romney's campaign, giving 'advice' on TV to voters as well.

The danger with Cain so far has been himself. He has a tendency to talk occasionally too much like a radio-host, with no concern for his future. But then, this is also part of his charm, in that it's clear he's not a politician.

RSM @ The Other McCain suggests that these polls show that Herman Cain is drawing in those that Palin's non-candidacy had left available. And Allahpundit shows that Perry's fall from grace was entirely self-inflicted. Given the fact there's more debates to come, I don't think Perry is going to get STRONGER. He has real issues, and he simply isn't quick enough on his feet. Now, will the Hermanator be able to stand against serious scrutiny? That's an open question. We're going to find out soon, to be sure.

But none of that changes what is the central fact. You don't have to settle for the guy whose "turn" the Establishment says it is. We don't have to let Karl Rove play kingmaker, again. There are real Conservative choices in the GOP field, and there's no reason not to explore those choices. Romney is NOT that choice. His entire campaign is, "I'm best to beat Obama." But I've seen no evidence that's true. Let's be honest, he was chased out of his Governor's chair in 1 term, and has never won 'anything' else. His 'business' experience pales to Cain's, and he's never actually created Main Street jobs.

Politically, Romney's record is inferior to everyone but Cain. More losses, no real accomplishments save giving Obama the blueprint to Socialized medicine. In the private sector, he's grossly inferior to Cain, whose turnaround of Godfather's is one of the best success stories in modern business. Romney has important friends and lots of money. But those friends include the people who brought us "Big Government Conservatism." Which is to say, "Faux-Conservatism," under Pres Bush the younger. Do we really need another statist with Crony Capitalist ambitions in office? I don't see how. We have a choice. Take it. I'm not saying Cain has to be the guy. But I am saying there's nothing in Romney's record that says he is the guy. Knowing the right people (who are in fact, the wrong people) is what got us into this mess.

And He Wonders Why We Call Him a Narcissist?

2011-09-14T16:23:00.001-05:00

Unreal. "If you love me, pass this bill?" Seriously? You just managed to lose a NYC district for the first time in 40 years. A district that NEVER had voted for the GOP since it was created. And now...this?

Love me, pass me, ME ME ME !

Unbelievable.

h/t BenHoweblog

9/11: Fixation or Remembrance?

2011-09-12T08:11:00.001-05:00

The Tenth Anniversary of a horrific day has come and gone, and I've held my peace on the subject until now to not impugn genuine grief and sorrow. I'm sure this will be more than a little controversial. But I think there is a fair question to be asked. "Are we remembering what happened? Or are we fixated on the fall of the Towers?"

The chattering class throws out the usual annual platitudes about how we "Lost our innocence as a nation" on that day. And how different the world is post 9/11. And the second is demonstrably true, mostly for wrong reasons. But there are a number of things the political class says that are simply hogwash.

The idea that we 'Lost our innocence" on 9/11 is absurd. Vietnam and the war reporting that surrounded it did a far better job of destroying our innocence than 9/11. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. We like to forget how humiliating as a nation it was to have Iran thumb its nose at us day after day for over a year, claiming it had nothing to do with the takeover of our embassy even as they celebrated the "Great Satan's" abasement. The sight of the botched rescue attempt, with our helicopters strewn across the desert, made our military look inept in a way nothing that happened on September 11th, 2001 could have.

There was a poll on the MSN homepage yesterday, asking if 9/11 should be a National Holiday. 50% of the respondents said "yes." Now that was hardly scientific, but it is still symptomatic of the issue. We don't "celebrate" defeats. We did not make Pearl Harbor Day a holiday. We do not celebrate the day the British marched through Washington D.C. and burned the White House (Quick, can you place the date? August 24-25th, 1814). We do not "celebrate" the Hostage Crisis. None of those are national holidays, nor should they be. 9/11 should not be either. It does not take a holiday to remember a tragedy.

The politicization of 9/11 on both sides of the aisle has been pathetic. Faux-patriotism and jingoistic flag-waving that can't find a place for the families of those who lost their loved ones that day at the memorial service. The passage of laws that impugn the principles of freedom that jihadists seek to destroy. The failure to recognize that we are at war with an ideology that seeks nothing short of the eradication of the ideals of freedom, representative government, and separation of church and state that made Western Democracy the engine of freedom and prosperity for over 200 years.

We are fixated on an image, like idolators who thought the wood and stone they worship was in fact their god. We dredge up the memory of the attack as if it was another disaster movie, and the 24 hour news cycle feeds our lust for the image because it's good for ratings. But we don't REMEMBER. We don't learn. And because we refuse to take seriously the fact we're are war with an ideology, and have been LONG before 2001 (Indeed, that wasn't their first attack on US soil, technically the 1979 Embassy takeover qualified as that. But there was Beirut, the Cole, and the 1st Trade Center bombing as well, among others.), we dishonor the memory of those who died the unwitting victims of jihad.

I am not saying to be anti-Islam. But whenever Shariah law is made the standard, whenever we cater to the idea that the West started the war between Islam and Christianity, whenever we refuse to accept that it is jihad that is the issue and an evil, and not some nebulous "lack of empathy," whenever we surrender our freedoms and become more like the enemy, we have given the terrorists what they want. And we have failed to remember.

Our fixation is unhealthy. And like an addict who cannot get away from the sight of his drug, we need to wean ourselves from it, so that we might truly remember what we are supposed to be fighting, and how.

Conducting some Bloggish Necromancy, Debate Commentary

2011-09-08T17:24:00.000-05:00

Yes, I just conceded I'm a fantasy geek and RPG lover. Oh well. You've got me. It has been a while. There are reasons for that beyond being lazy, but I don't think you really are looking at this to hear about my personal life.What you may be interested in is my thoughts and impressions about the GOP debate at the Reagan Library.

First: Why was MSNBC allowed anywhere near the patron of Conservatism's legacy? And how in the world was Brian Williams being allowed to "moderate" a debate? And moderate was a joke of a word, because there's no doubt he brought in his bias. There were the excessive number of questions Huntsman received. And I agree with R.S. McCain, he represents no constituency. http://theothermccain.com/2011/09/08/gov-benzene-huntsman-a-green-phony/ Perhaps some think he can be a 'centrist' third party candidate. I have to ask, on what grounds? What 'centrist' constituency respects him? Why is he on the podium and Thad McCotter not? I'm fairly certain they poll at about the same numbers. This isn't a John Anderson in the making, where at least he could say he had mounted a credible primary campaign. There's nothing to Huntsman but the media fascination for a candidate who is Obama-lite.

Second, where does Williams have the right to ask loaded questions about how any candidate can 'sleep at night' given their policies? We get it that he doesn't like Capital Punishment. But guess what? The majority of the US populace disagrees with him. They may not like how it is administered. But they do agree that there are legitimate circumstances where it's necessary. How is it 'moderating' a debate to send up a question clearly accusatory in nature? Are the Democrats (given a primary challenge for Obama), going to have a debate at the Kennedy Library, and then bring in Rush, R.S. McCain, and Michelle Malkin to 'moderate' it? That would only be fair.Why was every question to Ron Paul, "You want the government agency doing 'x' to be abolished. Why aren't you EEEEVIL?" We get it, he's a Libertarian. Guess what, Reagan was sympathetic to their views. As am I, to be honest. But instead of asking loaded questions, why not ask for specifics on transitions or changes to the existing programs?

Why was Herman Cain given 6 questions in 2 hours? Less face time than any other participant, including the non-polling Santorum and Huntsman? Is MSNBC raaaacist? Or are they simply afraid of an articulate Black Conservative attacking their meme that he's an Uncle Tom tool for the RNC? I wanted to hear more of Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan. And he was the ONLY candidate with REAL solutions on both Medicare and Social Insecurity. If anything was worthy of being debated, it was that. Not mythic jobs records or red meat boilerplate.

As for Gov. Romney, nothing he said made me think he is anything but whatever can get him elected. Now he's prancing about saying Rick Perry wants to abolish Social Security. Perry never said that. He's got Karl Rove saying the same thing. You know what Rove? You weren't relevant in 08, you were insignificant in 10, and you're a NOBODY now. Go crawl back under your rock. Your influence ended when Bush left office. Let's be honest, it's been a Conservative principle SINCE Reagan to reform Social Insecurity. Because we've been the only ones honest enough to look American people in the eye and say, "The math is clear, this will not last forever."

Perry's right, it IS a Ponzi scheme...worse, it's a COMPULSORY Ponzi scheme. I'm 41, and my money will not be available to me when I retire. And I have no choice but to keep paying into this mess. But now Mitt JellySpine Romney has decided that Republicans have to love them some Social Security, that the band-aid of 'indexing' benefits will fix the problem. It won't. It might have 20 years ago. But we're past that now. The only credible solution I've seen at this point is Cain's. Simple math. The baby-boomers are coming due for retirement. When they do, the money being taken out will explode the program. Medicare has the same problem. No accounting trick is going to solve those problems. If you want these to exist when WE retire, then they have to be changed into radically different programs from what they are now.

At this point, I've no idea who I'll vote for out of that gaggle. As a Conservative who has tired of the GOP's establishment, and made a home in the American Conservative Party http://theamericanconservatives.org/cms/index.php, I can say that I will vote my principles, not based on some desire to support the "lesser of two evils." Because the lesser of two evils for Republicans is NOT that for Conservatives, we saw that with Bush the Younger, where we were forced to swallow No Child Left Behind and Medicare Plan D, and the whole disaster of "Big Government Conservatism" and Neo-Con nation-building foreign policy that Bush 43 brought us.

I know there are two candidates from that debate I CANNOT vote for. Romney and Hunstman. I would vote 3rd party before either of them. I could probably support any of the others as meeting a basic threshold of Reagan Conservatism. But I'll watch before I convince myself of that. Because I'll never hold my nose and vote again. The Founders never wanted a system where voters had to do such a thing. Let alone do it repeatedly.

The Morning After the Tsunami

2010-11-03T12:01:00.000-05:00

MSNBC is trumpeting: "The Democrats still control the Senate." But let's be real, winning 10 seats in one cycle was always going to be impossible. That bit of self-deception by the Left is their attempt to prove this wasn't what it clearly was: a rebuke of epic proportions.

7 Senate seats (conservatively) have flipped to the Republicans. That's a massive single-cycle gain. The Democrats are crowing for winning in NY, California, WV, and Delaware. But it shows the magnitude of their plight that they had to cheer for winning in such places. Those should've been foregone conclusions. The only race in a competitive state the Republicans lost was the Colorado Senate. But this was a function of the current shambolic state of the GOP in Colorado. It's impossible to say the Tom Maes fiasco didn't have down-ballot implications for the party there.

In contrast: Republicans won Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Florida and Missouri: those are all battleground states. And the wins were solid. They won in Wisconsin and Illinois: and those are traditional BLUE states that have just flipped hard to the right.

The ease of the Missouri win is mindboggling. The Democrats were facing a candidate infamous for his corruption and willingness to aid expanding Government in the Bush years. Yet Carnahan didn't even just *not* make inroads on him. She was annihilated in a race she started out leading comfortably. For the record, I kept my pledge to never vote for Roy Blunt. I despise his corruption and he's not conservative. But I'll give him credit where credit's due. No one outworks Roy Blunt on the campaign trail. And every ad he ran was a winner. Carnahan couldn't be bothered to campaign most of the election. When she did, it was tepid. And her ads were almost always defensive; amazing for a candidate who was *outside* of Washington during the cycle.

Now throw on top of this the House races, which have claimed some of the largest names of the left, old and new. Grayson: MSNBC is waiting. Ike Skelton: gone. Parello: have a nice day, so much for Democrats standing and fighting for the Obama record. James Oberstar: at the moment, you might want to plan your retirement, unless you're screaming to Soros to fund your recount.

At every level, in one election cycle, a decade's worth of Democrat's gains were undone in a single night. There is no way of minimizing that result.

But the GOP is responsible for taking that message. At this moment, it doesn't seem Mitch McConnell gets it. He and Cornyr are busy telling people the Tea Party winners 'won't be a major factor to us.' John Boehner, to his credit, seems more contrite and open toward them. At least he did based on his speech last night. But we've watched Boehner lead spending binges before. So we'll see if he gets it.

I think this is clear. Today marks the last chance of the GOP. The Tea Party very easily could've split and become a Party in fact. They would've had a good night last night if they had done so. But instead they stayed (largely) within the GOP. If the Republicans get the message, they may be the revitalized party of Reagan. If they don't, they'll go the way of the Whigs. As a Conservative first and foremost, I'm still not willing to call men like McConnell and Cornyr my "leadership." So I still say End the Duopoly. But I won't deny it was a very good day for Conservatism.

You might think sooner of later:

2010-10-18T11:54:00.000-05:00

That is the same people say the same things over and over again about the emotional state of others, that they might actually be projecting that state onto others.

For instance: when the Left accuses others of being 'hateful' and 'intolerant' while they use terms like: "fear and frustration" or "bitter" or "hatred" that perhaps they might understand the general lack of respect they are showing would reflect their own emotions.

This was nonsense two years ago. It's even more nonsense now that they've owned the economy for two years and have exacerbated the problems instead of fixed them. Then it was just arrogant and insensitive. Now it's arrogant, insensitive, and patently dishonest. But hey, this is the professional left we're talking about. So why are we surprised?

The "Pledge to America": More of the Same from the GOP "leadership."

2010-09-22T18:36:00.000-05:00

The Republican House leadership has unveiled its great election plan. The so-called Pledge to America.

It's Pabulum. It's Rubbish. It's total, utter, spineless dreck. And it's exactly the kind of half-hearted "leadership" that led the GOP into the wilderness. It's proof Boehner and Cantor do not get it. Period.

There's no balanced-budget amendment. No permanent commitment that can roll back the Left's agenda. No promise to cut-off earmark spending, the gateway drug to Big Government.

There's no commitment to right-to-life. There's no commitment to curtail the Left's Imperial Judiciary that stifles proper Federalist efforts like Proposition 8 in California.

It contains a nebulous phrase to "enforce budget caps" with no discussion of how. It shows none of the serious math of Paul Ryan's "Roadmap." It doesn't show any serious concern of the deficit or the need for smaller, more efficient government.

It's more of the same. And what do we really expect from the GOP leadership. Aside from a few individuals of conscience like Jim Demint and Paul Ryan, there's no one of influence who's committed to principle over power.

So here's a message FROM America to you, John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

We are tired of hearing your words. We will judge your actions. Listen to us, or we can send you home too.

The bottom line: End the Duopoly.

Goldman Sachs escapes justice while America pays for their mistakes.

2010-07-16T12:38:00.001-05:00

So the signature folly of the Financial Crisis pays a fine equal to four days of their 2009 income. Another illustration that if you've made the right kickbacks, you don't get punished by "Big Government."

Meanwhile, in a piece of legislation that goes to war with everything from credit card companies to Chinese drywalls to free checking accounts, nothing is done to address the key issues that led to the real crisis. Fannae and Freddie are, by the law, exempted from all the regulations meant to ensure the crisis is not repeated. Fascinating how that happens, given it was their insistence on low-income housing that caused the bubble to crash. This is 'common-sense' to Chris Dodd, a man who demonstrates that being on a committee for a long time does not constitute understanding the realities of what that committee is overseeing.

Furthermore, the legislation does not address in any way, shape, or form Wall Street's culture of non-disclosure. So Goldman Sachs is free to skirt regulations again, and their business partners who cheat with them can be assured that if anyone is caught, everyone else gets away with impunity because nothing has to be shared. This contributed to the small fine Goldman Sachs received, because the SEC had to admit, in the end, it didn't have enough of a case to stand up if they couldn't track down the business partners.

So Wall Street is insulated on all sides by an army of lobbyists and lawyers, while the bailout ensures "Too Big to Fail" continues and those who break the law get golden parachutes and minimal penalties.

It's telling how much a crap sandwich this bill was that the best that can be mustered in its defense on Real Clear Politics now is, "It's better than nothing." Well, if it doesn't address the cause or the factors that exacerbated the crisis, one has to ask, 'how so'? In fact, I would say since Fannae and Freddy get off without any reform on their part, it's worse than having done nothing. The innocent are shafted. The guilty are free to commit the same mistakes. We get to pay the bills. And the lobbyists get rich. Crony Capitalism, brought to you by the Iron Triangle of Lobbyists, Legislators, and Bureaucrats.

And where can racism REALLY be found?

2010-07-07T00:38:00.000-05:00

Well, as Bill Clinton proved when he said "Robert Byrd joined the KKK to get elected," racism is TRUTHFULLY found, in all its noxious flavors, amongst progressives and the far left.

Further evidence here

Simple fact, if you don't believe in judging people by group/class/ethnicity, but as INDIVIDUALS with PERSONAL responsibility, you are less, not more, inclined to judge a group--any group.

Today's evidence the Duopoly doesn't get it.

2010-06-30T10:28:00.000-05:00

Erick Erickson called out the GOP House leadership today for their inability to say what 60% of the American people want them to say: that is, Obamacare is bad legislation and needs to be scrapped in total. Instead, they'd rather use a lame "repeal and replace" strategy that gives a legislation no one wants either.

The simple fact is this: There is no practical difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party other than what special interests they get paid off by. The GOP leadership has no interest in the hallmarks of Conservative ideology. They do not want smaller government, personal responsibility, or greater freedom. These people shilled for TARP, they passed Medicare Plan D and No Child Left Behind. They have no concept of 'smaller government.' Ask them what department of the government should be cut or even merged with another to reduce bureaucracy and they couldn't do it.

Ask them what measure should be done to reduce the "Iron Triangles" of Bureaucracy, Special Interest Groups, and Lobbyists that strangle our Republic and they couldn't tell you. They've assumed the myth of a limitless government trough is true. And they desire nothing but their turn at the levers of power to accomplish the same thing.

So why do we insist on playing the same game with the same people and assuming a different result? End the Duopoly.

Jason Whitlock: The only writer capable of clueless politics and clueless sports analysis at the same time.

2010-06-24T18:54:00.000-05:00

Jason Whitlock should be forgiven, I suppose. When you have to report on sports in Kansas City, there's just not a lot to say except "our teams suck." You have the Royals, who haven't been good since I was a teenager. You have the Chefs, who haven't been good since the merger. And you have the Wizards, who were so minor league they played their MLS matches last season in a minor-league baseball stadium and are a team so poorly supported by their home that they couldn't even be printed in the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce's list of attractions.

Whitlock's lack of understanding of the sport is illustrated first in failing to recognize that the US taking until the 91st minute to score doesn't illustrate their ineptitude. It illustrates the stubborn tenacity of an Algerian side that allowed 2 goals the entire World Cup and did not concede to an England side filled with goal-scoring talent.

It fails to understand the nature of the sport. Footy is the cruelest of sports. Scoring chances for skilled teams are rare. Even elite sides rarely win matches in runaway routs. Packed defenses, especially if supported by a skilled keeper, can kill off matches with more efficiency than even the dreaded neutral-zone trap in hockey. Even average coaches can prepare a team well enough not to lose. It takes a skilled coach to weave offense into the tapestry. But then, if you have a day where the ref makes a poor call, or your shots that beat the defense strike the woodwork instead of find the net, you suddenly face the Sword of Damocles. No sport is as cruel as association football.

What Whitlock would've been right to say is this World Cup illustrates the growth of the US into a team that can win when its supposed to, instead of pulling the shock upset or winning against overconfident opposition. The US Men's Team has grown into a hard-working, blue collar, no-nonsense side that gains positive results even when the odds stack against them.

But what makes Whitlock's article applicable for this column, instead of my "personal interest" blog, is his absurd statement about how the World Cup promotes hate or bigotry. He called it the 'anti-Olympics.' To say the Olympics has been untainted by politics is absurd. The Berlin and Munich games? The Beijing white-wash for communism? The boycotts of 80 and 84? The Olympics is the most politicized sporting even in existence.

Whitlock should be forced to answer, What sport could have South Korea and North Korea play each other 4 times in a year? What sport could have Iran vs the US? Say what you want about South Africa's white elephant stadiums and the labor issues, did the Olympics choose to celebrate the transformation of South Africa? Did the Olympics bring together former enemies South Korea and Japan to create a winning venue for an international tournament?

No, sorry; but it's the Olympics that is pure hype. Made up of sporting events that most nations do not take seriously the rest of the year in venues that are all but useless for time immemorial after. Not to mention the history of Byzantine politics and outright pay-offs that have gone into the IOC's selections of locales.

The World Cup is the one sport that's globally played, understood, and appreciated. And as such, it represents globally, regardless of politics and ideology. Football (of the association variety) is not to be idealized. I'm not saying that. But it provides a real mirror to the world as it is. We see things in football we could not see in any other sporting event. We see the ugly reality of North Korea's oppression when we learn that their "fans" are tourists from China sent to the game. But we also see the rise of a nation from third world status to the ability to manage the infrastructure and resources to hold what is, without question, the world's largest sporting event.

Whitlock says he 'tolerates' soccer. But toleration is not appreciation. And by appealing to the "FIFA rankings" he should've then realized that by the rankings Switzerland never should've beaten Spain; Slovakia shouldn't have beaten Italy, Brazil shouldn't have been pushed by North Korea. Rankings are nothing but a number in ANY sport when the game starts. And his comments on 'hate' are hypocritical jingoism as well. But when you have to write on Kansas City sports, you have to expect a large amount of distress. After all, you'll never get to write about anything good in your market.

Government fails to budget while the economy takes a second dive.

2010-06-22T11:43:00.000-05:00

Why yes, it is supposed to have one. For the first time since the current budgetary regulations were passed in 1974, the House of Representatives will officially fail in its responsibility. The Democrats claim they do this because they "lack bipartisan support." But this is an utter lie, since they don't need support to pass any legislation, as we've seen time and again.

It's also a lie because the RSC has proposed a balanced budget that contains spending for the next 10 years. One has to ask: If the GOP is 'the party of no;' are the Democrats 'the party of no clue?' Credit should be given to the RSC where it is due. It's a serious budget plan and they've made many of the hard choices necessary to get the debt and deficit back under control before we're doomed to Greece-style austerity.

The question can fairly be asked if we can expect the people who created one of the most unnecessary budget balloons in history to be put back in charge of the mess they helped create. After all, many of these people voted for the TARP boondoggle, Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, and other government-bloating legislation that helped lead us to this point. Listening to Boehner and McConnell tell us 'they get it' and will now support smaller government fails to resonate with me. So I say again the key is stepping away from the Duopoly and building conservative alternatives and then supporting the candidates that best identify with belief in freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. In other words: End the Duopoly.

The Other McCain rightly notes the lamestream media's inability to recognize reality. Obama has told foreign governments that we need to keep spending to protect against a double-dip recession. He won't use those words, of course, but the simple fact is, that's what's at stake.

By staking our "recovery" primarily on government jobs (and temporary government jobs like the census at that) instead of growing the private sector to create a lasting recovery, we have run into the fatal flaw of Keynesian economics. "If you 'prime the pump' with the public sector, how does the pump keep running when the government can't afford it anymore?" The private sector felt no impact from the porkulus package, and now, as Chancellor Merkel has noted, the government well is running dry. Obama's economic plan is this; "Spend like mad and have China buy our debt in return for preferential market treatment."

But this plan is on assault both at home and abroad now. The G-20 looks at Greece, and sees Spain and Portugal and Italy on the horizon and realizes the collective debt of the developed world is unsustainable. So it calls on Obama to lean on China to float the Yuan so they can buy time to put their houses in order and cut spending. But if China floats the Yuan, our own debt crisis is exasperated immediately. Meanwhile at home, the big-labor Democrats who invested in Obama are now screaming that these preferential trade agreements with China are taking away US manufacturing jobs. When China can no longer get the treatment it desires, it will likely call in its debt markers, and that will kick the props out from under Obama's "recovery summer."

All of this brings us back to why a budget matters. A budget is a plan. It guides our normal spending so that when we have extraordinary issues, we've the flexibility to deal with them. But right now, neither the White House nor the Congress has a plan to deal with the budget. All they have is platitudes about 'restraint.' But they've shown none to now, and when Obama goes oversees, it's clear he wants no such thing. The Congress knows, since it's accountable to the electorate in a mid-term election, if it produces a plan that is financially irresponsible, the electorate will be incensed. But if they produce a plan that doesn't 'stimulate the economy' Obama will reject it.

So it does nothing, and fiddles while our economy burns. The stimulus fake jobs and state government pay offs begin to run out while housing starts fall again, unemployment claims rise again, and Obama's 'recovery summer' turns into a double-dip recession. This is what happens when you create a Phantom Recovery through government spending. It happened in the Great Depression, it happened again now. But since government does not learn from history, it repeats it.

Update It seems the Obama Regime's budget director has announced his resignation. I love how AP calls his stint 'grueling' given the failure to produce a budget and his inability to find spending anywhere outside the Department of Defense of NASA he wasn't willing to increase.

Why is Newsweek Going Bankrupt? Well, articles like this don't help.

2010-06-18T11:41:00.000-05:00

Eleanor Clift's desperate tirade at the Tea Party movement today demonstrates her and their utter inability to grasp reality.

She claims we need big government to clean up the oil spill. Ah, but did Big Government stop the oil spill? No. Did government regulations stop it from happening? No, if anything, BP's incestuous relationship with the Obama Administration and government helped this to happen. And big government's insistence on refusing to lift the Jones Act and slow-footedness to aid in the clean-up efforts have been detrimental as well. At every turn, the Obama Administration's actions have hampered rather than aided. Yet Clift insists this is proof of why "Big Government" must be preserved.

It's counter-intuitive at every level. And the only justification she can find is, "The Tea Party would be worse." How? Because reducing extraneous departments that had nothing to do with this catastrophe would have anything to do with clean-up? Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about oil wells? (She actually uses that line!) Let's be clear, the Founders did expect the Government to respond during a crisis. The Founders did expect even-handed application of laws by the government. The Obama Administration has done neither. And the Obama Administration has now made BP too big to fail by its recent actions. Despite their public protestation of BP's negligence, they know where their bread is buttered. They know who donated to them. The $20 billion slush fund is an insurance policy taken out by BP to ensure that it will not be put out of business for destroying the Gulf. For all of Obama's "butt-kicking" rhetoric, he wasn't going to lose their cash.

Once again, the cronies are allowed to escape a crisis with a hand-slap if they've made the right kickbacks. Fannae and Freddie, GM, Goldman Sachs, BP, all were in bed with Obama and the Democratic Leadership. All have conspired to create economic meltdowns. All will get off without suffering the rightful result for their malfeasance: going out of business. Instead we get more job killing regulations, higher taxes, more taxpayer money thrown down holes, and less real accountability.

This is what Big Government has really given us. A society where upward mobility is stagnated, big corporations are protected, and the elitists are free to look down on the 'rubes' while they take money from people they posture against in public. Did the Founders perceive this danger? Oh yes they did.

Yep, it's today's evidence of Leftist violence.

2010-06-14T11:20:00.001-05:00

Bob Etheridge (D, NC-02) attacks student. | RedState

Now, let's ask again: Who really resorts to violence and hatred? Wonder if this will be spun so that the guy who gets attacked will be charged, just like the incident last week.

Media bias? Us? Noooo, never.

2010-06-12T09:28:00.000-05:00

So the media once again fails to recognize its own appearance in the mirror. Randy Bergman indulges in a several page long pseudo-intellectual article to try to tell us that a Pew Research study indicating that 86.6% of the populace believing something to be true doesn't mean that it really is true. The 'citations' he uses are from equally leftist academics, who are only upset that Obama hasn't moved the country further left. There's no objectivity to the piece. There's no attempt to deal with The Media Research Center's findings.

As Theodore Dawes notes. The article manages, by its flawed argumentation, to prove the very assertion it claims to refute. It does everything we've come to expect from the corporate news establishment. Inbred 'reporting' that cites only sources they recognize with their own leftist ideology; circular argumentation that assumes its own conclusions; general failure to actually 'investigate,' and instead pass off an 'opinion' piece as legitimate journalism.

It seems that the left has decided that since Fox News exists, then there cannot be 'liberal' media bias, since Fox does tend to lean right. But one TV station does not undo ABC, NBC (and its MSNBC affiliate), CBS, PBS and the Legacy Media establishment. Perhaps some actual research and honesty would change one's presuppositions. If Mr Bergman is unaware of where to look for such research, he might consider here.

On a completely unrelated note: Go US, Beat England!

When "independant" doesn't mean "anti-Establishment."

2010-06-06T06:17:00.000-05:00

I've been debating the 'merits' of Charlie Crist as an independent candidate lately on various sites. I'll say it again here: he has none. Crist is, if anything, a sharp stick to the eye of legitimate third party operations.

I think this ought to settle them. If Crist had been a GOP outsider who was tired of the Establishment and left the party because of its failures (say, for instance, Nikki Haley, who's been bombed with unsubstantiated rumors in S.C. since she took the lead in the polls), then this whole "Crist is independent" issue would have merit.

But Crist is typical insider who suffers from 'sore-loseritis' when he runs into a spate of anti-Establishment politics. Crist leaked the 'story' about Rubio's GOP credit cards...omitting his staffers had done the same thing. Crist hasn't "evolved" in his positions. Like John McCain, he's cynically stuck his finger in the air, tested the polls, then gone to whatever was popular. He's made a career of doing everything we despise about politics. So why does *anyone* think he's different now?

End the Duopoly, yes. But wisdom is known by her children. Crist is NOT an independent or a believer in the need for a third party. He's a believer in his own political well-being.

The Duopoly's Failure; Regional Edition

2010-06-03T21:35:00.000-05:00

Does anyone seriously think the Founders of our Nation really intended for a handful of families to dominate politics? Yes, the Adams family was very influential in the first generations of our country. But none of them used their position to create a family legacy of wealth and privilege.

But in today's politics, the dominion of families is a pattern, perpetuated in no small part by the Duopoly Establishment and it's willingness to entrench those with the proper connections in places of power. We saw that with the Kennedys for generations in the Democratic Party. We saw that in the Republican Party with the Bushs. In both cases, they possessed a rather remarkable ability to stretch past state boundaries and dominate an entire region from entrenched bases of Establishment Power.

Now, in Missouri, we see perhaps one of the more despicable displays of such entrenched power. The Democrats have given us Robin Carnahan. She has tried to run a negative campaign that deliberately obscures her close ties to the '08 Obama Campaign and her past statements strongly in support of his policies. It also is very light on facts in her negative campaigning.She was for health care deform, and then decries the lack of 'fiscal responsibility' that policy gave us. She's a third generation career politician with minimal experience in the private sector.

Yet, in this state's inbred political establishment, she can try to pass herself off as the "outsider." That's because, Carnahan, who is every bit the State of Missouri's "Kennedy" is pitted against the "Bush" family of the state, and their patriarch at that, Roy Blunt.

Blunt is infamously corrupt. Right down to giving his lobbyist then-mistress a job with Phillip Morris in return for campaign cash. He also is capable of Biden-like gaffes. He is (nominally) my Representative. But as a Conservative Republican (at the time), I pledged on Redstate I would never vote for him after his shilling for the Bailouts. This after disingenuously displaying the Bush-era Republican party as the party of limited government. Medicare Plan D, limited government? Really? Then came the Banks, with no controls on the forces that really caused the financial disaster, the government-subsidized Fannae and Freddie. Blunt doesn't know real conservatism in any way, shape, or form. I would add that as much as I like much of Erick Erickson's commentary, it was Redstate's endorsement of this piece of work that convinced me, once and for all, that true Conservatism has no future in the GOP.

Perhaps the only surprising thing is that in an election with two such outlandishly out-of-touch, corrupt, representative of no one but themselves, pro-establishment, insider choices, only 6% of the people are undecided. If ever a race deserved the candidate "None of the Above" to win, this is it.

End the Duopoly

The Duopoly Establishment: Destroying Democracy.

2010-05-26T13:48:00.000-05:00

The Obama Administration continues its efforts to play "Chicago on the Potomac" with evidence of a pay-for play offer to Joe Sestak. Amusingly enough, careerist establishment representative Arlen Specter was the person who was to benefit from this. Yet in his inimitable bite-the-hand-that-feeds-him style, he seems to have aided in outing evidence on this.

The Justice Department is, of course, in full stonewall mode. The White House tells us, "Really, there's nothing to see here," and that's supposed to satisfy the legal system. Of course, Eric Holder is a joke and a political hack, so it quite possibly will until after November. Unfortunately for the Left, I suspect this scandal has legs. And the longer this goes on, the more complicit more people get in the cover-up. And like all political conspiracies, the white wash is always worse than the crime itself.

That said, the GOP is hardly without its own inability to understand the value of a representative democracy. Karl Rove wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that suggested gerrymandering districts to save the GOP money, because that would give the party fewer 'tightly contested seats.'

It's nice to know Karl Rove is still as short-sighted as ever. The man whose 50%+1 divide and conquer politics helped polarize a generation now wants to go one step further and permanently enshrine incumbency. Let's just turn the nation into a conglomeration of single-party states. What a brilliant idea!

Here's what I say: Proportional Representation based on total votes received for all legislative elections, bottom to top. Who cares if that leaves Congress without a majority party? First Past the Post should be abolished for all non-executive elections. Legislative bodies should reflect the people, not the will of the Duopoly. The Establishments don't care about the people. They only care about self-perpetuation. I would also say I'm in favor for Legislative Term Limits on all levels as well. But for Congress, they must be universal. No state can be expected seriously, under the current system, to hamstring itself by having term limits when the largest states do not.

End the Duopoly.

UpdateMichelle Malkin does her usual excellent work to show us the perpetrator of this stonewall. His wife is a key media-spin consultant for the Regime, and he plays electoral law, which Obama has skirted on numerous occasions we've noted in the past.

~~Most transparent administration ever.~~

Update Part 2 The Impeachment word is in play on this issue. The White House is in the unenviable position of calling the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania a liar (which will almost certainly destroy him as a candidate), or face the possibility that there could be an impeachment hearing either now or after the election. Since re-born Democrat Arlen Specter is claiming this is impeachable as well, the White House can't even be sure their own party isn't going to turn on this.

President promises "No More Bailouts"--until the next one.

2010-05-25T09:27:00.000-05:00

With the economy flat-lining with unemployment hovering near 10% despite inflationary policies that have the markets in a panic, one might think spending more money we don't have is a bad idea.

Not of course, if you work inside the Beltway in Washington DC. There they believe there is an infinite amount of money and the economy will willingly bear any burden they put upon it.

So Bob Casey has proposed legislation to bail out the unions. Why is this, so SEIU can get police escorts to the doors of private citizens and threaten teenage boys?

Here's a suggestion. If they are short of pension funds, maybe they should divert some of the money that goes to their OWN CEO compensation packages and forced political contributions that their membership may or may not support and use it instead for something foolish like...oh, I don't know...maybe supporting their members.

Why don't I think most unions serve a purpose? Largely because they spend more time acting as a political interest lobby than they do actually working for the benefit of their workers on behalf of the companies. And because their leaders are just as 'fat cat' as the corporate bosses they claim to despise.

And do you really think if/when this bill passes Congress, Obama is not going to sign it, given the level of indebtedness he has to the unions? If there was a bill to filibuster, this would be it.

Washington: Breeding Ground of Educated Idiots Lacking in Manners.

2010-05-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

There was a time when deep ideological difference did not mean personal hatred or enmity. Not to say everyone always got along. But Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey were able to separate their political differences from their personalities enough that they were able to battle each other and yet be lifelong friends. As a conservative, it is important to remember that the protection of the institutions matters because in a government with representative elections, it is imperative that one does not become so insistent on one's positions that one demonizes opponents without cause.

Yesterday, politicians on both sides of the ideological spectrum forgot this. Of course, the Lamestream Media will only publicize one of these blunders. Frankly, Newt Gingrich should know better. I understand his argument: Obama is interested in consolidating power in a few individuals and entities. It is an argument that both Ron Paul and Norm Chomsky have proposed. It is akin the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, that is true. But other regimes have attempted to consolidate power in the hands of a loyal few as well. Where they were corporations, the powerful drew them closer. The rest were destroyed.

Obama has decried 'fat-cats' and passed laws to regulate Wall Street. Yet why is "Wall Street" among Obama's biggest doners? Because they know that any law the Democrats pass will only entrench their power. It's the same system. It's the big lie, backed by big government. Now, have Republicans done much the same thing? Almost certainly. As I've said before, the Establishments of both parties are more interested in the levers of power than the ideas they actually represent.

That said, nothing was gained by Gingrich's illustration. The term Socialist would accomplish the same thing. All this does is give MSNBC and the Lamestream media a sound bite that will, despite his claims of "not making moral equivalency," cannot be used for anything but demonizing his opponents in a way he now (deservedly) will be savaged.

That said, he is hardly alone in the "demonize your opponents for no purpose" category. Alan Grayson once again made an ass of himself. This is a man who stormed into a private GOP meeting and cursed at his opponents. He went to the floor of the House and said Republicans' health care was for old people to die. He's an ignoramus of the highest order and his 2 year term has been little more than a walking advertisement for MSNBC.

This time he likens his opponents to Al-Qaeda. Brilliant, you see if you believe in limited government, you're no safer to be in government according to this Moonbat than Al Qaeda is to fly a plane. Now there is no rational reason for this comparison. As I've said before, for every single evidence of violence and hate-language on the right, I can find five or more on the left. That is a fact of history, not just recent politics.

For a representative democracy to survive, it depends on honest and open discourse. Not demonization, not demagoguery by either side. Civil discourse in society has broken down before, most dramatically in the days before the Civil War. I don't think anyone honestly wants to revisit such days, and such an end. But perhaps some people think they can advance their political causes by such means without reaching the logical conclusions of such a disaster. I find that a very dubious sentiment.

Rand Paul excoriated for an intellectual exercise.

2010-05-20T18:13:00.000-05:00

MSNBC wasted no time today trying to brand Rand Paul a racist for expressing concerns about the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. No less than four of the usual race-baiting suspects claimed Paul was racist. This despite the fact he repeatedly says he abhors all forms of racism and would support no business that engaged in it.

The simple fact is, for the Leftist, an intellectual discussion about the propriety of federal intrusion into private business practice and the Constitutionality of that legislation must be equated with absolute opposition to Civil Rights and being for racism. That is utter balderdash. I would say that Rachel Maddow was intellectually dishonest in her argument, except that would be insinuating Maddow hasan intellect.

David Weigel's response is much more honest and measured. Like Weigel, I have issues with Paul's argument. I'm not sure that one can honestly defend private business practice as an exercise of 'free speech' because this goes beyond speech to behavior and the effective limitation of another's opportunities for factors they cannot control. That said, Paul goes out of his way, repeatedly, to say desegregation of schools was a positive. He goes out of his way, repeatedly, to say Federal institutions should be open to all races. It is disingenuous in the extreme to paint such a position as 'racist.'

Once again, this discussion shows that the Left is given free rein to play the race card from the bottom of the deck whenever they wish. The validity of the claim is not an issue. The mere attribution is enough. Basically, anyone a liberal disagrees with can be called a racist because of their disagreement.

And once again, I say the real bigot is the person who uses such a verbal hand grenade in conversation to silence dissent. Liberals care nothing for Free Speech. They care less than nothing for the honest interchange of ideas. One can bow and scrape before Ogreman and Maddow and tell them what they want to hear; read HuffPost and kiss Ariana's feet, and wrap themselves in (to borrow Michelle Malkin's delicious phrase) 'The Fishwrap of Record.' Or one is called a racist, a bigot, lacking compassion, and narrow-minded for disagreeing with the demagogues of the Left.

Rand Paul: congratulations, you are not a Racist, but you play one on MSNBC.

Today's story on who REALLY uses violence and fraud as a political tool.

2010-05-19T18:32:00.000-05:00

That would be the left. Eric Holder's Department of Justice is refusing to prosecute the New Black Panthers who intimidated Philadelphia voters with billy clubs and racist slurs.

A DOJ attorney cited the Administration's stonewall on this issue in his resignation issue in detail.

There's a lot of evidence of voter fraud and intimidation in the 2008 election. From this incident, to motor voter irregularities; to the whole Al Franken election debacle. Going back to 2000, there were massive irregularities in Gore districts in Florida, including vote suppression of Bush supporters punctuated by the 'mistake' of the Lamestream Media calling the state of Florida for Gore before the polls for the (red-tinted) Florida panhandle had even closed. (A mistake they had also committed in the election of Connie Mack to the Senate.) In both cases, that call potentially cost the GOP as many as 10,000 votes (or enough to ensure a recount never would've been necessary).

The election rules are increasingly slanted away from securing the rights of those who are legal, registered voters and toward permitting intimidation, vote shenanigans, fake registration, and outright manipulation of data. There needs to be a nationwide re-visitation on the election laws for all legislative seats. The First Past the Post system should only be kept for the Presidential race, and proportional representation should be applied in to all legislative bodies along with a secure, safe election where only those who ought to be voting in that election are voting in the election. No mass busing; no "Mickey Mouse" registrations. Voter Fraud DOES happen, it will happen again unless those who permit it to happen are not just thrown out of office for it, but prosecuted for abetting it.

If our elections cannot be safe, secure, fair, and transparent, then we have no hope of a free society.

Paul Krugman resorts to platitudes when truth hurts.

2010-05-17T09:30:00.000-05:00

You know, there was a time when I was afraid to do battle with a professional economist on his own field. I'm grateful to Paul Krugman for one thing: he's helped me overcome that fear. The fact he's a two-faced, incompetent sycophant who would rather be loved by the left than deal in facts hasn't hurt in my efforts to overcome that fear.

Krugman yesterday wrote "We're Not Greece." Who could've guessed the most accurate bit of information in this drivel would've been the geography of the title (that is, assuming 'we' means the US).

This is a man who in 2004 told us that our deficit was a problem and needed to be reined in. Even in this article, he tried to blame Bush. Krugman's tried this mien for the last five years. But, as the IMF data illustrates Krugman's grasp of the truth is suspect. If you note the chart in that data on the US, you will see that our debt relative to GDP was essentially flat from 2000 to 2008 and was substantially lower than our debt in 1995 under Clinton.

Krugman blames tax cuts to the risk and the Iraq War for 'inflating our debt' when there's no evidence debt as a measure of GDP was inflated until TARP--a policy he supported! So in short, Krugman isn't just incompetent with a questionable grasp of facts, he's an ideological hack who supports debt if it's done in favor of his ideas he likes. That's great economics.

The IMF is quite clear that our pending debt situation looks very much like Greece's. As I've said here before, we have ticking time bombs in numerous entitlement programs that are exasperated by our already over-high debt load. What Krugman consistently overlooks in his willingness to say, "The current debt is ok because the economy is growing..." is:

1) The economy's 'growth' is not creating private sector jobs, or long-term productive jobs anywhere. The census jobs will not sustain economic growth. The signs are there for a double dip recession as the economy is reined in by a devalued dollar and a too-high debt load.

2) The projected spending of the Obama budget will take the debt level even higher: and that is before 2020 and the time bombs go off for Social Insecurity and Medicare. Krugman's article is deliciously silent on the future Obama debt load, which looks EXACTLY like Greece. I'm hardly the only one sounding the alarm bell on this issue, BTW.

3) He mentions the value of having your own currency as opposed to the Euro. That's minimized by the devaluation underway at the Fed, which will initiate inflation in the long-term. One cannot have too much currency in circulation and not have inflation. Which will curb real economic growth.

Quite frankly, the (too slow, too little) growth of the economy walking into the potential for hyper-inflation looks almost exactly like the economic fundamentals that produced Carter's Stagflation in the 70s. Couple that with the fact that even Krugman admits we have no room to use debt as leeway to get out of another economic crisis. And the fact that you are unwilling/~~too spineless~~unable to address the long-term concerns of Social Security and the rest of the Entitlement Legacy (like the rest of the left), and you are setting up for a "reality" that is very much like Greece's.

If we do not curb our spending; if we do not cut our deficits; and if we do not change the game with our entitlement system radically, in short order we cannot, and will not avoid the problems Greece is having right now.

Update It seems the Bank of England agrees with me. Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize must be a bit tarnished when so many reputable economists think him dead wrong.

I like Erick Erickson, but he's wrong.

2010-05-13T17:19:00.000-05:00

Today Erick Erickson at Redstate made the obligatory argument that conservatives should be pro-Republican in the general election regardless of the ideology of the candidates reflected. The assumption being Republicans will always be better for Conservatives than Democrats. Ironically, this was a couple days after his article on "The Great Disentanglement"of Conservatives from the Republican party.

Erick, which is it? Are conservatives to be shamelessly loyal to the Republican Party, or are we to be true to our ideology? If we're to be shameless partisan hacks, then have fun with Romney,McConnell, Boehner, the Bushes, McCain and Roy Blunt, all these 'self-professed' conservatives who can't be trusted to tell you Day's light and Night's dark. If it's to be shamelessly partisan, then there's no reason to have chosen Hoffman in NY23, and certainly no reason to complain when the GOP threw him under the bus and helped elect the Democrat to maintain the Duopoly. Note, this is hardly an isolated incident: as Poli-Tea demonstrates, the GOP establishment is doing the same thing in the Rhode Island Governor's Race.

The simple fact is, the Republican Establishment has always, and will always, support the perpetuation of the Duopoly over any ideological commitment. What's more, there is nothing "conservative" about the Republican Leadership, excepting perhaps Jim Demint and Paul Ryan (and calling either of these 'leaders' at the moment is a stretch). These are the same people who gave us excessive intrusion in the affairs of citizen by Government through the so-called "Patriot Act," which is now being used by Obama to target conservative activists. These are the same people who gave us Medicare Plan D and the prelude to the Health Care debacle. These are the same people who voted to "break the Free Market to save it" and force feed us a TARP program that the Secretary Treasury KNEW was not going to work when he took the money, then turned around and did the same thing for the auto-companies.

Now we're being told there 'really is a difference' between the Republicans and the Democrats. But when push comes to shove, what do the Republican leaders do? Do they bring about Free Market solutions to our problems? Or do they sit there on their duffs, let the Left seize the intellectual high-ground with minimal effort, and sit on their thumbs and play contrarians while the systemic problems of our economy remain unaddressed?

The simple fact is, we can say 2012 will be too late. But what evidence has the GOP given of caring one whit for ideological Conservatism? What evidence is there that the GOP has learned the lessons of the last decade and is willing to promote Free Market ideas it has not touched since Reagan left office?

Other than Paul Ryan, I see no GOP of prominence in Congress who is willing to articulate Free Market options and other than him and Jim Demint, I do not see anyone in the GOP who is serious about limiting government in specific terms. So why should we believe if the GOP is swept into Congressional power in 2010, anything is really going to change? No, I'm sorry Erick, but you were right the first time, Disentanglement is the best option. Elect the conservative, regardless of party. And if that means a third party candidate wins, so be it. But the days of supporting partisan hacks who will mindlessly drone what their puppetmasters say regardless of principles must be ended.

And yes, that means bring an End to the Duopoly. And that's why I've got the American Conservative Party on my list of sites to the right, and why I identify with the ACP. Ideas have consequences. Ideology trumps party.

Eighty Percent of Americans think something's fishy...

2010-05-12T18:37:00.000-05:00

31% of Americans think a third party is necessary. Fully 80% of Americans think the Duopoly is broken. Only 15% of the American populace thinks the Duopoly works well. What percentage of that do you think corresponds to the political class and the Lamestream Media?

Is this what concerned President Obama when he lashed out at those rubes in Flyover Country for wanting "too much information"? Well, maybe I can contribute to the President's sensory overload by displaying that even his precious Lamestream Media outlets (including the Wall Street Journal, which ran this poll) do not think the Democrats and Republicans represent America any longer.

Now, I've already read (and responded) to some of the protests: People know that this 'is' a two party country, so that's the way we're going to vote: this is called circular logic, it's a fallacy. One might also note this is "Garbage in/Garbage Out: If you always do what you always did, you're always going to get what you always got. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results (like say, printing money like mad and thinking you won't suffer inflation). If your only defense of the two party system is, "Only one of them will win," my response has to be; "Do ideas have consequences, or not?" And if you only fight for causes you know will win, what's the point of fighting? That's not just cowardly, it's intellectually lazy.

Another 'outstanding'(sarcasm intended) argument: "Every argument inevitably has two sides, which breaks down into two parties." Umm, really? You mean there can never be more than 2 ways to answer a question? Wow. Try reading a commentary on Scripture sometime and seeing how many positions you'll find. I guarantee you there's more than 2 proposals for balancing the deficit to look at. What kind of ludicrous statement is that? And that even overlooks the fact that all too often, the political parties choose candidates based on non-ideological grounds. One of the advantages of a multi-party system is it would force all parties to be more true to their ideological base and allow people to choose fairly on what they represent.

Third, tell us why we can't reform Congressional Elections to a Proportional Election system? I would accept the President, (or any independent) Chief Executive, should be a "First Past the Post" system. But why should Congress and Legislatures be bound to the Two Party system? What is gained by not representing the will of the people more accurately through a proportional representation system, for example. Admittedly, this is something that would take more time to explain. But most modern democracies do this for their legislative branches. Given that our executive branch is independent from the legislative branch, why could we not adopt a similar system without the concerns for 'coalitions' and what not that plague the European versions.

Indeed, would not this system be closer to what the Founders intended than what we currently have? I would suggest it very well might be. If over 8 in 10 Americans say this system is broken, I think it's time we find some way to fix it. Because the political system we have is insufficient to deal with the issues that this nation faces. Neither party lacks the will or the stamina to do what's necessary to defuse the ticking economic time bombs that are Social Insecurity, the deficit, Medicare, and our entitlement system at large.

So I say again: End the Duopoly.

Progressives can't do economics. The Data doesn't lie.

2010-05-09T22:17:00.000-05:00

A study today showed that Paul Krugman, darling of the left, has suborned his own conclusions to support Democrats in power. Most economists, regardless of overall persuasion, make conclusions based on the theories they ascribe to. Not Krugman, he has demonstrably shifted conclusions based not on research or theory, but on partisan power.

Alan Blinder--shock another liberal--is the only other economist who shows even 'moderate' influence on partisan power to his conclusions. Hmm...what is it that both would hide their views to support their own party rather than promote serious economic theory? Could it be neither really gives a fart about the country and is only interested in their popularity?

Further evidence of this issue: It seems education is not the primary guide to economic enlightenment; rather if one is left-leaning, regardless of education, your economic understanding is likely to be stunted. Zogby's provides this data. So, who'd have thought it; leftist indoctrination in higher education makes one less likely to think and analyze data for one's self. Both of those are central requirements for an economist. But the left doesn't want that anymore. No, it's much more important to be 'enlightened' than to be a critical thinker.

Beinart makes a poor correlation on Third Parties.

2010-05-08T17:33:00.000-05:00

It's interesting, the UK is almost certainly about to have some sort of coalition government, unless the Tories are willing to try to go it solo as a minority government. So the Lib-Dems are going to be a serious player in any new government despite their lackluster returns.

Yet Peter Beinart can take the time to sing the swan song of third parties. His blog begins with the wiki-assertion that the UK is two party. Well, the Lib-Dems have traditionally won around 20% of the votes. And it's only the vagaries of their electoral system that leave it under-represented. As has been noted here third parties have scored that high in the US in the past as well.

His central claim for US history is

Historically, America’s successful third-party candidates haven’t split the difference; they have articulated alternatives too radical for either party to embrace.

That is not entirely accurate. Ross Perot ran as an ideological cipher. But was, essentially running between the Republican and Democrats. But even if it was, I addressed this at length in my response to Newt Gingrich when I noted that part of the issue (which Beinart banally ignores) is that American political parties have not always, or even consistently, been ideologically distinctive. Note, this was part of the problem in the British election, too. The Lib-Dems have traditionally been the 'centrist' party in the UK. But the Tories this election ran so much further to the left of their traditional views that they squeezed out the LD vote.

In the US, political parties have divided on geographic or economic lines that had little to do with ideology as such. I noted this at length in my response to Gingrich; in particular the infiltration of Progressivism in both parties. It was only in 1964 that the Republican party returned to being ideologically driven. And that ideological basis was largely jettisoned under the Bushes.

Poli-Tea sums up my final critique of the argument against a third party. The claim of the Duopoly Establishments GOP and Dims alike, that all you do when you vote for a third party is 'split the vote.' Well, the simple fact is, if the Establishments let the primary process actually represent the will of the people, this might not be an issue. But the Parties do not do this. In fact, the parties repeatedly stick their noses in and bring up 'their' people, regardless of ideology or fit for the district, based on their pre-determined criteria; "Name recognition," whose back's been scratched, old-fashioned graft, or what have you. The Founders would've gagged on this political system and the primary process. It is exactly what George Washington railed against when he talked about the necessity of avoiding 'factions' in politics.

The Duopoly is so entrenched in its interests that it does not care for the will of the people. It does not interest itself in representing voters. It only cares for its perpetuation, damn the consequences to the country. We have a broken Social Security system, a broken health care system, an economy destroying legacy of entitlement programs, and neither party has the spine, the will, nor the intellect (minus a handful of people like Paul Ryan) to actually address the fundamental issues that very likely will destroy our Republic if they are not addressed.

Without a third, and even fourth party that is ideologically driven and holds the Duopoly to account for failing to listen to the people, these issues will not be addressed, and the concerns for the Founders regarding the death of the American experiment may yet be realized.

Because unlike companies in the eyes of Washington, nations cannot get too big to fail. Rome was larger, it fell. The sun didn't set on the British Empire, now it doesn't rise on it. Nations rise and fall; and only the will of the American people can prevent the inexorable tide of history from having its way. The Duopoly does not care to represent that will unless it is forced to. It needs the accountability to have that force exerted on it. So Beinart, get in line behind Newt Gingrich. This isn't about 'mania.' It's about what is best for the country. If expediency is all you care about, then the Duopoly suits you fine. But expediency's only defense is, "we won." So when it fails, you will have demonstrated your own incompetence from your insufferable arrogance.

End the Duopoly.

Well, how's that job situation looking?

2010-05-07T13:57:00.000-05:00

Well, the unemployment number unexpectedly rose this month. Once again it hovers near 10%. The U-6 number rose to 17.1%, which means that new job-seekers are once again having trouble finding work. Underemployment is staggeringly high, and no sector but the government shows indication of job creation. And the 'government' jobs are temporary census-boondoggle related jobs.

Remember when we were promised 4 million new jobs by President Obama? Hmm, seems we only need to average 300,000 new jobs a month from now to the end of the year to make that projection. I'm selling the economy, even with a new round of porkulus, being able to promote that.

Remember when Obama promised 'job creation would be the central concern' of his administration this year at the State of the Union? Yeah, that got swept under the rug. Here's a little hint: You can't slam the private sector and bleed it dry, then ask it to save your bacon. This isn't exactly 'man bites dog' surprising that the job creators are hiding their wealth until this Presidency ends.

Ahem On "Los Suns" Sporting leagues, hypocrisy, and stupidity on display.

2010-05-07T00:26:00.000-05:00

H/T Michelle Malkin

Did the Phoenix Suns show any concern for the family that was murdered by illegal immigrants? Have they protested the kidnapping rate in their city? Have they seriously considered the ramifications of not controlling our Southern border when Mexican Drug Cartels can rampage across it at will?

Did they bother to actually READ the law and discover there's nothing in it about racial or ethnic profiling? That there is nothing in it that was already not required by federal law?

Oh, and thank you for mooching off our tax dollars so that you can fund your stadiums, pay your players, and make rancid statements about politics while taking TARP money to keep your banks afloat!

Can I go to Phoenix, jump the turnstiles at Suns and Diamondback games, watch for free, get my food for free, and then say I'm a real fan of your teams? Or would you send the security out to taser me like they did in Philly the other day?

Yeah, that's what I thought; hypocrites.

Sorry Newt: We do need a third party.

2010-05-04T10:03:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich wrote an article about why "one of the great strengths of America is the two party system. This article, unfortunately lacks much of Gingrich's usual acumen when discussing political history.

First of all, on the strictly historical level, his basic point is inaccurate. He makes the rather banal argument that the US has 'always' operated with only two parties. But this simply is not borne out by historical fact. As you can see from the link above, we've had third party candidacies take over a quarter of a vote. And even in recent elections, the candidacies of Ralph Nader and Ross Perot influenced election results.

Second, he notes that it causes the parties to accommodate a 'large variety of interests.' It's a matter of debate how much that's ever actually been the case. The Republican party formed as an anti-slavery coalition. It was, essentially the very kind of 'single-issue' party that Gingrich's argument would indicate he despises. It was 'rigid' on that single issue to the point of forcing the Civil War over it. So the idea that American parties can never focus on a small set of issues is fallacious in itself.

But furthermore, the history of American political parties has been one of fluctuating ideological distinction. How many times have we heard there is 'no substantial difference' between the two parties? During the primaries they play to their bases and sound ideological, and then in the general election they rush back to the center and try to sound 'populace.' It leaves the electorate guessing as to what their real agenda is. Thus witness the buyer's remorse much of the citizenry feels in relation to Pres. Obama. Historically, the Progressive Movement was born from the Republican Party, but it had Presidents from both parties by the time FDR was elected. The Duopoly has typically been more interested in holding the levers of power than the actual agenda of the people who would wield them. I do not see a 'strength' in our political system being the lack of ideology in our political parties. In fact, I'd say America has been great despite rather than because of the squishy nature of our political leadership.

Third, he argues that it 'focuses responsibility.' This argument is largely undone by the lack of ideological distinction I mentioned previously. If the 'bums' in the other party are going to do the same things as the 'bums' in power, what's the point of running them out. Only when there are distinct ideas can the American people take a moment to choose between them. I will agree that when there is a strong distinction between the two parties, then there is less need of a third party in that election. But even then, the value of a third party in holding the other two honest by calling the larger parties to account cannot be underestimated.

Ironically, this argument shows, to my mind, the decline Newt Gingrich has gone through. He was once the man who formulated the Contract with America. A true ideological argument that won hearts and minds and energized an electorate in 1994. Unfortunately, the so-called 'moderates' and RINOS of the Republican Party took that victory, recast it as theirs (with the help of the Lamestream Media) and shut the Conservatives out for a decade as they nominated 'moderates' (Dole, McCain) and 'big-government conservatives' (GW Bush-with an oxymoronic term if ever there was one). This slide was typified when the man who promulgated that truly ideological conservative document endorsed Dede Scozzafaza in NY23. By doing that, he ensured the nightmare of a legitimate conservative being shut out of the race and the ignominy of the "Republican" candidate running to the LEFT of the Democrat and then endorsing the Democrat when she dropped out because of her incompetence.

That election showed the Duopoly is more interested in the levers of power than what they wish to do with them. There's no 'accountability' in truth to the electorate when such people can entrench themselves in bloated bureaucracies and iron triangles of lobbyists and special interest groups. The only thing the Duopoly wants is the money to maintain its status. Only when there are concerned citizens who will hold the parties to account does the Duopoly feign interest in holding fast to ideas. And that, for no other reason, should be sufficient reason for an ideologically-based third party (or more than one) to hold the larger parties to account and force them to articulate their plans.

So yes, Mr Gingrich, America does need a third party. End the Duopoly.

Tea Party Violence across nation: Media in an uproar!

2010-05-02T16:33:00.000-05:00

Today across the nation in 70 cities Tea Party riots broke out. The Police were called out to disperse the protesters. SWAT teams arrived to stop rock-throwing thugs who chanted racist slogans and broke store windows.

MSNBC led with stories about how the "Teabaggers are destroying democracy and undermining government." And the President said, "We will use all measures to put this unrest to an end."

Oh wait...I'm sorry. This wasn't the Tea Party: This was May Day pro-illegal immigration rallies. Hence you've heard nothing about this in the media, and the Obama Administration will find some way to blame this on his opponents: Even though the same thing happens every year.

Once again, the Lamestream Media is crickets when the topic is violence by Leftist extremists: but nary a weak goes by without further evidence its the Left, not the Right, that uses violence and violent rhetoric to accomplish its aims.

Well, I'm really convinced, Madam Napolitano.

2010-04-29T22:57:00.000-05:00

Really, I'm soooo happy you sat there and told us how you 'walked the border' today. I'm sure you had an armed escort if you ever did it. Given your fantastic track record to this point, including the ludicrous assertion the "The system worked" after the underwear bomber got onto a plane with a bomb; I think I can safely say that whatever you assert, the exact opposite is the truth.

To which, did you walk the border near the rancher who was murdered working his farm by illegal immigrants? Have you even noted the expansion of the Mexican cartel wars into our nation? A war carried out by waves of illegal immigrants. Many of whom with records of multiple deportations?

Oh, and while we're on this subject, take a look at these "loving, tolerant" signs from open border proponents. Where's the Lamestream Media when this rhetoric gets our of control? Right where they were when the New Orleans hit-job happened: Nowhere in the vicinity, too lazy to investigate, too dishonest to tell the truth.

Today's episode on: "Why the GOP is spineless."

2010-04-28T10:35:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal today presented the Senate GOP's alternative to Obama's "Financial Overhaul" (read: Payoff to the Wall Street Cronies who helped elect me, including Goldman-Sachs, who's so corrupt they can stay in business by sucking up to the Democrats in Congress).

After spending weeks telling us that bailouts are bad; which the American people agree with and is demonstrably true as an economics argument. The GOP presents a plan that includes: get this--bailouts! Oh yes, the GOP has once again bought the 'too big to fail' rhetoric and allows for continued lending to companies who would then orchestrate further federal loans to pay off the original one and stay in business in perpetuity despite their incompetence (Read: Government Motors and the myth of their repaid loan.)

The only difference on this between the Democrat plan and the Republican plan now is: The Democratic plan creates a slush fund to subsidize this, and the Republican plan would make this an unfunded mandate. Oh, brilliant 'messaging' there by Mitch (we won't block health care, we'll 'message what's wrong with it) McConnell.

The GOP: spineless at the core, unwilling to fight even when its right. END THE DUOPOLY.

Update: We are being *told* this Wall Street "regulation" is necessary because the current system doesn't work. Here's my question: If this is the case, then why is it the people who were CAUGHT by the current regulations are the ones who are crying the loudest for this bill!

End the Enabling

2010-04-27T10:25:00.000-05:00

Breitbart's absolutely right. And the Lamestream Media is not only enabling the Left, they're too cowardly to admit when they've lied to do it.

The Media was silent when "Tea Party Crashers" wanted to play-up the racist narrative by coming in FROM THE LEFT and do what they accuse, *without evidence* the Tea Party of being.

Now leftists and 'progressives' who make false accusations and lie about events are given a free pass while the Lamestream Media ignores Leftist brutality against conservatives in Louisiana, Death Threats to Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Malkin, and numerous other *substantiated* attacks by leftists on conservative figures, going right back to Eric Holder refusing to prosecute the New Black Panthers for holding weapons outside a polling place on election day 08.

One side is allowed to make false accusations and gets away with *real* acts of violence, repeatedly. While the right is not allowed to make *any* attack on the Left's agenda and message without it being cast in the most toxic terms imaginable.

The simple fact is the Lamestream Media has crossed the line into enabling demagoguery. And they are complicit in the destruction of Democratic Principles in this country. Real racism is a threat to everyone. But the refusal to hold account those who play the race and violence cards without accountability is no less a threat. Breitbart's 100,000$ bounty on video evidence was the right place to start. But the only way this false narrative can be snuffed out of existence is if every time it is employed without justification, the sources using it are called to account both legally and in the court of public opinion. Regardless of their stature or office.

Now we know what's in the bill. Happy?

2010-04-24T16:03:00.000-05:00

I'm sure Pelosi is. I'm sure President Obama is happy.

I'm sure Chuck Schumer, who never met a soundbite he didn't like is happy:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “Bottom Line, On The Health Care Bill, We Allowed Too Many Lies To Get Out There Without Rebuttal, Because We Thought They Were So Obviously Untrue. But We've Learned Our Lesson.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 4/22/10)

Yes, we've learned our lesson.

We were lied to.

Are you happy yet? That 'free' health care isn't free. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You will get dumped onto an already bloated Medicare system. Your health care costs will go up. More people will lose their insurance. Your taxes will go up. Both from the cost of the program and the penalties.

Wasn't this a good deal? Aren't you happy this was rammed down your throat? Aren't you glad no one could be bothered to read it? And now you want these SAME people to regulate the banking system?

You are kidding me, right?

I will quote House Stark: Winter is Coming. And we will remember in November.

What's so controversial?

2010-04-24T06:29:00.000-05:00

First of all, I'm not a big 'immigration-reform' proponent. I'm not screaming for the fence. I'm not in favor of huge changes to immigration laws. Quite frankly, I think 90% of current US citizens are descendants of illegal immigrants.

That said, if you're going to have illegal immigration laws (and I think we should have some, yes. Why in the world would you not enforce them? And from where I sit, that's all that Arizona's law is doing.

It specifically excludes both race and national origin as a sole means of suspicion. So there's no way someone can be stopped just for walking down the street, as some on the Left suggest. It punishes the employer for hiring illegal immigrants, which is the only way to stop the practice of hiring them. And it make it possible to track repeat offenders.

Mexico is not a subsidiary of the United States. It is a distinct nation. Travel from it to the United States should not be free and unhindered. Customs crossing national boundaries is entirely normal. So its logical border states should look to ensuring that part of their state forming part of the national boundary is secure.

So why the mock outrage from Obama? Could it be this could upset his plans to shamnesty 20,000,000 illegal immigrants on the eve of an election? That perhaps this might actually prevent some illegal immigrants from committing voter fraud on his party's behalf?

It can't be to defend citizens, because illegal immigrants are not citizens. So what's the real reason for his feigning outrage? The world wonders.

Wow, don't you feel safer?

2010-04-22T06:28:00.000-05:00

We were told over and again that President Obama would be "more respected" than the Bush Administration was in the world. But in the light of this strategic decision. Based in part on the mistaken assumption that Iran would not bother to build ICBMs...

In the light of this absurd display of weakness by this President, which not only told the world we're too cowardly to do what we must, but that we *might* do it still to Iran, which led to this decision by Iran to send chock troops to the Western Hemisphere to destabilize the US and our allies in South America...

is there really any surprise people feel a tad insecure with this Administration's "Smart Diplomacy.

You see, this President's attempt to channel his inner Neville Chamberlain is having predictable results with both enemies and allies. Allies know that the US will not be there when it matters and are making their own plans. Enemies know that this Administration is spineless and now is the time to make hay.

I personally have suspect that this President is convinced of the 'inevitability' of the US' decline and is transitioning the US to its "post-superpower" form.

NewsBusters.org's Photos - Wall Photos | Facebook

2010-04-21T14:23:00.000-05:00

NewsBusters.org's Photos - Wall Photos | Facebook For the win

It's the Chicago Way.

2010-04-21T10:32:00.000-05:00

I wonder if the Media will even pick up the similarity?

Seven times what the Bushies got paid off by Enron! And revolving doors from Goldman-Sachs into regulation, Congressional Staff, and the Administration--and back again!

Let's be perfectly clear, if the laws needed rewriting, Goldman's wouldn't have been CAUGHT. The idea, "Oh, we need stronger regulation to keep this from happening again," is a bald-faced lie. The regulations on the books worked. The company tried to bribe their way out of being caught and failed. The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrat's response? "Let's make sure our friends get paid off while we exploit this crisis for as much control as we can get."

No, it's unnecessary. And yes, Pres. Obama, we KNOW you were lying about the "Too big to fail fund"--it's still in the bill.

Leftist Hypocrisy.

2010-04-20T09:44:00.000-05:00

The Lamestream Media is doing its best to make the Tea Party out to be racist. Having failed to find verifiable instances of racism, they have now resorted to the bean-counting method. That is; "The tea party must be racist because there aren't enough minorities here

Do we really

want to

go there?

You know, when you've been playing tokenism with race for almost a half-century, I think it's very likely that you're PROJECTING your racial issues onto others.

I see Americans unhappy with government. You see what you want to see...your own embarrassment for your policies of 'diversity' failing because you've spent time looking for numbers instead of people of quality.

Calling a spade a spade.

2010-04-18T16:32:00.000-05:00

Gateway Pundit is right. Conservatives are running scared on this. Even the usually confrontational Michelle Malkin has said this was not political. Redstate is closer when they contend the attack was not partisan.

But the simple fact is, this was done by anarcho-liberals. As I've talked about in the past. For all the Lamestream Media talk about "conservative violence" including this nonsense from one of the chief purveyors of sensationalism, the inventor of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" himself, it's LEFTISTS that resort to violence in politics more often than not.

This is not opinion, it's historical fact. Go back to the French Revolution (when the terms "Left" and "right" began, and do an honest study. For every 1 event of "conservative" activists using violence you can find, there are five on the left. The Reign of Terror itself, National Socialism was leftist at its core, the Communist uprisings in all their forms. Anarcho-liberals started World War I and tore down an entire world order, replacing it with the totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century.

Malcolm X and the nation of Islam, the Ba'ath Party, the list goes on. For every one claim of right-wing violence one can name in history, there's a hundred deaths in the name of leftist utopias. And that's being conservative in an estimate.

So the next time someone says it's the nature of the right to resort to violence, tell them to open their history book instead of watch CNN. That is, if their history book isn't one that devotes more time to Marilyn Monroe than the American Revolution.

Al Gore is corrupt.

2010-04-18T06:15:00.000-05:00

This is called "a bribe." Another common name for this is "graft." The only motivations for such an act are: 1) greed, and 2) stupidity. A combination of the two may also be acceptable. In any case, anyone who claims Al Gore isn't as corrupt as he is wooden can now be shown the door.

Dow Chemicals buys off the self-professed world-wide leader of the Green movement. And all of us not drinking global warming Kool Aid can recognize this for what it is; a scam designed to make themselves money and power while they destroy traditional businesses to institute the socialist world order.

H/T Moe Lane

Why being a full-fledged conservative matters.

2010-04-16T22:54:00.000-05:00

An economic conservative will say, "Well this money is already spent, so it's really not a serious issue. But as well-stated by Dan Mclaughlin, the arrogance in this assumption is breathtaking.

The Obama Administration just decided minutiae of hospital policy for every hospital that accepts federal funds. I may not accept the "equal legitimacy" of same-sex relationships (though I don't think the government belongs in the marriage business, as that is a cultural concept with religious connotations that goes outside government's pay grade). But simply put, whether you think something right or wrong is no reason to intrude in a private company's business practices. Period.

This is not about whether or not I think a hospital should turn away someone who desires to comfort a friend. Of course they shouldn't, given reasonable circumstances. This is about the hubris of the Federal Government, and in particular the Executive Branch, which here goes outside of its Constitutional authority to LEGISLATE what private hospitals will do because they accept Federal Funds which they are almost certainly MANDATED by their states to accept.

If the Federal Government can use funds to control private businesses in such a manner, what can they not bully the private sector into? The phrase "Two Wrongs do not make a Right," applies here. The Obama Administration's hubris, if it was cast in a Greek tragedy, would be approaching the level mandating Olympian judgment. One can only hope the Thunderbolt will strike in November.

Today's reminder why the GOP doesn't get it.

2010-04-16T15:07:00.000-05:00

Gee...I seem to have mentioned this recently. Well yes; but here's some more fodder for the fire. Charlie Crist seems determined to pull a Scozzafava. "From Hell's Heart I stab at thee!" And yes, his goal as noted would be absolutely nothing but ensuring his party doesn't win the election, just like Dede's was. In other words, this is not a case of a "Republican believing in the big tent." This is a case of a Progressive hiding in the Republican tent so they could win election and do what they want.

This is also a case of more pathetic election 'strategy' from the Republican Establishment. Snub the conservatives, find a 'moderate who can win' then moan and whine when the Conservative thumps the "moderate" and the "moderate" does their best to sell out to the other side.

The problem is two-fold:

1) The GOP Establishment is too inbred to understand that the Conservative base is fired up and willing to go to war. So they keep trotting out 'middle of the road' candidates in the hope of peeling a few blue votes to win. "Because Conservatives have nowhere else to go." Well, the simple fact is, if the Conservative can win the primary, then the 'moderate' should go home. And honestly, the GOP leadership should stay out of primaries.

2) The GOP is more interested in protecting the duopoly's power than a distinct ideology. They're perfectly content with their being no real difference between a "D" and a "R," as long as the "R" wins. The American people however, are sick of 'politics as usual' and me-too Republicans who won't make real changes in policy. And if the GOP isn't willing to get it, then Real Conservatives should stand up and vote on ideology FIRST, SECOND, and LAST. Not on party identification.

Ideas have consequences. Party is nothing but a vehicle for the people with those ideas. If they don't share them, then there's no reason to join that bandwagon.

PS: Nice election strategy with Dan Coats in Indiana, too....

Breitbart is right.

2010-04-15T16:47:00.000-05:00

This is dead on. There's no two ways about this. From the outed tea party crashers to the utterly unsubstantiated claims of racism following the passage of ObamaCare to Alan Grayson's interrupting opposition meetings with profanity, we see the left get away with clearly indecent, unethical, libelous, and outright illegal actions. Often aided and abetted by the Lamestream Media.

On the other hand, we see Conservatives again and again bring knives to gun fights and say 'this is just politics.' No, politics is bloodsport to the left. They have never had enemies to the left. Their only enemies are Conservatives and those who defend the Constitution as the rule of law. Unless and until we consider this a fight for the heart and soul of the country, we will always be outgunned. People laugh at the Social Conservatives for the fervency with which the hold to their ideals and refuse to compromise. But they rightly understood from the first what the Left's agenda in the culture war. It's never been about 'acceptance' or 'tolerance' or even 'equality.'

It is not the Right, contrary to popular opinion that "imposes its values." It's the LEFT that attacks those who support crisis pregnancy centers that do not abort. It's the LEFT that raids churches that dare speak about homosexuality in moral terms. It's the LEFT that uses the Lamestream Media and Big Government to set the terms of discussion so that Social Conservatives, no matter what really happened is painted as being in the wrong. Fiscal and Defense Conservatives have been, quite frankly, slow on the uptake of what's been at stake. Especially since Conservative Defense and Foreign Policies have fragmented so thoroughly since the end of the Cold War.

If we aren't willing to wage war on the Left, using all the tools they're willing to use on us, we cannot and will not save the country and all that is good about it. If you believe in fighting the good fight, then fight it, don't tie an arm behind your back.

Well, at least someone will tell the truth about the Great Recession.

2010-04-13T12:25:00.000-05:00

Alan Greenspan went before Congress today to explain exactly what happened to the economy. Of course, the Media will not cover this because it doesn't fit the established talking points they have on the "Recession." That being, "Bush did it. Don't ask us how, he just wasn't watching those evil bankers enough."

No, the problem was that the 'affordable housing' policies of Carter, Clinton (and yes, sustained by Bush, but only because he was too 'pragmatic' to stop them if they were popular) created the housing bubble that exploded in 2008. In short, it wasn't a lack of regulation that produced the problem. It was excessive interference in the housing industry by the Government that produced unsustainable--inflated--prices in the market that crashed by necessity.

In fact, it was Clinton's initiative to deregulate the financial services industry that helped exasperate the crisis by ensuring it could spread throughout the entire industry and not be contained to just traditional housing lenders. This, combined with pressure to lend through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at rates banks could not realistically compete with, created constructions like the "adjusted rate mortgage" which would ensure that the bill would eventually come due, but at the time of sale, no one would notice the cost (Like a 'balloon lease' for cars).

That is to say, it was a government-created 'stimulus' of the housing industry that created the 'bubble.' But the inflated prices had to come down, in this case, at the point the ARM loans began to 'balloon' and force mass foreclosures. Government interference in the Free Market is never to the long-term benefit of society. We are suffering now because we thought government could control housing prices and loans better than the market. Because we wanted to create a 'right' to affordable housing. Hopefully the irony that the 'affordable' level was higher than what the market could bear is not lost on you. But it will be lost on the Lamestream Media, who will never utter a word about any of this.

Nor will it criticize people like Dodd, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, and yes...Barrack Obama, who took MILLIONS from Fannae and Freddie to hide what they were doing to the market and blame it on the 'Wall Street fat cats' instead. Fat Cats who, ironically, ended up all voting for the Democrats despite being 'brow-beaten' by them while Congress paid them a trillion dollars of our money to bail them out. All so we can keep the same scenario that created this in the first place entrenched.

Something fishy with the GOP?

2010-04-12T12:43:00.000-05:00

Why of course, this is hardly news. This is the same thing that happened in 1995 after the Contract with America Republicans swept the Congress and did what I was taught in the 80s would never, ever happen, taking control of the House of Representatives. They fed the Lamestream Media a line about the 'moderates' winning the election and then told the new conservatives to 'talk to the hand' while they invented the 'neo-con' myth of Fiscal extravagance, so-con talking points (without doing anything with them), and a new national defense policy of interventions and nation-building that borrowed as much from Clinton as it did Reagan.

Now the same fat cats who have blithely led the GOP into the wilderness and driven their conservative base off to the Tea Party want to tell us they know best. These are the same ones who handed the House back to Pelosi and 'led' the Senate into a 40seat ditch that McConnell assumes he can fix--after landing them there--think they can refuse to defend the Tea Party, continuously promote "moderates" who can't get out of their own Primary (Crist in Florida, Florina in Cal) or run to the LEFT of the Democrats and then kneecap the Conservatives when they get the chance (NY23--and yes Gingrich, I remember you supporting her ON TWITTER!).

And their anointed so-called Conservative candidate is Mitt Romney. Let's be clear, Romney is not a conservative. His health care plan for Massachusetts was to the LEFT of ObamaCare. In Michigan in 08 he promised to promote trade wars against those 'stealing' manufacturing jobs, a blatant pandering attempt to UAW, whose exorbitant pension coupled with extortion level State taxes ensured that GM and Chrysler became Government Motors--and lost another 4.3bil of the money WE gave them to not fix their problems so far this year.

No, Romney's not a Conservative. No, he's not the choice for this country. And quite frankly, if he's the GOP-anointed for 2012, I think the country would do better with 4 years of divided government that stalls *any* agenda than a me-too RINO who on every core issue is either to the left of Obama or says the same thing.

The GOP doesn't get it. And it's up to trueConservatives to find our own candidate and a banner to run that candidate under. If the GOP won't get it, then run under one that will. If that's a third party, well then maybe it's an idea whose time has come, because if the GOP can't get that people don't want a big-government GOP now, I think it's fair to say they never will. So End the Duopoly!

Think the Chattering Class is out of touch?

2010-04-11T22:45:00.000-05:00

Well, here's today's evidence. Across the board, in all demographics, people think they're paying too much in taxes.

The Lamestream Media as noted here is unlikely to do anything about this. The absurd difference in opinion between the Political class and the people of the country illustrates just how out of touch Washington is.

I would say their defense will be, "But people are getting more back in their refunds." Let's be clear, present day 1 time tax credits do not resolve the issue of full-fledged across the board tax increases (like those set for 2011, when the Bush tax cuts expire). And yes, President Obama, refusing to maintain a tax cut is a tax increase. Unlike saying a spending freeze is a cut.

The simple fact is, for Progressives, everything should, and will, ultimately belong to the Government or the corporations the Government oligarchy will deem worthy of control. There is no freedom, no liberty, and the only equality they actually will grant is the equality of misery for those forced to live under their thumb. Already we see states going bankrupt because they're left with unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate to pay for. We complain about how little money goes to schools, but that's because the government sops it all up for programs we don't want and porkbarrel projects we don't need. The Census commercials continue this shtick of government dependence. "It's how we get our fair share of the funding we need."

Here's a hint. It's not GOVERNMENT'S money. It's OUR money. We paid it. Here's a simple little trick that will turn almost anyone into a fiscal conservative. Whenever someone on TV says 'government funds,' say "You mean taxpayer's money." It's not theirs...it's never BEEN theirs. It's ours. And it's time we tell government that all these programs that kill jobs for every sector but the government itself aren't necessary or desirable in a working economy.

Michael Steele opens his mouth....

2010-04-10T18:34:00.000-05:00

And more folly comes out. Today's episode, saying "I've made mistakes." This is something along the lines of Joe Biden admitting he committed a gaffe.

Which mistake are you talking about?

1) Repeatedly force-feeding conservatives 'moderate' candidates when the Conservatives were doing better? Including candidates who ran to the LEFT of democrats (NY23).

2) Letting that candidate openly campaign for the DEMOCRAT after spending a half million dollars to get her elected--only to see her have to drop our because the third party candidate was trouncing her?

3) Spending lavishly on fund raisers at a time when the rank and file are so fed up with your leadership that they are, by and large, giving directly to candidates rather than see your apparatus get the money?

4) Using the race card against your own party on national television?!

5) Personally doing nothing to defend the Tea Party movement and Conservatives who are fed up with the Establishment cronyism that continues to support spineless squishes when the people make it very clear they want no-nonsense fiscal conservatives to deal with "The One's" money-pit economics?

If I truly believed that the RNC or its cronies were capable of learning from 30 years of mistakes that gave us squish candidate after squish candidate and spineless leadership from Bush senior through Bob Dole to McConnell and Boehner I'd be inclined to call myself a Republican again. But I know full well that as soon as the election is past, the Establishment idiots will claim that the "squishies" and RINOs won the election (just like after the Contract with America swept a generation of Conservatives in who got the "talk to the hand" treatment from the RNC for a decade), and they'll go right back to idiotic Fiscal policies that will ensure that people cannot tell the difference between a "D" and a "R" when the chips are down.

Hence my tag: END THE DUOPOLY!

Naturally, this is not an Islamic Terrorist threat.

2010-04-10T18:11:00.000-05:00

From the Telegraph. Well, it seems that we should not, in any way, shape, or form, attribute this act to Islamic Fundamentalists. So this is a non-denomination terrorist uprising for the purpose of...?

Ahh, I know, it's FIFA's plot for this World Cup to ensure Brazil reaches the Final! Because they only thing more corrupt and incompetent than the Obama Administration and its Congressional Moonbat Allies is FIFA as led by the Grand Pouba of Kleptocrats: Sepp Blatter!

No Pres. Obama, this is, in fact, an Islamic terrorist cell. It is, in fact, assuming that your repeated manifestations of spinelessness are a sign that they can resume operations. And given the manifest inability of FIFA to do anything but rake in large television contracts, you should be *very* concerned, because South Africa may not even have the stadiums built per specifications in June. Let alone be ready to conduct meaningful security inspections.

Oh, did we mention that *no* nation has purchased more tickets to travel to South Africa for this World Cup than the US? Are you going to do anything to protect our citizens abroad, Mr President? Or will we have to settle for platitudes about how this was all 'our fault' should people be murdered by Al Qaeda for being part of Sam's Army at the World Cup?

Oh...can I even call the US Men's National Team's fan club "Sam's Army" anymore? Or is that too exclusive?

Well, the media is making the Dow a front page story.

2010-04-09T18:29:00.000-05:00

They're busy telling us the recovery is underway and the economy must be better since the Dow is better.

Umm... not so fast. The economy is stagnated. The income tax is soaking the rich just the way the Left wants. But that's not reinvigorating spending and it's not helping to ensure that income exceeds outlays.

The simple fact is the tax system is broken. It has always failed as a tool of 'wealth redistribution.' It is by nature destructive to the economy and a burden on new job creation. It may be a necessary one. But the idea of using it for any purpose but paying for necessary government spending is self-defeating.

I also agree with most of the problem areas cited the article. Public-sector unions serve no benefit. They are a drain on taxpayer dollars on both the consumption and income sides. The Departments listed all are unnecessary save to prop up self-perpetuating bureaucracies.

Paul Ryan's roadmap is a start. He is the only Republican I've seen with the courage to say what is necessary and the intellect to identify what can be done. Unfortunately, as long as the GOP is run by the McConnells, Boehners, and McCains, the chances of any serious change from "me-too" policies like "No Child Left Behind" and "Medicare Plan D" are nil. It's not enough to replace "D" w/ "R." As we saw under the Republican Congress' last iteration, there was no will to restrain government spending. Unless we can replace the "Progressives" with true Conservatives who have the spine to act according to their ideology, nothing is going to change.

Obama's "hope" doesn't extend past low-orbit.

2010-04-08T20:27:00.000-05:00

In the campaign, Obama promised to continue funding for manned Moon and Mars exploration. To no one's surprise, the actual President Obama broke that promise for no clearer reason than, "It was Bush's policy, so it must be bad."

Obama's sweeping new policy is effectively to be an R&D division for the Federal Government that, on the off chance someone continues manned space flights, will be able to 'assist' and provide other nations...like maybe Russia and Venezuela?

So what "hope" did the Obama Administration leave us, exactly. But as Jeffrey Sinclair said in Babylon 5. Find 100 scientists and ask them questions about just about anything, and they will disagree. But one thing they will agree on is that one day, sometime in the future, the sun will die. And if we have not left this planet before then, we will die as well.

You would think Obama would get self-preservation as an ultimate motivation. But perhaps that is too much for him. It seems to be in his defense policy as well.

He has a nobel prize in economics...and knows nothing about it.

2010-04-08T17:39:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman starts his diatribe on climate change by telling us we 'should' listen to scientists who've been proven to have fudged their numbers and not conducted open and accountable research. Nor does he deal with the data that the Arctic Ice Levels have returned to normal or that global temperatures have actually been cooling for several years. But hey, let's not interrupt a NYT op-ed for facts.

He then goes on to say that

Now, efficiency isn’t everything. In particular, there is no reason to assume that free markets will deliver an outcome that we consider fair or just. So the case for market efficiency says nothing about whether we should have, say, some form of guaranteed health insurance, aid to the poor and so forth. But the logic of basic economics says that we should try to achieve social goals through “aftermarket” interventions. That is, we should let markets do their job, making efficient use of the nation’s resources, then utilize taxes and transfers to help those whom the market passes by.

Now, here is what Adam Smith, the father of modern economics says about people who 'trade for the public good.'

...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Krugman has essentially denied basic economic theory in his argument. That is, he is telling us wealth cannot be grown. It must be taken from someone. This is a wrong-headedness at best, an outright lie at worst. Economics is not a zero sum game. Not even Karl Marx called it such. Krugman with this statement commits a juvenile error that no one since the collapse of the feudal system would accept.

Whenever land is developed, resources are capitalized, an invention is made, or a new market found, wealth is created. And it is *not* necessary to remove one market to create another. We are not set at the same level of wealth as the world had 4 centuries ago. To say we are is ludicrous and indefensible. But that is what Krugman's argument necessitates.

The left does not trust the free market. It does not trust the ability of people to solve their own problems and create wealth. Rather, it assumes it can think better than you and thus will provide you with a safe world of government-dependent living to ensure you do not fail. Of course, by removing the cost of failure, you also remove the incentive for success. But since success and victory are words the left cannot use except in election campaigns, they cannot allow for others to take advantage of their own limitations.

When one dresses cowardice in the language of prudence...

2010-04-07T17:14:00.000-05:00

Newsweek tries to tell us how 'sensible' Pres. Obama's "dream of a nuclear-free world" is in this article. In it they do the inevitable comparison of the media these days to Reagan. They hated Reagan when he was President. But he was a 'transformational figure.' And they want to tell us Obama is one 'just like Reagan.'

No, Obama is just like Carter, only worse. This 'dream' is ludicrous, for reasons I discussed here. But I left out another important reason. One this article also omitted from all its reasons to be concerned about a nuclear-free world. They blame the defense establishment and our culture. They cite Kennedy's disappointment at our nuclear response plans (never mind Obama already slashed missile-defense programs that have been tested and could be made operational and reduce our dependence on these plans). They do everything but allude to one important historical anecdote that demonstrates why it is important to have a nuclear deterrent.

For a few days, back when Desert Shield was winding its way to "Gulf War I," Saddam Hussein promised if the US-led forces attacked, they would respond with their chemical arsenal on our troops and Israel. Now, it might be hard to remember for some people. But back then, there was no doubt as to his possession of such weapons. He used them on his own citizens, the Kurds. He used them on Iran in the Iran/Iraq war as well. There was no doubting his possession of such an arsenal.

The US does not use chemical or biological weapons. We have one type of weapon-of-mass-destruction. That is the nuclear deterrent. It is and has been US policy (as Obama demonstrated he knew and disregarded in the article I commented on in the previous link) that to us, a weapon of mass destruction is a weapon of mass destruction. If you use one, you get one back. Pres Bush the Elder made that promise forcefully. He told Iraq if they used chemical weapons we would respond with nuclear weapons. I at the time was stationed aboard a Trident Ballistic Missile Submarine. I can neither confirm or deny that we carried such weapons. I can say without doubt we were a deterrent to Saddam Hussein.

Why do I know this? When we invaded, his chemical arsenal went unused. As a result of a stable deterrent, we were able to restrain the worst an enemy leader imagined doing to us and our allies. The current administration is too spineless to recognize this necessity. And to driven to blame the US for all the world's ills to accept that there might be evil people in this world who would think nothing of delivering a smallpox weapon or chemical attack on our country. That is aside from the nuclear threat of North Korea or an unstable imbecile in Iran.

So yes, elections have consequences. And this administration is more interested in turning our nation into a welfare state than it is protecting its people from our enemies. Let's hope that before someone parks a chemical weapon in a major city and our President apologizes for not understanding the attacker's demands, we will have instituted regime change here as well.

This is how Obama wants farmers to make money.

2010-04-07T11:32:00.000-05:00

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack wants farmers to utilize the 'carbon offsets' in Cap and Trade legislation and plant trees to make money to "sequester carbon dioxide" on farmland. No, really he does.

The USDA concedes such a shift might increase revenue for farmers...of course, only by putting them firmly on the government dole in perpetuity. But that it also will lead to higher commodity prices. So, the consumer, both here and oversees, gets shafted for a purely ideological and unnecessary tax meant to offset anthropomorphic global warming which is, at this point, officially proven not to have occurred. Of course, expecting the concept of supply and demand to register to an administration that has no one who has ever worked in the private sector in places of power is a bit much, I understand.

In fact, as a point of fact, Arctic ice has returned to levels approximating normality by scientific measurement. Of course, this fact is not getting any play in the media, along with last summer being the coolest summer on record in most of the United States. Well, did you expect the Obama Administration to let facts get in the way of their felt need to tax?

Liberals tax-hunting again.

2010-04-06T23:58:00.000-05:00

Milton Friedman called the VAT "The most insidious form of taxation." It is nearly invisible. It can be raised without the consumer knowing it, and it is by far the most debilitating to the economy.

So guess what Paul Volcker suggested recently? You guessed it! Yep, and it's "not nearly as toxic today," he said.

Really? Just what is the Tea Party if not proof that a tax revolt is underway? What is it if not proof that the people are sick of all kinds of taxation. What is the Fair Tax movement if not proof that the populace considers government too bloated by its current level of taxation?

A VAT isn't toxic? No, it's radioactive. Anyone near it will be a permanent pariah. That's aside from the fact it is, by far, the most economically destructive form of taxation in existence. So yes, please let's have more lost jobs. Let's have more burdens on small business. Let's just find out how far above the optimum level of the Laffer curve we are for taxation.

Is there a method of economic seppuku the Left is unwillingto try this election cycle?

Court finds FCC acting Illegally.

2010-04-06T12:42:00.000-05:00

So-called "Net Neutrality" has been dealt a serious blow. The finding shows that Congress did not grant the FCC the power to act and that it's actions to draft such regulations exceed its authority.

This is important also because the FCC is hardly the only department of the Obama Administration that has attempted to use regulation as pseudo-legislation and bypass Congress to impose its will on the country.

Google, amongst others, has been trying to push this Internet version of the "Fairness Doctrine" down the throats of the country for three years, at least. Perhaps now they might be persuaded to value Free Speech to stop setting their search-algorithms so that they hide embarrassing stories to the Left, as they did when "Climategate" first broke and for almost 2 weeks you could not even find the topic on the search engine.

In any case, this is a victory for true free speech. And remember, when the Left uses words like "Fairness" or "neutrality" it does not mean "freedom." It means "approved by the Mainstream Media and/or Government Bureaucracy." Both of which will always skew left.

Update the Democrats on the FCC have decided that since the courts did not agree with their classification. They will 'clean up this mess' that is the freedom to gather information as you see fit on the internet and firmly place broadband providers under the control of the FCC. You see, they just can't stand it that anyone can enter a business. There's got to be a limited number of...oh wait, no there's not a limited number of resources on the internet. Well, we need to limit your choices anyway.

Reporters and Rules of Engagement

2010-04-06T09:53:00.000-05:00

I was going to comment on this "story" today. But this article does it just about as well as I could say. Simply put, Reuters is as much--if not more--at fault for these "journalists'" deaths as the US Military the Lamestream Media tried to undermine time and again during the Iraq War.

War journalism is dangerous. But when you send journalists in with enemy combatants to film them attacking your own troops in war, there are real questions about: 1) that isn't treason. 2) If you're not *trying* to get a collateral damage story out of it. Especially in guerrilla warfare.

Civilian deaths in war are lamentable, always. But when yellow journalists go into a war zone with the agenda of showing how 'evil' the American military is and how 'wrong' we are to be there. That is no longer journalism, that's propaganda at best, treason at worst. And it is being done in support of the enemy. It is debatable to me whether such journalists deserve a different standard of treatment than enemy combatants in any event. They *chose* to march with enemy soldiers. There were not POWs. "Ride with an outlaw, die with an outlaw," as Augustus McCray would say, seems to apply.

Today's Installment of "Elections Have Consequences."

2010-04-06T00:36:00.000-05:00

When you elect a foreign policy neophyte who disrespects the people who've fought, bled, and died for his right to spit on the American flag, you get decisions like this.

Now, let us be perfectly clear; I am not saying the automatic response to an attack on US soil should be a nuclear response. But I am saying that as long as we live in a world where people are willing to use weapons of mass destruction, only an imbecile and fool is going to willingly remove the option from the table unilaterally in any case. We do not use chemical or biological weapons. So if someone uses them against us, our only viable response is our nuclear deterrent.

What "The One" has declared with this suicidal declaration is, "We would rather let our people die without cause than do what is necessary to defend them." He has told the world that he really doesn't consider defeat a serious consequence, and he's willing to endure it on the most hideous scale to save his neophyte view of the 'obsolescence of nuclear weapons.'

"The Left has no enemies on the Left," has never been a truer saying that it is with Barrack Obama.

Why unemployment rates are becoming as meaningless as inflation numbers.

2010-04-05T11:40:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Post. They correctly note that unemployment is staying 'steady' because people are starting to look for work again.

Of course, what this fails to mention is that those 10%+ unemployment numbers a few months back were actually generous because those people were not looking for work then, and thus did not get included in the pool of available workers. In fact, during 2009, we lost 3% of the work force. Why? People not actively seeking work drop off the unemployment rate.

As I noted, the inflation rate has long been effectively a meaningless statistic. First of all, it excludes many things that 'fluctuate' in price that consumers do not get the luxury of excluding from paying. Like *coughs* gasoline, fuel oil, and utilities dependent on the same. Second, it indulges in liberal substitution of items. This is explained here. They give the rather neutral example of pork and beef. But this neglects to mention that if consumers shift away from steak to hamburger because steak is no too expensive, then suddenly the price increase in beef is wiped away because of the increased consumption compared to steak.

Another number that does not get factored into unemployment is underemployment. That is, the number of people who want to work full time, but cannot. Businesses trading full time work for part time work. People trying to find full time jobs and settling for part time work because that is all that's available. As you can see from the link, while "unemployment" is steady, "underemployment" is still increasing. This is a function of all those part-time census jobs and other make-work government jobs that represents the only sector of the economy that is, in truth, growing--government.

So all of these numbers mean? What we've known all along. The only thing the stimulus has stimulated is the government. And we've paid to make more people dependent on it. When those make work jobs end, what does the Obama Administration intend to do? Well, since they have no one in a Cabinet position whose ever had to create a job or live under their legislation in the private sector, the answer is: "Not a whole heck of a lot."

Hmm...Think the Talking Points Will Change?

2010-04-05T09:27:00.000-05:00

I don't. The Lamestream Media has far too much invested in this lie to stop telling it.

The Media is far too wrapped up in telling themselves that the Tea Party is racist, conservative, (one and the same in their eyes, but see this for an end to THAT lie.) and Republican. They are right on one of the three. It is, by and large, a conservative movement.

The only way the Media is going to be made to stop telling lies is for conservatives to recognize that what the liberals and the media are doing is not just politics as usual. They are trying to subvert democracy by the use of every bully pulpit available while telling the people its for their own good. The only way we can do that is to hit the Media the one place it cannot ignore. That is the pocketbook. We already do that in part by not watching MSNBC and the alphabet networks, who are dying as a result. It's also having an effect on the print media, as newspapers cannot understand what they've done wrong as they die under the weight of their own artifice.

But this isn't enough. The Big Lie of Conservative Racism is still being told. And it is a lie that will stick if we don't fight back. The only way we can do that is to take a page from the left and have dedicated researchers with lawyers at their back, ready and willing to throw a lawsuit at each and every Media Outlet that treats as fact unsubstantiated claims of "right-wing hatred." I'm not the first to suggest this. I saw it here first. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize a good idea when I see it.

For the Left, the enemies are not outside our country. For them, the greatest enemies are Conservatives who believe in the Constitution. Until we realize that for the majority of the left, the enemy is us, we will continue to be dismayed at the depths the left will go to to deceive the American people.

Chicago on the Potomac

2010-04-05T08:36:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin slams the Obama Administration for pay-to-play politics here.

This is hardly the first time this Administration has played fast and loose with ethics. They used "Czar" appointments to bypass appointing Federal Department heads that would've been rejected (including his new "Job's Czar, who was rejected by a Bipartisan vote in the Senate). They've used taxpayer money to fund personal projects, including their own perpetual campaign machine (technically illegal). They've tried to construct elaborate schemes to avoid voting on controversial issues. They've used the Executive Branch to enact regulations that ought to have been legislated.

In short, this Administration has as little regard for "ethics" as it does for "bipartisanship." The only thing it cares about is power and the opportunity to wield it.

More doom for the Left that the Lamestream Media will deny seeing.

2010-04-03T16:34:00.000-05:00

Here's the latest Rasmussen trust poll.

Of note: The same percentage of people want health care repealed as trust the Republicans more on Health Care. (54%) That's indicative of a pretty permanent number and seeing as when "The One" took office, these numbers were reversed, he's done a pretty good job of spending all his political capital in short order.

The only issue the Democrats have an advantage on (and it's a slim one) is "Government Ethics." Seeing as the Lamestream Media is doing its level best to play up the RNC's fetish fundraiser while ignoring Randel and Waxman's obvious transgressions, this is not terribly surprising. In truth, finding honest Washington politicians is like finding a football player who hasn't had a knee operation. One may exist, but give him some time and he'll join the club.

The Democrats also, as noted the other day, are officially losing on the economy. And everyone making over $20,000 dollars thinks the Dems are shafting them. This is another brutal number for the left, as they've traditionally OWNED this number. It's like Republicans and foreign policy, only with the Dems and economy, it's more like people are catching onto the truth that they really DON'T get it.

All in all, if you're not in a dead red district, this is definitely looking like a bad election year for the Left.

Elections have consequences. So do deficits.

2010-04-02T21:49:00.000-05:00

The fact that the Republican Party sends up candidate after candidate who lacks the spine to say that he isn't a Democrat in disguise is not the fault of the American people.

The fact that the American people cannot be weaned off the Government dole, is their fault however. And this does have serious consequences. They are laid out effectively in this article.

Social security is running in the red. Medicare and Medicaid have driven up health care. Pell Grants are considered the single largest contributor to the increases cost of College Education. Yet, when the American people needed to reduce the cost of Health Care, many swallowed the lie from the Left that the government could do this better than the private sector. Most have since woken up from this delusion, especially in light of the smoke-filled payoffs that went into passing it. But this is more damage to the credit rating. More taxes being increased. More layoffs coming. More businesses taking losses, and a double dip in the recession on the way.

These are the consequences that were chosen by electing the Left. But the Republicans have done little better. McConnell is already running from the idea of repealing Obamacare. Lindsay Graham is all set to back the left on Cap and Tax, when our energy prices are already going up and despite the evidence ClimateGate provided of the sham that is global warming research. There is no real difference in the Duopoly. And unless we find a real way to hold Steele, McConnell and Boehner accountable for the sham leadership they've provided, there's no sense pretending there's a difference.

There are two ways to do this. The short term way is to slam the door on the Establishment candidates, defund them, run against them so they can't support other "moderates" or progressives in disguise, and give an election to gain two more. The long-term answer, I have come to believe, is honestly to tell the Republicans to walk the plank. Because the Country Club elitists will always hold the keys to the upper-echelon. And movements to defund the party apparatus will only work for so long.

Red Alert on the Left

2010-04-02T15:13:00.000-05:00

For most of my entire life, the one issue the Democrats could be counted on to be seen on as better for the country on than Republicans was the economy. This was generally the result of a rather manipulative logic that ran, "We brought you the social programs that make you dependent on government, so we must care about you more." Whether such logic has any validity generally boils down to the question, "Do you think children should ever be allowed to become adults?" If you do, then the ludicrous idea of being perpetually dependent on any other human or group of humans manifests itself quickly. If you don't, you become a progressive or part of the class of people that progressives count on for their votes (that is, those perpetually dependent on said government programs.

All of this is important because today a poll was released showing this. (original link from Politico did not work for some reason).

Also today we've learned that Obama's approval rating is now officially approaching that of his predecessor, with the majority of Americans believing he does not deserve a second term. Even more problematic for the left; what this article does not address is that half the jobs created last month were census jobs. And the ONLY sector of the economy actually adding jobs is 'government.' Not to mention unemployment did *not* go down despite adding all those census jobs, and Ace of Spades has a rather interesting article here that shows that the Obama Administration is quite possibly cooking the books on the unemployment number anyway.

So maybe the reason people are beginning to believe the Democrats are bad for the economy is, they really are bad for the economy?

Why another blog?

2010-04-02T11:01:00.000-05:00

You may or may not know I have a blog titled; "If a blog falls in the internet, will anyone see it?" I had intended it to discuss my writing and other projects. But I am a political-junkie, so it became burdened with a lot of my diatribes, distracting from the things I had meant for that to be about.

So, this blog is going to be dedicated to showing the errors in "Progressive political thought" and the disinformation being given us by the current Administration and its Lamestream Media allies. That said, I should say here that I do not believe the Duopoly in either form (Republican or Democrat) represents the American people effectively and the time has come to support the candidate that best represents agenda regardless of party until a viable Third Party can be created to hold the other two accountable for their lack of respect for the American People. For me, that party is the American Conservative Party.

So I write this to educate, inform, hopefully to make you laugh from time to time as well. But if you're outraged almost as often, that is not a bad thing.