Hard-line compromising...

You make a good point... in fact, both of you make a good point. I can't rationally argue, because I feel it is the truth.

It's funny, though...

I'm reading a history book (non-fiction, in other words) that discusses the people and processes that brought about our Constitution. A fascinating read, written by a giant in the world of historical analysis (in my opinion). I won't quote the book, but I will give the impression that I took from the work...

The men that comprised the Constitutional Congress were the cream of the crop in American politics and philosophy in 1787, and few (if any) could be said to have agreed 100% with any one other person about what would fix the issues that existed in the US at the time. These 55 men, from every conceivable background and circumstance, were as varied and disparate a group as any could imagine... then or now. Fully half of them were college educated, and half were also lawyers. Seventeen of them owned a total of more than 1,500 slaves. Seven were avowed atheists, while only two were Catholics. A whopping 31 of them would be considered "multi-millionaires" today, but no fewer than 11 of them had taken the summer off of their "JOBS" to come to the Convention... meaning politics was their "second job", not their primary one.

This wonderfully varied collection of businessmen, lawyers, politicians, farmers, brewers, merchants, doctors, fisherman, smiths, and soldiers could be broken down into two camps: those favoring a strong central government (Federalists) and those favoring a smaller, weaker central government with greater powers to the States (anti-Federalists). Both camps had strong supporters, and both camps made strong arguments that their view was the right view.

How was it that these to nearly opposite points of view, made up by such a variety of people, could manage to pound out, over the course of a single summer, one of the greatest and most enduring works of enlightened democratic government the world has ever seen?

Compromise.

It is undeniable fact. Without the ability of these men to reach agreement on where the line between the "ideal" and the "practical" actually lay, the Articles of Confederation would have remained the basis of American government, and the United States wouldn't have seen the dawn of the 1790's without first going utterly broke or being invaded by Britain, Spain or France.

Now, I am not using this as an example to urge the GOP to shun its principles and platforms... far from, in fact. The Federalists who (I feel) won the debate over the shape of our nation's fledgling government did not sacrifice the principles and beliefs they held about what the country needed to survive... and neither did the anti-Federalists like Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and George Mason. They worked to ensure that the "new government" that they didn't want to see created didn't exceed what the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and what the Articles of Confederation guaranteed to the individual States.

The GOP, and more specifically the entire conservative movement in America today, must SHOW the voting public the error of the liberal agenda and the rational basis of the conservative agenda, so that future elections are not based solely on the perception that one man, or one administration, or even one Party constitutes an ideology with no merit or legitimate views. For every "moderate" that voted for Obama in '08, I'm sure you can find a conservative Democrat (like me) that voted for the Republicans simply because Obama was so far from my position, regardless of partisan affiliation.

What brightens my thoughts is how much help the conservative movement is getting from the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama NOW... they are making fools of themselves and showing their promises to be baseless and empty. Their vaunted "recovery" plans are, in fact, holding the economy back and NOTHING Obama is doing on the foreign front is making the US and her interests safer in any way, shape or form.

3/5th a firefighter.

Racism is under new management. The old cliche' that minorities "can't be racist because they are in a minority", so says Al Sharpton, is officially debunked. The PoTUS is a minority, and soon another member of the SCOTUS will be. Yes left wingers, ANOTHER. FYI: Clarence Thomas is a minority, with just as a compelling "story." Funny ... I didn't hear these same "compelling story" reasons with Miguel Estrada or Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez, let alone Associate Justice Thomas. One of whom came from "nothing" and through his service in the US Air Force earned a spot at a top law school.

And this serves as a lesson for the GOP. The word is out - to oppose this woman is to alienate Hispanic voters. Please ... don't insult my intelligence. Bush promotes the first Hispanic Attorney General to the United States. He then tries to put Mr. Estrada on the Supreme Court. Both he and his GOP nominee successor (one John Sydney McCain) backed what was by all accounts amnesty for illegal (by far mainly Hispanic) immigrants. WHAT ELSE COULD THE GOP DO?

My message to my GOP representatives: think about this. Their strategy is to pick someone we "can't attack", EVEN on legitimate grounds because of her race, and your plan is to make that plan work by shutting up?

Under different pretences this woman would have been quite comfortable with the majority on the Dredd Scott Court, and we need to say so.

"Where's all the White Women"

I know I have been absent for a while but I felt like I had to spew. I went for years listening to the Bush haters, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, WMD, Oil, Daddys vendetta and on and on and on. These things pale in comparison to what is getting ready to happen to the Supreme Court of the United States. MLK jr is rolling over in his grave right now. BHO's nominee to the Supreme Court is blatantly racist (not reverse racist there is only one way. You are either a racist or you are not). This Judge tells a bunch of fire fighters that even though they tested higher, had been on the dept longer and had more experience it was ok to get passed over for promotion because they were white.

Now as I understand this the Supreme Court of the US is going to overturn this ruling but now this individual is going to get seated on the same court that is going to overturn her previous rulings from the appeals court. Wouldn't that give you some idea that she already has a disposition to ignoring the consititution. This Judge rules from the point of a bigoted mind, not the mind of a constitutional scholar.

She has no business being in the position she is in now let alone a position on the highest court in America.

"Do as I say ..."

Just a quick note here: some time back the PoTUS exclaimed with great passion that: " ... you can't go using corporate jets, flying off to Vegas with [using] tax payer money."

That created quite the firestorm here in town, we are after all a place to conduct serious business be it conventions, net working, demos of new product lines etc; and in the 45 days following his irresponsible comments we had 200 corporate conventions cancel, costing our fair city an estimated $100 million dollars. Not all as a result of his comments to be sure, but the sudden, sharp drop immediately following his statement isn't seen as a coincidence in this town I can assure you. Several corporations flat out admitted that it was the President's warning according to the Las Vegas Convention Center. One was quite high profile, Goldman Sachs. They canceled noting that the corporate and government "climate" at this point had caused them to make "location adjustments." They went to San Fransisco instead, where they paid an average of 20% more for lodging and convention space ... brilliant, just brilliant.

I mention this all today because this morning the president wrapped up a 2 day visit here to sunny Las Vegas to do a fundraiser for Harry Reid.

Now let me get this straight: The president went to Vegas, in a private jet, all on the tax payer dime, to conduct business.

I see.

The first of last laughs ...

At 3 a.m. West Coast time 6/27/09 the morning news program "Fox and Friends" will air as it usually does. However, this morning one of the hosts, yes HOST not guest, will be one Miss Carrie Prajean, aka Miss California. I'm sure Miss America will be watching from home ...

Oh, and I find that description, Obama's view of the world, quite apt: "elementary." His mentality represents the quintessential "get evenism" that followed the real Civil Rights movement and the post Vietnam War era that came to see not a certain policy or president as flawed, but rather the DNA of "Americanism" itself. They flirt constantly with America haters whilst having a torrid love affair with socialism, presuming all the while to gain an ill conceived enlightenment in each of their midst's.

So I contend that it goes far beyond "Not Bush = GOOD", but rather: "non traditional America = PROGRESS or ENLIGHTENMENT." The tragedy in this philosophy and its real world manifestation in one Barak H. Obama is that this casts aside as "outdated" such things as Christianity, free markets, and individualism ... and the question "fence sitting" Obama supporters have to ask themselves is would America be the world's lone superpower in 2009 without a history of prizing, dare I say honoring, each of those?

My message for they whom voted "aye" for "O" in 2008? It is you whom will answer to our heirs ... so in the future, as the Knight said to Indiana Jones, "choose wisely."

"Tout est pour le mieux..."

"... dans le meilleur des mondes possibles."

Oh, how Voltaire would have recognized his Candide in our new President! "All is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds!"

Today, in front of a graduating class of a thousand midshipman destined for the Navy and Marine Corps, President Obama said that he would only send these men and women "into harm's way when absolutely necessary." Seems only common sense, right? What President or Commander-in-Chief would do otherwise, right?

But by saying this WHEN and WHERE he did, he was questioning the value that his predecessor placed on the lives of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that DID come into harm's way between 2001 and 2009, and that not only demeans Bush but demeans the very Office Obama now occupies by suggesting that ANYONE could be elected President of the United States and NOT understand how important the safety and security of ALL Americans are to the man and the office.

Once again, we see that Obama is building his administration, his legacy and his Presidency around the central fact that he IS NOT G. W. BUSH. Everything he is doing depends on America seeing that Bush = BAD, so anything NOT Bush = GOOD. I still don't know if the man is capable of the depth of thought needed to lie this effectively to the American people... but I no longer question the depth of his naivety or the simplistic... almost elementary... nature of his world-view.

"All is for the best, in the best of Obama's world."

Cigarettes aren't the only currency.

The NY branch of the FBI broke up a terror plot very early this morning. Apparently 4 jailhouse converts to Islam (clearly militant Islam) were apprehended while planting C-4 around 2 Jewish temples, and a stinger missile was found in their vehicle - apparently they intended to shoot down multiple US military planes.

Fortunately their supplier duped them and the explosives were fake. The FBI was on to them & arranged for a "fake buy."

"The four domestic terror suspects — James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, all of Newburgh, N.Y. — were arrested late Wednesday after they allegedly planted a 37-pound device that they believed was a bomb in the trunk of a car outside the Riverdale Temple, a synagogue in the Bronx, and two other mock bombs in the backseat of a car outside the Riverdale Jewish Center, another synagogue a few blocks away. They also allegedly planned to shoot Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles at planes at the Air National Guard base in Newburgh, about 70 miles north of New York City. "

You can read the entire story at FOX NEWS.

So my question is this: does anyone still want to transfer the dozens, if not hundreds, of GITMO detainees into US prisons?

A refreshing Scottish lad!

In an effort to find video of something, anything that offered a glimmer of hope, sanity and reason in the Western world, a counter to the insatiable tripe from Titus's video, I decided to link to the following, it's just under 4 minutes long:

Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England, comments at the EU March 24th, 2009.

It would only take one man, one individual like this in our nation to light a prairie fire for REAL hope and REAL change in this nation. Imagine he is talking to Barak Obama, especially by the end of his first term. This has had 2,316,793 views thus far. In youtube numbers, that's huge.

He followed up at an address to Conservatives at the Tory Spring Forum 09' at Cheltenhum. Listen to this, and tell me if he isn't describing the US's inevitable path if this current government and the political climate is to continue.

Part 1 (8:50)

Part 2 (4:11)

The Churchill joke is PRICELESS.

The boy king.

All due respect to Tutankhamen & Edward VI ...

35 years ago a president of the United States stood before a joint session of congress and noted: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

He wasn't my favorite president, but how prescient those words would seem barely over a generation later.

What we have done, as a nation, is elect a pure 100% ideologue. Worse yet he is a novice statesman and to even further my dismay the ideology he is 100% committed to is beyond simply "leftist." It is beyond "liberal", or even "statist" (although that last one is close). He is by every definition, a CENTRAL PLANNER. He is going about the fundamental dismantlement of federalism which is the source in my estimation of our unprecedented rise as a nation, becoming the most powerful, wealthy, and desired nation to reside in on earth. We are quite simply the greatest expression of the human experience Divine Providence has yet to produce. And to put it as succinctly and clearly as possible, the reason for that is our prizing of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY as layed out in our Constitution. The championing of the individual over the state or the collective. Private property rights. The right of interstate mobility, and on and on. And central planning is the polar opposite of that spirit.

Let us consider this ... the bailouts and TARP programs are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. Yet 2 presidents & just as many congress's start, and then proceed to "quadruple down" on these programs. The American people overwhelmingly want to secure the Southern border, yet the leaders of neither Party insist upon it. The average American rolls his eyes in visceral dissapproval of the federal defecit and higher taxes, yet our President and his cohorts have incurred an unsustainable debt raising it under George Bush from $800 billion to 1.8 trillion the first year, and 3.6 trillion within the first 2, to over $12 trillion by 2019 (numbers from the CBO). The American citizen knows in his gut that the government takeover of domestic car companies and and a defacto nationalization of banks is, in a word, WRONG. We also know that to simply "close" a terror detainment center with no plan as what to do with the detainees is uncommonsensical in the extreme. Yet on his first day in office the president ordered just that. The average citizen wants a comprehensive approach to energy - which INCLUDES domestic drilling, nuclear power, clean coal, more refineries along with the implementation of market viable alternative energy sources. Yet instead of slashing regulation and cumbersome red tape the government gets more "in the way" by insisting that the car companies they now "own" build cars that are on average $1,600 more expensive under the guise that to get better gas mileage is to become energy independent, while there is zero movement on real energy independence such as domestic fossil recovery. Yesterday, just yesterday, the voters of California shot down ALL 6 of the tax increase referendums, EVERY ONE, meant to close the $25 billion short fall in the California budget, under a Republican governor I might add. And Obama praises him for his leadership, insists that we should follow that state's energy policies as "the future"? Believe me when I say it's only a matter of time before the president announcers that CA is "too big to fail", and he uses federal tax dollars to bail out that state - which is in effect reversing the "no new taxes" vote Californians made because it will be their federal taxes as well that fund that bailout.

"Well Ryan", you might say, "that's what the people voted for, that's who they elected." Did they though? REALLY? How could CA vote overwhelmingly for Obama yet also for prop 187 (a crackdown on the $10 billion a year illegals cost that state), and against those 6 propositions? I sincerely believe that the rank and file Obama voter (minus ACORN and other zealots) did so based on the likability of their candidate, the quintessential occult of personality paying no attention of the actual policy behind the rhetoric. They are going to quickly realize that "HOPE" and "CHANGE" has a real world definition: "CENTRAL" and "PLANNING." I can only hope that the conservatives within the GOP, the honest conservatives, first retake their Party, then make this case to their fellow citizens. Make the case that President Obama seeks to duplicate nationally what California has done to herself. That the state is NOT CAPABLE of managing personal affairs. That the founding Fathers actually got it right, and most importantly that personal liberty can NOT coexist with zero risk. That some children WILL BE LEFT BEHIND. That failure, risk, hardships, mistakes are ALL, every one, essential ingredients to liberty and no government can eliminate those ingredients without fundamentally oppressing that liberty.

The end game of a government which promises to releive you of all mistakes and problems is by definition promising to relieve you of all decisions; relieve you of all posessions; relieve you of ... all dignity.

May 19, 2009
Letter from a Dodge dealer
letter to the editor
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu


Now, while the precepts for this end game were set in motion long ago and Obama's intervention is only the final death knell for this man & his family, this all stems from ill advised government forays into the private sector, only for political considerations. The original Chrysler bailout a generation ago simply delayed the inevitable. The unions and the politicians they helped elect that portrayed vampiric, leeching requests on their industry as simply "looking out" for the little guy helped to guarantee the inevitable. Cumbersome government auto regulations, taxes, fees contributed to the inevitable. If Chrysler or any other domestic car company were simply left to their own devices, never bailed out, never muscled by politicians elected by union dues, never propped up and now taken over, if those with solid business models were simply allowed to DO BUSINESS then perhaps, just perhaps Mr. Joseph's father would have bought into a company that outlasted his son, rather then the other way around. What the federal government has done in falsely propping up the US auto industry has been to perpetrate a profits fraud on the American people that makes ENRON look like a high school lunch money scandal.

And what scares the day lights out of me is Obama, as CEO of our nation, wants for America what the CA government has done for its people. He is demonstrating the same government attitude towards ALL private businesses that the feds have had towards US automakers: presuming to pick the winners and losers; prizing government judgements over free market demand; falsely propping up the viability of his budget. And if we continue down this road, of government interventionism to relieve us of ALL pain, then one day we will get our notice ... what we thought was ours, our property, our rights, wont really be ours any more ... because the greater good must be serviced ... because you don't need all those pesky decisions, after all, that's what the government is for.

The difference between the auto company's chapter 11 and the inevitable chapter 11 of America, is our "reorganization" will precipitate the bankruptcy rather then the other way around.

How about another BIG Bund welcome to...

Sammy! I sent him the link, and we'll see what one of the very few REAL African-Americans I have ever met (I only actually KNOW three... Sammy from Ethiopia, Ras from South Africa, and Sallah from Eqypt... and only Sammy is black!) thinks of our ramblings here.

Comment away, buddy! Ryan can take it... hehe.

Ok, here's a post:

Do you want to see the face of modern communism? Gone are the days of guys like Lenin or Trotsky shouting from the back of a Swiss train. Gone are the days of Khrushchev banging his shoe at the U.N. Gone are the days of Mao's "Cultural Revolution" re-writing the face of Chinese history. Hell, even Castro has moved to the back of the stage!

No, THIS is the face of modern communism.

It took only 3 minutes of this video for me to begin to burn... and by 10 minutes, I was ready to jump off a bridge. This is the tripe that our children are being fed at school... lessons that smack of revisionist views, faulty reasoning, and out-right lies.

Watch the video (as painful as it is) and then review just about ANY of the points or facts that she presents in her arguments. The first one that choked me was her claim that only 4% of the original forest acerage of the US still exists. It is decidedly possible that of the ORIGINAL TREES that existed 300 years ago, only 4% still exist... but her claim is that only 4% of the FORESTS exist. The actual fact of the matter is that more than 40% of the forests that existed before 1820 still exist, and many have gotten larger (ANY forest in the central Great Plains States exists solely since 1925, as none existed AT ALL prior to that year!). That is just ONE example of the crap this woman is flushing through her mouth and into our children's ears.

That warrants an "oy vay!" in my opinion.

Oh, do you suck!

Yes, of course you're right about the various German currencies ... but more egregious then my overlooking the proper "mark" is that I have published the last 7 consecutive posts, and 9 out of the last 10! And all you do is take 2 seconds to chirp in on my misidentification of early 20th century German currency? Oy!

Do pardon your busy schedule sir, perhaps when you make Sr. Vice President, co-chairman 2nd in command, director of the supervising GM, THEN perhaps you will find the time to dain us with your glowing presence ... {insert not so subtle throat clearing here}.

Guten tag deutschmark!

RIO RANCHO, New Mexico (Reuters) -

President Barack Obama raised the prospect on Thursday that China and other nations could stop buying U.S. debt and said the United States needed to tackle its deficit to avoid long-term economic damage.

"The long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can't keep on just borrowing from China or borrowing from other countries," Obama told a town hall meeting event in New Mexico.

"We have to pay interest on that debt and that means that we're mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt," he said.

China is the single largest holder of U.S. debt and owned $744 billion worth of U.S. government securities at the end of February, the latest month for which data is available, according to the U.S. Treasury.

Obama said the debt situation would create greater economic problems if foreign countries like China lost their appetite for U.S. treasuries.

"What's also true is at some point they're just going to get tired of buying our debt," he said.

"And when that happens, we will really have to raise interest rates to be able to borrow and that will raise interest rates for everybody."

The White House estimated earlier this week the U.S. budget deficit will be $1.84 trillion for the fiscal year that ends September 30.

Obama has pledged to halve the U.S. deficit within four years despite implementing economic stimulus measures that will make it larger in the short term. Source: NY Times

First, Mr. NY Times, exactly what is "short term" about $1.84 trillion dollars?

But more importantly, I think most people are misidentifying what he is doing/saying here. Most of the commentary I've heard is shock that he would essentially throw his own policies under the bus like this, after all he IS condemning the very thing he is doing. But that's not it. What he is doing in my estimation is prefacing the "emergency need" to RAISE TAXES. That's all this is about ... we will be told we need to make sacrifices, all pitch in, be our brothers keeper, spread the responsibility around, and so on And all of that translates into 1 thing and 1 thing only: raising taxes.

Nice plan huh? Come in double the budget, massively increase the deficit in your first 100 days and then cry about how much debt we have, which demonstrates the need to raise taxes.

When he came into office there was about $800 billion dollars in fluid US currency (China "stores" the money we pay them as a sort gold standard/reserve, so I'm not counting that money). Now the amount out there is estimated to hit $2 Trillion as Obama's spending activates. The Wiemar Republic, do you know when their economy finally gave way to all of the financial hemorrhaging? When the available currency was artificially quadrupled by the government. We are now just above double.

I'd invest in a wheel barrel if I were you ... it'll make it easier to pick up your pay checks.

April 08'

Each time I click onto our site I still raise an eyebrow at that number for April, 2008: 109. Just what the hell was going on that we took to an average of just under 4 posts per day? So I clicked on it. Brother - that first page, if you read from bottom to top is "classic" Bund rifting. Hard intellectual debate combined with rapier wit (no "h"), and stinging personal insults (a crowd favorite no doubt). You guys simply must reread that first page. And come to think of it, it is possible to down load each month onto a single disc or floppy is it not? Just in case Obama filters the Internet to avoid any unflattering debate, I'd like to always have a hard copy stored & update it twice a year or so. Not to mention as a keepsake to show my heirs just what a steel trap mind I (& my friends) once had when they're changing my depends and wiping the drool from my mouth at 98 years old. So Titus, get on that - after all you're the tech savvy one, Jambo's the published writer, and I'm the silver tongued good looking one ... hehe.

{oh, and the "subject de jure" for April 2008? Gas was at a sudden $3.60 a gallon & on its way up with a bullet: energy policy was on our minds}

This is just becoming comical: Pelosi story version 6.0

Pelosi yet held another press conference today on the "torture" briefings that she or may not have had. She really shouldn't attempt these "I did not have sex with that woman..." sort of moments, she isn't nearly as skilled as Billy boy. Excerpts from Fox News:

Under a barrage of questioning, Pelosi adamantly insisted that she was not aware that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.

"Yes I am saying the CIA was misleading the Congress ... I am telling you they told me they approved these and said they wanted to use them but said they were not using waterboarding," she said.

Now this is after she has already stated that all they told her that was they "had a legal finding" allowing the use of water boarding. The problem is that the CIA KEEPS RECORDS, and they were quick to dispute this charge, which led to another reporter question, and yet another explanation from Pellosi:

Pelosi said she was briefed only once on the interrogation methods in September 2002. She acknowledged that her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, informed her about another briefing five months later in which Bush officials said waterboarding was being used on CIA terror detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Ok, so when it comes to the thing you've objected to low these many years, water boarding, you "forgot" and had to be reminded by your aide that, "oh ya", they did tell me once, this one time, on one occasion. Uh huh.

Pelosi said she supported a letter drafted by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who also attended the briefing in February 2003, and sent to the Bush administration, raising concerns over the technique.

When pressed as to why she didn't then SIGN HER NAME to a letter she "supported", she closed her case with: "Objecting to torture techniques was not my place, not my job. My job was getting a majority of Democrats elected to the congress."

Let me just skip the lecture on what your primary job is - representing the people of CA, and just note TORTURE! You're telling us that what you thought was bonafied TORTURE was being committed by the CIA under the blessing of the President of the United States and objecting to that was quote: "not your job?"

Let me tell you what else "won't be your job" soon enough: Speaker of the House of Representatives. And your own Party is going to see to it.

This is simple. What this will ultimately end in is releasing the minutes of that briefing. Hell, we're releasing a lot more then that. And then we will see her "not seek" reelection by her peers for Speaker. And for that she will have a greatful nation ...

No wonder they're neutral!

With these laws they can't field an army. . .

Sweden Rules Gender-Selective Abortions Legal

By Kathleen Gilbert

STOCKHOLM, May 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Swedish health authorities have ruled that it is not illegal to kill a healthy unborn child based simply on its gender, according to Swedish news service The Local.

Doctors had asked health authorities about the matter after a woman from southern Sweden had two of her children killed in utero for being an undesired sex. The woman had already given birth to two daughters.

The gender was determined during an amniocentesis requested to determine whether the child had a disability.

Concerned doctors at Mälaren Hospital then asked Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare to determine a protocol for future instances in which they "feel pressured to examine the foetus's gender" without a medical necessity.

The medical board responded that such requests must be accommodated.

According to Swedish law, abortion is legal on any basis whatsoever up to the 18th week of gestation, and therefore the board said doctors cannot deny a mother seeking to have an unborn child killed because it is the wrong gender.

A medical ethics consultant told The Local in March that mothers regularly travel to Sweden from Norway, where sex-selective abortions are illegal, to abort unwanted girls. SOURCE

As you certainly noticed I used a pro-life source for this story and for good reason. I'm quite tired of masking what is by every definition infanticide, with these socially nondescript phrases like "choice." Would you like fries with that? THAT is a choice, this is exterminating children.

Now, I would like each of you to try a little experiment. Find a pro-choice person in your life. And very non confrontational, very passively, ask them. Ask them if they agree with the Swedes. Then stand back, quietly, and watch them twist, turn, squirm, defer, qualify, re ask the question, etc etc etc. Because they can't reconcile where the ultimate logic goes as a supporter of abortion.

And you can walk away with a smile on your face because being pro-life is not only the moral position, it is the only intellectually honest position, able to follow its reasoning to its' logical end with no hesitation.

Is any one else bothered by this headline?

Obama slashes Chryslers Advertising Budget in Half

Obama Halves Chrysler's Planned Marketing Budget
By Jean Halliday

Published: May 11, 2009
DETROIT (AdAge.com) -- Chrysler wanted to spend $134 million in advertising over the nine weeks it's expected to be in bankruptcy -- the U.S. Treasury's auto-industry task force gave it half that.

So if GM, which is wrestling with the possibility of a Chapter 11 filing itself, is wondering how much influence the task force will have over marketing, the answer is: plenty. However, transcripts from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York, where the Chrysler case is being heard, proved for the first time that the task force at least understands that advertising is a necessary expense -- even if it doesn't think Chrysler needs $134 million for nine weeks of car ads. Source: "MarketWatch"

Oddly enough I missed that portion, clause or amendment to the Constitution that allows for the CIC to CONTROL A PRIVATE COMPANY'S ADVERTISING BUDGET !!!! When I read this I got a shiver ... maybe it was a shudder ... at any rate it was some "sh" adjective I assure you. And I remembered feeling it before, this viscerally. It was from a February 2008 speech by Michelle Obama, at UCLA, that was repeated on a political talk radio program at the time:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Does all of this, along with the bank stress tests = the back door nationalization of banks (now Geitner is going after the smaller, community banks); taking over of the auto industry; ACORN getting federal tax dollars in the billions; the push to nationalize health care by July 31st 2009 (as he announced today); the back dooring of the fairness doctrine via federally mandated "localism" restrictions that are in the works as I write this; the "citizen volunteer army" he promised to "fund as well as the US Army"; cap & trade - a de facto nationalization of private energy companies; does ALL OF THIS seem to add up to anything in particular, TO ANYONE?

Remember my staunch avocation that his repeated statement: "We've tried it their way" refers not to Bush, but rather our 233 years from Washington to Bush? Anyone? I'm just asking.

Look, I think it is asinine to bring up Adolf Hitler when doing comparisons of US politicians, asinine in the extreme. So I want to be very careful here. Lets just put it this way: many a democracy has lost its identity to articulate, compelling leaders whom when you go back and look did say all along EXACTLY what they intended to do, leaving future observers of history scratching their heads murmuring: "How did they (the populous) miss that?" ... "It was obvious what he wanted to do, he even said so."

So ... is this 135 days-in power grab/fundamental reorganization of US society & business starting to seriously concern anyone but me?

I'd bet the "croc dollar."

Mark the date. I think the White House is going to dump Pelosi as Speaker. Now Constitutionally they haven't that authority of course, but politically? She is the only one on her side catching heat on these "what did you know & when did you know it" questions regarding the "infamous" (I feel as though I should double the quotation marks flanking that word) water boarding, and other advanced interrogation techniques. She has been huffing & puffing, describing these techniques as illegal, immoral, etc, etc for a year now, and low & behold we find out (as we here already knew occurs routinely) she, as a senior member of congress was briefed on water boarding prior to its implementation ... imagine that.

Now she is trying to parse the discussion - noting that they (the CIA) informed her that the White House had a "legal finding" that they "could" use the techniques, but (and get this), "they never said they actually were going to use them." That's laughable on the face of it. Now, we all know this is a 3 week old story, her flip flopping on the briefing. However, recently I see mainstream reporters asking her if she raised any moral objections at the briefing of that "legal finding", and she stumbles through a non answer. I see the CIA, under the domain of the Executive Branch mind you & run by Leon Penetta (a hardcore Party man) as the source of releasing the proof that those briefings occurred. And now, when she was out of the country for a few days Stenny Hoyer, the #2 Democrat behind Nancy in the House, announces congress may investigate her over what she knew and when she knew it! Her #2 announces this while she is out of town I'm telling you! The Republicans called for this and Hoyer has both the power and authority to tell them to bollix off ... but he didn't. And bare in mind, Stoyer was not her choice, she wanted Murtha, a Pelsoi loyalist but he burnt himself on the Marines in Haditha fiasco & thus was too volatile a character to put that close to her. And just guess whom Hoyer is a long time personal friend & political ally of? Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Hey, speakers MUCH brighter & savvy then she have been knee capped. She's on her way out.

Representative Carrie Prejean (R) CA?

I have to say, Miss California, "Carrie" as she asked me to call her (hehe), in 8 minutes was more passionate, articulate and showed more backbone then most of the GOP leadership since 2006 put together. This was the ultimate cross section of pop culture and politics - this morning Trump & she held the press conference announcing her "fate" as a state crown holder. Trump summarily announced that she was to maintain it (while trashing the now poultry ratings of his rival pageant the Miss America contest, he is Trump after all). And at Trumps request, she then launched into a statement that covered a range from her grandfather's heroism serving under Patton to her own Christian convictions, basically noting that she wouldn't lay them aside for pop culture PC. I was impressed - not just because she was both beautiful & articulate, but because she said all this, believes all this, is publicly passionate about all this, at 21 years of age. THAT is as impressive as her unbelievably gifted appearance.

She & Palin ought to go do fundraisers together . . . they'll get me to attend, I assure you. And in writing that it occurs to me - is this the future of the GOP? Are all of the men too weak kneed, Lilly livered and all around so incapable of articulating a conservative message that the rank & file now have to rely on BEAUTY PAGEANT winners to carry that message forward? Hmmm ... given the hours I spend watching politics, perhaps this is a fortunate turn of events.

Unsubstantiated, but interesting...

So, I'm driving home last night and hear a story on the satellite radio news channel that the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) is being sued by the States of LA, MS, and AL because after Katrina, the HSUS went on a national campaign to "help" Katrina-cats and Katrina-dogs, raising as much as $35 million dollars in public donations. Seems that none of these States can find any evidence of even ONE DOLLAR of that money had been or was being spent to help regional shelters or agencies in the four years since the storm hit.

That is distrurbing in itself, but what I found even more interesting was that the Office of the AG (Mr. Holder, again) didn't feel there was any need to investigate the "problem" Federally, even though these are questions DIRECTLY linked to interstate commerce laws and Federal regulations concerning fund raising for a tax-exempt organizations.

I wonder if the HSUS donated money to the Obama campaign...

Miss California

So the very "eccentric" (read: greasy + $500 mil) Donald Trump, whom owns the Miss USA & Miss Universe pageants is holding a press conference at 11a.m. NEPA time to announce the fate of Miss CA, Carrie Prejan. Apparently he owns "Miss" all the way down to the county fair and due to her "risque" (although not fully exposed) photos that "mysteriously" emerged post contest, she could lose the California crown.

Do you know what I find hyper ironic in all of this?

1.) Donald Trump is charged with passing a moral judgment on a woman's character. Let me say that again, Donald Trump is ... never mind.

2.) A violation of the "Miss" contract apparently includes not nude, but the existence of any past or future "scantly clothed" photos - this from a contest that REQUIRES said women to prance around in a bikini AS PART OF THE CONTEST ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

3.) What is at the heart of all this "photo" controversy: her answer on gay (confederate) marriage. She essentially has the same view on same sex marriage as President Obama's stated position (not to mention 70% of America, and 60% of Californians). And whom do you suppose the vast majority of those same "outraged" gay activists voted for? I could hazard an educated guess.

4.) Name Miss USA.

Leave the "conventions" to Vegas ...

... PLEASE!

I sent a text message or 12 to you Titus, and Pliny the Younger there the other night on Montana's move. Utah & Texas are set to do the same. This nullification process, in my opinion, is MUCH preferable to another Constitutional Convention. Less we forget, the founders originally met at that convention set on "amending" the Articles of Confederation, and ended up tossing that document out completely & starting over. Personally I haven't the faith in Pelosi, Reid & Obama that I do in Adams, Jefferson, Franklin & Washington. With another convention the risk of their influence far outweighs the reward, thus I throw my lot in with Titus - nullification. And his point is sharp -the problem is that we are ignoring, distorting or perverting it now, and that behavior will only become legitimized as real law with a new Convention.

Now the Montana move is interesting in particular. And for this reason, it's over GUNS. Were it any other commodity, oranges or garage doors, this wouldn't have the exposure potential that a gun battle (pardon the lazy pun), does.

Here's the nuts and bolts of what is going on in my estimation: the stunning and sudden scope, size, intrusion and redefined role of federal power that Obama has either enacted or articulated (in terms of the "direction" he sees as America's future) in his first 100 days has, to put it in scientific terms, had an opposite and equal reaction. Those of us from lay people to state governor's have become determined to push back against federal power. Enter the Montana gun law. This move by these handful of states would be the first huge salvo fired in a nation wide federal push back because once this gets to the Supreme Court, and it will - the first day these guns go on sale in Montana the court filings are already set to fly - we have a chance to essentially reverse the huge, sweeping powers the Court has afforded the federal government under distorted interpretations of the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). A perversion which was legitimized in the 1942 ruling under Wickard v. Filburn. In 1933 congress passed the the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the goal of the legislation was to limit the total production of wheat, so that the supply and demand of wheat would be stabilized, thereby ending the cycle of broad price swings that were deemed to be destructive of the farm economy. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted (the permitted amount was roughly 11.1 acres, he planted 23). Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately the issue was reoriented by the Court to be viewed not by how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce", as this majority opinion excerpt states:

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

See, even though the farmer correctly argued that he would never enter his surplus into "commerce" of any kind, the court ruled that his personal excess allowed Filburn to not have to buy his needed wheat on the open market and his "non purchase" has as much an effect on the commerce as an actual purchase, and thus fell under the Commerce Clause, more specifically rights of the AAA, or the right/protection of the "collective" over the individual.

This ruling opened up the flood gates of federal intervention into state private business that prior to was thought, well ... unthinkable. Constructionist judges have long held that after Dredd Scott this is a shining example of the poorest of jurisprudence. There are 4 of the current justices: Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts that conventional wisdom will say are itching to have the "right" case in order to reverse Wickard v. Filburn, and at least 2 more whose past rulings indicate (so I've heard) they may join them for a majority. And Montana may just give them the "right case."

And as I stated before, precisely because this is about guns it will be paid attention to, thus bringing state's rights arguments to the forefront in a way we as a nation (and a conservative movement) desperately need.

Now, as to what I mean by "we." I am not prepared to throw away my GOP membership card. I would argue that if my exaltation of core conservative principles makes one think I'm leaning Libertarian, or am "too conservative" for the Grand Ol' Party, that is a commentary on the Republican Party, rather then on F.Ryan or Glenn Beck. Reagan caused a similar Party choice in his primary run against George H. Bush. The "blue blood", soft on big government (one might even call it "compassionate conservatism") vs Raegan's unyielding conservative message was the choice Republican primary voters had in 1980. Reagan stated then, as I am paraphrasing now: it is easier to retake the Republican Party then form a completely new one. And that is exactly what I intend to do (errr ... what "we" intend to do - pardon me, Napoleonic complex got the better of me for a brief moment). Specter is gone, Powell is gone, and there is a definite chasm formed between those Republicans that want a more "progressive" Party, and those such as I & Beck whom want a return to core values & principles. The problem the progressive Republicans have, and what I don't understand, is we all know the victory margins Reagan, and to an extent Gingrich won by when the Party followed an unapologetic conservative message, so why they would want to depart from such an obvious course to victory is beyond me (outside of simply wanting to be viewed as "enlightened" at beltway cocktail paries, in which case they can have that party, and leave me mine).

So let the Specters and Powells leave. Let the Joe Scarborough's and the McCains yak on about the need of a softer, more progressive GOP while Beck, Limbaugh, the Rick Perry's (TX governor), and the F. Ryan's make their case, and we will see where the Party chips fall. I am supremely confident that history is the surest guide to the future, and conservatism will find itself victorious once again.

Oh, and ps> speaking of the future, the new Star Trek was fantastic.

The Holder "Two-Step"...

Did anyone else get a giggle out of watching USAG Holder back-peddle through the Senate hearings on Bush Administration investigations? Honestly, when was the last time we had a President that has had this much trouble from his Cabinet appointments? My God... he could have thrown darts at a phone book and had better picks than he's managed in his first 100 days!

{smile}

Ryan is back... with a vengence!

So, it would seem that if I have been forced to recognize my political position to be represented today by the "conservative" GOP... then Ryan is going to be forced to admit that he is rapidly becoming a Libertarian... perhaps even a modern "anarcho-capitalist"!

After reading Ryan's post, I found THIS ARTICLE from a link sent by a non-Bund associate. It would seem that Beck is also rapidly admitting his Libertarian tendencies... quite reminiscent of something Mike Church is frequently screaming into the microphone from Slidell, LA on my satellite radio.

Beck (and by association, Ryan) makes two points that I feel are worthy of consideration... and I will restate them here because I feel I can make them better than either of them can. {grin}

1. Forcing the Feds to "play nice" and actually fit BACK into the model designed for them by the founding fathers can be achieved by having 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention to abolish (or repeal) the 16th Amendment. If the 16th Amendment is repealed or abolished, the Feds will starve themselves back into a size and scope far more to people like Ryan and other Libertarian's liking.
2. "Nullification" action taken by the States can ALSO force the Feds into a less-controlling role in this modern era.

The first point seems far too dramatic for my tastes. If (and this is a HUGE "if") a Convention could be called, it would open the Constitution up to all kinds of nasty things that I am utterly convinced the Liberals in this nation would LOVE to do to it. It would NEVER be limited to only the 16th Amendment... and then we'd have people like Pelosi and Reid re-defining the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments to better suit THEIR agendas. No, no... if you want to do away with the 16th Amendment, then draw up and ratify a NEW Amendment that would supersede the 16th, just as the 21st "repealed" the 18th (ending Prohibition in the US). A HUGE up-hill battle, but very doable when compared to the efforts needed to hold a Constitutional Convention. Especially when what is REALLY being argued is the fact that we AREN'T following the Constitution NOW.

Nullification, however, is VERY REAL. Take for example the 60 years that Southern States used nullification to protect the institution of slavery from Federal limitation or regulation. Indiana and Arizona have refused to ratify the Daylight Savings Time Act as part of their State Constitutions, and thus, neither State recognizes or enforces DST within its borders or agencies. California (and very soon New York and New Jersey) has "nullified" the Federal bans on medical marijuana use, prescription and sales. And, just today, Montana has had an Act signed into LAW by their Governor superseding ALL Federal firearms regulations on ANY FIREARM MANUFACTURED IN MONTANA FOR SALE AND USE ONLY IN MONTANA!!!!!!!!!!!! Doubt me? Full story HERE!

Now, Texas and Utah are also looking at Montana's "lead" and contemplating how best to follow suit. These acts and laws, coupled with the country's new "State sovereignty" focus brought about by States drafting and enacting referendums explicitly defining and supporting each and every State's expressed power and authority according to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, are very REAL and very TANGIBLE aspects of opposition to a growing Federal Government that is no longer capable of self-regulation or self-limitation.

I think these are GOOD THINGS... but not everyone does. However, I'm sure no one here will bitch much, will they?

Philosophy vs. Policy & Why Republicans Are a Minority Party:

So, I had an interesting conversation with Jambo this afternoon. By the way, if you're going to critique him publicly make sure you receive any verbal response privately. He caught me with a phone call on my way into the gym and trying to compensate for his "heightened state" while still maintaining a publicly acceptable voice decibel was challenging to say the least.

However, I found the conversation very useful. As one could imagine such a visceral "pummeling" of any aspect of "New Deal 09" (formerly 08'), such as the one I posted elicited a detailed and impassioned defense from him on the nuts and bolts of why public works spending (that very specifically, not simply deficit spending for the sake of it) was warranted in times of financial crisis. Namely, he argued, because it gave the public "consumer confidence" it was neccessary. Now I'm not inclined to get into a John Meynard Keynes argument right now, every one here knows I think Kenesiyan economics is a farce, while Jambo & Titus are more inclined to embrace some level of it, while stopping far short of Obama-like numbers I'm sure. Rather what I am discussing is one inner circle removed from that argument.

See whether his (Jambo's) personal home alternative energy plan works on paper, or even if it works in the real world, or public works programs, etc it is all irrelevant to me. Because as a "right of center" Party in America we (the GOP and anyone opposing the direction of Obama, which encompasses everyone here) must stop playing the leftist game on economics, health care, energy, etc. We must reset the table for these domestic arguments, for whether it is public works or home energy units or any other response to a crisis (even if it seems reasonable on the face of it), once we concede to the basic template that GOVERNMENT is the first (and perhaps only) answer to any given problem we (as a Party or right of center movement) IMMEDIATELY guarantee future electoral losses. Because like a game of poker the left is always going to come back over the top and raise the bet. To concede to the government as the answer at the onset is to guarantee as a conservative that you lose ultimately because you're on the slippery slope of spending, moreover you will never outspend or grow government more than Democrats. They will ALWAYS come back over the top and say, "yes, that's a good start, but what we need is a little (or a lot) more." Then as a supposedly conservative Party you wake up one day bailing out this and that company, funding prescription drugs, and going along with spending you undoubtedly campaigned against - and guess where that gets you? A minority status, that's where.

I'll put it another way. Bush conceded to prescription drugs coverage for medicaid/medicare, and what happened? The Democrats came back the next election cycle and say, "yes, that's nice & all, but it really doesn't go far enough, what we need is more, maybe some version of universal health care perhaps ... lets have a summit." Bush conceded on a Ted Kennedy plan throwing more money at education and then Democrats and teacher unions came back the next election cycle slamming it and claim "it didn't go far enough" or "it was too encumbering, we want to keep/up the dollars but lose the requirements on performance. " And they picked up seats. What about S-CHIPS? The Republican congress under Bush concedes to the capped age going up from 18 & living with your parents, to 21. And Obama comes right behind that and says: "ya, that's nice & all, but it doesn't go far enough." And changes to include adults up to 25 years of age that are still attending school (whether you live at home or not). Again, this last election cycle: McCain's answer to every economic story that broke was basically "yes, I agree with Obama that we [government] needs to act ... but only this much, not that much." His entire campaign, once it became about the economy, was basically: Obama wants to do "double A plus triple B" to fix this crisis, but I think the double A is sufficient. It is a fundamentally flawed argument for us because what you are saying to the lay voter is "Ok, we all agree government is the solution here, but as a Republican I only want a limited amount of the agreed upon solution." Just a "little" of the cure. How is that effective?

I'll give you another one: these bailouts started under Bush. Such a move goes against every notion of a conservative ideology and outraged the GOP base to no end. And guess what? Obama hit "Republicans" (via Bush) over the head for "not doing enough", and he comes in, quadruples down on the bailouts and the budget - and maintains a 60% approval because he did "a lot" of what the GOP was only willing to do "a little" of! We can not beat these guys at spending & government growth, SO WHY ON EARTH ACCEPT THAT TEMPLATE AS THE SOLUTION TO CRISIS? THAT is why no matter how seemingly reasonable a Jambo energy or public works program is on the face of it we MUST discontinue our knee-jerk support for government as the solution to crisis, less we lose to them each cycle, and worse they just take it one (or 10) steps further then our government proposal. Now Jambo says, "well, so no more bridges get built, then huh", no, no I'm not saying freeze all traditional government activity, but such things will have to be lobbied and done in local state Houses as a part of normal budgetary expenditures, which makes any discussion about Pawlenty in this sense, irrelevant. What I am arguing is the "crisis response", or the answer to chronic problems such as health care, as a Party we must not allow ourselves to be roped into a discussion that STARTS with a government solution, wherein we end up debating "how much" government is warranted. That's a political and electoral loser for us, not to mention more importantly for our country. We have to start with the template as part of our national discussion with the American voter on how best to get the government out of the individual's/private sector's way so that "crisis X", or "chronic problem B" can be remedied. THEN we have a winner of an argument.

Do you see what I am saying? We are playing THEIR GAME on economics and most domestic issues, and have been for decades except for 2 notable exceptions: Ronald Reagan & Newt Gingrich. And just look at the margins they won by when they stopped accepting the template of government intervention as a solution to domestic crisis. And we can win by those margins again because I am convinced that Americans will see the common sense inherent in the DNA of the right of center, or conservative, ideology: you don't spend what you don't have and the government is most efficient when it is smallest. Minimal government and maximum personal liberty/responsibility. And the opportunity with this president is there in a way it has never been before. There is a huge hanging curve ball sitting right over the sweet spot of the plate, and an articulate AUTHENTIC small government conservative needs only to step up and hit that puppy out of the park! The fact that no such leader has done so yet is exactly why we as Party remain disorganized and ineffective.

So, my tying a kerchief around the eyes Jambo's various "new" New Deal policies, and giving them a final cigarette before I yell "fire" isn't because the plans themselves are necessarily flawed (although I am convinced the feds would find a way to foul up even the best of his plans), but rather because as a conservative the extra bridges or personal windmill isn't worth establishing/continuing the template of a government solution to each and every crisis. Sorry, get that done in your state budget in a fiscally responsible way, because we as a Party can not win (nor can America herself) by starting OUR response to problems the same way Democrats do: "government."

From Wilson to FDR to Johnson to Obama, every time we have a complacent "compromising" GOP (or as with Bush a flat out advocate) on government spending/growth they (Democrats) come right back & say we need to go further, building, one-upping, on the flawed public spending of the past.

BIG government is now "cool", the norm, acceptable to the American voter. Do you know why? Because over the last 8 years the GOP said "yes" to a medium government. We played their game, accepted their template & look where we are - they have a super majority in the Senate, a clear majority in the House, and are about to add one more to the judiciarie's Supreme Court. We have to do what Reagan did - offer a bold contrast. Make government, let alone BIG government, a punchline to a joke, a fool's option. And with Obama's appetite for growth, we have a fertile pool.

I am convinced that at their core the American citizen is still a right of center individual. They have to balance their own checkbooks, they have to stand up to their personal bullies, they have to work hard for their own money - and they know government MUST do the same. But we as a Party are stuck in a cycle doomed to fail when we don't make that argument. The Democrats tell us that writing 10 hot checks is the answer, and our leaders have been saying, "no, it's 3." And the Democrat says, hold on a second, we all agree this is the answer, why don't you want to "really" help the poor, suffering American out there? And they win, because we gave away the argument at the onset. When in reality what is best for our nation & best for the success of the Party is for Republicans to scream: "PUT DOWN THE GOD D*** CHECK BOOK!" Then the American people will rally behind us. And if that means even otherwise clever plans that involve government intervention must be sacrificed (or relegated to local budget adjustments if they want a new bridge), then so be it, because we have GOT to stop conceding to the template of government solutions to our various crisis. In that game the left can not be beat . . . so we need to stop playing it.

I HATE hate crimes legislation.

Is that a felony? Maybe . . . if this passes:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote soon on legislation that would create a new class of crimes based on the traits of the victim, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced the so-called hate-crimes bill — S.909 — last week. The U.S. House has already passed similar legislation.

"There is no evidence of an epidemic of sexual-orientation 'hate crimes' in this country," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "So, what's the real reason for this bill? Gay activists want to silence those who speak out against homosexuality."

If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. For example, a person could commit an act of violence against a homosexual individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon.

Also concerning is the fact that House Democrats voted down an amendment to their bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation." Source: here

Now even more disturbing is that TO THE MEMBER the Democrats opposed adding, as a Rep King (R) NY proposed, US war veterans as one of the "protected" classes. So let me get this straight - if your "trait" is child rape, you are a "protected" class; however if your "trait" is that you prevented a child rape while on duty in Iraq you are NOT a "protected" class? What is with these people that they find every aspect of "traditional" American values, sacred elements, and prized institutions so objectionable? They are 180 degrees on everything - up is down, day is night, good is evil, spending is "investing" . . . .

Now, just for the record, I oppose the very premise of "hate crimes" laws. After all, isn't all crime a hate crime? In other words, if one murders rapes, or steals, hang high em' and often; a short rope & a tall tree; or lock em' up throw a away the key, etc (sounds like a country music song). But I'd prefer not to give my government the power to penalize thought. And that's what hate crime laws do - they assign a penalization to what you were 'thinking" during the commission of the crime. This is not an authority our, or any other government should have. But that's me.

Oh ya, because they're doing a bang up job so far.

Oy vey . . .

I had another idea for my next post, but I must address this first: Jambo, you're nuts with this solar panel/wind generating SBA 3.5% loan deal. Not because there is an inherent flaw in that plan, on paper, but there is a huge, gaping, gigantic flaw in any such program as administered by the US federal government, especially THIS federal government. There would be "exceptions" for low income households to get them free; the maintenance , not to mention installation for public housing would be as big a financial calamity as say, public housing; and of course given it would be sold by Democrats as a "necessity" to save the planet they would opt to price control the actual panels, the labor, the generator, the engine itself ALL adding up to the private sector companies that would presumably turn them out saying: "thanks but no thanks, we'll make pencils." So then the feds would stress test it, need to "invest" in it, and presto the nationalization of private energy units. SBA loans may work fine & dandy in other areas of industry, but the feds involved in an industry which carries with it a HUGE political hot potatoe (my homage to Quail) of global warming, or climate change, or whatever these energy fascists want to call it now - NO WAY. I've got 2 names for you: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

The feds need to be doing less and less with less and less NOT MORE! What is this nonsensical knee jerk New Deal carry over reaction to EVERY problem that GOVERNMENT and ONLY government should could and would need to step in as the only solution? THAT is not what this country is about. Less those silly founding fathers had it all wrong. I've got one message for the feds: get the hell off my back & out of my way, WE will handle our own problems. Especially since the government's involvement will only make any given problem more acute! Sorry pal, but with these guys you go in for a vasectomy & end up getting neutered.

And I might add, if the government wasn't so overly and overtly involved with curtailing domestic energy recovery and distribution via asinine regulations in the first place, WE WOULDN'T NEED PRIVATE WIND MILLS! I don't want them doing more, I want them doing less, THEN if after the government pushes back from their artificially created added costs and crippling regulation, and the market still demands private alternative energy sources, FINE, the private sector will go crazy with them without government intervention, but during the interim I don't need the cause of the problem being tapped as providing the solution!

And while we're at it I am growing ever concerned, and quite frankly flat out tired, of peoples whom by every indication are "conservatives" whether it be on television, radio or this site, whom continuously produce plans too clever by half, i.e. coming up with a "conservative version" of New Deal style policies (and again, it's not just you). That THEY somehow someway will be the ones to invent a plan that makes government more efficient BY GROWING IT. It is inefficient by definition. So you guys, people whom are self identified "conservatives" need to think long & hard about what your true personal political philosophy is, because above all a CONSERVATIVE, in the modern political context, should be advocating LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That is the GOP's chief problem right now, our leaders have compromised themselves right out of any core principles, thus out of any power. We can not win by defining "conservatism" as the Democrats wanting to grow government X + Y, and we saying we only want to grow it by X.

I love ya man, but I'm burnt out on so called fiscal hawks that attempt to show how clever they are by growing government "conservatively." You want to impress me? Show me a plan that slashes federal spending, regulation, intrusion, and encumbrance on the very people it is there to serve. Otherwise call yourself a progressive and be done with it.

Sheeeeesh.

Cash for clunkers.

I swear to God...

When I came up with a similar idea as a part of New Deal 2008 (April 2008) it sounded a lot better. One million car sales, $4500 per car to get your crap car in and a more fuel efficient car out.

How much of that will go towards AMERICAN made cars?

Well, let's see.

Any domestic made hybrids crashing the market at $13k or less? No? Do these flex fuel vehicles count? No? Are any of the big three rolling out the smaller hybrids on demand? No?

Well, there's 4,500,000,000 well spent.

Same concept, same kind of deal except instead of GIVING the money away the homeowner borrows it SBA style from the feds at 3.5% over ten years and my alternative energy idea is GOLD. Domestically produced wind generators and solar panels, at a million homes a year? THAT'S stimulus.

Man...

See, if you'd return my texts ...

... this wouldn't happen. I asked you if it was "Robert", asked if I had that right. And yes those mission papers were indeed what I meant. However I'm not sure how "Ray" or any special services member would feel about this movie, having just watched an extended clip online here. The title is: Ingloriuos Basterds (yes, that's how they spelled it). First, I didn't realize whose move it was - its' Tarantino's. And it is heavy on violence. And that's ok, 300 was as violent as it gets but there was some measure of honor rolled into it in a way I'm not sure a Quinton Terantino - gangster film maker - is capable of capturing. Perhaps I am wrong . . . I hope so, less Hollywood go after the final sacred object of their industry, WWII soldiers.

At any rate you can check it out, judge for yourself.

By the way - we've been in Afghanistan since 2002, Iraq 2003, with countless special forces, infantry, et al missions, anyone of which could be fertile ground for a serious war movie, but not 1, NOT 1 movie comes out of Hollywood about our men currently engaged. They support the troops but not the mission? Bullsh** . . . but all that is a well established fact here. The last war time president ( & war for that matter) they see as "worthy" of their "art" is FDR. And the last war time Republican that modern Hollywood finds worth imitation is Lincoln!

Well, at least they are doing GI JOE, coming out in June. It looks good. It would appear that to Paramount et al that the only modern soldiers worth honoring through film are fictional &/or in the future (Star Trek & the new Terminator).

{sigh}

I'm not sure who "Robert" is...

But my Grandfather "Ray H." jumped into France with a Jedburgh team, and I believe those were the mission papers you were referring to. He knew William Donovan personally, in fact, and we have letters written to him by that first Director of OSS.

You cause me to ponder, though... because Jambo and I have had countless conversations where we discussed our perceived impressions of Ray's opinions of FDR and the New Deal. There is little doubt in either of our minds that Ray was, from 1929 to the day he died in 1994, a firm and dedicated opponent of "New Deal" politics. He was no fan of Roosevelt, that is sure.

He joined the Army in 1939 because he was all but broke, and into debt up to his eyeballs. I'm assuming that he felt the "Roosevelt Recession" particularly hard, and that he had been forced to borrow significant amounts of money from his parents. I know that nearly all the letters we still have of his to his parents included his military pay to clear up these debts, and that the extra money promised for the duty was why he signed up for the Airborne Infantry in the first place.

No doubt that Ray would not have been happy with the state of the nation since Obama has been in office... considering his opinions on such Democratic Presidents as Kennedy and Johnson, and every DFL Governor of Minnesota since 1922.

One thing I am sure of, though... Ray would have seen the parallels between what he didn't like in the FDR years to what he didn't like in the Obama years. Ray always had a real and measurable sense of historical perspective and loved to share that perspective (at every opportunity) during Happy Hour over his martini. If memory serves, and I can take his stated position and opinion concerning Carter's policies as any indicator, then I can safely say that Ray H. would not have had much to say in support of Obama.

After all, those Czar loyalists DID wear white after labor day ...

... so maybe they just didn't get the Bolshevik''s fashion sense. Hmmm, I wonder.

China has announced that they "suggest" our spending "slow down." A fiscal restraint message from communists ... let that sink in. They are in essence cutting up our national credit card (with them). And a certain Representative, Kirk (R) IL, said tonight on Glenn Beck's show that he has visited our bureau on foreign debt - yes, such an office exists - and the number of foreign state "investors" in US debt has dropped from 45 . . . to 16.

No, that shouldn't harm us, not at all. I'm sure "Our Great Leader Obama" has a swell, nifty, 5 year plan to dig us out of this hole ... I mean after all, he IS looking out for the proletariat ... err, I mean "the people." Should he fail surely tears will fall in gulags from sea to shining sea, beating even Uncle Joey's record of servitude.

If you have any prayers memorized . . . now's the time.

Funny how life works . . .

. . . Ol' Brad Pitt has a movie coming out. I viewed a brief commercial as the family made an outing to see "Wolverine" tonight. It seems that Mr. Jolie is heading up an OSS outfit to drop into occupied France, bent on "harassing" the enemy . . . although he puts it a bit more visceral, or "Hollywood" then that. And the first name that echoed in my head was a certain "Robert", and reading on Titus's Ocean Springs front porch his dutiful exploits that would make even James Bond blush (& he didn't think much of the French I might add - that always made me laugh).

Then we get home & my youngest explains to me his favorite book in my personal library: "BATTLEFIELDS AND CAMPAIGNS", a review of the major battles in human history from Alexander to Napoleon to Barbarossa to Swartzkopff (sp?). And then ... just then, a thin green booklet falls from the inside cover of this mammoth book. Its' title: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage." And along with noticing the name of a striking young usher on the inside cover, I noticed the date ... May 31st 2008, 2pm. So, let me be the first to say to you & your better half Titus: Happy 1 Year Anniversary. And along with your marriage I'll note it's the week we all last shared a pint. I'll let you decide which has more significance ...

hehe .... tell her I'm KIDDING ...

... sort of.

A new beginning...

I liked Ryan's post... maudlin as it was.

I will say this, though, in regards to my own irregular Bund habits: There is a price to be paid for straying from your established grounds. While I find that the visits I make to other boards are interesting, and allow me to keep in practice when things are slow here... the level of debate and discussion is far too erratic and juvenile for my tastes. To put it in terms that only Jambo and I would appreciate... I couldn't go back to the days of Wealthwood Park. I just don't have it in me anymore.

I am convinced that here, at the Bund, we share a common ideology and only differ in how we see establishing that ideology in practical terms and means. Ryan holds the "ideal" of Reagan as the example of his vision for America, and stands at one end of our own, very small, political spectrum, while I see myself as standing at the other end looking for the practical, implementable "actuality" of any Presidential example we could care to examine.

In the past, I have always fought the urge to label myself a conservative, but if terms like "liberal" or "progressive" mean an automatic association with the likes of Obama/Reid/Pelosi, then call me a "conservative" all day long... please. I've already stated my inability to vote with my established Party candidates, so I suppose that an eventual "card change" is inevitable, too.

Sometimes the choir NEEDS to be preached to.

Hmmm . . .

I just spent the last several minutes catching up on every post since my last, which was in March - yes, I skipped an entire month. Now, I'm not one that's ever been "addicted" to any substance, never even tried drugs, not even once, though I will admit to consuming amounts of alcohol on occasion sufficient to make an alcoholic blush, let alone a penny. However, I must imagine that intellectually the "detox" of withdrawing from the Bund and having only coworkers et al with whom I discussed religion, politics, history and the world at large is similar to say, a crystal Meth addict being put into a sober tank - lots of sweating at first, followed by screaming. Some sleep deprivation leading into full on insomnia. Some hallucinations (or so I thought, it turns out Obama is indeed president & his policies are really being enacted), only ending in a realization 180 degrees from any recovered addict - I NEED THIS STUFF TO BE HEALTHY!

We all understand the obvious here - there is so little posting because there is so little disagreement on how unbelievably bereft of history, sound financial/military policy and just plain common sense this administration is. However, as my title eludes to from time to time, in a world where President Barak H. Obama enjoys a 60% approval rating by explaining that America got it wrong the first 233 years, I NEED to check in for confirmation that I'm not the only sane man in the room. It matters little to me whether we all agree on every subject and every issue from now until the 2nd Coming (at which time we can have our final argument and clear up this pesky "God's true Church on earth" issue), because the quality of insight, reassurance and original perspective on any given issue here is worth its weight in Obama era gold. Where else am I going to be pleasantly surprised about a damned fine parallel between Queen Elizabeth and Ronald Reagan (oh, sorry is that not what you meant? A political "savior" riding in on a white horse and restoring the traditional grandeur and pride of a great nation? That's what I got out of it ... hehe)?

So, my absence is an action I intend not to repeat. As for Titus, like a supple Siren temptress the other posting boards promised him a bounty of ripe conversation, and to tickle the fancy of his ever pleasure. Yet he found her, in the end, to be a home-wrecking Jezebel, heavy on the eye make-up, incapable of sustaining more thoughts then orgasms, and so he is back, rededicated to his one true intellectual love promising to never stray into ill advised adulteress arms again. And while Jambo's posts have been no more frequent then Titus, at least he returns my deluge of text messages . . ."ahem."

Now, for my contribution to our much needed sanctum of reason and perspective, our "Bund Batcave", I offer this:

What concerns me most about our president is how much he loves this country. Surprised to hear that are you? I thought so. But lets peel an inch or so deeper. My meaning is his love for what this country "should be." What it is "capable of being." It is my serious contention that when he speaks of "delivering on America's great promise", he means to tell us all that the original ideals of liberty laid down by the Founding Fathers were never realized, only discussed, espoused, pondered, but never delivered. When he talks in terms of "we tried it their way", most pundits, being the historically devoid, blow dried, hair dyed, milk toast, thought Jacobins they are, nod along assuming he means to say "we tried it Bush's way." I tend to take people at their word, what they do say, not what they "meant." "Their way" is to mean the previous 233 years of American exceptionalism that he finds somehow, unacceptable, insufficient. In that time span this one country of ours has been the engine that caused more ingenuity, prosperity and liberty then arguably the 5000 years prior to its existence. In that time man has gone from a primary mode of transportation of ox & cart to propelling himself onto the moon. The cause of advancement in medicine, science, war making and defense, financial prosperity, all spearheaded (not necessarily invented) within our shores. But most importantly, at the heart of it all, we have engaged in the greatest experiment in liberty the world has ever seen. And Mr. Obama seems to think those two events are mutually exclusive. As if the unprecedented prosperity in every field imaginable was somehow spurred on by accident or by happenstance rather then the greatest unleashing of human potential, via our Constitution, history has ever witnessed. I find this curious in the extreme. And in trying to correct what he sees as a failed experiment he has displayed monumental hubris to quite literally believe that one can "wipe out" ever instance of poverty ... indeed every instance of necessity of every kind. And frightening for any aware American is knowing that the dust heap of history is stacked high with nation states that believed that such a "guarantee" was the inherent entitlement of her peoples. The heirs of a nation whose unprecedented prosperity was built by embracing the sanctity of the rugged individual, private property rights, and the acknowledgement of God's role in our society, are wildly cheering on a man for rejecting these very principles and advertising collectivism as our future, and I am struck dumbfounded at that reality.

Any man with a child needs to take a walk with his children. But a very specific walk . . . one through a military graveyard. Walk along the headstones, read a name or two out loud to your offspring. Don't say much more then that as you stroll, let them absorb the magnitude of the sacrifice all around them. Then at the end tell them. Tell them that great nations can fall if good men do not stand up to defend them ... to lead them. Make sure they understand how unique a moment in time America is. That we can fade away. And whether it's in their daily life or on a grand scale they have a duty, not an entitlement, to America.


"Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes."

-George Washington, Letter to Lafayette, 1788