About Me

Name: America Forever
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Obama Can Say Anything


Concession  # 1
:  You can sense that, whereas Bush stammered because he was searching for a word from his non-Buckleyite vocabulary, Obama stammers even more because he's trying to fit all the details into the context of his thoughts and responses.  OK, Obama appears to be better at the details than W showed himself to be.
 

So What?  # 1:  But, a good President doesn't govern by consuming, and regurgitating, details like a starved individual.  He governs by making solid and consistent policy.  I believe it was another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who made the world safe for scheduling tennis play at the White House.  Of course, Carter's only real legacy is that he "whipped" Ted Kennedy during his re-nomination effort. 

Concession  # 2:  I actually learned a term that I hadn't heard of when President Obama used it in his inaugural press conference.  When he was speaking about Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said something about what sounded to me like "Fatah and those border regions."  Hey, I thought I knew a little something about that neck of the woods but I hadn't heard of the Fatah region. 

Investigation  # 1:  So, off to Google and Wikipedia I go.  After just a little research (I am good, ain't I?), I found that it wasn't Fatah but the acronym F.A.T.A., which stands for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.  Obviously, this is an official term used by the Government and people of Pakistan to describe that region of their country. 

So What?  # 2:  Let me state my problem with that term even if it's officially used by the Pakistani's.  Since when does one use the term "tribe" to refer to a group of people unless it is with derision?  Having roots myself in the Indian subcontinent, it seems to me another sign of the problems we face in that area when whole lots of people are referred to as "tribes."  But, since when does a President of the U.S. use that term -- not to describe just our enemy but to describe the people who are inhabitants of the area where our enemy is hiding and operating from? 

So What?  # 3:  When President Bush used the term axis-of-evil in his 2002 State of the Union address to describe the evil regimes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he was pilloried and ridiculed by a press, a party and what-goes-for a civilized world.  They didn't let up on that for the next 7 years.  Now, we have a supposedly worldly man in his place, who doesn't hesitate to use terms like "tribal regions" loosely. 

So What?  # 4:  And, the press (which -- to my awareness -- never used that term before) happily goes along.  It's a small point -- I know that -- but it just points out the hypocrisy of the man and his supporters.  And, it gave me something to write about at the end of a totally-unimpressive first 30 days (Specter, Snowe and Collins notwithstanding).  I fear that this may be the first of many posts on Pakistan.  As I suspected during the campaign, our President thinks, based on the three weeks he spent visiting his mother in Pakistan back in the early 1980's, that he can straighten out the Pakistani's.  A bit of advice, Mr. President: proceed with caution. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Pied Piper


I recently re-read the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin.  It is about a legend set in medieval Germany that was made into a classic poem by Robert Browning.  The piper turns his charm on the children after the townsfolk refuse to pay him for ridding the village of its rat infestation.  See http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/hameln.html#browning .  You must read the poem, if only, to see the lame boy, whose friends all disappeared into the cavern but who himself wasn't able to join them, relay the message of the promised life as described by the piper:


                    "For he led us, he said, to a joyous land,
                     Joining the town and just at hand,
                     Where waters gushed and fruit trees grew,
                     And flowers put forth a fairer hue,
                     And everything was strange and new;
                     The sparrows were brighter than the peacocks here,
                     And their dogs outran our fallow deer,
                     And honey-bees had lost their stings,
                     And horses were born with eagles' wings"
 
Today, we have a new piper, who is preying not on little children but on grown-up Americans.  There is euphoria in the air, it is time for change "we can believe in."  Words seem to matter over deeds and character, oratory over substance.  People swoon over his rhetoric but his speeches cannot be parsed because they are empty words.  The hollow promises that won't be kept or, even more scarily, may be kept -- with a vengeance.  The deception of a whole generation of young adults.  The audacity to give us the false hope that salvation is coming -- no, not the salvation that can come to each of us when we meet our maker but the salvation offered by a phony messiah.  The piper is dragging us (willingly, of course) into the cave in the mountainside by a personal charm and presence that should only scare us out of our wits when we remember other such instances in history.  The hubris of an arrogant and, ultimately, ignorant man.
 
And, what awaits us on the other side?  A vain cult of personality that can cause us serious harm.  In world affairs, we can find ourselves being tested by unfriendly nations while we have a President who believes that he can change the world (and impress the Europeans) by the sheer melodiousness of his talk.  He will undoubtedly be tested in his willingness to stand by Israel and his first reaction to it will be to try his populist style by giving up strategic ground to the militant Islamic nations and forces.  What, if anything, will he do to help Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities?  And, what will his reaction be when that conceited smoothness doesn't work on our foes?  I can easily see it turn into careless military ventures, such as in Pakistan, where, God forbid, we could lose more soldiers in one month than we have in 7 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Where will the Pied Piper lead us?
 
At home, he will tax the economic strength of America.  He will destroy the "goose with the golden eggs" that is American business and replace it with a statist policy that will result in "goose eggs" for our economy.  He will worsen any recession by increasing taxes and failing to understand the underpinnings of our financial system.  He will cater to unions by ending the secret ballot and by failing to supervise their excesses.  He will put limits on the right to free speech, including conservative talk radio and we can see the full force of the executive branch brought to bear against his opponents.  Not content with Roe v. Wade, there will be laws to support greater abortion rights, no matter what trimester!  Watch out Sarah Palin!  There will be new and stifling restrictions on hunters and the Constitutional right to bear arms.  The educational system will be hurt by a greater emphasis on the social agenda and less on the three R's.  The best health care system in the world will be replaced by a European-style state-run monster.  The Supreme Court will legislate by deciding according to his standards of "fairness and justice" and not according to the Constitution.  The dying welfare state will be reinvigorated through tax credits (how else do you give a tax-break to 95% of Americans, roughly 40% of whom don't pay any federal income taxes in the first place?) and spending for social-engineering purposes will sky-rocket.  The poorest of the lemmings aren't likely to benefit in the long run -- they never do -- from this massive infusion of misdirected spending -- it will only help to keep them dependent and impoverished.  
 
I've run out of steam but you know the moral of the Pied Piper story, that Browning draws, is that the piper must be paid.  And pay we will in every aspect of our lives resulting in an end to so many things we Americans hold so dear.  At the end of his presidency, we will be a disillusioned people desperately hoping and praying for rescue by a Reagan-like leader.  Let's hope this tale does not play out because, unlike the apocryphal story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, this could become reality.
Tags: obama   future  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Beating Kucinich to It

I am on Record 

Before the fringe left, the loser left and, ultimately, the entire Democratic Party follow suit, I want to declare here and now that we should immediately remove our forces from Afghanistan for the following reasons:

o  We went into Afghanistan under false pretenses -- we were told that we would find Osama Bin Laden but we have found no OBL

o  Hamid Karzai has not been an effective leader -- heck, there are more Taliban attacks than ever before

o  We have alienated a people who would rather behead women in public squares when they are not stoning them to death 

o  Those Afghan farmers just won't stop growing poppy 

o  About 700,000 civilians have been killed by US forces

o  It is all Bush's fault -- we should have nailed the al Qaeda and Taliban instead of foraying into Iraq 

o  Our losses continue to mount (more than 10% of the number killed on 9/11) and we know that the US is a wimpy nation that will not fight 

o  Tony Blair won't be Britain's PM much longer 

o  If we do this, they will love us in Europe 

o  I want that Kucinich on my side for a change

I apologize for the shortness of the list but I wanted to beat the Democrats to it.  Please feel free to add your own reasons.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Chicken or the Egg

Which Came First?

To begin with, many Americans are painfully just ignorant of world events.  Unfortunately for us, these world events have come home to roost in the form of Islamist terrorism.  So, many Americans have tried to deal with a complex world by looking at things through a distorted prism of their own creation.

Many Democrats find it easier to relate to a world they understand and are comfortable in.  So, they create this make-believe world view.  Instead of trying to understand the Islamist fascists and the danger they pose, why not demonize the Republicans and their President Bush?  It's so much easier to do this than to accept a world of war and sacrifice and pain.

Will, this delusionary thinking on their part come to a halt?  Personally, I don't think that sanity will return to the Dennis Kucinich-Sherrod Brown wing of the Democratic party unless we get smacked down "big time" by an act of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 --  and, very soon.

Let's assume that doesn't happen and I really hope it doesn't.  For that more-peaceful (at least, in the short run) scenario, I have a prediction.  At some point in the future, the Democratic fringe is going to blame 9/11 on the Iraq war.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dennis is Too Funny

Did Christopher Buckley Invent Dennis Kucinich?

This column from the Washington Post is hilarious!

washingtonpost.com

Correction to This Article
Editor's note: Dana Milbank's Washington Sketch contained several formatting errors and a dropped word in this morning's print edition. The following is a corrected version of the column.
Kucinich's Battle Against Cheney Not So (Im)Peachy Keen

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, April 25, 2007; 8:18 AM

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

Kucinich did have one thing: a copy of the Declaration of Independence. And he was not afraid to read it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the aspiring impeachment manager read at the start of his news conference. He continued all the way through the bit about the right of the people to abolish the government.

"These words from the Declaration of Independence are instructive at this moment," he said.

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.

"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.

"Yes, I did," she replied.

Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.

It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.

Kucinich had called his news conference for noon on the terrace of the Cannon building. But minutes before the event, his office sent out a statement: "News reports this morning indicate the Vice President was experiencing a medical crisis. Until the vice president's condition is clarified, I am placing any action on hold."

This was odd, because the vice president's spokeswoman had already announced that Cheney had merely gone to a doctor's office to check on a blood clot in his leg, which is improving. Cheney himself, far from suffering a medical crisis, joined Senate Republicans for lunch at the Capitol. "The leg's doing good," Cheney announced after lunch, his lips in his trademark snarl. Indeed, he was feeling so well that he chose to start a new fight with congressional Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was not only "uninformed and misleading," but also practicing "defeatism," Cheney said. Democrats are guilty of "political calculation" and "blind opposition."

Reid visited the same microphones minutes later to return the playground taunts: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." And: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog."

Kucinich evidently realized there was no reason for him to get cold feet just because of Cheney's leg. A few minutes after the Cheney-Reid showdown, the congressman arrived in the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor, handing out news releases to any reporter he could find: "Kucinich to Move Forward with Impeachment News Conference."

Washingtonpost.com's Paul Kane showed the news release to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who declined to endorse the Kucinich crusade. "He was busily engaged in handing that out," Hoyer observed. "Beyond that, I don't have any thought about it."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive -- "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it" -- but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: "This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel."

Kucinich, however, did not find humor in the matter. Standing perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes, he wore a solemn face as he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level. He beckoned to aides, who handed out thick binders detailing the case.

Kucinich read at length from his articles of impeachment, undeterred by rush-hour traffic noise on Independence Avenue ("I'll wait till the truck goes by here," he said at one point) and wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem.

Tom Ferraro of Reuters asked Kucinich if any other lawmakers supported impeachment.

"Because this resolution is so weighty in its import, it's going to be important for members of Congress to have sufficient time to study the articles," Kucinich answered.

We'll take that as a no. "So at this point you stand alone?" Ferraro pressed.

"I believe I stand with millions of Americans," Kucinich parried.

Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."

It was a valid point. If Kucinich is having this much trouble impeaching one vice president, imagine the difficulty impeaching two presidents.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Imus in the Mourning

Open Letter to MSNBC and CBS

Wow!!!

Congratulations to CBS and MSNBC for removing Don Imus from his radio talk show and its simultaneous telecast.  It is my understanding that you did it for his intemperate comments on the show.  Let me quote from Les Moonves' statement, "there has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people."  Just like you, I found his comments against US victory in Iraq to be extremely offensive and reprehensible.  He has made some terrible comments regarding the valiant effort of our young troops in Iraq.  Like you, I agree that his acts of goodness with kids should not excuse him from the fate you meted out to him.  Bravo!!!

Let me conclude by asking the rhetorical questions.  What would he have said next if you hadn't stopped him in time?  Something rude and racist?

Sincerely yours,

Bill Bennett's Morning in America listener and Fox & Friends watcher
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Friendly Fire

Pat Tillman's Manner of Death

Pat Tillman was a hero who loved his country more than he loved his fortune.  Would to God that I had the courage of the man and his selflessness all wrapped up in one!   As it is, I can't lay claim to either of these qualities of Pat's.

What puzzles me about the reaction to his death is how it seems to be diminished in the eyes of some.  Why should the fact that his death was a result of bullets fired by his fellow American soldiers matter as to how the man lived or died?  It takes nothing away from the greatness of the man -- not one iota of a drop in a whole big ocean.  It just doesn't!

In war, there are casualties that are not the direct cause of enemy action.  The soldier who dies from a vehicular accident must be honored just like the one who loses his life to an improvised explosive device.  Surely, we don't draw distinctions between two deaths in battle -- so, why must we draw distinctions between those deaths and accidental deaths or between deaths as a direct result of the enemy and those caused by "friendly" fire?

Yes, we need to investigate deaths caused by friendly fire to make sure that they were not intentional nor the result of gross negligence.  We need to make sure that we understand how they happened so that we can search for ways to prevent them from happening in the future.  But we must keep in mind that these deaths are to an extent inevitable in any combat action.  They have always been a part of warfare and the complete elimination of such deaths is an impossibility.

But, there is no shame in a soldier dying as a result of friendly fire.  None at all!  It is a shame for the rest of us to draw these types of distinctions based on the manner of the soldier's death.

Pat Tillman's death must be felt by his family like it does none of us others who knew him as a sports figure and a model for our youth.  But, we, who knew him so little, can still honor his memory and death by friendly fire does not stain that honor -- no, not at all!  Rest in peace, good man!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And, then there were ....

Ninety Nine Bottles of Beer on the Wall 

My good friend and founder of www.kuhse.com has a self-imposed burden to bear.  He's from Iowa and feels that all that emanates from Iowa is good.  (You can see that come through loud and clear on his, alas, too-long dormant site.)  You see, there are always some Iowans who regularly let him down.  For example, Senator Harkin will continue to disappoint him forever.  Another Iowan who has done so recently is former Governor Vilsack.

Well, Tom Vilsack just gave my friend a reprieve by quitting the race for President and leaving it to those more capable of winning.  Winning the Democratic nomination for President, that is .... because to a man or woman, they are for losing in Iraq and the hell with the larger war as well.

I've decided to make these last couple of days even better for my friend by finding a fitting use for Vilsack's bye-bye speech.  It is now a generic speech that can be used by all the other Democratic contenders as they give up.  Ohio native son, Dennis Kucinich, will probably need this speech in July 2008 after he is dragged from the Democratic Presidential nomination scene, kicking and screaming, having garnered all of 3 delegates for the convention.  Actually, I went one step further and made this a farewell speech that can also be used by future generations of Democratic losers.  And, need I say, there is no risk of plagiarism here -- special note for Senator Biden.


"I am very fortunate -- blessed in love, family, friends, job, and by this campaign.

That is why this morning after discussing with my <pick one wife/husband>, <fill in blank>, and our child(ren), <f.i.b.>, we have decided to end our campaign for the presidency.

The truth is we have everything to win the nomination and general election -- everything except <p.o. money/a chance/voters/charisma>.  

I want to thank everyone for all of their support, hard work, and kinds words over the past few months. <f.i.b.> and I appreciate everything everyone has done for us.

My heart tells me to stay and continue fighting for the values we share and believe -- but I cannot continue campaigning with the expectation of <p.o. raising hundreds of millions of dollars/mere handful of voters/beating Hillary or Obama>.

I am leaving one campaign but I am not saying goodbye. I will continue to fight for the outsiders and the <p.o. underdogs/wimps/defeatists/Hollywood stars/he's-not-MY-President crowd> who are the backbone of the Democratic Party and our country. And I will continue to fight for an end to the war, achieve energy security and get our country back on track. So stay tuned, the best is yet to come.

I am proud of the ideas that we have presented, and I am proud of the work that we have already done. And I urge you to continue fighting for the issues that we care so deeply about.

Our ideas will not be forgotten, and I will continue advocating for immediately bringing our troops home from <p.o. Iraq/Iran/Germany/Britain/Canada>. It’s the only action we can take that will truly help our country.

Again, thank you for everything and stay tuned. Our fight for a better America is far from over."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hall of Shame II

More Inductions 

The Hall of Shame opened its doors to a new group of inductees on Saturday.  The Senate failed to get cloture on the non-binding House resolution on Iraq but seven Republican Senators were admitted to the Hall of Shame by voting with the Democrats.

Among them are the two losers from Maine, a movie-star-wanna-hang-around who has lost his Virginia marbles, the sad-excuse-for-a-Republican (whom my wife has always disliked, I should listen to her more often) who the weak-kneed Republicans allowed to chair the Judiciary Committee when they were able to chair anything, the Oregonian who might have an excuse being from the Pacific NW and the President-wanna-be from Nebraska whose campaign is dead-on-arrival.  Continuing in the hyphenated-format of this paragraph, the most disappointing inductee was the Minnesotan-who-won-our-hearts-by-taking-on-Kofi's-UN.  Sorry to see you go, Norm.

For the record, the names:

1.  Senator Susan Collins  (Maine)
2.  Senator Olympia Snowe  (Maine)
3.  Senator John Warner  (Virginia)
4.  Senator Arlen Specter  (Pennsylvania)
5.  Senator Gordon Smith  (Oregon)
6.  Senator Chuck Hagel  (Nebraska)
7.  Senator Norman Coleman  (Minnesota)


Of course, Senator Joseph Lieberman has been (permanently?) barred entry within its compounds and is subject to criminal prosecution for coming within 100 miles of the place.  Sorry, Joe, you can't get in.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hall of Shame

Induction Day

Yesterday was the day when several Americans were admitted to the Hall of Shame.  They were admitted through a self-voting process when these 17 Republicans voted with the Democrats for the non-binding resolution against the use of more US troops in Iraq.  Many of the Democrats are not eligible for the Hall of Shame because of their diminished capacity to think rationally.  Admittedly, there are a few Democrats who voted for the resolution who cannot claim the insanity defense.  They will have to wait for another day of induction because they're awash in the same excrement that their irrational colleagues are.  And, I'm not about to wade into the sewers to find out who is what.

The list of the inductees (in the yellow background) is presented in full below.  One of them happens to represent my District.  (I'm going to have to go on moveon.org to find where I can get a "He's not MY Congressman" bumper sticker.)


1.   Representative James T. Walsh  (New York)
2.   Representative Walter Jones  (North Carolina)
3.   Representative Wayne Gilchrest  (Maryland)
4.   Representative Michael Castle  (Delaware)

5.   Representative Richard (Ric) Keller  (Florida)
6.   Representative Philip Sheridan English  (Pennsylvania)
7.   Representative Ronald Ernest Paul  (Texas)
8.   Representative Frederick Stephen Upton  (Michigan)

9.   Representative Thomas M. Davis  (Virginia)
10. Representative Mark Kirk  (Illinois)
11. Representative Howard Coble  (North Carolina)
12. Representative John J. Duncan Jr.  (Tennessee)
13. Representative James Ramstad  (Minnesota)
14. Representative Steven C. LaTourette  (Ohio)

15. Representative Robert Inglis  (South Carolina)
16. Representative Timothy V. Johnson  (Illinois)
17. Representative Thomas Petri  (Wisconsin)

Unlike Cooperstown, the House of Representatives doesn't have high standards.  I'd rather see Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame than vote for any of these guys again.  Interestingly, there are no shameless women in this lot of inductees though a couple of them are lurking in the Senate.

It is necessary to also mention the names of two Congressmen who were refused entry to the Hall of Shame.  Their names are posted at the entrance to the hall for all to see and admire.  Not allowed entry were two Democrats who stood four-square for the United States and against the resolution for defeat:

1.   Representative Jim Marshall (Georgia)
2.   Representative Gene Taylor (Mississippi)


I can't wait for the 2008 primary elections.  I won't be able to cast my "joke" vote for Kucinich because I'll be voting in the Republican primary for any true conservative who runs against LaTourette.

In a recent post, Hugh Hewitt quoted erstwhile British Member of Parliament, Leopold Amery, speaking to Neville Chamberlain snd other members of his Conservative Party.  Leo Amery was, in turn, quoting Oliver Cromwell:

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.  Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go." 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax and Spend .....

..... The Democrats are Back

The Republicans in Congress blew it badly in the last several years by seemingly forgetting from whence they came -- they decided to spend our money with abandon as if it was theirs, failing to live by the Jeffersonian edict of less government, not understanding that we must be better than the other party in recognizing the limits of federal spending.  And, they combined it with arrogance (the "bridge to nowhere" stands out as a shameful example) and corruption -- things the Democrats are better at and we should have left those fine arts to them to further develop and enshrine.

Well, it took just a few weeks for the Dems to show the Republicans what amateurs we were.  Before I go any further, are the 100 hours over?  If not, I apologize for criticizing them too quickly.  All Dem excesses in the first 100 hours can be attributed to the "mandate" they got from the voters in November.  By the way, that mandate included the one that allows them to stretch out the 100 hours of legislative activity over two months, sorry, correction, two years.

Nancy Pelosi surely deserves the larger jet to take her back and forth to Frisco.  The same Nancy Pelosi whose party will try to stop us from riding in SUV's because they consume too much gas and screw up the environment.  The larger jet will not affect global warming but your SUV does.  This one qualifies for arrogance and corruption all in one act.

And, the spending will continue and grow -- and grow.  The difference will be that the Dem spending is GOOD for the country even if it is more extreme and shameful than the Republican spending because the latter was meant to only benefit Halliburton.  Dem spending is so blatantly aimed at their voter base that it isn't even funny.  Let's buy the votes of the lower-income African-Americans and Hispanics even if we have to do so by keeping them from getting out of the cycle of poverty.

Which gets me to the first part of the "tax and spend" credo.  The "tax" part.

The Dems really are seeming to believe their own press releases about their "mandate" in the November elections.  And, they may be about to give an advantage to the hapless Republicans, who look like they couldn't pull out a victory on their own if they tried.

The Dems want to tax the high-income earners in this country -- the other America of John Edwards.  Were it that simple!

Now, John Edwards clearly belongs to that other America and by a long shot.  By and large, the people who make incomes of $200,000 to $500,000 are just trying (mostly, in vain) to get to be as rich as John Edwards or John (Teresa Heinz) Kerry or Ted Kennedy.  And, guess who's trying to prevent that from happening?  Sorry, no prizes for guessing John Edwards, John Kerry or Ted Kennedy.  I wonder if they think that to tax these "high-income earners" is a neat way to pull back the plank now that they've made it to the castle?  And, talking of castles, how many of the people who make incomes of $200,000 to $500,000 can afford a "castle" like the 28,000 sq. ft. one that the Edwardses have built for themselves?

Now, I have a concept that should shut up the Dems from raiding the pocketbooks of the "high-income earners" who make less than $1,000,000 in a year.  First, if we were to exempt this group from the Democrat tax, there just wouldn't be enough taxable income above that level to make up for it.  Someone can do the math, but I'm guessing that way less than half the annual income made by people making over $200,000 is made by people making over $1,000,000.  So, we have to go after the Edwardses, the Heinz-Kerrys and the Kennedys some other way.

Let's say that the average working stiff who makes $200,000 to $1,000,000 a year has a net worth of about $10,000,000.  I'm sure that figure isn't far off the mark (although I'm just guessing).  How about if we impose a 20% tax annually on wealth in excess of $10,000,000?  Wouldn't that fill up the federal coffers really fast?  And, you wouldn't have to worry about John Edwards using every dodge in the book to keep his taxable income down.  It wouldn't matter, he'd be paying tax on his net worth of, I'm guessing again, $200,000,000.

Of course, such a tax would be un-American but so is taxing the "high-income earners!"  But, if Ted Kennedy and company bought into my tax plan, at least their credibility on the subject would shoot up!  Ain't going to happen and not because it's un-American.  It ain't going to happen because the Dems like to tax the working stiffs, admittedly the higher-paid working stiffs, and they want to leave the gentlemen of leisure (i.e., themselves) alone.

Let the "tax and spend" games begin.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Steady in the Ranks

Senate Republicans Put to the Test

There is only one Democrat in the U.S. Senate who has the courage to speak his mind on the war.  He is, of course, the lonely Nutmegger Joe Lieberman.  The rest of the Democrats are not worthy of being in the same room as Joe.

The sad counterpart of this story across the aisle is that so many of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate are totally worthy of being in the same room as all the other Democrats.

Ladies first, the Lumber State has given us two Republican women who make a mockery of Maine's nickname.  They are dandelions both -- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.  On social issues they are to the left of the New York Times.  But, you used to be able to count on them when it came to issues of our national security.  Not any more -- they will inevitably vote for the Warner resolution.

Which leads us to turncoat John Warner.  Personally, I believe that he's just too old, a shadow of his former self.  And, we all know that a shadow has no spine.  All those years of hanging around the Hollywood elite when he was married to Elizabeth Taylor, has had its toll.  It's a sad day when one asks the question:  Warner-Levin, Levin-Warner, what's the difference?

That gets us to the former soldier, Chuck Hagel (we honor your service).  Chuck wants to be your President and believes that he has to sound like a Democrat to be elected.  There's something called the primaries and the nomination process that Chuck seems to forget about.  Chuck couldn't get into double digits in too many Republican primary elections.

Another candidate for President is Sam Brownback who seems to have developed feet of jello on the war.  Now, Sam is a man of integrity so I don't impugn political motives to his flipping sides.  I attribute it to a lack of judgment and vision.  Sorry, Mr. Brownback, that's probably just as damning.

Arlen Specter is one who I learned early on was not likely to get going when the going got tough.  He was a Philadelphia District Attorney in the Vietnam days when he effectively joined ranks with Jane Fonda.  Now, three decades later, he is exhibiting his true colors ("yellow") once again.  The fanatics we're fighting in this war will get you before they come for me.  You're not smart enough to understand the stakes, are you?

Disappointing is the best you can call the behavior of Cornyn, Coleman and Roberts.  But they'll likely stand firm in the ranks.  Well, most likely Cornyn and Roberts will.

Which gets us back to my home-stater Voinovich, who thwarted John Bolton's nomination for confirmation as the US Ambassador to the UN.  To his credit, he reversed his position when Bolton came back to the Senate again.  But this misguided opposition to a great diplomat sorely needed at a tough moment in our history is the mark of a man thinking of how to position himself politically in a state that has turned blue.

But, one has to come back to McCain and Lieberman for the last straw.  They can determine the course of this war and, just as importantly, the larger war against the jihadists.  Wilting in Iraq is no way to convince us that they will not wilt again and again!

Stand firm in the ranks ....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Goodbye Kerry

....and You Never Reported for Duty

I have to admit that, for me, the Presidential elections of 2004 were an extension of the bitterness that marked the Vietnam War.  As the wee early morning numbers from Ohio showed that Kerry was, for all practical purposes, mathematically eliminated from beating Bush in the electoral college, a strange feeling came over me.  It wasn't just that the candidate I supported had won but that we could put Vietnam behind us and FINALLY close out that chapter of American history.

The arrogance of the vain man from Massachusetts who railed against the undocumented "criminal" acts of the US soldiers in Vietnam was spotlighted in his attempt to ride his own service in Vietnam to victory in '04.  It is not clear what John Kerry did or did not do while in Vietnam.  It is clear what he did after he came back.  He joined forces with the likes of Hanoi Jane to vilify the brave men who, with few exceptions, fought nobly and bravely under extremely difficult circumstances.  He desecrated the war dead, he added insult to the injuries of the wounded and he humiliated the returning servicemen who did not join his cause.  Am I judging him too harshly?  No, not half as harshly as he deserves to be.

So, when, today Kerry sheds tears as he decides to not enter into the 2008 campaign, he cries alone.  The ghost of Vietnam veterans both living and dead will not shed a tear for this man's loathsome self-pity.  Maybe, now, FINALLY, you can rest brave soldiers, defenders of our freedom, true citizens.  God bless you!!!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don Quicinich

An Error of Comedies

Ohio is an interesting mixture of red and blue staters.  In the South and in the farmlands of the state are the red staters; in the dying industrial North and the college towns dwell the blue staters.  The red staters and the blue staters seem to split control of Ohio for periods of years at a time.  Until recently, a red state, Ohio has just recently decided to become a flaming turquoise.

A state that has bred more Presidents than any other state with the possible exception of Virginia -- a Taft and a McKinley, a Garfield and a Hayes, two Harrisons (we claim them both although Virginia makes a weak claim by birth to William Henry), a Grant and a Harding -- now breeds a different caliber of leader.  The great William Howard Taft bequeaths a distant descendant, ex-Governor Bob Taft, clear proof that greatness cannot simply be passed on by procreation.  The state elects a dangerous lightweight in Sherrod Brown to the US Senate.  And, Ohio's favorite son does it one more time.  Don Quixote is running for President in '08.  Yet again?

It should be abundantly clear to a normal person that Dennis Kucinich is not electable to the US Presidency.  I don't say this because I totally reject his antiwar politics.  I say it because it is true.  Most liberals and Democrats (sometimes I like to be repetitive) agree with the statement.  Heck, the only person who probably disagrees is Dennis himself.   But, then again, Dennis never could claim to be normal.

I could list many reasons why Dennis is unelectable.  (In fact, I can even list one positive attribute -- with him you know exactly what kind of screwed-up policies you are going to get.  For example, he would not run away from his unique qualification as the only candidate in the race to have experience at running a governmental entity into bankruptcy.)

I could go on and on but I want you to come back to this site, so I won't.  Just one overarching reason why Dennis is unelectable.  Dennis is just plain icky!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shameless

Shameless Name-Dropping 

I haven't added to my blog posts for a couple of weeks.  Here's a new post to assure my faithful readers that I haven't gone into hiding.  It's also a shameless bit of name-dropping.

In the mail the other day, I received a copy of America Alone autographed by the greatest export from Canada, none other than the author, Mark Steyn.  You can just imagine my excitement at reading the author's note to me "They can't get rid of us all."  I guess he's read this blog and admires yours truly's writings just as yours truly admires his.

OK, I'm going to come clean.  Mark Steyn was kind enough to inscribe the autograph exactly as I had requested with my book order.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »